@Terry Edge
Too critical. "Integrity" in writing. Don't try to impose your value system on others.

If you don't think writing should have integrity, could you say a bit more about why? And at the risk of sounding rather po-faced, what has any of this got to do with a value system? What's your value system that you don't wish mine to be imposed on in any case? Cheap shots at the end of what most of us found to be a useful debate are not really welcome.

Terry

Hey Terry, give Joesi a break. She's new. And she has every right to make that point.

You, OTOH, have been round the block a good few times and should feel secure enough to take her remark on the chin without having a pop at her!

I've noticed over the years that you are pretty critical and uncompromising about a number of things, Terry. It can lead to interesting discussions, which is great, but your rather inflexible views on some things (such as the meaning of the word 'convert', or chick lit) can sometimes be irritating or even offensive.

Maybe you shouldn't be so surprised when someone alludes to that?

I should know better, but here goes . . .

I've noticed over the years that you are pretty critical and uncompromising about a number of things, Terry. It can lead to interesting discussions, which is great, but your rather inflexible views on some things (such as the meaning of the word 'convert', or chick lit) can sometimes be irritating or even offensive.

This is part of a pattern too, Deb. That I get accused of being 'offensive' or 'irritating' or whatever after what seemed to me a useful discussion. So, rather than let this one ride, I'd appreciate it if you could point to where exactly in this discussion about 'covernt' I've been offensive.

Yes, of course Joesi had a right to make a point. But I also have a right to respond to a comment which, if not offensive, was somewhat blunt and critical of me, accompanied by the statement that I've been imposing my value system on others. This with no introduction or explanation or even 'Hi, this is where I'm coming from'. In any case, apart from the fact I disagree with the comment, I would have thought the nature of people's remarks on this thread more than demonstrates they are not the types to have their value systems imposed upon by anyone.


<Added>

Should be 'convert', obviously . . .

<Added>

Thinking about this some more, I reckon it's best not to continue in this direction. So I'm going to pull out now and leave it at that. Deb, please feel free to write to me privately with details of how I've been offensive on this thread. I'll be happy to apologise to anyone if I have been.

Ending on a positive note, thanks again to everyone who contributed to this thread. Believe it or not, I started it in order to get different views on the matter. I thought I'd shown where people's comments had changed my views. If not, I don't want to trawl through all the comments again to see but I do recall one of the main points I took on board, was that in some kinds of writing, probably mostly literary, the author can consciously choose to use words that snag, in order to create an effect that's different to what might be called the story-telling default of 'invisible' prose. So, for me, this was a useful experience, because I learned something.

Terry, I don't want to get into an argument, but I will just say that I didn't say you had been offensive about 'convert'. I just found your uncompromising attitude to the use of the word a little irritating. But I'm sure I'm irritating sometimes too.

However, if lots of people say the same things to you, maybe it's for a reason? I have heard you be pretty rude about some things (a hazy memory of comments about chick lit).

But let's not argue, hey?

Deb

Deb, we crossed over, so here I go, immediately contradicting my statement that I'm pulling out!

No, let's not argue. Although, actually, I think argument can be a good thing. It's just very difficult to make it work online.

I probably have been rude about chick lit in the past but not about people who write it. I think there can be a tendency for people to take comments about what they like too personally. For example, if you want to be rude about Science Fiction, I really don't mind. I won't take it personally. I'll probably even agree with some of it.

Terry

Argument is interesting apart from when it tips over into rowing, I suppose.

Deb

What a shame. I was really enjoying this thread until all that nonsense.

Why not let's carry on, then?

<Added>

Are you including my comments in the 'nonsense'? I was just worried Terry was putting off a newbie. Am now not sure that's the case, but that was my motivation.

Blog post here:

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2010/09/denotation-and-connotation.html

Thanks for the inspiration, Terry!

Emma

Great blog post, Emma. I'm feeling good again, about raising this in the first place. I know some will feel it's too much detail about so few words, but actually I don't think there's enough of this kind of discussion about the craft.

I know some will feel it's too much detail about so few words, but actually I don't think there's enough of this kind of discussion about the craft.

This is a whole nother topic, I think...

It's certainly true that you couldn't possibly think in this detail, about every word of every sentence at this micro-level as you write. And I do understand writers for whom it would choke any words at all, to feel they had to work like this at first-draft stage.

It's much more about training instincts, isn't it. Like spending ten minutes of an hour's tennis lesson explore the twenty different ways you can grip your racket in a serve (or whatever you do in a tennis lesson) No one's thinking that you should teach beginners this before they put pen to paper, or spend a whole lesson on it. The whole goal is to get to the point where in a match, you use the right grip without thinking about it...

Emma

And another - more general, less technical...

http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2010/09/hanging-on-in-there.html

Thanks again, Terry.

Emma

The harbour at Mana was a converted mudflat, tightly elbowed and unlovely at any tide but high. I had never been there when the tide was high. The birds were shags mostly. The fish were small.

I love this opening.

I, too, 'snagged' briefly on 'converted' but it grew on me. The birds being 'shags, mostly' suggests that she had not looked very carefully, was unwilling to see beyond the ordinariness of the shags. Similarly the small fish, this feels like a grumpy assumption, an unwillingness again to see anything bigger, better.

My disappointment came with how the story progressed. I only read the first of the 11 pages of the whole story, and the 'best bits' I liked very much, but it was spoiled (for me) by the too-detailed technical description of the channel and the lights, also the unconvincing (again, to me) dialogue and the story of the dog which seemed irrelevant and jarred.

Also, the opening set me up for a story coloured by the narrator's dislike of this mean little harbour town, instead of which we were taken on a jaunt out to sea.

Perhaps the other 10 pages would have resolved what seemed like distractions and irrelevancies, but I didn't feel moved to read on.

Jan

The harbour at Mana was a converted mudflat, tightly elbowed and unlovely at any tide but high. I had never been there when the tide was high. The birds were shags mostly. The fish were small.

I don't know what the rest of the story is like but this opening struck me as engaging and essentially humourous in a dark, quiet way. There's a great fondness for words and rhythm. If anything it's perhaps a tiny bit self-conscious, I can 'hear' the writer being pleased with it, see him/her and tweaking it to its fine, sharp edge, and I do prefer writing that doesn't give me that impression of the technique being visible.