I agree that Hanover wrote "kingdom Come, Inc.", but that means I don't know who wrote "The Unrighted Leotard". Both are kind of his style, but "The Unrighted Leotard" wasn't polished enough to be him. Not to mention he said he used pastebin, and that story would never have passed for acceptable.
Obvious: The Lark by Baden The Unrighted Leotard by Hanover Bulbs in Pots by javi2541997 (sorry mate) The Squeal by Jack Cummins The Perfect Match by ucarr
Guesses: The Nexus Crown by Cristoffer Nightscapes by Vera Mont Catacombs by Noble Dust The Woman in the Portrait by ToothyMaw
Not sure about the rest, a list would help.
javi2541997December 22, 2024 at 13:22#9550760 likes
Jack CumminsDecember 22, 2024 at 15:17#9550920 likes
Reply to hypericin
We have one interesting discrepancy over 'The Perfect Match' as being by Amity or U Carr. I was also wondering if it was by Vera Mont. And, of course, the ones which appear as obvious may be wrong. Also, I would imagine Hypericin and 180Proof may be hiding somewhere on the thread.
However, as it is early days I am trying to avoid trying to attribute them to specific authors, especially before offering unbiased reviews or when the Favourites thread has been started.
Ps: I am probably wrong to suggest Vera Mont wrote 'The Perfect Match', given her reviews although some comments on stories by the authors are worthwhile. Of course, if they praise them and would be problematic. But, getting back to 'The Perfect Match', it may also be that we are making an assumption of the gender of the author in guesses.
However, as it is early days I am trying to avoid trying to attribute them to specific authors, especially before offering unbiased reviews or when the Favourites thread has been started.
Good man! :up:
Jack CumminsDecember 22, 2024 at 15:29#9550940 likes
Reply to Amity
I did just add a PS to my post. But, I am glad that you appreciate the way in which guesses may colour our approaches. Of course, we have had enough competitions to recognise some styles by now. But, I wish to go slowly because in the first competition I reviewed too impulsively. Slow as opposed to fast thinking may be important, as I understand that we have until 30th December.
1) Submissions will be open until the 15th of December. The stories will then be posted and can be commented on until the 31st of December.
2) After that, one day will be allotted to "guess the author".
Slow as opposed to fast thinking may be important,
Yes. But each to their own. I really don't do 'fast' anymore, if I ever did!
Close, careful reading and reflection take time...
Jack CumminsDecember 22, 2024 at 15:58#9550970 likes
Reply to Amity
Everyone probably comes from a unique set of circumstances and any feedback may be appreciated. Having gone too fast one time, I don't wish to become the tortoise of procrastination this time...
if i guess at authorship, i don't publish my guesses, since they usually turn out to be wrong.
i never before had a problem choosing a favourite and a close runner-up; this time, the quality and variety of submissions is so impressive, i'll have to divide my favourites into categories. still very difficult.
i never before had a problem choosing a favourite and a close runner-up; this time, the quality and variety of submissions is so impressive, i'll have to divide my favourites into categories. still very difficult.
I agree. What categories are you intending to use?
Jack CumminsDecember 22, 2024 at 16:33#9551010 likes
Reply to Amity
Sounds good, perhaps you could come up with some and they could go in the literary activity.
Last year, didn't Noble Dust present us with the list of authors?...
...Yes, he did:
I only know the identity of the authors who submitted to me. I'll have a huddle with The Baden and we'll release the list. In the meantime, I'd like to join the fray if only momentarily myself with these guesses:
This last entry was the toughest for me to figure out. Ucarr has a very dramatic, almost theatrical style, but he also has impressive breadth and can be a bit of a chameleon. But I feel pretty strongly about this guess.
Jack CumminsDecember 22, 2024 at 18:49#9551220 likes
Reply to Amity
You ask why you to come up with categories. It is probably because you have always been an important lead in the reviewing process. I am not saying it should be you alone, as others have so much to say and it is collaborative. I wish to offer my views as well but find the 'blank page' of talking about others' work as daunting as writing a story. It is about offering the best appreciation and helpful feedback, with a certain critical skill and sensitivity, in my view.
Thanks for clarification. I think everyone will have their own way to reflect on what makes a story a favourite for them. And give some indication as to why. I think this will be a good summation.
I wish to offer my views as well but find the 'blank page' of talking about others' work as daunting as writing a story. It is about offering the best appreciation and helpful feedback, with a certain critical skill and sensitivity, in my view.
I agree it is difficult to achieve a balance, as previously discussed. We do the best we can. I think most will have been happy with the way this Activity has been handled. With care. Oh, I feel a song coming on. Forgive me!
The Traveling Wilburys - Handle With Care (Official Video)
I lied. Well no, I changed my mind. I was told to write something by three separate people within a week. Treated it as fate and adapted a bed time story I made years ago.
Reply to 180 Proof
Good to see you, 180! :smile:
Sorry to see you were unable to submit a story this time. This must be a first!
I hope you feel better soon. Take care. Stay warm. :hearts: :flower: :sparkle:
ChristofferDecember 23, 2024 at 21:06#9553140 likes
If Vera has indeed played Disco Elysium, then I agree.
what the heck is Disco Elysium? ....
oh. Hm. amnesiac, alcoholic detective..... Gaiman and Adams... 'most literary game...
sure seems worth a look! thanks.
Jack CumminsDecember 26, 2024 at 05:44#9556380 likes
Do you mean are people going to verify whether they were the authors? I thought that this was going to be after the favourites were selected.
I am hoping to finish writing feedback, but, would you believe it, the light switch on my wall stopped working Christmas day evening. Eventually, someone in the house found a screwdriver and took the socket on the wall apart. It is okay now but was strange because it was as if the switch had gone into a spasm. I am sure it was symbolic as a couple of weeks ago the light on my phone shopped working. So, I will continue feedback if my inner light doesn't fade. (With all my talk of gadgets, especially my phone I am drifting into panpsychism.)
However, the main point of my post is of the query as to whether you mean should the suspense remain over the authors in the detective story of the activity?
Ps: I am inclined to think that @Jamal wrote 'Homeward', rather than @Noble Dust.
I realized that when I mention my favourite story, I actually mean my favourite aside from my own, which is my actual favourite. Is that just me?
You're not supposed to tell us that or even ask that question, but just politely omit your own story in your favourites. Not being aware of that, you are, to use Slavoj Zizek's quite specific philosophical terminology, an "imbecile". Or is it a "moron"? @fdrake?
(I am an "idiot" by the way. But for different reasons.)
Do you mean are people going to verify whether they were the authors? I thought that this was going to be after the favourites were selected.
Oh. But how will they know what their favourite stories are, if they don't have all the evidence? Oh. I see. You think knowing who the author is will bring in elements of bias. Hmmm. OK. But if the Favourites thing is at the end, then there's not much time left. People will have moved on, losing interest. OK, then.
I will keep quiet. :zip: :smile: Time to start guessing, I suppose...
Jack CumminsDecember 26, 2024 at 07:43#9556510 likes
Reply to Amity
I was just rather surprised that the favourites thread hasn't appeared at all and the one on authorial speculation has been going for a few days. I expected it to be the other way round.
I’m not very familiar with @ucarr’s writing, partly because I wasn’t involved last year. One reason I think “Homeward” is @Noble Dust is the claw, which is a very Noble Dustian idea.
Elements reminded me of ucarr's Errand Boy.
The great dialogue, references to movie classics...not to mention the cinematic sensations! Consciousness. I effervesced. It's a magical image of a body dispersing, spirit whooshing. Like the end of the Dr Who Christmas Special 2024.
"The cosmos is within us. We are made of star stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself." Carl Sagan
Yours is the Russian/Scottie. But then perhaps not. Another author wants to fool us into thinking that...
Well, the year I put my Plum Pie in the contest most people thought I wrote the one with Russians in it; Plum Pie had no Russians at all. Maybe the same thing is happening this time.
I put my Plum Pie in the contest most people thought I wrote the one with Russians in it; Plum Pie had no Russians at all. Maybe the same thing is happening this time.
IÂ’d like to restore the whole thread but IÂ’m not sure I can do that now. IÂ’ll look into it. I wouldnÂ’t want to just post the story in isolation, without all the feedback.
One reason I think “Homeward” is Noble Dust is the claw, which is a very Noble Dustian idea.
Hmm. I hope I haven't offended ND. There's a helluva difference between Homeward and Catacombs. Love them both but in different ways.
This is why I should never, ever, ever make my guesses public :monkey:
I actually thought your original list was pretty on the nose. It might have been right aside from me and whoever wrote the finance one. Though I think ToothyMaw wrote the 3 ladies, it reminded me of Contingent from last year.
I hope no one is getting offended! We're all pretty bad at this overall. Just a little fun.
Though I think ToothyMaw wrote the 3 ladies, it reminded me of Contingent from last year.
Hmm. I see what you mean. I remember Cruelty, very well. But authors can be shape shifters. Chameleons.
You always surprise me! In a good way :clap: :flower:
OK, then if we both choose @ToothyMaw for The Woman in a Portrait, can we have a yay, or a nay ? Ignore that. Don't give the game away!
ChristofferDecember 26, 2024 at 10:59#9556830 likes
My current guesses. Some are deduced into certainty while others are less certain.
"The Unrighted Leotard" by Hanover
Seems his style
"Kingdom Come, Inc." by Benkei
By his passionate anti-establishment
"Nightscapes" by Vera Mont
By writing style
"Homeward" by Hypericin
By the high quality descriptions and flow
"The Lark" by Baden
By comparing writing and following the discussion
"The Squeal" by Noble Dust
Sensed something in the writing
"The Woman in the Portrait" by ToothyMaw
Comparing to previous stories
"Paper Houses" by Jack Cummins
Comparing to previous writings
"The Perfect Match" By Amity
Very character focused, internal psychology and reflective.
"Dispatch" by Ucarr
Pure guess
“The invisible Cortorter” by I dunno…. Tried to figure this one out, the very inventive and extensive descriptions. Could be some who’s not written in earlier story events. Maybe fdrake?
Jack CumminsDecember 26, 2024 at 11:24#9556900 likes
Reply to Jamal
I do see what you mean about your own praise for the story meaning you aren't the likely author! I try to avoid too much reading of other reviews when I am reviewing the stories, to avoid group conformity, so I made this error.
Obvious authors (of those whose stories went to ND) are hypericin, of ''Homeward'', and jamal, of ''Dispatch...'' If reality disagrees with me, it's wrong.
I know it's high quality writing and he is a master but was there anything else?
Not really. Overall consistent level of craftsmanship. Plus my willingness to be super confident about stuff when there are no real consequences to being wrong. :strong:
I know it's high quality writing and he is a master but was there anything else?
It was primarily the way it's written, with a poetic flow of descriptive language that never repeats and is neither overwritten nor underwritten. On top of that, the way it internalize the characters in each moment; the rhythm and tempo of beats and events.
I'd say the primary thing is that the text flows like poetry without rhyme. A sort of musical dynamic that appears while my eyes scroll over each line. I'd say it's not so much a technical thing in writing, it's not the technicalities of the craft, but rather a more elevated level in which the writing keeps on being read in my head without stopping. There's simply nothing that feels distracting while the text is still demanding an inventiveness in interpretation.
