posted
I often see this question posed in response to a submission in the Fragments and Feedback forums. Also, in response to a comment made by extrinsic in another post, I've begun reading Percy Lubbock's book The Craft of Fiction.. In analysing and critiquing Tolstoy's War and Peace, he makes this statement:
A subject, one and whole and irreducible—a novel cannot begin to take shape till it has this for its support. It seems obvious; yet there is nothing more familiar to a novel-reader of to-day than the difficulty of discovering what the novel in his hand is about. What was the novelist's intention, in a phrase? If it cannot be put into a phrase it is no subject for a novel; and the size or the complexity of a subject is in no way limited by that assertion. It may be the simplest anecdote or the most elaborate concatenation of events, it may be a solitary figure or the widest network of relationships; it is anyhow expressible in ten words that reveal its unity. The form of the book depends on it, and until it is known there is nothing to be said of the form.
Percy Lubbock: The Craft of Fiction.
As I read that I was suddenly struck by its similarity to Lajos Egri’s discussion of premise in his book. In this he says:
Every good play must have a well-formulated premise. There may be more than one way to phrase the premise, but, however it is phrased, the thought must be the same.
Playwrights usually get an idea or are struck by an unusual situation, and decide to write a play around it.
The question is whether that idea, or that situation, provides sufficient basis for a play. Our answer is no, although we are aware that out of a thousand playwrights, nine hundred and ninety-nine start this way.
No idea, and no situation, was ever strong enough to carry you through to its logical conclusion without a clear-cut premise.
If you have no such premise, you may modify, elaborate, vary your original idea or situation, or even lead yourself into another situation, but you will not know where you are going. You will flounder, rack your brain to invent further situations to round out your play. You may find these situations—and you will still be without a play.
You must have a premise—a premise which will lead you unmistakably to the goal your play hopes to reach.
Lajos Egri: The Art of Dramatic Writing
Unless, of course, you start writing stories where you have no idea of what they are actually about or where your final destination will be. I mention this because, in the processing of Editing a 110K novel, I had cause to ask the author what his premise was? My reason was that he had four separate stories masquerading as one. Once I had his answer, That one event does not necessarily define a life, I could advise him that he had to choose between one of two stories and dump the other two--unceremoniously and immediately.
He was left with two, one of which would be hard to write and another almost impossible--it would have meant him writing literature, not YA fiction. But, in my opinion, he was capable of it. He chose the safe path, neither of the two stories with meat in them.
Cowardice? Perhaps. I'll never know because I cancelled the contract for that book. Not because he didn't follow my advice, but because of his refusal to change, a change that would have caused him to kill some of his darlings.
Anyone care to comment?
Phil.
[ February 06, 2015, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. A 612 word post in which 370 words are quotes from other people. Just looking at the excerpt that is yours:
quote: I often see this question posed in response to a submission in the Fragments and Feedback forums. Also, in response to a comment made by extrinsic in another post, I've begun reading Percy Lubbock's book The Craft of Fiction.. In analysing and critiquing Tolstoy's War and Peace, he makes this statement:...
...Unless, of course, you start writing stories where you have no idea of what they are actually about or where your final destination will be. I mention this because, in the processing of Editing a 110K novel, I had cause to ask the author what his premise was? My reason was that he had four separate stories masquerading as one. Once I had his answer, That one event does not necessarily define a life, I could advise him that he had to choose between one of two stories and dump the other two--unceremoniously and immediately.
He was left with two, one of which would be hard to write and another almost impossible--it would have meant him writing literature, not YA fiction. But, in my opinion, he was capable of it. He chose the safe path, neither of the two stories with meat in them.
Cowardice? Perhaps. I'll never know because I cancelled the contract for that book. Not because he didn't follow my advice, but because of his refusal to change, a change that would have caused him to kill some of his darlings.
Anyone care to comment?
Phil.
Actually, I'm still not sure what I would comment upon. I haven't read any of the guy's novel, so maybe you were right in your analysis, maybe you weren't. But the situation seemed to have resolved itself, so there's that.
In Hatrack openings, there's only so much plot you can put in 13 lines. What's more important than plot is whether the opening even seems to be going *anywhere* at all, which is sometimes the case. Openings that have no point. This is usually just warmup writing that can be cut or moved.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:In Hatrack openings, there's only so much plot you can put in 13 lines.
And yet people, including your good self do, from time to time, ask the question: What's this all about?
Why? What do they expect from 13 lines? As you say yourself, you can't develop a lot in those first 13, but that doesn't stop a lot of people asking why you aren't clearer and why you haven't set the scene, tone or some other writerly requirement, or why there isn't any conflict, stakes or other plot motifs being explored immediately.
Perhaps the reason is that the commentators lament is unreasonable. The object of a first 13 is to elicit interest and a desire to know more, not to plunge the reader into the middle of the plot.
Setting that detour aside, the point of the post was to wonder if contributors, when writing their stories, actually know where they are going and what the point of the story is before they start writing or whether they write by the seat of their pants and then try and massage their story into some semblance of structure, all the while knowing they will ultimately fail to create a coherent whole.
posted
Note Egri and Lubbuck assert unity as necessary narrative features. Unity is a regular topic of aesthetics texts. Aristotle: unity of action. Freytag: unity of theme. Lubbock: unity of narrative point of view. Egri: unity of argumentation. Unity is an epic law of expression of any category, as is focus, regardless of meta-genre: formal, informal, performance; oral, written word, plastic arts, etc.
A novel or any length composition with "four" stories" is four actions and lacks unity. Two actions, one external and one internal and both congruent is one action and unified.
"That one event does not necessarily define a life" is problematic even in Egri's single premise-based argumentation theory. One, the statement is a negation expression. The expression is a conclusion of a syllogism. The expression lacks major and minor premises. The expression is the outcome, so to speak, of a generic dramatic complication: the argument's conclusion.
Composition theory currently asserts that all expression is argumentation, narrative prose not least of all.
Reconstruction of the above as a positive statement guides creation of the complete syllogism: A life-defining event does affect a life. A message, a moral, a ten-words-or-less "premise" that reveals an action's unity in Lubbock's perspective. The statement is proven logically (deductive logic) true then by its negation: A non-life-defining event does not affect a life.
