[Hoser]

Hypno, your active voice was perfect. I was just trying to have some fun with you, which is why I put a little devilish winky-faced smile at the end (apparently I emote as poorly as weambulance accuses me of giving writing advice).

You likely know this, but in case anyone else takes interest, the passive voice is ideal for softening a sentence that sounds jarring when written in the active voice.

[rafaeld]

(02-03-2017 08:05 PM)fiasco360 Wrote:  

What resources would be recommended to start my journey on becoming a better writer?

Life experience is the best resource.

I don't care about long words or flowery grammar. I want to read some cold truth from a man who has seen some shit.

If you haven't got any experiences worth writing about, then I don't care how good you are at writing, you have nothing to say. Go out, live life and get some experiences to write about.

If you have loads of life experience then just start writing about it. I guarantee people will read it if it's interesting and you will get better at writing along the way.

Incidentally, good writing is actually good EDITING. The first draft is always the worst draft. Go over it again and again until there is nothing left to take away. Then do that one more time. Omit needless words. Get rid of the "I think"s, the "really"s, the "already"s. That is how you make writing POP.

[Hoser]

My Top Ten List of points from Mr. weambulance's rather opaque, but still somewhat decipherable, screed:

1.

W: "I've written extensively about writing on this forum in half a dozen threads.

An Appeal to Authority is an invalid debating technique, even when the source cited actually is an authority. Also, Irrelevant.

2.

W: "Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote before trying to shove words in my mouth."

(a) Which words did I shove?

(b) Why would I have a reason to read your previous posts when my entire conversation with you occurred after my first post? I was unaware that you even had written anything, except for your example of the three levels of writing classes, which I skimmed, liked, and found both salient and useful.

"Read every response to a thread before contributing" is neither the rule nor the practice here.

3.

W: "The idea that writing is harder for writers than other people is obvious bullshit. Anyone who practices a skill gets better at it unless they have some sort of mental disorder."

If it's obviously bullshit as read, would not a wise reader look for sarcasm, nuance, metaphor, and so on, especially considering the thread's topic?

If you think I claim to look back fondly to the days when the words sprung forth more easily, as seems to be the premise of your response, you're uncannily mistaken. I suggest starting over, this time asking yourself "Why WOULD he say 'harder' when he meant 'easier'?"

Your missing this is an inverse portrayal---yet just as comical--of the mildly retarded Stanley Spadowski in "UHF":

Stanley: George? What's the matter?

George: Stanley, you don't want to know!

Stanley [scratching his head, thinking out loud]: Then why'd I ask...?

4.

W: "When I called it bullshit, you tacked on a bunch of extraneous points that were not originally made."

Writing Rule #42: Avoid using impressive-sounding words you don't understand fully; it may make you may sound silly.

(a) I used those anecdotes as examples of the *central* thought I was attempting to convey. Come back when the definition of 'extraneous' approaches 'vitally important'.

(b) That they were "not originally made": refer again to the Stanley Spadowski method: ask yourself "Why WOULD he make unrelated points to support his central argument?" Pretend you're not you when answering.

5.

W: "I already talked about it in my first post in this thread. Guess you couldn't be bothered to read it."

That's better! Even a broken clock is right twice a day. You'll become a writer yet, if you put in the work and remain teachable.

6.

W: "Then you brought up the incredibly overrated Hemingway, whom you said wanted people put off publishing until after fifty, as if that's at all a good idea."

(a) "...Hemingway, *who* you said wanted...." Or did you break that rule to improve your storytelling?

(b) I've read no work of his and am unable to judge his rating, over or not. As to my use of the example, you should know by now what comes next: "Why WOULD an extremely successful, prolific writer say that late in life?", followed by "Why WOULD Mr. Hoser use that example, paired with another evincing Hemingway's relentless pursuit of mastery, to encourage a young writer?"

These are homework. We can discuss your answers next class.

7.

W: "I know exactly what kind of writer you are, and it's the kind nobody else should listen to. You're so obsessed with the language that the story is an afterthought. A clear bit of evidence is your anklebiting attempt to nitpick my phrase "faux deep nonsense" as redundant."

More purposeful rule-breaking in there, I assume. Not a real fan, but I guess you weren't writing for me.

In writing you seem competent enough; in reading, not so much. You've misread not only my work but now my motivation. Said attempt was not evidence (as you suggest) of soulless adherence to mechanics, but merely of my goal to get your attention, display at least somewhat competent editing skill, and bring you down a notch. One out of three ain't bad, I guess. I overestimated my audience's reading ability. Honesty, too.

Note: Broke rules in six places here. Not even freaking out about it. Make that seven.

8.

W: "It isn't redundant at all. Something can be nonsense without being faux deep. Something can be faux deep without being nonsense. Nice try, though...."

(a) I may have missed the mark on this one. If "faux deep" is used together as an adjective, then you're right: no redundancy. Unfamiliarity with an expression may have gotten the better of me here, and if so I retract my correction. My faux pas.

(b) If "faux" is its own adjective here (it usually is in French, which I speak--this likely threw me off), then putting it with "nonsense" makes it redundant--not 100% redundant and deserving of deletion, but redundant to a degree.

9.

W: "...and even if I did make a minor grammatical mistake it would have nothing to do with my actual point."

Correct. Now, on the subject of points, what was yours here?

Omit needless words, man! Make each count.

10.

W: "Meanwhile, I'm a pulp writer, so feel free to ignore everything I say and keep on keeping on with your high brow literature.... Guess which of us is likely to reach more readers?"