So, hard to really put the finger on it, but it's the kind of level that I think most writers aspire to reach in terms of directly tapping into the readers minds.
Reply to Christoffer
Thank you for answering my question in a way I can understand. Text flowing like poetry.
A musical dynamic. An elevated level. And that is creative artistry and practice, over and above talent.
A way of looking and listening to the sounds, to reach the best rhythmic fit. To dance.
It was primarily the way it's written, with a poetic flow of descriptive language that never repeats and is neither overwritten nor underwritten. On top of that, the way it internalize the characters in each moment; the rhythm and tempo of beats and events.
So well explained. I never thought of the internal beats of the characters.
There's simply nothing that feels distracting while the text is still demanding an inventiveness in interpretation.
So, hard to really put the finger on it, but it's the kind of level that I think most writers aspire to reach in terms of directly tapping into the readers minds.
We haven't started unveiling the authors yet right? From what I read so far I am only quite certain Benkei wrote 'dispatch'... the description of the fighting and the monster itself are his style.
The Squeal might well be Jack Cummins but I am not sure.
For Paper Houses I would pick Vera, Amity or Jamal.
I don't think fdrake is bunny bun. I think he is paper houses. Just because he said he wrote a bedtime story.
ToothyMaw is Woman in the Portrait. (is that "3 ladies"?) It matches Contingent.
What about ucarr for nude staircase? It does seem somehow ucarr'ian.
That just leaves bunny bun and high finance. At a guess, ND - bunny, Janus - finance.
"The Unrighted Leotard" - Hanover
"The Perfect Match" - Christoffer
"The Lark" - Baden
"Homeward" - hypericin
"The Squeal" - Jack Cummins
"The Nexus Crown" - Amity
"Nightscapes" - Vera Mont "The Invisible Contorter" - ??? ucarr? "Nude Descending A Staircase" - ??? ToothyMaw?
"Dispatch UK-028: A Report on the Case of Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" - Jamal
"Bulbs in Pots" - javi "Kingdom Come, Inc." - ??? Janus?
"Paper Houses" - fdrake
"The Woman in the Portrait" - Noble Dust
3 Authors left: 1. ucarr 2. ToothyMaw 3. Janus
3 Stories: 1. The Invisible Contorter 2. Nude Descending a Staircase 3. Kingdom Come, Inc.
@Noble Dust from the Hitchhikers: You canÂ’t control other people. They make their own decisions.
From The Woman in the Portrait:
“Someone once said that patience is also a form of action, sparrow. To choose to allow nature to take its course is all we can do. For you to deliberately allow your brother’s insecurities and accompanying neuroticisms to take their course is equally necessary. You can’t make people change.”
Both stories start with poetry. Got ya!
And all the animals. Visitations. Yup!
"The Unrighted Leotard" - Hanover
"The Perfect Match" - Amity
"The Lark" - Baden
"The Squeal" - Jack Cummins
"The Nexus Crown" - Christoffer
"Nightscapes" - Vera Mont
"The Invisible Contorter" - Noble Dust
"Nude Descending A Staircase" - ucarr
"Dispatch UK-028: A Report on the Case of Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" - Jamal
"Bulbs in Pots" - javi
"Kingdom Come, Inc." - Janus
"Paper Houses" - fdrake
"The Woman in the Portrait" - toothymaw
To substantiate my final guesses:
Assuming only bunny, finance, nude are unknown, finance and nude are not consonant with ND's style at all. Bunny has an obvious animal theme, and his brother is a sci-fi author, it is a pretty good match. Similarly, finance seems a poor fit for ucarr, while nude is not bad at all, and the abstract, experimental nature of it resonates with his philosophical posts as well. That leaves finance for Janus, which is also a decent fit (maybe not great I admit).
I'm feeling pretty good about this list!
Noble DustDecember 27, 2024 at 20:07#9559410 likes
It is weirdly selective. Sometimes I think I have early onset dementia, with the way I can watch a movie or series, and a few years later it is almost a new experience!
Ohhh yes indeed. Must be. It strongly reminded me of the Red White and Blue story in the almost Lynch- like transformations of the characters. I must read that one again...
I want to give a general comment on the stories.
Our writers have done very well, no doubt. I enjoyed reading the stories.
But I think there's one common pattern that some of these stories share. And that is, when the dimension of 'reality' that the protagonist is in is not given the clarity that should pass on to the readers -- are they in a dream? are they imagining these events? of are they in some sort of third dimension? To me, this is important for the reader's realization and to grasp the "punch line" in the ending of the story. I should want to think about the lingering reality of the melancholic, or the happy, or even the clever decision that our hero made in the end.
ChristofferDecember 30, 2024 at 00:30#9565360 likes
But I think there's one common pattern that some of these stories share. And that is, when the dimension of 'reality' that the protagonist is in is not given the clarity that should pass on to the readers -- are they in a dream? are they imagining these events? of are they in some sort of third dimension? To me, this is important for the reader's realization and to grasp the "punch line" in the ending of the story. I should want to think about the lingering reality of the melancholic, or the happy, or even the clever decision that our hero made in the end.
Not to get this thread into a general discussion about the stories (I think that's supposed to be in the upcoming favorites thread), but I think the issue lies more in an abundance of description with less actions or reflections by the characters, leading to describing what the stage things are happening in, but less actions and reactions in that stage that tie in to whatever choice or event is happening in the end. If an entire chapter or paragraf is written to describe a situation, but there's no clear action or reflection by the character, then it can be hard to feel like an ending choice or ending note is earned. In that case, it feels like it just ends, rather than leading up to and ending the story.
There's a interesting thing seen in storytelling classes, in which students usually start out only writing plot points; what is happening, so to speak. Leading to a choppy; "he did that, she did that, then that happened, he then ran there, she hid there" and so on, without giving any clear description of the events, environments, feelings, reactions and reflections. But further into education or them practicing writing, they usually go too far into the other direction. Having read many of the best written stories in history, they start to overwrite descriptions and forget to describe any plot points as all focus is given to the paint brushes of the lyrics rather than the story.
The further they practice, the more they begin to strike a good balance, being able to describe just as much as to infuse the poetry of emotions and rhythm of things, and combining that with the basic blocks of beats that a plot requires to dynamically move the story forward and be clear to the reader.
Of course, this isn't a rulebook cut in stone way of doing things, but I think it's key to analyze ones own writing in order to find and rewrite parts to achieve a better balance so as to not confuse the reader. It can be abstract and surreal and not be quite clear what's going on, but I'm a firm believer in it at least never being unclear to the reader what's clear to the character. The two are linked when reading a story that makes you feel connected and truly immersed. Otherwise the reader ends up re-reading paragraphs, trying to decode and decipher everything in a way that's not always a pleasant experience.
As an example, here's a segment from my story last year:
And here I asked ChatGPT to make it unnecessarily over-written, featuring uncommon wording and extremely dense descriptive language that's at a much higher ratio than the plot progression rhythm and clarity.
ChatGPT:A torrential cascade of uncanny familiarity—an ephemeral, ineffable tendril of the psyche’s recursive redundancy—suffused my very essence as I proffered my meticulously laminated credentials, an emblem of my venerable vocation as an arbiter of insured misfortunes, to the terminally fatigued and existentially indifferent receptionist entrenched within the institutionalized labyrinth of psyche-fractured souls. Her mechanized movements, devoid of sentience or spontaneity, birthed a rectangular polymer identifier as her visage—a tableau of subdued melancholy—evoked a vestigial remembrance from a prior investigation: a hapless buffoon of a man, freshly ensconced in this bastion of disarray after his domicile succumbed to an incendiary demise, discovered in a state of sartorial minimalism amidst the arboreal wilderness, engaged in an unquantifiable form of expressive wandering.
The incident had been my magnum opus of expeditious deduction—arson, unmistakably; complicity, undeniable. Yet, the specter of fraudulent premeditation lingered like an indolent shadow, its contours unresolved. The ensuing inquisition unfolded with predictable theatrics: ocular pulsations of artificial fervor and auditory claims of spectral torment. I, unimpressed by his dramaturgy, interjected with an unassailable axiom of institutional permanence—this ward’s inmates were as eternal as the stones of its foundation. Presented with the binary dichotomy of freedom in penal rationality versus indefinite incarceration amid authentic derangement, the charade collapsed under the weight of its unsustainable absurdity. His confession sealed the matter, elevating my professional stature within the parochial pantheon of law enforcement luminaries, though the faint echoes of lunacy's discordant symphony still resonate in memory's crevices.
It becomes an unnecessarily complex riddle to be decoded and deciphered, rather than giving the reader momentum in understanding. A minority might like that style more, but for the most part I don't think the over-written version is nearly as good as the original.
Dear @Christoffer, thank you for a well thought-out response. Yes, if you could please post your comment to the Favorites thread (once it's available), that would be great. (Please tag me there so I know). You've made some very good points and I'd like to see those explored more.
:lol: The ChatGPT understood the assignment you've given it. Very funny read.
I think it's key to analyze ones own writing in order to find and rewrite parts to achieve a better balance so as to not confuse the reader. It can be abstract and surreal and not be quite clear what's going on, but I'm a firm believer in it at least never being unclear to the reader what's clear to the character. The two are linked when reading a story that makes you feel connected and truly immersed. Otherwise the reader ends up re-reading paragraphs, trying to decode and decipher everything in a way that's not always a pleasant experience.
I appreciate your analysis. As a reader, being immersed and connected to the story is one of life's most satisfying experiences. I also like to become aware of my thoughts and any assumptions. To stop awhile and ponder. As @Nils Loc suggested to 'meditate' as to the meaning.
I have limited experience as a writer, so find this Literary Activity most challenging and worthwhile.
So, please bear with me as I attempt to give my point of view.
The character is not omniscient. They don't have insight into their own issues. The author can make their confusion clear by their external/internal dialogue, description and action. If the reader brings their own assumptions to the table, then this can be misinterpreted. If the reader is confused, then a re-read can help. To question the text further. Along with others, this is most beneficial.
Textual and self-analysis. Wondering. To pick out words that hold ambiguity. To get your head around unusual expressions or impressions. To try to get into the mind of the author. What are they trying to say. This is about identifying, interpretation and understanding. Part and parcel of reading.
If it's not always a pleasant experience, then you can ask why? Is it the fault of the author or yourself?
Sometimes, both. If I give up on a story or novel, then that's fine. It might not be the right time...
This Activity can open us up to the new, especially if we attend to all the stories, with care. :sparkle:
when the dimension of 'reality' that the protagonist is in is not given the clarity that should pass on to the readers -- are they in a dream? are they imagining these events? of are they in some sort of third dimension? To me, this is important for the reader's realization and to grasp the "punch line" in the ending of the story.
Yes. This is a tricky transition to pull off. Any overall advice and guidance most appreciated. But probably best in another thread. Specific literary techniques. :sparkle:
ChristofferDecember 30, 2024 at 13:52#9566600 likes
The character is not omniscient. They don't have insight into their own issues. The author can make their confusion clear by their external/internal dialogue, description and action.