Construction of the major and minor premises then entail a backtrack extracted from the conclusion. The two extracted parts are a life-defining event and affect a life. Narrative drama's more essential details and expression of a moral human condition are adversity and urgency, want and problem satisfaction: dramatic complication. A life-defining event, therefore, is a matter of at least adversity; urgency, though, is perhaps inherent, implied, or directly expressed by the circumstances of the life-defining event's adversity.
An adversarial event is life defining (major premise). A life-defining event affects a life (minor premise); therefore, a life-defining event does affect a life (conclusion).
Therefore, an opening act is about an adversarial event, compulsion. A middle act is about the adversarial event's life-defining effect, actions to satisfy a pivotal dramatic complication. An end act is about the outcome of the transformational effect upon a life, a pivotal complication satisfaction. The single action, single argument completed. And, therefore, the major premise's adversity development is the kernel of greatest significance for a thirteen-lines fragment.
This above is a thought process for "what a story is about" meditations and determinations. An adversarial, life-defining (larger-than-life), and transformative event. ---- Note when studying Lubbock, he does not label the high-hung-fruit features of narrative point of view; he illustrates them indirectly. They are extended indirect discourse and extended direct discourse. The former is external narrator summary and explanation lecture: tell. The latter is reality imitation scene development from internal-to-the-action agonists' received personal reflections of events, settings, and characters: show.
quote: Setting that detour aside, the point of the post was to wonder if contributors, when writing their stories, actually know where they are going and what the point of the story is before they start writing or whether they write by the seat of their pants and then try and massage their story into some semblance of structure
Ah.
Probably a little bit of both. I think you're probably doing something wrong if your characters don't surprise you every now and then.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
extrinsic, I beg to differ. The observation that no man is an island, complete unto themselves is a generality and does not address the specific. The premise that one event does not define a life is a valid observation in the specific, not the general.
A character experiences what to other people would be a life shattering occurrence, their dramatic want is to refuse to allow their experience to define their life; a struggle between expectation by the majority and the resolve of the individual; the internal conflict inherent in the struggle to define the self. "I am what I choose to be, not what you expect me to be." Or, in other words: That which does not destroy us makes us stronger.
Denevius, if one of your characters surprises you, then you don't know enough about them to write a story that includes them.
quote: Denevius, if one of your characters surprises you, then you don't know enough about them to write a story that includes them.
That's an interesting read of it.
I actually hope for my characters to surprise me. I want the narrative to take a life of its own. This won't happen if I'm micromanaging every move.
When I start a story, I may think that a particular character will fall for someone else. But as the story grows, it becomes increasingly evident that this really isn't supposed to happen. Love isn't meant for them. I may want it to be, I may have originally planned it to be. But then I'm writing, and the moment comes, for instance, when the central character is supposed to reach out and brush dust of a fallen building from the face of the other character who've they've been side by side with for most of the narrative. And then he doesn't. And he doesn't because at some earlier part of the story, it made more sense for love between them to simply not happen, or remain unfulfilled.
But then, my writing process is long. I don't finish a novel and then leap into another, and I don't tend to wrap up a novel in a matter of months. My last novel took three years to get to the point it is now. If I were to tell you that I had planned out the ending three years prior, I'd be lying. I simply don't write that way.
I have a vision for where I want the novel to go. I have a general idea of how I want the novel to end. But I look for surprises. I look for 'Aha!' moments as I write, because moments of surprise for me are moments of surprise for readers.
I want my characters to challenge me and my assumptions of who I think they are and how I believe they fit in the narrative universe. I don't see the benefit of creating contrived situations so that the story ends exactly how I wanted to whether that ending makes sense or not.
And yeah, when I sit down to write a novel, I know it's going to be several years in the making, and over time, things are going to change. I plot the course but I let the characters get me to the destination.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forget where I read about the idea of a premise, but I do think that having a premise in mind helps one to write a story, short or long, that's tight, focused and doesn't meander around and thereby lose or bore the reader.
For SF I think the premise is often simply stated, as a "What if...?" e.g. "What would it be like on a starship with a five-year mission to explore where nobody went before?"
I think it's overly restrictive to require just one premise, even though it's difficult to combine two stories artistically so they seem as one. Two of my favourite novels are each based on two premises: "The Devil in the White City" by Erik Larson asks "What was it like for the designers and engineers building Chicago's White City?" and "How would a detective of late 19C America track down a particularly nasty serial killer?" The two stories each stand alone (almost) and are cleverly intertwined, with old Chicago, and the White City and its construction the backdrop for the whodunnit.
"Carter Beats the Devil", by Glen David Gold has as its presenting premise a fictional account of the death of President Harding and develops into a whodunnit. It sets up Mister Carter, a magician, as the prime murder suspect, and takes the opportunity to draw us into a fictional autobiography of an early 20C American travelling magician (based loosely upon the life of the real "Carter the Great"), his show, his life and his loves. The fictional account of San Francisco at the turn of the century is -- I like to think, historically accurate -- and wonderfully colourful and the two stories are interwoven in a manner that can only be described as magical.
For once I agree with Denevius. The characters and their stories might unfold in the telling and I think a decent premise (or two) helps this to happen in a way that has cohesion for the story and for its reader. In this process I think the author, in the mind of the characters, is thinking through the premise and its consequences alongside events as they unfold. I know some writers like to plot the whole thing out before writing it. For me that's too laborious and no fun becasuse it's like writing the whole thing twice; I like the premise as a kind of architecture for the story, role playing the characters and events in my mind to see where they lead: for me these can be the most creative moments, when a character has an idea--and I'm wondering where the heck it came from! (It's because I'm in the character's mind for the first time, experiencing what she experiences and improvising a response as she is). I like writing these parts "in the moment" because I like to think it captures the energy and passion the character feels.
I think the premise is like backstory, not necessarily visible and certainly it's not necessary for it to be clear in the first 13. Although it's nice if it is, for the premise when it is clear provides an answer to "Why am I reading this?" But it does not have to be clear. The first 13 only has to engage the reader, perhaps with an interesting character, event, or simply the narrator's voice.
posted
Denevius and TaleSpinner, you are both right in the developmental stages of storytelling; but not in the writing of the story.