Finally you get to the point: your pride is so wrapped up in your chosen identity as a superior writer, an ALPHA writer, that when a skillful wordsmith comes near, feral instinct overwhelms you. You snarl and bark to turn him away, lest he accidentally brush your tail aside and reveal that you're neutered. Thank you for making it so clear, rabbit in wolf's clothing.

Of course, I could be wrong in this, as well. Inability to read subtleties in others' communication is the hallmark of Asperger's Syndrome. You DID miss my every nuance in prior responses.

But on second thought, Aspies tend to favor rules and honesty. Perhaps you're high-functioning and have no need for these particular crutches.

Regardless, in conclusion, I enjoyed this contest and I hope you decide to play again. Best wishes in your quest to deal with those issues.

Peace,

Hoser

[weambulance]

Did not read. Thanks for outing yourself as a gamma, though.

[Hoser]

Wow, it projects, too!

My second theory is gaining traction.

Mind you, projecting, doubling down, dishonesty...the three laws of the SJW all in one brief conversation! Theory One is suddenly way better supported.

Seems I was right about both. I'm not always this good.

[ColSpanker]

From the movie "Barton Fink" (1981):

Barton: I've always found that writing comes from a great inner pain.

W.P. Mayhew: Me I just enjoy making things up. Yessah escape. Its when I can't write I can't escape myself, I want to rip my head off and run screaming down the street with my balls in a fruit pickers pail.

I'm more of a W.P. Mayhew sort of writer.

[weambulance]

(02-09-2017 12:48 AM)Hoser Wrote:  

Wow, it projects, too!

My second theory is gaining traction.

Mind you, projecting, doubling down, dishonesty...the three laws of the SJW all in one brief conversation! Theory One is suddenly way better supported.

Seems I was right about both. I'm not always this good.

[Filbert]

One of the ways to develop any talent is to meditate.
There are many techniques. The simplest is japa.
The best way to learn to meditate is with a meditation master, even if he had already passed on.
And it is better to learn in a group.
Check out meditation groups in your area.

[Hoser]

Loving this thread, loving it! I may even read weambulance's old posts now.

OP, I hope you're getting something useful from all this. I'm seeing much great advice. I mean, you have to filter a little, but the payoff is still there. Be discerning, and profit.

[weambulance]

(02-09-2017 01:32 AM)Hoser Wrote:  

Loving this thread, loving it! I may even read weambulance's old posts now.

OP, I hope you're getting something useful from all this. I'm seeing much great advice. I mean, you have to filter a little, but the payoff is still there. Be discerning, and profit.

Damien Walter, is that you?

[Hoser]

Some of the payoff is in life lessons, too.

I know a guy whose father used to drive him around downtown and point out the winos and street urchins, telling the boy, "Remember, Son, you're never more than 30 days away from that."

A metaphor for what too much time on the Internet can do to a man, as we see regularly here.

[Huey]

delete

[weambulance]

(02-09-2017 01:26 AM)Filbert Wrote:  

One of the ways to develop any talent is to meditate.
There are many techniques. The simplest is japa.
The best way to learn to meditate is with a meditation master, even if he had already passed on.
And it is better to learn in a group.
Check out meditation groups in your area.

That's an interesting idea, would you mind elaborating? What's the benefit in this case?

Focus and perhaps clarity of ideas comes to mind, but I haven't done any meditation since I took a yoga class in college so I'm barely familiar with the practice.

[Filbert]

(02-09-2017 03:46 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 01:26 AM)Filbert Wrote:  

One of the ways to develop any talent is to meditate.
T
Check out meditation groups in your area.

That's an interesting idea, would you mind elaborating? What's the benefit in this case?

The benefit is you get light from meditation, which gives you talent and even a writing technique (you will not have to learn it from others).
IMO, it is better to choose a group that practises only meditation without hatha, since in hatha groups the main focus is on hatha and meditation is a side dish, if at all. Hatha is actually preparation for the descent of light; so you can skip it and start with meditation.

[AnonymousBosch]

I'm highly-suspicious of Academia's constant focus on the reduction and simplification of language in order to reduce and simplify thought itself. Given that this is a Known Socialist goal, part of my style is to pedantically-throw in as many clarifying adjectives as possible, and to generally favour complex, multi-part sentences rather than telegraphed thought, so as to mentally-engage the lazier reader.

Technically, from a Cultural Marxist point of view, I'm breaking every rule, yet, wherever I write, I seem to gain (unwanted) attention for it. So I'd suggest write regularly enough that you create your own unique voice, and you'll learn what works for you.

I wonder though: if reduction of expression and thought is such an intellectual-positive, then can it be said to be producing great minds? Look at the average mind on campus, and their stereotypical shared-interest in reading and writing Young Adult Fiction. Look at your average clickbait writer, who is highly-trained in this direct, reductive style. The writing is largely-interchangeable - no unique voices - and uniformly-dreadful.

As for what is coming out of the more serious literature arm of Academia: a while ago, I picked up Colson Whitehead's 'Zone One' from a cut-out bin. Reading it, I was struck by two thoughts: "Holy shit, this is the worst book I've ever read" and "Holy shit, this is the worst book I've ever read." Note that, although these are (superficially) the exact same thought, the emotional-intention behind each thought was entirely-different, and this is why I find complexity has a highly-specific use: transmitting intensity of emotional experience to the reader.

[Hoser]

^^^ ABosch: your "voice" definitely jumps off the page in this comment. It's a pleasure to read, and your conversational style eliminates potential barriers between the reader and you.

I happily second the "find your own voice" advice. It's when we try to sound like somebody else, and when we try to deliver what we think our audience wants to hear, that most of us stumble.

Be yourself. Write like you would to a friend. There will always be an audience who thinks like you do, and in that audience you will always have readers thrilled to find someone who thinks like they.