The character doesn't have to be omniscient, but the descriptions need a perspective. From whose perspective does the metaphorical description come from? The character experiencing it? The omniscient storyteller? And if so, what perspective does that storyteller have? A chaotic descriptive language of purple prose usually stems from just washing the reader over with metaphorical descriptions that have no connections to any perspectives or world building of the story; it ends up just being a descriptive flair for the sake of sounding and mimicking the language of prose, rather than being written on point for the story that's being told.
To try to get into the mind of the author. What are they trying to say. This is about identifying, interpretation and understanding. Part and parcel of reading.
If metaphorical descriptions and intentionally odd orders and structures of paragraphs end up obscuring something that does not need to be obscured, then it falls into purple prose. The key difference between letting the story have an interpretive quality and the text having the unnecessary demand of being decoded is that we're not supposed to read a story to decode text like a cypher, we're supposed to interpret the story, the meaning, the metaphors.
There's no reason to let a text be incomprehensible without multiple readthroughs as the purpose of multiple interpretations is supposed to be in the meaning, poetry, metaphors and events, not the text itself.
Sure, we have the concept of experimental prose, that use complex use of language and odd phrasings for emotional outcomes.
An example of this kind of experimental writing is "Only Revolutions" by Mark Z. Danielewski.
It's truly obvious when we're dealing with experimental and post-modern writing, but I'm not seeing those attempts here. When the story is supposed to flow to tell a story, we're supposed to immerse ourselves into the metaphors and meaning in order to interpret. But if we're demanded to decipher the text itself first, through re-reads after re-reads, discussions and puzzle, before even getting to the true interconnected metaphors and scenery that make up each story beat, then I don't think that merits good writing.
If it's not always a pleasant experience, then you can ask why? Is it the fault of the author or yourself?
The difference is between the experience not being pleasant but honest between the author and reader, or if the reader feels cheated on getting an honest experience. It can be unpleasant as long as there's no obscuring meaning, events and descriptions through an unnecessary ramble of odd language that just cheats the reader of experiencing the entire thing honestly.
And even if written well, a story can in itself also intentionally cheat the reader, to comedic effect. One story that comes to mind is A Special Christmas from last year by @Hanover.
Point being, if the writing is purple prose, unnecessarily and unintentionally obscuring the core of the story through bad metaphors, unnecessarily jumbled order of events, no perspective for the metaphors and overwritten ramblings on irrelevant actions, it doesn't matter if the reader finally decode, decipher and interpret the story as what's underneath really didn't warrant such an over-written appearance. The reader feels cheated by the language signifying a grander meaning than what was discovered underneath and isn't the meaning underneath supposed to be the most powerful aspect of a story, not the high language and puzzling structures telling it?
Generally, most people aren't writing experimental prose. And as such there needs to be some level of polish that lets all parts of the prose be part of a whole, flow as a whole and be clear to the reader.
Otherwise it becomes something else, a mimicry of high prose without a reason to be so. To simulate the language of some accomplished writer's style and poetry, without the understanding how the parts truly fit together.
But if we're demanded to decipher the text itself first, through re-reads after re-reads, discussions and puzzle, before even getting to the true interconnected metaphors and scenery that make up each story beat, then I don't think that merits good writing.
This is not the place. I refer you to my perspective, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/956655
ChristofferDecember 30, 2024 at 14:36#9566720 likes
This is not the place. I refer you to my perspective, here:
This is the place at the moment as we're talking about it in a broad sense. I'm not flooding that into someone's specific story discussion.
We seem to disagree on what feedback is. You seem to feel it's disrespecting the author or author's vision to give critical feedback, I don't. It's so rare to get critical feedback in the way we can get through these story events and publishing stories like this will generate reactions, there's no way around it.
If we're not honest in our reactions to the stories, what's the point?
It can be abstract and surreal and not be quite clear what's going on, but I'm a firm believer in it at least never being unclear to the reader what's clear to the character.
But that's just a personal preference, not a hallmark of good writing.
Postmodernism relies upon an unreliable narrator, which may be the result of ineptness, but it can also be the result of mischievousness or deciet. The unreliability might be immediately apparent, or it could reveal itself later. Maybe not your cup of tea, but legit in its own right.
But not just in postmodernism, but in mysteries and psychological dramas as well. For example, the movie Primal Fear comes to mind, where the murderer had us thinking he was insane, only to have it revealed he was not at the end.
I also think your point that true unclarity where the writing is just a form of gibberish is something to be avoided is probably correct. I say "probably" because I think it's fair game to create ridiculous metaphors if the intent is to be ridiculous. Like if I said your opinions are like a stripeless flag in the bottom of an empty boat without sunshine, that might be an effective way of saying I have a really poor way of saying things, and maybe that's what I was trying to say, as opposed to saying anything about your opinions.
But this just means if the point is to be scatterbrained, being scatterbrained is what you ought to be.
And even if written well, a story can in itself also intentionally cheat the reader, to comedic effect. One story that comes to mind is A Special Christmas from last year by Hanover.
I'm not defending my story about a gonad chomping anus because I think that story description might on its face be indefensible to some, and to defend it would suggest I actually take myself seriously. It was just a story I created around @Jamal's comment in a thread, and I considered it an entertaining punishment to make others have to hear what it sparked. Maybe something deeper can be deciphered from it (as @Baden sarcastically did in his review), sort of like how people insist they see things in clouds, but, again, I'm not going to write bonkers shit and then insist it be taken seriously.
But your comments about my body of work do reveal something important, which is how you received it and how you lack my sense of humor, but I think the better criticisms came from those who suggested I should have written my most recent entry in more than one breath and not just spitballed it. I do remember writing my first story (my world debut), and I did spend more time on it because it was a first go at it. It's just this isn't the first time I've been called lazy, so I'm thinking there could be some truth to it.
But that's just a personal preference, not a hallmark of good writing.
What I meant is that clarity for the character makes the character do things that the reader aren't aware the reasons for, or rather they get constantly lost in the actions of the characters. The obscurities of the story, the hidden, the metaphors etc. still exist within such writing, the only difference is the text not getting in the way of basic comprehension of what is happening. If paragraphs and chapters need constant re-reads because the most basic surface level understanding of events gets lost in unnecessary meanderings, then most readers will just put the book down and read something else.
While there's times for complex texts and prose, the key is to know when and where. A character opening a car door might not warrant extreme meandering language.
Here's a chapter on Bob opening a card door by ChatGPT.
ChatGPT:[i]The car door loomed before Bob like a steel sentinel guarding the mysteries of the automobileÂ’s shadowy interior, its surface a glossy expanse of metallic blue, glinting in the fractured shards of late afternoon sunlight that danced like playful ghosts across its form. The door itself seemed almost alive, its slight curvature a symphony of engineered elegance and industrial coldness, an ode to mankind's triumph over the chaos of raw materials, now tamed into this resplendent, gleaming barrier.
Bob’s hand hesitated, hovering mid-air as though some unseen force held it back, before descending toward the handle—a polished arc of chrome, smoother than a mountain stream at dawn, its surface marred only by faint smudges left by past adventurers, echoes of fingerprints now faded into oblivion. The handle, a masterpiece of minimalist design, stood resolute yet inviting, its subtle contour beckoning the touch of an inquisitive soul. Each micro-scratch whispered tales of mundane errands and grand journeys, the unspoken poetry of lives lived and miles traversed.
With a deliberate slowness that bordered on reverence, Bob’s fingers curled around the handle, their every movement a study in contrast: the warmth of his skin against the handle’s cool, unyielding perfection, the gentle resistance of its tension mechanism, as though the handle itself wished to challenge his resolve. He pulled. Oh, how he pulled—not with haste, but with a measured, almost ceremonial exertion that sent a soft click resonating through the stillness, a sound so precise, so engineered, it could have been the overture of a symphony composed by machines.
The door began to yield to his efforts, its hinges emitting a faint groan that spoke not of age or disrepair, but of the noble labor of function, a harmonious protest against inertia. The movement was a slow-motion ballet of mechanics, a testament to the intricacies of torque and leverage, as the door swung outward in a grand, sweeping arc. The air stirred, carrying with it the faintest whiff of upholstery and the ineffable musk of past journeys, a bouquet both intoxicating and familiar.
And then, at last, the interior lay revealed, an enigmatic void bathed in the soft interplay of light and shadow. But Bob did not yet step forward. No, he lingered in that liminal moment, his hand still resting on the handle as though reluctant to relinquish the connection, his gaze tracing the now-opened portal like an artist appraising a masterpiece. For a door had been opened—not just a car door, but a gateway to something ineffable, something beyond the grasp of mere words.[/i]
It may be preference, people can write however they want. But it will probably get the same reactions by a majority of readers. Can Bob just open the damn door and get on with the story? We've got miles of road before the end.
Postmodernism relies upon an unreliable narrator, which may be the result of ineptness, but it can also be the result of mischievousness or deciet. The unreliability might be immediately apparent, or it could reveal itself later. Maybe not your cup of tea, but legit in its own right.
But not just in postmodernism, but in mysteries and psychological dramas as well. For example, the movie Primal Fear comes to mind, where the murderer had us thinking he was insane, only to have it revealed he was not at the end.
Yes, those are true for post-modernism, but post-modern writing can also turn it's perspective onto the text itself. Like a segment in his previous book House of Leaves, in which he describes a space lacking anything "human" not by describing it like that, but by describing a list of hundreds of objects that would exist in such a place if it hadn't been inhumanly built.
I love post-modernism in writing, but I know the difference between a text intending to be so and something that doesn't intend to be so.
Post-modern stories on the other hand are usually still told with clarity in its prose. It may even be important to do so as being obscuring and vague in writing something that is already vague becomes a double-whammy of confusion that might not hit any marks at all.
Chuck Palahniuk comes to mind, writing with clarity that describes obscene and surreal events. If he had used an extremely vague and esoteric language with over-written purple prose descriptions, it would have become an unreadable mess.
I say "probably" because I think it's fair game to create ridiculous metaphorsif the intent is to be ridiculous.
Exactly! I'm not talking about "good writing" in the sense of what I prefer, but that if I sense there's a specific intention and it's obscured by odd phrasing and over-written odd metaphors, then I figure this might be an issue as the intended experience for me as a reader doesn't seem to sync between the text and story.
I have a very wide net for my preferences of prose and stories. I eat anything. But that doesn't mean stuffing ice-cream with broccoli is a well-crafted dish.
but I think the better criticisms came from those who suggested I should have written my most recent entry in more than one breath and not just spitballed it. I do remember writing my first story (my world debut), and I did spend more time on it because it was a first go at it.
Didn't find your Christmas story lazy. It was well-crafted in my opinion and ending in a damn Monty Python move.
But if I'm right in which one you wrote, that felt more like free-writing, if that was the intention?
Chuck Palahniuk comes to mind, writing with clarity that describes obscene and surreal events. If he had used an extremely vague and esoteric language with over-written purple prose descriptions, it would have become an unreadable mess.