In my opinion, if, as you sit down to write your story you don't know the purpose of every line and every scene then you are not ready to write.
Fine, pantsers of the world will decry me as a control freak, but without planning, it takes two or three years to finesse an ad-hoc writing exercise into a semblance of cohesion. However, with a strong idea of your story's message, no matter how whimsical, and its destination, no matter how sublime, you are not going to be spending a lot of time trying to make things fit together instead of refining how they in fact do.
Premise, as expounded by Egri, not only resides within the narrative structure, but within each and every character. Each character has their own premise that they seek to prove and, at times, these are at cross-purposes to the story's. That provides an inner tension you will never achieve if you simply sit down and start writing.
quote: In my opinion, if, as you sit down to write your story you don't know the purpose of every line and every scene then you are not ready to write.
Be careful of the word *every*. It's an absolute that's better regulated to theory than practice.
Ultimately, we each do what works best for us as writers, and what gets our fiction the results we've set for ourselves. For me, personally, I don't need to know the purpose of every line and every scene, and at the moment, I'm satisfied with where I am as a writer.
But if the method you're espousing works for you and is getting you the results you want from your audience, go for it! I can't tell you you're wrong if that level of plotting works for you, but I have no interest in it.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with what Denevius said. There's no One Way to write. As with making tea, we each have our own ways and control freaks don't get along well with me, because if someone gives me rules governing my creativity I'll trash them. If you like mine is a jazzman's approach to the writing process, but shaped by the premise; just as a jazz improvisation is shaped by the original tune.
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though perhaps not intended as irony, the phrase "That one event does not necessarily define a life" signals irony from use of "does" as an auxiliary verb creating emphatic mood, from "not" as a negation use, and "not necessarily" as a hedging term use. The phrase is a litotes, again, whether intended or not, an understated affirmation of the positive contrary of a negation statement. The surface, literal meaning, that an event does not define a life; the ironic subtext figurative meaning that an event does define a life.
The phrase overall is in emphatic mood, the grammatical mood distinct from indicative, imperative, and subjunctive, mostly from use of "does" as an auxiliary verb.
The phrase's irony makes it problematic as an argumentation premise due to conflicted meanings, at simultaneously congruent and diametrically opposite meanings. The premise fails as a deductive reasoning premise, in the way Egri means, because it cannot be proven true in all cases.
Perhaps the expression can be proven valid to a degree of strong or weak reasoning; therefore, inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning asserts a claim and supports the claim with persuasively compelling evidence, though only asserted as true in at least a simple majority of cases for strong reasoning and at least one true case exception for weak reasoning.
Prose is more amenable to inductive reasoning, especially for ironic expression, than deductive reasoning. However, irony is problematic for young adult readers. They generally lack the cognitive development needed to fully process irony. Young adult readers are amenable to deductive reasoning. Fully satisfying narratives generally "prove" a deductive reasoning premise, or at least assert a premise is a universal truth. Inductive reasoning premises leave proof open for exception, interpretation, challenge, and question.
The act of successful resistance to change is itself a change. Successful resistance to change transforms a character in subtle and profound ways, less overtly than superficial changes. For example, a moral dilemma of want for riches as criminal greed. If a character believes he or she can steal with impunity and has no desire to change his or her ways, and successfully resists change, he or she is probably bound for the hoosegow, a superficial change.
If he or she believes theft is the only way to survive, and is no less morally troubled by theft, a moment of exigent circumstances and aware of the consequences of the criminal act, and successfully resists the temptation, that too changes the character, though a subtle moral change, a reaffirmation of perhaps moral integrity previously understood as abstract social values. "That which does not destroy us makes us stronger." A change of firmer moral values, or stronger resilience to forces of change, or probably both. Change, no matter how strongly and successfully resisted, is inevitable. And change is a necessary feature of a narrative, without which no plot, no drama unfolds.
posted
I agree that each and every writer has methods that work for them which achieves the goals they want and, if they don't, they change their methods until they find ones that do.
And, as far as premise goes, a premise is not a truism, it is simply a unifying idea that the writer sets out to prove in their story. If I have the premise that people with green hair have more sex, then I only have to prove that within the narrative of my story, not the real world.
The premise, one event does not define a life, does not preclude change. In fact, with such a premise I would envision a large transformation of character. Also, you are correct, extrinsic, in your observation that such a premise is probably beyond a lot of YA readers, which is why I urged the writer to alter his target market.
posted
Probably most premises are appropriate for YA fiction. I think the key isn't the premise, but how you write it in a relatable way to that age group.
A WRINKE IN TIME is a complicated YA novel. THE CHOCOLATE WAR is a complicated YA novel. THE GOLDEN COMPASS is a complicated YA novel.
These authors chose not to write down to the teen age group as they tackled the complicated premisses in these books. But they did craft narratives in such a way that young readers have common knowledge to go upon to become engaged in the story.
There are not a ton of teen readers to begin with, but those that are are probably sophisticated enough to handle most issues authors will throw at them. It's not the premise that'll stump them, but it is the context. Writing about a character's life change can be handled, but writing about a character who's 40 years old and works in middle America blue collar company is probably going to bore the bejesus out of them (as well as using words like 'bejesus').
Probably not many commenting here do, but play a computer game geared to teens today. The story lines are very nuanced now, nothing as simple as a plumber running in a linear line to save a princess. Games today have young players weighing serious moral issues.
It's simply how you present it that matters.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not disparaging YA readers, in fact one very successful series of books was Tomorrow When the War Began, a book about teenagers dealing with, confronting and then resisting an invasion.
quote:It's simply how you present it that matters.
posted
Well, now I'm once again confused by the point you're making concerning YA fiction. If you think teens can handle complicated premises, then where are you trying to caution perspective YA authors?
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grumpy old guy spoke about young adult readers, not prospective writers. Writers of young adult literature can be any age. More often than not, older writers write successful young adult literature, and they may misapprehend a younger reader's capacity to process, not "complicated premises," but generally complex age-consistent cognitive faculties.
Young adults, for example, generally use cynical sarcasm, a less sophisticated type of irony, and can easily process that cognitive attitude. Subtler irony may elude or disorient or disturb them. And not written down to either, rather written to, or up to that persuasively challenges their cognitive faculties.