Staying in the realm of literature regarded as postmodern, Thomas Pynchon is often extremely vague and esoteric, and he's brilliant. Postmodernism is not a genre with rules, and there's a world of difference between John Barth and Italo Calvino.
I think the distinction between postmodern-experimental and non-postmodern-experimental isn't really useful here. All that matters—and I think this is what you're really getting at—is that the prose is convincing, that it feels like the writer knows what he or she is doing.
It's also not a great way of reading to box things up, as if you shouldn't be allowed to experiment unless you're setting out to write a work of the avant garde. You can mix it up, no problem. So long as you're in command. Again, I think this is actually the distinction you're identifying, namely between convincing and unconvincing prose, or between good and not-so-good.
Anyway, with all this talk of postmodernism, I'm wondering, what about modernism?
ChristofferDecember 30, 2024 at 18:08#9567450 likes
Yes, that's what I meant with true post-modernism often scrambling the meaning of normal prose. But it still requires the intention of being post-modern, the consistency of staying with that intention. I don't think that post-modern writing is a defense of badly written prose that had its intention of being something else.
I think the distinction between postmodern-experimental and non-postmodern-experimental isn't really useful here. All that matters—and I think this is what you're really getting at—is that the prose is convincing, that it feels like the writer knows what he or she is doing.
Yes. The prose can be whatever creativity spawns, as long as there's no breaking the sensed intention of the prose with the result that's actually written. It's an instinctual sensation, like sensing something is wrong when in a dark alley with some shadowy figures at one end of it. You read the text and it can be highly creative, and then it breaks its own style, it confuses you for no apparent reason that gets explained and metaphors just makes you roll your eyes. Why do you react with such sensations while reading? Probably because the author didn't achieve the intention they had and the reader can absolutely sense this.
It's also not a great way of reading to box things up, as if you shouldn't be allowed to experiment unless you're setting out to write a work of the avant garde. You can mix it up, no problem. So long as you're in command. Again, I think this is actually the distinction you're identifying, namely between convincing and unconvincing prose, or between good and not-so-good.
Yes, I'm not trying to promote some specific "ordered" style of writing, some kind of "this is how it's supposed to be done, my way or the highway." It might look like it, but all I'm pointing towards is that when I spot some problem in a story, it's not because I don't accept the avant garde or mixed up, but rather that it becomes inconsistent, it fails to do what it seems to intend to do. That it has a lack of logical structure that has no creative purpose but rather a failure in how the prose is processed for the reader (The author seeing more than what is actually written tend to make the author fail to realize that the reader does not know anything about the thing being portrayed and so they assume knowledge that isn't there, confusing the reader unintentionally).
But it still requires the intention of being post-modern
I disagree with this (most so-called postmodern works were not written with the intention of being postmodern), but otherwise what you say is fairly agreeable. :cool:
I disagree with this (most so-called postmodern works were not written with the intention of being postmodern)
True, just because some writing was retrospectively identified as postmodern, even though they were written before postmodernism was a thing. Nowadays "postmodernism" is a style that is its own category in people's minds, and so some writers consciously set out to write in that style.
To me intent is key. Good writers are able to write in such a way that the output matches their intent. This is super hard. There are thousands of choices that have to be made when writing even a short piece, and inevitably a good portion of those choices will be wrong. Meaning that the result jars with what the writer was trying to do.
If the writer wrote exactly what they wanted, and the reader just doesn't like it, then that is just a disagreement. Which is fine, and inevitable. But what is most helpful to criticize is when the writer messed up, and didn't actually write what they meant to. Which happens all over the place, in big ways (i.e. plot or thematic inconsistencies) and small ways (i.e. discordant wording, awkward sentence structure).
Of course, distinguishing these two cases is not always easy.
ChristofferDecember 30, 2024 at 19:24#9567620 likes
True, just because some writing was retrospectively identified as postmodern, even though they were written before postmodernism was a thing. Nowadays "postmodernism" is a style that is its own category in people's minds, and so some writers consciously set out to write in that style.
Isn't this how all styles, genres and creative definitions work? Post-attributed. The noir genre didn't really have that definition before it was essentially over and people were consciously trying to emulate and create around the tropes it established.
Good writers are able to write in such a way that the output matches their intent. This is super hard.
Exactly, which is why I think feedback is invaluable. To reject the reactions people have and ignore learning from it just stagnate and get your stuck as a writer, never showing any path towards how to change for the better. Last year, the negative feedback on my story was primarily showing me that my ending felt a bit "meh". Even though I thought it had impact, that impact might have needed a bigger punch to drive it in. Essentially, I learned better ideas of how to analyze my writing for the rewrites. And for that I'm really grateful for what I got out of last year's story event.
Because it is really hard. No one can say otherwise. And I sometimes sense an animosity when giving critical feedback and I get that it's somewhat stepping on the nerves and heart of the author, but the cold truth is that no one really improves on the positive feedback. It feels good, but really don't help with getting better as a writer. Maybe in a way of showing what type of stories that might be the cup of tea you as a writer should continue exploring, but not much else.
If the writer wrote exactly what they wanted, and the reader just doesn't like it, then that is just a disagreement. Which is fine, and inevitable. But what is most helpful to criticize is when the writer messed up, and didn't actually write what they meant to. Which happens all over the place, in big ways (i.e. plot or thematic inconsistencies) and small ways (i.e. discordant wording, awkward sentence structure).
Which is what I try to do. I rarely disagree or dislike a story even if it isn't my cup of tea, all stories are perspectives to be heard, but if that perspective is badly told then I think the flaws need to be ironed out.
You read the text and it can be highly creative, and then it breaks its own style, it confuses you for no apparent reason that gets explained and metaphors just makes you roll your eyes.
Consider these metaphors:
"The feeling of it finna get real bounced about the room like a frog infused rabbit on a pogo stick that just ate a spring sandwich on a rubber ball."
"Slowly, like a snail suspended in molasses on the back of a turtle with a dying battery,"
I don't think either of those metaphors were really designed to better explain the movement that was supposedly taking place. It speaks to an author (ahem) who's clearly just entertaining himself by trying to think of as many things that are slow or that bounce. It's like an assignment you'd give a 10 year old to see what he came up with.
Other metaphors like "He yawned like a person who was yawning" do nothing to explain the yawn but instead celebrate the lack of concern the author has in describing what is already self-explanatory.
If you're trying to be funny, I don't think the same rules apply, especially if you think it's funny to have no rules. And trying to be funny, I realize does not make one funny. But I do think there is something inherently funny about trying to be funny and not being funny but thinking it's still funny, sort of like the comic that bombs, so he starts tapping the mic and saying "Hello? Anyone out there? Hello." Unapologetic not funniess is in fact what makes dad jokes funny.
And I realize my metaphors are similes, so save yourself the pedantry.
What I meant is that clarity for the character makes the character do things that the reader aren't aware the reasons for, or rather they get constantly lost in the actions of the characters.
I don't relate this to Paper Houses. To which story does it refer?
Because it is really hard. No one can say otherwise. And I sometimes sense an animosity when giving critical feedback and I get that it's somewhat stepping on the nerves and heart of the author, but the cold truth is that no one really improves on the positive feedback.
The judgment call, of course, is when feedback stops being constructive and when it begins to stray into obsessive terrain. Quoting Christoffer
To reject the reactions people have and ignore learning from it just stagnate and get your stuck as a writer, never showing any path towards how to change for the better.
but the cold truth is that no one really improves on the positive feedback. It feels good, but really don't help with getting better as a writer.
For improvement, some people need a kick in the pants, some a pat on the back, and some to be left alone. The tough love approach is the most prevalent not because it's universally effective but because it's easiest for an authority critic to give. That is, when the critic has something of value, he can do whatever he wants.
Like if Simon Cowell tells me my singing sucks, I try to get better for him because he has holds the keys to my fame and fortune. But if you tell me my story sucks, I'm like, yeah, and your story is suckier. You've got to have something I want for me to care what you think. Maybe it's fame and fortune or maybe it's your approval if I were such a person that sought such things.
That's why you have to serve a shit sandwich with good on the top, shit in the middle, and good on the bottom.
Like:
Top piece of bread: "Your story was fascinating. It showed creativity and I really enjoyed finding out what would happen next."
Middle filling: "Your character development was weak. It was like the people in your story were Christmas ornaments. They looked pretty, but they just hung there uselessly, like a priest's testicles."
Bottom piece of bread: "The end really caught me off guard. You're a really good story teller!"
Feel free to use my system. I call it "My System," a name I just thought of.
Isn't this how all styles, genres and creative definitions work? Post-attributed. The noir genre didn't really have that definition before it was essentially over and people were consciously trying to emulate and create around the tropes it established.
Maybe not over, but past their creative peak. Precisely because the genre becomes "established", and so creativity becomes much more difficult. Perhaps the real creativity happens when the genre is being created. :chin:
"The feeling of it finna get real bounced about the room like a frog infused rabbit on a pogo stick that just ate a spring sandwich on a rubber ball."
"Slowly, like a snail suspended in molasses on the back of a turtle with a dying battery,"
I don't think either of those metaphors were really designed to better explain the movement that was supposedly taking place. It speaks to an author (ahem) who's clearly just entertaining himself by trying to think of as many things that are slow or that bounce. It's like an assignment you'd give a 10 year old to see what he came up with.
Other metaphors like "He yawned like a person who was yawning" do nothing to explain the yawn but instead celebrate the lack of concern the author has in describing what is already self-explanatory.
If you're trying to be funny, I don't think the same rules apply, especially if you think it's funny to have no rules. And trying to be funny, I realize does not make one funny. But I do think there is something inherently funny about trying to be funny and not being funny but thinking it's still funny, sort of like the comic that bombs, so he starts tapping the mic and saying "Hello? Anyone out there? Hello." Unapologetic not funniess is in fact what makes dad jokes funny.
And I realize my metaphors are similes, so save yourself the pedantry.
I'd say that if the intention is comedy, if the intention is to write something funny, then that is the intention to be consistent with, even if that leads to the choice of making metaphors incomprehensible for the sake of humor.
"As they walked the bridge beaming with the setting sunlight, she turned to him, looking deep into his longing puppy eyes and said "I love you" like only a banker could to a surprised customer getting their accounts seized"
I'm not good with humor, but you get the idea. The metaphor is ludicrous, but since the intention is for it to be so it has the intention by the author built into the writing.
It's when the intention doesn't exist in sync with the written story that it doesn't work. That when writing a serious love story and you end up with a similar thing:
"As they walked the bridge beaming with the setting sunlight, she turned to him, looking deep into his longing puppy eyes and said "I love you" like only a woman who'd never tasted the fresh bread from the market could say"
That's just metaphorical trash. Some esoteric meaning about fresh bread that might mean something to the author, but probably means nothing to the reader, effectively making the reader shake their heads in confusion about what the hell all this means and totally forgets about the pivotal moment of the lovers confessing their love; the absolute thing that the whole story centers on.
It's the conscious choice of how to tell the story that marks good writing. To be in control of the intention and know there's a reader on the other end just as much as catering to their own creativity.
I don't relate this to Paper Houses. To which story does it refer?