And not everyone develops a full aptitude for irony. Ability to process irony emerges from a sequence of adverse double bind reconciliations that a receiver experiences as part of an individual's public and private social, spiritual, and intellectual life.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Young adults, for example, generally use cynical sarcasm, a less sophisticated type of irony, and can easily process that cognitive attitude. Subtler irony may elude or disorient or disturb them. And not written down to either, rather written to, or up to that persuasively challenges their cognitive faculties.
I'm left baffled by what this means.
Not only that, but my English classes in high school were filled with Edgar Allen Poe and Charles Dickens and Moby Dick. Yes, this isn't YA fiction, but to assume that teens will be "disturbed" by nuanced irony when they're regularly assigned classical literature full of different literary approaches in school seems absurd.
I guess I simply don't get what you're getting at. To my mind, the main thing that makes YA fiction what it is is that the characters are usually the same age group as the readers. This doesn't make all fiction with young characters YA, but YA fiction tends to have teen characters. This increases the chance that teens will find the material relatable because the characters aren't doing things that are completely beyond their realm of experience.
This, however, doesn't mean that they *can't* understand non-YA fiction, or that they don't have cognitive facilities to grasp non-YA fiction. They are regularly called to handle non-YA literature in school. It's just that classical literature, as presented, usually bores the bejesus out of them (though I thoroughly enjoyed Poe and William Blake and other non-YA literature in high school, and I'm sure I'm not alone).
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue wasn't the premise, it was the subject matter--definitely not YA. I don't know what the next step up the rung of readers is called, but even then, it's a bit edgy.
quote:The issue wasn't the premise, it was the subject matter--definitely not YA.
I haven't read it, so you could be right. I think, though, that for instance, the graphic novel WATCHMEN's intended audience was teenagers. Sure, older people read it also, but Alan Moore, or Frank Miller's graphic take on BATMAN were intended for younger readers.
I was going to mention this earlier, but it might be that as an older guy, Phil, that you think certain subjects are too mature for teens. I think, though, that teens will disagree with you.
Again, though, since I haven't read the novel you were editing, I can't say either way or the other.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is my dotage showing? But, seriously, this subject was dark, even for me. As I said, I had whittled it down to two possible story lines: one hard to write, which would still have been acceptable for a YA audience as it focused on an act of revenge, the other, well, just doing the research would be traumatic.
posted
Early adult or sometimes new adult is the next age stage after young adult. Early adult is between ages 18 and 25. Primary grade, middle grade, young adult are divisions that followed an education paradigm shift that previously had been solely distinguished from adult literature as children's literature. An intermediate term distinguished later-age childhood literature as juvenile literature. Negative connotations of "juvenile" quickly ended that category's fashion.
Early adult as opposed to new adult recognizes 18 to 25-year-olds are not new adults, adulthood beginning at onset of puberty, the beginning age of the young adult category. Also, early adult coordinates with young adult, middle adult, and late adult; new adult is a non-parallel outlier in the continuum from young adult to late adult.
Objective age-range categorizers generally concretely term subject matter suitable or inappropriate for young readers. That's not my philosophy, however, rather accessibility, appeal, and figurative language arts skills are my method for categorization by age range. Literature marketplace and culture generally overlap the two, as is apropos of mass-market and mass-culture generalizations. I give a nod to the objective, quantifiable and qualifiable criteria, though favor emphasis of subjective, subtextual criteria, like cognitive faculties and aptitudes and intellectual maturity, if not emotional maturity.
posted
infoplease.com misquotes the New York Times 7 November 1955 Robert Frost interview. "I have never started a poem _yet_ whose end I knew. Writing the poem is discovering."
Frost was a master of ironic expression; each and every word is essential in order to understand his intent and intended meaning. "Yet" means so far in a literal denotation and is essential to the meaning of the sentence. Note also the first sentence says nothing about starting writing a poem. The meaning can ironically be understood to mean as well starting reading poems by other poets. In that light, a profound insight about outcomes.
From the New York Times obituary of Robert Frost, 30 January 1963: "In an interview with Harvey Breit of The New York Times Book Review, he observed:
'If poetry isn't understanding all, the whole word, then it isn't worth anything. Young poets forget that poetry must include the mind as well as the emotions. Too many poets delude themselves by thinking the mind is dangerous and must be left out. Well, the mind is dangerous and must be left in.'"
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Yet" means so far in a literal denotation and is essential to the meaning of the sentence. Note also the first sentence says nothing about starting writing a poem. The meaning can ironically be understood to mean as well starting reading poems by other poets.
Your interpretation of the quote lessens its value. It would be odd for Robert Frost, one of America's renown poets, to say he's *never* started 'reading' a poem in which he couldn't guess how it would end. Like, really? A two-bit poem and you can't figure out how it's going to end?
Frost probably read, and studied, hundreds of poems in his lifetime. Did each one literally have an ending that he couldn't see coming? I mean, he's no psychic, but I'm sure he saw where many of the lesser poems from lesser poets were going.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we come to writing with our experience of other walks of life, and try to use what we know from previous experience in our writing process. For me, I'm coming to writing from the software industry: Where the idea that one should know the whole thing before starting the detailed writing is taught by theoreticians as "the waterfall model", which says that the software development process starts with architecture, then design, then detailed design of the components, then writing the program code itself. It's a sequence where each activity follows the previous one, like a waterfall in the sense that there's no going back upstream to redo earlier activities in the event they go wrong. But with the no going back it relies on each stage being accomplished without error. In story-telling, this idea of planning out each scene, each line of the story, is very like a waterfall process model. And if one makes an error the whole can be very time-consuming to fix--and no fun.
Modern software engineers understand the strengths and weaknesses of the waterfall model: respectively it can create for anxious managers the illusion of management control and secure deadlines and costs; and on the downside it can go horrendously wrong when the project includes significant areas of uncertainty-- which in my experience is common when writing software for new unproven computer hardware and for complex control systems like the switches and multiplexers in telecom networks. In more complex cases, to manage uncertainty, engineers don't use a simple sequential waterfall process, they use a more iterative, incremental process, building the end product a little at a time and checking it works before proceeding to the next bit. This gives them opportunities to experiment, and find out what works without committing to a large scale design that might be flawed.