It's more generally speaking about a lack of clarity in writing. If we are to follow a character in a story, whatever is clear to the character is good to have clear to the reader, otherwise the character just acts in surprising ways that feel disjointed from our experience reading; leading to a character we feel is just doing stuff at random, rather than one we consciously follow.
It may be broken to some comedic effect though, the "The Unrighted Leotard" story has characters acting in surprising ways all the time, but the intention there I feel is for just that effect, it's that specific intention, not written as a way for us to understand the characters actions and choices.
The judgment call, of course, is when feedback stops being constructive and when it begins to stray into obsessive terrain.
Isn't it the author's choice to choose what to listen to and what not to? That's a skill itself to evaluate what feedback is helpful and what is not. Some might need extreme deconstructions of everything to understand what went wrong if something went wrong, others might just need a few people saying "not for me" and know were to go from there. But the ones giving feedback can't be demanded to know the level at which the author is able to handle that feedback. That's just the nature of putting a story out in public.
I've witnessed people sending long emails to newspaper reviewers trying to explain why they're too stupid to understand the masterpiece they just made. And some just shrug their shoulders and try again without caring for any input. The process of reading feedback is an art in itself and some are better at it than others.
Yes, exactly. But usually, ignoring feedback, especially when starting out writing fiction, is a good way to get stuck and never improve.
Basically, it's better to save my author pride until my writing is actually recognized. Until then it will just get in the way of me getting better at it.
The tough love approach is the most prevalent not because it's universally effective but because it's easiest for an authority critic to give. That is, when the critic has something of value, he can do whatever he wants.
The best way to evaluate feedback is to get a lot and I think the sum of feedback generally gives all that. Some will just give unconditional love regardless of a story's quality, while some might even rip it to shreds like pissing on the graves of the author's ancestors. It's impossible to shield from that sum of critique, but here's where the author needs to work their ability to find the nuggets of gold present in the sum of all that feedback; the commonalities between different people etc.
That's why you have to serve a shit sandwich with good on the top, shit in the middle, and good on the bottom.
Like:
Top piece of bread: "Your story was fascinating. It showed creativity and I really enjoyed finding out what would happen next."
Middle filling: "Your character development was weak. It was like the people in your story were Christmas ornaments. They looked pretty, but they just hung there uselessly, like a priest's testicles."
Bottom piece of bread: "The end really caught me off guard. You're a really good story teller!"
Feel free to use my system. I call it "My System," a name I just thought of.
Doesn't it also risk becoming a sandwich of confusion though? What if the middle filling critique points towards being a bad storyteller and the bottom piece ends on that "you're a great storyteller", then the author might just end up spilling all that filling trying to squeeze the sandwich in one bite.
Maybe not over, but past their creative peak. Precisely because the genre becomes "established", and so creativity becomes much more difficult.
I think the death of a genre convention or trend happens when it's baptized, because then people will start the simulations of it for the purpose of being part of the trend.
The only time a genre returns in full force is when it's fused into a genre-bending mix up, like with Blade Runner functioning like a noir detective story with all its tropes, and an existential sci-fi mixed up. All of a sudden people don't know what to make of it and later it spawns it's own simulations and mimics trying to emulate the novelty of what it did without realizing they're trying to re-invent the wheel.
Perhaps the real creativity happens when the genre is being created. :chin:
Definitely. And when people mix genres for the first time finding something that feels fresh. Hard to invent new genres... I think everything today is a subgenre, there are no big new genres anymore.
I'd coin one, "Nostalgiamash" for all stories that just focus on nostalgia beats as its primary schtick without caring for anything else. But maybe that's a subgenre, who knows anymore in this hauntological simulacra of a world?
My current guesses. Some are deduced into certainty while others are less certain.
[b]"The Unrighted Leotard" by Hanover
Seems his style[/b]
[b]"Kingdom Come, Inc." by Benkei
By his passionate anti-establishment[/b]
[b]"Nightscapes" by Vera Mont
By writing style[/b]
[b]"Homeward" by Hypericin
By the high quality descriptions and flow[/b]
[b]"The Lark" by Baden
By comparing writing and following the discussion[/b]
[s]"The Squeal" by Noble Dust
Sensed something in the writing[/s]
[b]"The Woman in the Portrait" by ToothyMaw
Comparing to previous stories[/b]
[s]"Paper Houses" by Jack Cummins
Comparing to previous writings[/s]
[b]"The Perfect Match" By Amity
Very character focused, internal psychology and reflective.[/b]
[s]"Dispatch" by Ucarr
Pure guess[/s]
“The invisible Cortorter” by I dunno…. Tried to figure this one out, the very inventive and extensive descriptions. Could be some who’s not written in earlier story events. Maybe fdrake?
Comments (149)
(Although it struck me that "The Lark" could be written by an author pretending to be Baden, for a lark.)
I'm less confident about these:
I don't have a clue about the others:
I considered this theory too, but...
Quoting Jamal
...this also makes sense to me as the first idea just seems too obvious.
Yeah, but who among this year's author cohort would be able to pull off such a prank? Baden's style is nigh-on inimitable, I think you'll agree.
...Yes, he did:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/867237
Are you saying someone submitted an AI generated story?
Right.
Quoting javi2541997
I agree that Hanover wrote "kingdom Come, Inc.", but that means I don't know who wrote "The Unrighted Leotard". Both are kind of his style, but "The Unrighted Leotard" wasn't polished enough to be him. Not to mention he said he used pastebin, and that story would never have passed for acceptable.
I think Noble Dust might have written "Homeward".
The Lark by Baden
The Unrighted Leotard by Hanover
Bulbs in Pots by javi2541997 (sorry mate)
The Squeal by Jack Cummins
The Perfect Match by ucarr
Guesses:
The Nexus Crown by Cristoffer
Nightscapes by Vera Mont
Catacombs by Noble Dust
The Woman in the Portrait by ToothyMaw
Not sure about the rest, a list would help.
:rofl: :rofl:
We have one interesting discrepancy over 'The Perfect Match' as being by Amity or U Carr. I was also wondering if it was by Vera Mont. And, of course, the ones which appear as obvious may be wrong. Also, I would imagine Hypericin and 180Proof may be hiding somewhere on the thread.
However, as it is early days I am trying to avoid trying to attribute them to specific authors, especially before offering unbiased reviews or when the Favourites thread has been started.
Ps: I am probably wrong to suggest Vera Mont wrote 'The Perfect Match', given her reviews although some comments on stories by the authors are worthwhile. Of course, if they praise them and would be problematic. But, getting back to 'The Perfect Match', it may also be that we are making an assumption of the gender of the author in guesses.
Good man! :up:
I did just add a PS to my post. But, I am glad that you appreciate the way in which guesses may colour our approaches. Of course, we have had enough competitions to recognise some styles by now. But, I wish to go slowly because in the first competition I reviewed too impulsively. Slow as opposed to fast thinking may be important, as I understand that we have until 30th December.
Quoting Baden
Things change.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I have always taken that view.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes. But each to their own. I really don't do 'fast' anymore, if I ever did!
Close, careful reading and reflection take time...
Everyone probably comes from a unique set of circumstances and any feedback may be appreciated. Having gone too fast one time, I don't wish to become the tortoise of procrastination this time...
i never before had a problem choosing a favourite and a close runner-up; this time, the quality and variety of submissions is so impressive, i'll have to divide my favourites into categories. still very difficult.
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree. What categories are you intending to use?
Sounds good, perhaps you could come up with some and they could go in the literary activity.
Why me? I asked Vera, first :wink:
I still have one story to read...so, outta here. Let guessers guess....
I only know the identity of the authors who submitted to me. I'll have a huddle with The Baden and we'll release the list. In the meantime, I'd like to join the fray if only momentarily myself with these guesses:
Obvious:
The Unrighted Leotard - @Hanover
The Lark - @Baden
The Squeal - @Jack Cummins
Confident:
Bulbs in Pots - @javi2541997
Less confident:
Catacombs - @Benkei
Kingdom Come, Inc. - @ucarr
This last entry was the toughest for me to figure out. Ucarr has a very dramatic, almost theatrical style, but he also has impressive breadth and can be a bit of a chameleon. But I feel pretty strongly about this guess.
possibly something like which one touched me most, which i admire most, which i most wish i had written - something like that.
Yes. That makes sense. I've yet to decide how I'm going to tackle this. Time yet...
Thanks! :up:
I definitely guessed wrong, then.
You ask why you to come up with categories. It is probably because you have always been an important lead in the reviewing process. I am not saying it should be you alone, as others have so much to say and it is collaborative. I wish to offer my views as well but find the 'blank page' of talking about others' work as daunting as writing a story. It is about offering the best appreciation and helpful feedback, with a certain critical skill and sensitivity, in my view.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I agree it is difficult to achieve a balance, as previously discussed. We do the best we can. I think most will have been happy with the way this Activity has been handled. With care. Oh, I feel a song coming on. Forgive me!
The Traveling Wilburys - Handle With Care (Official Video)
Amity
Baden
Benkei
Christoffer
fdrake
Hanover
hypericin
Jack Cummins
Jamal
Janus
javi2541997
Noble Dust
ToothyMaw
ucarr
Vera Mont
Quoting Jamal
Quoting fdrake
Quoting Noble Dust
Nice to have FD on board. I suppose it would have to be “Kingdom Come, Inc.” or “The Woman in the Portrait”. Not sure.
I lied. Well no, I changed my mind. I was told to write something by three separate people within a week. Treated it as fate and adapted a bed time story I made years ago.
Good to see you, 180! :smile:
Sorry to see you were unable to submit a story this time. This must be a first!
I hope you feel better soon. Take care. Stay warm. :hearts: :flower: :sparkle:
If Vera has indeed played Disco Elysium, then I agree.
what the heck is Disco Elysium? ....
oh. Hm. amnesiac, alcoholic detective..... Gaiman and Adams... 'most literary game...
sure seems worth a look! thanks.
So, come on, put me out of my misery! I can't stand the pain...
I am hoping to finish writing feedback, but, would you believe it, the light switch on my wall stopped working Christmas day evening. Eventually, someone in the house found a screwdriver and took the socket on the wall apart. It is okay now but was strange because it was as if the switch had gone into a spasm. I am sure it was symbolic as a couple of weeks ago the light on my phone shopped working. So, I will continue feedback if my inner light doesn't fade. (With all my talk of gadgets, especially my phone I am drifting into panpsychism.)
However, the main point of my post is of the query as to whether you mean should the suspense remain over the authors in the detective story of the activity?
Ps: I am inclined to think that @Jamal wrote 'Homeward', rather than @Noble Dust.
You're not supposed to tell us that or even ask that question, but just politely omit your own story in your favourites. Not being aware of that, you are, to use Slavoj Zizek's quite specific philosophical terminology, an "imbecile". Or is it a "moron"? @fdrake?
(I am an "idiot" by the way. But for different reasons.)
Oh but thatÂ’s exactly what I do, as I explained. WhoÂ’s the boneheaded simpleton now eh?
Quoting Baden
Then I'm an imbecile. :strong:
:cool:
I was a dumbass in my original "obvious" guess, you wrote The Perfect Match.