That's why, when I get a round tuit, I'll start my novel with a simple premise "what if <not telling the idea until the darn thing is written>" and then. as Phil suggests, I'll rough out a chapter outline and sprinkle in some scenes that I care about -- the big budget action sequences, if you will. But I won't know the details, despite there being character sketches for each main character.
To misquote what Frost is said to have said, for me, the writing will be the discovering, as it was with the short story version I wrote some while ago and shall use as the prototype. I fear that if I plot it out in detail (the outline will not be fixed, but subject to judicious change), the characters will become cardboard cutouts, motivated more by the requirements of a fixed outline design, and unable to respond to events in character. For me the detailed writing is an opportunity to get into each character's head, see the milieu and the events thus far, feel as would the character, and let them make of their world what they will: this is what happened with the short story: its ending surprised and pleased me with a resolution I liked to the story's "What if" premise. The novel version will explore this milieu in more detail... I guess I better put pen to paper...!
On Frost, I think Denevius is right; I don't think he meant his answers to the interview questions to be analyzed with extrinsic's unique intensity. When he (Frost) says "yet" he's not being ironic, he's just not committing himself for his future writing method. With the second sentence he's surely talking about writing poems. He surely didn't mean his individual sentences to be taken out of context for analysis.
I think that this kind of discovery model for writing stories relies upon a personality that's not discomfitted by uncertainty and a belief in one's creativity.
As I write I realize that my novel-in-waiting has grown from one premise to two, one involving how this imaginary, complex milieu would be to live in, the other about the evolution of some innovative technology, and writing down the two premises will help me keep a potentially bewildering mulititude of sub-stories in check.
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Always only the most literal interpretation leaves out so very much of meaning. Take Edgar Allen Poe's writing, for example. The degree of exact language and motif decisions he made are superficially meaningful; however, the subtext and irony of his works is sublime.
Poe planned his writing to exacting degrees too; he knew the ends he had in mind before he started composition. He says so in several of his aesthetics texts. Also, the depths of his motifs' meanings and their ironies evidence careful planning and decisions.
"The Cask of Amontillado," for example. The namesake Amontillado is a famous dry sherry in its own right. Yet the vintage exactly fits several of Poe's intents and ends. The way the sherry is made reflects the short story's action to an nth degree. The story itself was composed and partly inspired as a response to a literary rival's narrative caricatures of Poe, who, likewise, caricatured the rival: Thomas Dunn English, 1844, or, The Power of the S.F.
Without a plan and ends in sight, Poe's short story would ramble as much as English's novel and be an obvious and direct a caricature of English. Poe's depiction of English in "The Cask of Amontillado" does not entail a direct, one-to-one correspondence, though direct enough English understood he was parodied as Montressor.
Each and every word, motif, part, parcel, and whole of the short story expresses depths and ironies that appreciating enhances reading experience. The characters' names, for example, Fortunato's jester costume, the city-wide carnival concurrent with Montressor's plot, the Montressor coat of arms and motto, the catacombs, the nitre on the walls, the other vintages Montressor gives Fortunato, the cask and Amontillado, etc.
Robert Frost also carefully chose his words, his motifs, perhaps not the exact end he wrote to, though as certain he did have a plan overall and specific to each composition. "The Road Not Taken," for example; Frost's use of the verb to take possesses multiple entendres. His congruent usage of the verb's denotative, connotative, and idiomatic meanings expresses sublime ironies and profound meanings.
Worth note, The Atlantic Monthly rejected Frost's poetry for twenty years. Ezra Pound "discovered" Frost while both were in England and promoted Frost's poetry internationally. When Frost returned to the U.S., The Atlantic Monthly sought Frost out and pleaded for his poetry. Frost submitted poems the journal had previously rejected.
Ezra Pound "discovered" and promoted many of the writers of the Modernist era, many of the artists of the Lost Generation, an expatriate writing community living in Paris between the world wars. A recent, somewhat comparable "discoverer" and promoter of writing talents similar to Pound is Oprah Winfrey -- her book club selections.
Publisher, editor, poet in his own right, Ezra Pound's literary culture promotion and editorial guidance example this present era could do with again.
Note that above on Poe I use "end" similarly to how Frost uses to take. One of Poe's "ends" was to caricature English, not to mention figuratively wall him up alive as Fortunato and ironically as Poe too, in the Montressor catacombs as a cask of Amontillado, a step in the making of the exquisite vintage.
posted
If some writers plan, it doesn't mean that all writers must.
If one chooses to base a story on a premise, a plan isn't mandatory and, as noted earlier, it can spoil the fun and discourage discovery and destroy the serendipity that can lead to what I consider good art.
To plan or not to plan: a matter of individual writer's choice, methinks.
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Planning was more common than intuitive writing prior to the Postmodern era, probably beginning with the Beat Generation, who set the bar for the method. Nowadays, the ratio of planner to intuitive writer favors intuitive, even in conventional publishing circles.
Me, I choose to follow a different path than the either/or fallacy that only two choices are possible. Part planner, part intuitive, part intuitive planner, part and mostly revision writer, which also lost fashion during the Postmodern era.
Are we, as in literary culture, yet in or ready for a new movement? I believe so, and see its infancy dawning, though no standouts yet like masters of the past. J.K. Rowling scratches at the edges of a new movement paradigm, like a moth drawn to a candle flame: intuitively, not overtly, though she planned intensively otherwise. Jonathan Franzen comes closer, though also intuitively, to the proxyism of reality imitation's direct discourse -- Realism fully realized as direct discourse, not the indirect discourse narrative methods of Realism's pivotal era. The time has come for Postmodernism's toxic cynicism to wane.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
I have read or seen several interviews by well established authors who have discussed the joy that comes from a story he or she is writing taking a surprising turn or from having a character do something unforeseen. Perhaps these authors weren't ready to write, yet somehow they have produced work that has garnered them followings, money, and acclaim.
Posts: 823 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you have all taken my observations that, first, every line and every scene must have a purpose and, second, that if one of your characters surprises you, then you aren’t ready to write, to be an all-encompassing observation on writing methodology. Aint so.