Oh. But how will they know what their favourite stories are, if they don't have all the evidence? Oh. I see. You think knowing who the author is will bring in elements of bias. Hmmm. OK. But if the Favourites thing is at the end, then there's not much time left. People will have moved on, losing interest. OK, then.
I will keep quiet. :zip: :smile: Time to start guessing, I suppose...
When will the Big Reveal happen @Baden @Noble Dust?
I was just rather surprised that the favourites thread hasn't appeared at all and the one on authorial speculation has been going for a few days. I expected it to be the other way round.
:smile: :chin:
Interesting, but then how do you explain this comment for “Homeward”?
Quoting Jamal
I know Jamal is conceited, but that level of auto-adulation is surely beyond even him.
I am always wrong when I have a strong feeling about an author.
But I think...Homeward is by @ucarr
Yours is the Russian/Scottie. But then perhaps not. Another author wants to fool us into thinking that...
Let me see. Who else.
Quoting Noble Dust
Edited but surely wrong on most counts.
I’m not very familiar with @ucarr’s writing, partly because I wasn’t involved last year. One reason I think “Homeward” is @Noble Dust is the claw, which is a very Noble Dustian idea.
Elements reminded me of ucarr's Errand Boy.
The great dialogue, references to movie classics...not to mention the cinematic sensations! Consciousness.
I effervesced. It's a magical image of a body dispersing, spirit whooshing. Like the end of the Dr Who Christmas Special 2024.
"The cosmos is within us. We are made of star stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself." Carl Sagan
Well, the year I put my Plum Pie in the contest most people thought I wrote the one with Russians in it; Plum Pie had no Russians at all. Maybe the same thing is happening this time.
Well, these are just my impressions. IÂ’ve been wrong before.
Same here! Many times. :up:
I remember it well. Put it back up, why doncha?
IÂ’d like to restore the whole thread but IÂ’m not sure I can do that now. IÂ’ll look into it. I wouldnÂ’t want to just post the story in isolation, without all the feedback.
A re-read could reveal more...
Willingness to re-read is a potent compliment, so thank you.
Well, you gotta know it [s]was[/s] is a Classic! Unforgettable :fire:
Hmm. I hope I haven't offended ND. There's a helluva difference between Homeward and Catacombs. Love them both but in different ways.
This is why I should never, ever, ever make my guesses public :monkey:
DonÂ’t worry, he needs toughening up.
Wrong! About mine, and many others too no doubt.
OK. [s]Scrapping[/s] my list. Sorry if anyone offended :worry:
See Edit. And probably still wrong.
Can @Noble Dust keep us on track re verified authors?
I actually thought your original list was pretty on the nose. It might have been right aside from me and whoever wrote the finance one. Though I think ToothyMaw wrote the 3 ladies, it reminded me of Contingent from last year.
I hope no one is getting offended! We're all pretty bad at this overall. Just a little fun.
Yup! :cool:
Hmm. I see what you mean. I remember Cruelty, very well. But authors can be shape shifters. Chameleons.
You always surprise me! In a good way :clap: :flower:
OK, then if we both choose @ToothyMaw for The Woman in a Portrait, can we have a yay, or a nay ? Ignore that. Don't give the game away!
I guess after the favourites thread has gone up and readers have had time to post on that. But I'll bring this up in the main discussion in a moment.
"The Unrighted Leotard" by Hanover
Seems his style
"Kingdom Come, Inc." by Benkei
By his passionate anti-establishment
"Nightscapes" by Vera Mont
By writing style
"Homeward" by Hypericin
By the high quality descriptions and flow
"The Lark" by Baden
By comparing writing and following the discussion
"The Squeal" by Noble Dust
Sensed something in the writing
"The Woman in the Portrait" by ToothyMaw
Comparing to previous stories
"Paper Houses" by Jack Cummins
Comparing to previous writings
"The Perfect Match" By Amity
Very character focused, internal psychology and reflective.
"Dispatch" by Ucarr
Pure guess
“The invisible Cortorter” by I dunno…. Tried to figure this one out, the very inventive and extensive descriptions. Could be some who’s not written in earlier story events. Maybe fdrake?
I do see what you mean about your own praise for the story meaning you aren't the likely author! I try to avoid too much reading of other reviews when I am reviewing the stories, to avoid group conformity, so I made this error.
That's a good approach Jack. :up:
Exactly. "Idiots" are the worst. Only an idiot would admit being one.
Damn it all. Reality agrees with you, really.
Yeah, Dispatch pretty stand out Jamal.
Quoting Christoffer
Homeward by @hypericin. Of course! Why did you find it obvious ?
I know it's high quality writing and he is a master but was there anything else?
Gonna have to re-arrange my list :groan:
Not really. Overall consistent level of craftsmanship. Plus my willingness to be super confident about stuff when there are no real consequences to being wrong. :strong:
Yes. He is a pain in the neck! He is so flexible. He changes styles and themes. Just like that. No bother.
[s]I think[/s] I need to stop now.
My original list is pretty awesome, wouldn't you agree?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/955656
Most likely. Though I still have, I think, four stories left to read, so really I should shut up until that's done.
:lol: Did you look at the state of its evolution?
Admirably adaptive. :nerd:
Flexibly foolish. :nerd:
:chin:
Sounds good to me, by the way.
It was primarily the way it's written, with a poetic flow of descriptive language that never repeats and is neither overwritten nor underwritten. On top of that, the way it internalize the characters in each moment; the rhythm and tempo of beats and events.
I'd say the primary thing is that the text flows like poetry without rhyme. A sort of musical dynamic that appears while my eyes scroll over each line. I'd say it's not so much a technical thing in writing, it's not the technicalities of the craft, but rather a more elevated level in which the writing keeps on being read in my head without stopping. There's simply nothing that feels distracting while the text is still demanding an inventiveness in interpretation.
So, hard to really put the finger on it, but it's the kind of level that I think most writers aspire to reach in terms of directly tapping into the readers minds.
Thank you for answering my question in a way I can understand. Text flowing like poetry.
A musical dynamic. An elevated level. And that is creative artistry and practice, over and above talent.
A way of looking and listening to the sounds, to reach the best rhythmic fit. To dance.
Quoting Christoffer
So well explained. I never thought of the internal beats of the characters.
Quoting Christoffer
Excellent. I get it! :sparkle: :up:
:up:
The Squeal might well be Jack Cummins but I am not sure.
For Paper Houses I would pick Vera, Amity or Jamal.
Nope! Keep reading :smile:
Good to see you around. Sorry you weren't able to submit a story this year.
I love Paper Houses. I would never write so many compliments about a story I authored.
Could be correct. I thought Kingdom Come, mainly due to the subject matter, but Dispatch is a good candidate as well.
@Benkei for Catacombs.
Quoting Noble Dust
How does it look?
*Evil laugh*
Is that a clue? I'm zooming in. Watch this space :smile:
Am I warm?
I don't give clues. My nefarious laughter was merely egoic joy at being hard to pinpoint as an author. :naughty:
I don't think fdrake is bunny bun. I think he is paper houses. Just because he said he wrote a bedtime story.
ToothyMaw is Woman in the Portrait. (is that "3 ladies"?) It matches Contingent.
What about ucarr for nude staircase? It does seem somehow ucarr'ian.
That just leaves bunny bun and high finance. At a guess, ND - bunny, Janus - finance.
Yes. I read that. Changing it back.
Quoting hypericin
Yes. We agreed that before. Don't know why I changed it. Will have to write this out, listing the proper titles.
You are good at this :up:
"The Unrighted Leotard" - Hanover
"The Perfect Match" - Christoffer
"The Lark" - Baden
"Homeward" - hypericin
"The Squeal" - Jack Cummins
"The Nexus Crown" - Amity
"Nightscapes" - Vera Mont
"The Invisible Contorter" - ??? ucarr?
"Nude Descending A Staircase" - ??? ToothyMaw?
"Dispatch UK-028: A Report on the Case of Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" - Jamal
"Bulbs in Pots" - javi
"Kingdom Come, Inc." - ??? Janus?
"Paper Houses" - fdrake
"The Woman in the Portrait" - Noble Dust
3 Authors left: 1. ucarr 2. ToothyMaw 3. Janus
3 Stories: 1. The Invisible Contorter 2. Nude Descending a Staircase 3. Kingdom Come, Inc.
Well. I don't see any nightmarish houses or underground railways...or portals.
Oh wait...I think you are The Woman in the Portrait!!!
@hypericin - why are you so sure that it was written by ToothyMaw?
My lips are sealed.
You canÂ’t control other people. They make their own decisions.
From The Woman in the Portrait:
Both stories start with poetry. Got ya!
And all the animals. Visitations. Yup!
And a nod to 'sparrow' from Buried Treasure. :flower:
"The Unrighted Leotard" - Hanover
"The Perfect Match" - Amity
"The Lark" - Baden
"The Squeal" - Jack Cummins
"The Nexus Crown" - Christoffer
"Nightscapes" - Vera Mont
"The Invisible Contorter" - Noble Dust
"Nude Descending A Staircase" - ucarr
"Dispatch UK-028: A Report on the Case of Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" - Jamal
"Bulbs in Pots" - javi
"Kingdom Come, Inc." - Janus
"Paper Houses" - fdrake
"The Woman in the Portrait" - toothymaw
To substantiate my final guesses:
Assuming only bunny, finance, nude are unknown, finance and nude are not consonant with ND's style at all. Bunny has an obvious animal theme, and his brother is a sci-fi author, it is a pretty good match. Similarly, finance seems a poor fit for ucarr, while nude is not bad at all, and the abstract, experimental nature of it resonates with his philosophical posts as well. That leaves finance for Janus, which is also a decent fit (maybe not great I admit).
I'm feeling pretty good about this list!
Damn, you have a good memory.
It is weirdly selective. Sometimes I think I have early onset dementia, with the way I can watch a movie or series, and a few years later it is almost a new experience!
I've still to read Bunny. I'm thinking of starting at the end. That sometimes works.
OK, then. I must bow to your greater knowledge of the authors. Now, we just have to get verification.
But we can't start that yet, can we? :chin:
Ohhh yes indeed. Must be. It strongly reminded me of the Red White and Blue story in the almost Lynch- like transformations of the characters. I must read that one again...
I'll give it a miss. But here's the link:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14546/red-white-and-blue-by-amity/p1
You are hard to guess as an author. So, I'd say, that's success!
Our writers have done very well, no doubt. I enjoyed reading the stories.
But I think there's one common pattern that some of these stories share. And that is, when the dimension of 'reality' that the protagonist is in is not given the clarity that should pass on to the readers -- are they in a dream? are they imagining these events? of are they in some sort of third dimension? To me, this is important for the reader's realization and to grasp the "punch line" in the ending of the story. I should want to think about the lingering reality of the melancholic, or the happy, or even the clever decision that our hero made in the end.