All my stories grow from an idea, usually a character in a situation. From this I develop a dramatic want and conflict and well as some basic character traits for the major agonists. What this gives me is a fully formed narrative idea from which I can then say, “This story is about (some form of the human condition—greed, love, envy, ambition, hate, etc.).” Once I have that I can start to consider premise. From there, I create the bare skeleton of a plot, a sort of roadmap with a beginning, some sights to see along the way and a destination. Now I’m ready, I hope, to write Draft Zero.
So, I sit down and write, and write, and write the story until I write: The End. The biggest was 80K words in ten days. It is in this draft that I get all the character and plot surprises I ever intend to get with that particular story. The improv/ad-hoc font is now dry. However, this is where the exceptional, and the really cool, ideas are born.
I dissect, dismantle and eviscerate Draft Zero and start plotting structure against dramatic form and delve deeper into my character’s lives, wants and dreams than I have ever done before. At the end of this I know everything that will happen, why it will happen, and when it will happen. Now, it is time to start creating and designing the individual scenes that will make up the whole until, finally, I can sit down and start agonising over word choices and placements so the prose and story is as tightly bound together as I can possibly get it. No dull bits, no flat spots, and no meandering detours down picturesque, but pointless, by-ways. This is where the drafts from one to whatever-it-takes are written.
But, in the end, a draft is a thought bubble; a manuscript is a finely honed instrument.
quote: But, in the end, a draft is a thought bubble; a manuscript is a finely honed instrument.
I guess I still don't get it. Obviously most of us would agree that an edited novel is a finely honed instrument. Are we talking about finished and edited novels, or works in progress?
Funny enough, this brings me around full circle to my first response to the thread:
quote: Actually, I'm still not sure what I would comment upon.
Like, what was the original premise of this thread? And yes, the irony here abounds in that a thread called 'But, what it's all about', is having difficultly in projecting what it's actually about.
Are we talking about the process, or are we talking about finished works?
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: Poe planned his writing to exacting degrees too; he knew the ends he had in mind before he started composition. He says so in several of his aesthetics texts.
I haven't read these aesthetic texts, but let's say your interpretation of them is correct.
Ok, well, so Poe's journey of discovery was in the note-taking first. Obviously he doesn't have the whole project composed perfectly in his head. But following his method, before he sets pen to paper to write a first draft, he's basically already written numerous drafts in the form of notes.
Well, I don't write notes first, but I don't see how that process is much different. Oh, I suppose I could call my first drafts notes. I do write the entire story in pencil in a notebook before I type it up. And for novels I write numerous back stories before I even begin the novel. But I don't see how someone writing notes creates an inherently more brilliant, cohesive, or professional piece of work.
Nor do I not see how the discovery one has in the taking of notes is any different from the discovery one has in simply writing the first draft and then editing it over time to perfection. I mean, it took me three years to get my novel to where it is today. Would it somehow be markedly different if instead of writing it and revising it for three years, I instead wrote two years of notes before setting pen to paper?
And last, I'm almost completely sure Poe had an editor, or readers who he trusted to give him advice on his writing. I bet Poe had his 'Aha!' moments when someone pointed out something in his work in its earlier drafts that he himself wasn't even aware of.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the Edgar Allan Poe Society of Baltimore: Poe, Edgar Allan. "The Philosophy of Composition" [Text-02], Grahams Magazine, vol. XXVIII, no. 4, April 1846, 28:163-167. Web.
The essay is both general and specific to Poe's thought processes, planning processes, methods, aesthetics, composition and revision processes, and specific as regards "The Raven."
Poe's other aesthetics texts, essays, and works are also available through the Baltimore Society website, links at the above cited page. Poe published during an era when editors for writers or poets were largely not done; writers knew their materials and tools -- maybe a print shop's proofreader-typsetter might note a few overlooked nondiscretionary grammar faults prior to production, if that.
Writer-poet-critics publicly through similar or same publications acclaimed or disapproved or allowed a weighted proportion of strengths and shortfalls of their contemporaries' works. An unforgivingly brutal crucible's forge. Poe certainly did; again, links available at the above site's page.
The culture of the time was an ongoing, robust, often well-thought out, well-supported, constructive inductive reasoning conversation between contemporaries. The caliber of their discussions reflected long-honored reasoning traditions and persisted from antiquity until the Postmodern age, with a medieval lull.
Recent writers, though more technologically connected, are more socially isolated from meaningful, supportive, influential composition networks due to the Postmodern age socio-cultural revolution. The workshop paradigm was constituted as a studio model during the Postmodern age to replace the prior networks and that abandoned most of the strengths of its forbears and retained most of the shortfalls. Technology destroyed that culture: introduction of mass-market, industrial publication technologies, mostly.
By the way, I don't see an irony between the thread's title and insightful, contributory responses to the thread's central topics. I see an unsatisfiable and ongoing debate, one that arises at Hatrack every eight to twelve weeks and recycles the same tired air -- by unyielding, dissenting factions, and disparagement of the opposing faction, and cognitive dissonance.
quote:Like, what was the original premise of this thread? And yes, the irony here abounds in that a thread called 'But, what it's all about', is having difficultly in projecting what it's actually about.
Are we talking about the process, or are we talking about finished works?
All I did was post some observation by Lubbock, Egri, and moi, and then ask if any would care to comment.
That some took this to be an attack on people who write by the seats of their pants is a misrepresentation that I am happy for them to make; thus displaying their own proclivities. What I am wondering is why some of the contributors to this thread seem so aggrieved by the idea that planning a story before you actually write it is such anathema and stifles so much creativity?
Of course it's about process, what else? The premise isn't that shrouded in obscure meaning.
Phil.
[ February 09, 2015, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, Phil, this seems like some pretty opinionated statements:
quote:Denevius, if one of your characters surprises you, then you don't know enough about them to write a story that includes them.
And this one:
quote:Denevius and TaleSpinner, you are both right in the developmental stages of storytelling; but not in the writing of the story.
And this one:
quote: In my opinion, if, as you sit down to write your story you don't know the purpose of every line and every scene then you are not ready to write.