Not to get this thread into a general discussion about the stories (I think that's supposed to be in the upcoming favorites thread), but I think the issue lies more in an abundance of description with less actions or reflections by the characters, leading to describing what the stage things are happening in, but less actions and reactions in that stage that tie in to whatever choice or event is happening in the end. If an entire chapter or paragraf is written to describe a situation, but there's no clear action or reflection by the character, then it can be hard to feel like an ending choice or ending note is earned. In that case, it feels like it just ends, rather than leading up to and ending the story.
There's a interesting thing seen in storytelling classes, in which students usually start out only writing plot points; what is happening, so to speak. Leading to a choppy; "he did that, she did that, then that happened, he then ran there, she hid there" and so on, without giving any clear description of the events, environments, feelings, reactions and reflections. But further into education or them practicing writing, they usually go too far into the other direction. Having read many of the best written stories in history, they start to overwrite descriptions and forget to describe any plot points as all focus is given to the paint brushes of the lyrics rather than the story.
The further they practice, the more they begin to strike a good balance, being able to describe just as much as to infuse the poetry of emotions and rhythm of things, and combining that with the basic blocks of beats that a plot requires to dynamically move the story forward and be clear to the reader.
Of course, this isn't a rulebook cut in stone way of doing things, but I think it's key to analyze ones own writing in order to find and rewrite parts to achieve a better balance so as to not confuse the reader. It can be abstract and surreal and not be quite clear what's going on, but I'm a firm believer in it at least never being unclear to the reader what's clear to the character. The two are linked when reading a story that makes you feel connected and truly immersed. Otherwise the reader ends up re-reading paragraphs, trying to decode and decipher everything in a way that's not always a pleasant experience.
As an example, here's a segment from my story last year:
And here I asked ChatGPT to make it unnecessarily over-written, featuring uncommon wording and extremely dense descriptive language that's at a much higher ratio than the plot progression rhythm and clarity.
It becomes an unnecessarily complex riddle to be decoded and deciphered, rather than giving the reader momentum in understanding. A minority might like that style more, but for the most part I don't think the over-written version is nearly as good as the original.
:lol: The ChatGPT understood the assignment you've given it. Very funny read.
I appreciate your analysis. As a reader, being immersed and connected to the story is one of life's most satisfying experiences. I also like to become aware of my thoughts and any assumptions. To stop awhile and ponder. As @Nils Loc suggested to 'meditate' as to the meaning.
I have limited experience as a writer, so find this Literary Activity most challenging and worthwhile.
So, please bear with me as I attempt to give my point of view.
The character is not omniscient. They don't have insight into their own issues. The author can make their confusion clear by their external/internal dialogue, description and action. If the reader brings their own assumptions to the table, then this can be misinterpreted. If the reader is confused, then a re-read can help. To question the text further. Along with others, this is most beneficial.
Textual and self-analysis. Wondering. To pick out words that hold ambiguity. To get your head around unusual expressions or impressions. To try to get into the mind of the author. What are they trying to say. This is about identifying, interpretation and understanding. Part and parcel of reading.
If it's not always a pleasant experience, then you can ask why? Is it the fault of the author or yourself?
Sometimes, both. If I give up on a story or novel, then that's fine. It might not be the right time...
This Activity can open us up to the new, especially if we attend to all the stories, with care. :sparkle:
Yes. This is a tricky transition to pull off. Any overall advice and guidance most appreciated. But probably best in another thread. Specific literary techniques. :sparkle:
The character doesn't have to be omniscient, but the descriptions need a perspective. From whose perspective does the metaphorical description come from? The character experiencing it? The omniscient storyteller? And if so, what perspective does that storyteller have? A chaotic descriptive language of purple prose usually stems from just washing the reader over with metaphorical descriptions that have no connections to any perspectives or world building of the story; it ends up just being a descriptive flair for the sake of sounding and mimicking the language of prose, rather than being written on point for the story that's being told.
Quoting Amity
If metaphorical descriptions and intentionally odd orders and structures of paragraphs end up obscuring something that does not need to be obscured, then it falls into purple prose. The key difference between letting the story have an interpretive quality and the text having the unnecessary demand of being decoded is that we're not supposed to read a story to decode text like a cypher, we're supposed to interpret the story, the meaning, the metaphors.
There's no reason to let a text be incomprehensible without multiple readthroughs as the purpose of multiple interpretations is supposed to be in the meaning, poetry, metaphors and events, not the text itself.
Sure, we have the concept of experimental prose, that use complex use of language and odd phrasings for emotional outcomes.
An example of this kind of experimental writing is "Only Revolutions" by Mark Z. Danielewski.
It's truly obvious when we're dealing with experimental and post-modern writing, but I'm not seeing those attempts here. When the story is supposed to flow to tell a story, we're supposed to immerse ourselves into the metaphors and meaning in order to interpret. But if we're demanded to decipher the text itself first, through re-reads after re-reads, discussions and puzzle, before even getting to the true interconnected metaphors and scenery that make up each story beat, then I don't think that merits good writing.
Quoting Amity
The difference is between the experience not being pleasant but honest between the author and reader, or if the reader feels cheated on getting an honest experience. It can be unpleasant as long as there's no obscuring meaning, events and descriptions through an unnecessary ramble of odd language that just cheats the reader of experiencing the entire thing honestly.
And even if written well, a story can in itself also intentionally cheat the reader, to comedic effect. One story that comes to mind is A Special Christmas from last year by @Hanover.
Point being, if the writing is purple prose, unnecessarily and unintentionally obscuring the core of the story through bad metaphors, unnecessarily jumbled order of events, no perspective for the metaphors and overwritten ramblings on irrelevant actions, it doesn't matter if the reader finally decode, decipher and interpret the story as what's underneath really didn't warrant such an over-written appearance. The reader feels cheated by the language signifying a grander meaning than what was discovered underneath and isn't the meaning underneath supposed to be the most powerful aspect of a story, not the high language and puzzling structures telling it?
Generally, most people aren't writing experimental prose. And as such there needs to be some level of polish that lets all parts of the prose be part of a whole, flow as a whole and be clear to the reader.
Otherwise it becomes something else, a mimicry of high prose without a reason to be so. To simulate the language of some accomplished writer's style and poetry, without the understanding how the parts truly fit together.
This is not the place. I refer you to my perspective, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/956655
This is the place at the moment as we're talking about it in a broad sense. I'm not flooding that into someone's specific story discussion.
We seem to disagree on what feedback is. You seem to feel it's disrespecting the author or author's vision to give critical feedback, I don't. It's so rare to get critical feedback in the way we can get through these story events and publishing stories like this will generate reactions, there's no way around it.
If we're not honest in our reactions to the stories, what's the point?
You misunderstand. About respect. Again, here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/956678
This thread is about guessing the author.
But that's just a personal preference, not a hallmark of good writing.
Postmodernism relies upon an unreliable narrator, which may be the result of ineptness, but it can also be the result of mischievousness or deciet. The unreliability might be immediately apparent, or it could reveal itself later. Maybe not your cup of tea, but legit in its own right.
But not just in postmodernism, but in mysteries and psychological dramas as well. For example, the movie Primal Fear comes to mind, where the murderer had us thinking he was insane, only to have it revealed he was not at the end.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primal_Fear_(film)
I also think your point that true unclarity where the writing is just a form of gibberish is something to be avoided is probably correct. I say "probably" because I think it's fair game to create ridiculous metaphors if the intent is to be ridiculous. Like if I said your opinions are like a stripeless flag in the bottom of an empty boat without sunshine, that might be an effective way of saying I have a really poor way of saying things, and maybe that's what I was trying to say, as opposed to saying anything about your opinions.
But this just means if the point is to be scatterbrained, being scatterbrained is what you ought to be.
Quoting Christoffer
I'm not defending my story about a gonad chomping anus because I think that story description might on its face be indefensible to some, and to defend it would suggest I actually take myself seriously. It was just a story I created around @Jamal's comment in a thread, and I considered it an entertaining punishment to make others have to hear what it sparked. Maybe something deeper can be deciphered from it (as @Baden sarcastically did in his review), sort of like how people insist they see things in clouds, but, again, I'm not going to write bonkers shit and then insist it be taken seriously.
But your comments about my body of work do reveal something important, which is how you received it and how you lack my sense of humor, but I think the better criticisms came from those who suggested I should have written my most recent entry in more than one breath and not just spitballed it. I do remember writing my first story (my world debut), and I did spend more time on it because it was a first go at it. It's just this isn't the first time I've been called lazy, so I'm thinking there could be some truth to it.
I wasn't aware I was responsible.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/864236
This will teach you to be more careful.
Thank you for the salutary reminder.
What I meant is that clarity for the character makes the character do things that the reader aren't aware the reasons for, or rather they get constantly lost in the actions of the characters. The obscurities of the story, the hidden, the metaphors etc. still exist within such writing, the only difference is the text not getting in the way of basic comprehension of what is happening. If paragraphs and chapters need constant re-reads because the most basic surface level understanding of events gets lost in unnecessary meanderings, then most readers will just put the book down and read something else.
While there's times for complex texts and prose, the key is to know when and where. A character opening a car door might not warrant extreme meandering language.
Here's a chapter on Bob opening a card door by ChatGPT.
It may be preference, people can write however they want. But it will probably get the same reactions by a majority of readers. Can Bob just open the damn door and get on with the story? We've got miles of road before the end.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, those are true for post-modernism, but post-modern writing can also turn it's perspective onto the text itself. Like a segment in his previous book House of Leaves, in which he describes a space lacking anything "human" not by describing it like that, but by describing a list of hundreds of objects that would exist in such a place if it hadn't been inhumanly built.
I love post-modernism in writing, but I know the difference between a text intending to be so and something that doesn't intend to be so.
Post-modern stories on the other hand are usually still told with clarity in its prose. It may even be important to do so as being obscuring and vague in writing something that is already vague becomes a double-whammy of confusion that might not hit any marks at all.
Chuck Palahniuk comes to mind, writing with clarity that describes obscene and surreal events. If he had used an extremely vague and esoteric language with over-written purple prose descriptions, it would have become an unreadable mess.
Quoting Hanover
Exactly! I'm not talking about "good writing" in the sense of what I prefer, but that if I sense there's a specific intention and it's obscured by odd phrasing and over-written odd metaphors, then I figure this might be an issue as the intended experience for me as a reader doesn't seem to sync between the text and story.
I have a very wide net for my preferences of prose and stories. I eat anything. But that doesn't mean stuffing ice-cream with broccoli is a well-crafted dish.
Quoting Hanover
How do you know that? I laughed by ass off when that story turned :sweat:
Quoting Hanover
Didn't find your Christmas story lazy. It was well-crafted in my opinion and ending in a damn Monty Python move.
But if I'm right in which one you wrote, that felt more like free-writing, if that was the intention?
Staying in the realm of literature regarded as postmodern, Thomas Pynchon is often extremely vague and esoteric, and he's brilliant. Postmodernism is not a genre with rules, and there's a world of difference between John Barth and Italo Calvino.
I think the distinction between postmodern-experimental and non-postmodern-experimental isn't really useful here. All that matters—and I think this is what you're really getting at—is that the prose is convincing, that it feels like the writer knows what he or she is doing.