You don't see why these earlier statements by you rose some eyebrows? And how your last statement actually doesn't seem to reflect these above ones:
quote: What I am wondering is why some of the contributors to this thread seem so aggrieved by the idea that planning a story before you actually write it is such anathema and stifles so much creativity?
As I said, if your process works for you, go for it:
Denevius:
quote:But if the method you're espousing works for you and is getting you the results you want from your audience, go for it! I can't tell you you're wrong if that level of plotting works for you, but I have no interest in it.
I'm not aggrieved in the least. If the process you're espousing works for you, just do it!
But, I guess I did have a problem with how the thread began:
quote:All I did was post some observation by Lubbock, Egri, and moi, and then ask if any would care to comment.
I don't particularly care about Lubbock and Egri, and honestly, in the original post, I didn't see you particularly offering any opinion at all. As I noted, of the 612 words, less than half were yours, and some of yours were the titles and names of authors and books. Your original words amounted to:
quote:I often see this question posed in response to a submission in the Fragments and Feedback forums. Also, in response to a comment made by extrinsic in another post, I've begun reading Percy Lubbock's book The Craft of Fiction.. In analysing and critiquing Tolstoy's War and Peace, he makes this statement:...
...Unless, of course, you start writing stories where you have no idea of what they are actually about or where your final destination will be. I mention this because, in the processing of Editing a 110K novel, I had cause to ask the author what his premise was? My reason was that he had four separate stories masquerading as one. Once I had his answer, That one event does not necessarily define a life, I could advise him that he had to choose between one of two stories and dump the other two--unceremoniously and immediately.
He was left with two, one of which would be hard to write and another almost impossible--it would have meant him writing literature, not YA fiction. But, in my opinion, he was capable of it. He chose the safe path, neither of the two stories with meat in them.
Cowardice? Perhaps. I'll never know because I cancelled the contract for that book. Not because he didn't follow my advice, but because of his refusal to change, a change that would have caused him to kill some of his darlings.
Anyone care to comment?
Phil.
Again, from your words, what were we supposed to comment upon? On a book none of us have read?
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course they're opinionated, they're my opinion. But, to suggest this:
quote:Nor do I not see how the discovery one has in the taking of notes is any different from the discovery one has in simply writing the first draft and then editing it over time to perfection.
Seems to be admitting that a first thought is the best one and why explore new ones when you can edit old ones.
posted
I think this thread has become dysfunctional, with contributors writing not reading.
Phil asks, "What I am wondering is why some of the contributors to this thread seem so aggrieved by the idea that planning a story before you actually write it is such anathema and stifles so much creativity?" I guess "some contribuors" includes me and assuming it does I think I answered the question, Phil, in an earlier post--I did it because I hoped it might be helpful to some, sorry if it wasn't. "Aggrieved" is a bit strong-- but your advice did seem to me overly prescriptive. In offering what I'd call (not an intuitive but) an evolutionary incremental process I hoped to offer an alternative to "plan it in detail then write it".
I thought the topic for the thread was the concept of using a "premise". Then somehow it drifted off into the writing process - which for me is a personal thing.
If "aggrieved" means the appearance of passion, what's wrong with passion for what we're doing and how we do it?
I think that when we start a thread we need to define the topic clearly, and explain it when asked for clarification. When someone wanders off topic, we need to call it politely and for the wanderer to wander back on-topic with grace.
Well for me this topic wasn't a complete waste of time-- although sharing the evolutionary, incremental model I imported from the software industry does seem to have been a waste of time-- because in writing my posts I discovered, yes discovered, that the novel I'm planning, yes planning, has two premises, and thus two intertwined stories, not just the one I started with. Now, where's that round tuit....?
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Seems to be admitting that a first thought is the best one and why explore new ones when you can edit old ones.
With a tired sigh, I say, "Ok."
quote: I thought the topic for the thread was the concept of using a "premise".
But what about premise?
To be honest, I feel like the point of this thread was to post some obscure excerpts to sound intelligent. Not one unique thought was originally offered. Sure, I've been dancing around just coming out and saying it, but there it is.
I feel like a teacher who got a report from a student, and the student copied and pasted from Wikipedia without offering any personal insight into what they actually think of the text.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thought the topic for the thread was the concept of using a "premise".
But what about premise?
No. it wasn't.
The topic is clear: "But, what's it all about?" What's that have to do with premise? A premise is a literary device a writer uses to maintain a consistent narrative thread, it doesn't tell you what a story is about.
It's a simple question, Denevius. What's your story all about? Can you tell me in 10 words or less? If you can't, then you don't understand your story. That's what the thread is about.
quote:I feel like a teacher who got a report from a student, and the student copied and pasted from Wikipedia without offering any personal insight into what they actually think of the text.
Really? And who was it that posted a misquote of Robert Frost? At least I transcribed from an original publication instead of copying and pasting the url of a website that is the purveyor of obviously inaccurate quotes.
posted
Gosh, TaleSpinner, planning? And you say you discovered something? Congrats!
I see no difficulty in having two story premises (not buildings) so long as you can successfully integrate them. Otherwise, you may seriously want to consider either two separate stories or having two primary points of view; two stories in one that collide.
posted
Man, it sure took this thread more than 10 words to explain what it was about.
About that 10 words gimmick...
All that really is is an elevator pitch, a pitch to an agent or editor you bump into in an elevator or some other time and place with limited time to offer to pitch your story.
Does knowing the premise mean knowing or understanding the concept?
I'm stealing this from author Larry Brooks and it can be found at storyfix.com:
"Concept: a story landscape, arena or stage; a notion or proposition, a time or place, a setting or an issue, that is inherently compelling BEFORE you add character and plot. NUMEROUS stories could be told upon such a story landscape.
Premise: a hero with a problem/quest/journey to take, against opposition, with stakes hanging in the balance (on other words, the PLOT)."
I'm currently working on a tale where the premise is "A girl is hunted by through a deserted city." (and look under 10 words!) Overall, a pretty simple premise.
However, that premise is set in a concept that is much larger. The concept for the tale is "What would it be like to be an outdated life form?". Or even better, "What would it be like to be an intelligent but outdated life form?"
Now, I suppose I could try and combine concept and premise into a statement under 10 words. "A vestigial form is hunted by technologically evolved beings." However, I think that loses a bit in translation.
So when you ask what's my story about, I feel like I could give two answers. I could give the premise, or the concept.
Can a story not have a concept? I think so. Can a story not have a premise? Maybe. Would it be better if they were both there? I believe so.
Posts: 823 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, babooher, is your story about fear, isolation, the struggle to survive, the urge to procreate? Or, as is said of humans, is it the reflex action of a super-predator to try and kill anything that threatens its species survival.
The notion of reducing a story down to 10 words is not to buttonhole an editor in a lift, it's to distill all the various competing wants and ideas into a single whole.
Once you know the essential kernel of your story, its ultimate distillation, which must address some aspect of the human condition, then you can you expand upon it to create a coherent whole.
But, that's an opinionated answer; which is obviously mine. I'm not asking you to agree with it, after all, this is commentary, not a gladiatorial contest of ideas. And, I would opine that your premise isn't actually a premise at all; it's more like a nine word synopsis. However, your concept is an appropriate question to ask in order to start a story. As for Larry Brooks' notion of the value of concept, I reject it; both where he places it and the importance he assigns to it. Again, just my opinion.
Phil.
[ February 09, 2015, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: But, babooher, is your story about fear, isolation, the struggle to survive, the urge to procreate? Or, as is said of humans, is it the reflex action of a super-predator to try and kill anything that threatens its species survival.
The notion of reducing a story down to 10 words is not to buttonhole an editor in a lift, it's to distill all the various competing wants and ideas into a single whole.
Phil.
I understood 'premise' as babooher reflected it back, as meaning the equivalent of an elevator speech telling "what the story is about". But if that's wrong, then I am none the wiser and the purpose of the thread has escaped me.
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But, what's it all about" and the central topic is, as Grumpy old guy expressed in the original post, and was overlooked mostly, is unity, as cited from the Lubbock and Egri texts. I've read them. I responded to the post's prompt as such.
"Premise" is a necessary unity feature from Egri's theory. The Poe essay linked above, "The Philosophy of Composition," asserts unity of effect is necessary, a basis of Poe's writing theory. Aristotle, Freytag, Lubbock, Egri, Poe: Larry Brooks, unity of concept -- unity of expression by an identifiable matrix in each's aesthetics texts, Frost too, and our host Orson Scott Card's MICE theory also distinguishable as a matter of unity of milieu, idea, character, and event, with one predominant.
Unity, But, that's what it's about.
Now, we're not supposed to psychoanalytically criticize each other and with good reason -- disunity ensues from misapprehensions and causes harms to personal feelings, and harms to Hatrack. I won't then, though what constitutes psychoanalytical criticism is a fluid set, not only mental state, but the human range of emotional, personality, and identity matrix criteria as well: education, age, maturity, financial status, lifestyle, religion, politics, beliefs, sexual orientation, family life, gender, etc.
I will, however, note that disunity of this discussion postures at or about or over the hard bright line of inappropriate psychoanalysis. Now, if that makes me a hypocrite for psychoanalyzing the overall tenor of this discussion, then I am. The topic of discussion is unity.
I appreciated Grumpy old guy prompting intelligent, open-minded discussion about unity as a narrative theory, and from texts I've studied as bases of unity theories. I am delighted that a prompt of mine led to his study of those texts, more so encouraged and optimistic about his progress on the Poet's Journey from studying those texts.
I'd hoped the discussion would lead to further appreciation of unity as an important feature of narrative skills, for my benefit not least of all. Instead, the discussion was derailed by contributors unfamiliar with the texts, who instead dissented with tired and worn out and impossible-to-argue-against arguments against planned writing, and disparaged posts and excerpts generously offered to familiarize unfamiliar auditors so they might meaningfully participate in the topic discussion.
I do not mean to assert that dissent is a disunity and to be rigorously avoided, only that unity, at least in this instance, of purpose and subject matter, and, overall, harmony demands dissent be topical, reasoned, insightful, open-minded, considerate, and meaningful to the topic at hand.
Yes, I strayed; yeah, I'm a hypocrite, which is one of my trigger buttons I'm least able to cope with when hypocrisy rears its proud green head against me. However, I did not stray far from general writing discussion and as pertains to unity as a writing topic and the prompt of the discussion.
Unity, please.
---
Of note, Lubbock allows ten words to sum a narrative's unity factor. How about one word? The Spanish provincial idiom salao used by Ernest Hemingway in The Old Man and the Sea sums the novella; the meaning is cursed. One word for this thread's topic: Unity.
posted
Nope sorry extrinsic I'm still bemused. And disappointed that the qualifications for entering the discussion (read war and peace or whatever) were not made clear.
I guess I'll leave you and Phil to your elite discussion thread.
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Confusion is impossible to clear up in the face of denial and no justification for further insult.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I may, Kathleen? If I may not, then please feel free to delete this post.
I don’t know whether to laugh or weep. The responses to a simple proposition about what Freytag calls unity of action are both hilarious and appalling. At least it is a comfort to know that Darwin’s theory also applies to other fields, not just staying alive.
I shall gird my loins and brace myself appropriately when I dare to mention significance in storytelling.
And now there are suggestions from extrinsic that someone might be in need of psychoanalysis and someone is in "denial". Is that insulting or what? It's certainly not in the spirit of not criticizing each other that we all signed up for. It abides by the rules, sure, but not their spirit.
I would suggest, Phil, framing the question in clear English, defining whether reading a stack of book is a necessary requirement, as extrinsic appears to mandate, for joining the discussion, and refraining from giving prescriptive advice. Oh, and when someone says something is not clear to them, they're right and they deserve a decent answer. And when they attempt to join in and clarify, why not encourage instead of pouring cold water upon their contribution?
We're all trying to learn here; what happened to mutually supportive encouragement? So when I say that my story in waiting has two premises, not one, please celebrate that new insight with me instead of assuming I'm dumb (I assure you, I'm not) and warning me they might be two stories- patronising prescriptive advice that's uncalled for because it's obvious from the nature of what I thought was a discussion on "premise".
Thanks Kathleen for all your hard work facilitating Hatrack, and thanks for all the learning that Hatrack afforded me: it's now time for me to move on, methinks. I'll return to lurking for now.
So long, and thanks for all the fish, Pat
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