It's also not a great way of reading to box things up, as if you shouldn't be allowed to experiment unless you're setting out to write a work of the avant garde. You can mix it up, no problem. So long as you're in command. Again, I think this is actually the distinction you're identifying, namely between convincing and unconvincing prose, or between good and not-so-good.
Anyway, with all this talk of postmodernism, I'm wondering, what about modernism?
Yes, that's what I meant with true post-modernism often scrambling the meaning of normal prose. But it still requires the intention of being post-modern, the consistency of staying with that intention. I don't think that post-modern writing is a defense of badly written prose that had its intention of being something else.
Quoting Jamal
Yes. The prose can be whatever creativity spawns, as long as there's no breaking the sensed intention of the prose with the result that's actually written. It's an instinctual sensation, like sensing something is wrong when in a dark alley with some shadowy figures at one end of it. You read the text and it can be highly creative, and then it breaks its own style, it confuses you for no apparent reason that gets explained and metaphors just makes you roll your eyes. Why do you react with such sensations while reading? Probably because the author didn't achieve the intention they had and the reader can absolutely sense this.
Quoting Jamal
Yes, I'm not trying to promote some specific "ordered" style of writing, some kind of "this is how it's supposed to be done, my way or the highway." It might look like it, but all I'm pointing towards is that when I spot some problem in a story, it's not because I don't accept the avant garde or mixed up, but rather that it becomes inconsistent, it fails to do what it seems to intend to do. That it has a lack of logical structure that has no creative purpose but rather a failure in how the prose is processed for the reader (The author seeing more than what is actually written tend to make the author fail to realize that the reader does not know anything about the thing being portrayed and so they assume knowledge that isn't there, confusing the reader unintentionally).
Quoting Jamal
Play the emotional orchestra, make a dramatic exit, preferably a sacrifice for the greater good. :sweat:
I disagree with this (most so-called postmodern works were not written with the intention of being postmodern), but otherwise what you say is fairly agreeable. :cool:
True, just because some writing was retrospectively identified as postmodern, even though they were written before postmodernism was a thing. Nowadays "postmodernism" is a style that is its own category in people's minds, and so some writers consciously set out to write in that style.
To me intent is key. Good writers are able to write in such a way that the output matches their intent. This is super hard. There are thousands of choices that have to be made when writing even a short piece, and inevitably a good portion of those choices will be wrong. Meaning that the result jars with what the writer was trying to do.
If the writer wrote exactly what they wanted, and the reader just doesn't like it, then that is just a disagreement. Which is fine, and inevitable. But what is most helpful to criticize is when the writer messed up, and didn't actually write what they meant to. Which happens all over the place, in big ways (i.e. plot or thematic inconsistencies) and small ways (i.e. discordant wording, awkward sentence structure).
Of course, distinguishing these two cases is not always easy.
Quoting hypericin
Isn't this how all styles, genres and creative definitions work? Post-attributed. The noir genre didn't really have that definition before it was essentially over and people were consciously trying to emulate and create around the tropes it established.
Quoting hypericin
Exactly, which is why I think feedback is invaluable. To reject the reactions people have and ignore learning from it just stagnate and get your stuck as a writer, never showing any path towards how to change for the better. Last year, the negative feedback on my story was primarily showing me that my ending felt a bit "meh". Even though I thought it had impact, that impact might have needed a bigger punch to drive it in. Essentially, I learned better ideas of how to analyze my writing for the rewrites. And for that I'm really grateful for what I got out of last year's story event.
Because it is really hard. No one can say otherwise. And I sometimes sense an animosity when giving critical feedback and I get that it's somewhat stepping on the nerves and heart of the author, but the cold truth is that no one really improves on the positive feedback. It feels good, but really don't help with getting better as a writer. Maybe in a way of showing what type of stories that might be the cup of tea you as a writer should continue exploring, but not much else.
Quoting hypericin
Which is what I try to do. I rarely disagree or dislike a story even if it isn't my cup of tea, all stories are perspectives to be heard, but if that perspective is badly told then I think the flaws need to be ironed out.
Consider these metaphors:
"The feeling of it finna get real bounced about the room like a frog infused rabbit on a pogo stick that just ate a spring sandwich on a rubber ball."
"Slowly, like a snail suspended in molasses on the back of a turtle with a dying battery,"
I don't think either of those metaphors were really designed to better explain the movement that was supposedly taking place. It speaks to an author (ahem) who's clearly just entertaining himself by trying to think of as many things that are slow or that bounce. It's like an assignment you'd give a 10 year old to see what he came up with.
Other metaphors like "He yawned like a person who was yawning" do nothing to explain the yawn but instead celebrate the lack of concern the author has in describing what is already self-explanatory.
If you're trying to be funny, I don't think the same rules apply, especially if you think it's funny to have no rules. And trying to be funny, I realize does not make one funny. But I do think there is something inherently funny about trying to be funny and not being funny but thinking it's still funny, sort of like the comic that bombs, so he starts tapping the mic and saying "Hello? Anyone out there? Hello." Unapologetic not funniess is in fact what makes dad jokes funny.
And I realize my metaphors are similes, so save yourself the pedantry.
I don't relate this to Paper Houses. To which story does it refer?
Quoting Christoffer
The judgment call, of course, is when feedback stops being constructive and when it begins to stray into obsessive terrain.
Quoting Christoffer
Nevertheless, that is the author's prerogative.
For improvement, some people need a kick in the pants, some a pat on the back, and some to be left alone. The tough love approach is the most prevalent not because it's universally effective but because it's easiest for an authority critic to give. That is, when the critic has something of value, he can do whatever he wants.
Like if Simon Cowell tells me my singing sucks, I try to get better for him because he has holds the keys to my fame and fortune. But if you tell me my story sucks, I'm like, yeah, and your story is suckier. You've got to have something I want for me to care what you think. Maybe it's fame and fortune or maybe it's your approval if I were such a person that sought such things.
That's why you have to serve a shit sandwich with good on the top, shit in the middle, and good on the bottom.
Like:
Top piece of bread: "Your story was fascinating. It showed creativity and I really enjoyed finding out what would happen next."
Middle filling: "Your character development was weak. It was like the people in your story were Christmas ornaments. They looked pretty, but they just hung there uselessly, like a priest's testicles."
Bottom piece of bread: "The end really caught me off guard. You're a really good story teller!"
Feel free to use my system. I call it "My System," a name I just thought of.
Maybe not over, but past their creative peak. Precisely because the genre becomes "established", and so creativity becomes much more difficult. Perhaps the real creativity happens when the genre is being created. :chin:
Or re-invented, or reconfigured or merely sabotaged.
:fire:
I'd say that if the intention is comedy, if the intention is to write something funny, then that is the intention to be consistent with, even if that leads to the choice of making metaphors incomprehensible for the sake of humor.
"As they walked the bridge beaming with the setting sunlight, she turned to him, looking deep into his longing puppy eyes and said "I love you" like only a banker could to a surprised customer getting their accounts seized"
I'm not good with humor, but you get the idea. The metaphor is ludicrous, but since the intention is for it to be so it has the intention by the author built into the writing.
It's when the intention doesn't exist in sync with the written story that it doesn't work. That when writing a serious love story and you end up with a similar thing:
"As they walked the bridge beaming with the setting sunlight, she turned to him, looking deep into his longing puppy eyes and said "I love you" like only a woman who'd never tasted the fresh bread from the market could say"
That's just metaphorical trash. Some esoteric meaning about fresh bread that might mean something to the author, but probably means nothing to the reader, effectively making the reader shake their heads in confusion about what the hell all this means and totally forgets about the pivotal moment of the lovers confessing their love; the absolute thing that the whole story centers on.
It's the conscious choice of how to tell the story that marks good writing. To be in control of the intention and know there's a reader on the other end just as much as catering to their own creativity.
Quoting Vera Mont
It's more generally speaking about a lack of clarity in writing. If we are to follow a character in a story, whatever is clear to the character is good to have clear to the reader, otherwise the character just acts in surprising ways that feel disjointed from our experience reading; leading to a character we feel is just doing stuff at random, rather than one we consciously follow.
It may be broken to some comedic effect though, the "The Unrighted Leotard" story has characters acting in surprising ways all the time, but the intention there I feel is for just that effect, it's that specific intention, not written as a way for us to understand the characters actions and choices.
Quoting Vera Mont
Isn't it the author's choice to choose what to listen to and what not to? That's a skill itself to evaluate what feedback is helpful and what is not. Some might need extreme deconstructions of everything to understand what went wrong if something went wrong, others might just need a few people saying "not for me" and know were to go from there. But the ones giving feedback can't be demanded to know the level at which the author is able to handle that feedback. That's just the nature of putting a story out in public.
I've witnessed people sending long emails to newspaper reviewers trying to explain why they're too stupid to understand the masterpiece they just made. And some just shrug their shoulders and try again without caring for any input. The process of reading feedback is an art in itself and some are better at it than others.
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes, exactly. But usually, ignoring feedback, especially when starting out writing fiction, is a good way to get stuck and never improve.
Basically, it's better to save my author pride until my writing is actually recognized. Until then it will just get in the way of me getting better at it.
Quoting Hanover
But that's something the author need to choose, it can't be a choice for a critic to try and evaluate before feedback.
Quoting Hanover
The best way to evaluate feedback is to get a lot and I think the sum of feedback generally gives all that. Some will just give unconditional love regardless of a story's quality, while some might even rip it to shreds like pissing on the graves of the author's ancestors. It's impossible to shield from that sum of critique, but here's where the author needs to work their ability to find the nuggets of gold present in the sum of all that feedback; the commonalities between different people etc.
Quoting Hanover
Doesn't it also risk becoming a sandwich of confusion though? What if the middle filling critique points towards being a bad storyteller and the bottom piece ends on that "you're a great storyteller", then the author might just end up spilling all that filling trying to squeeze the sandwich in one bite.
Quoting hypericin
I think the death of a genre convention or trend happens when it's baptized, because then people will start the simulations of it for the purpose of being part of the trend.
The only time a genre returns in full force is when it's fused into a genre-bending mix up, like with Blade Runner functioning like a noir detective story with all its tropes, and an existential sci-fi mixed up. All of a sudden people don't know what to make of it and later it spawns it's own simulations and mimics trying to emulate the novelty of what it did without realizing they're trying to re-invent the wheel.
Quoting hypericin
Definitely. And when people mix genres for the first time finding something that feels fresh. Hard to invent new genres... I think everything today is a subgenre, there are no big new genres anymore.
I'd coin one, "Nostalgiamash" for all stories that just focus on nostalgia beats as its primary schtick without caring for anything else. But maybe that's a subgenre, who knows anymore in this hauntological simulacra of a world?
Yup. Comes a point in a long diatribe when one - author or reader - is simply tired of listening.
Quoting Christoffer
That, too, is an individual choice.
You can't save everyone from themselves.
:grin:
The Favourites thread, yes?!
I've been nudged into doing my reveal. Over to you. :smile:
Done. :ok: Authors are now listed on each story.
Cha, bruh.
Funny that I guessed your story @fdrake only by not having seen such writing in earlier events. Makes your writing quite unique :clap:
Quoting Christoffer
:grin: It depends. lol.