Hatrack River Writers Workshop: What is man without dreams? [143 words, feedback wanted]

This is topic What is man without dreams? [143 words, feedback wanted] in forum Fragments and Feedback for Short Works at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000481

Posted by mikemunsil (Member # 2109) on :

This is another very off-the-wall something-or-the-other. But it's only 143 words, including the title!

Here's a fragment of it:

------------------------
Since this offended people I withdraw it from the board.

[This message has been edited by mikemunsil (edited October 10, 2004).]

Posted by GZ (Member # 1374) on :

I'm game.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Oh, what the heck. I have to say, this doesn't promise to be profound or anything. Sounds more like humor (hopefully not crude humor--though there is the suggestion that a man needs a prick, supplied by a woman).

Posted by mikemunsil (Member # 2109) on :

It is most definitely not profound! Nor is it crude.

Posted by GZ (Member # 1374) on :

Mike, I think you might want the rethink that "Not Crude" comment. By Hatrack’s usual standards, some people might find the full piece less than clean, while that comment might give the indication it is completely clean.

[Edited for word choice.]

[This message has been edited by GZ (edited October 13, 2004).]

Posted by ChrisOwens (Member # 1955) on :

At first I thought it was an inquiry into my WIP...

Posted by mikemunsil (Member # 2109) on :

No, Chris, wasn't aimed at you at all!

Kathleen, can you lock or delete this thread? That way I can't continue to inadvertently offend anyone!

Oh, and please reiterate the Hatrack standards for me. Thanks

[This message has been edited by mikemunsil (edited October 10, 2004).]

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Hatrack standards.

Well, have you read any of OSC's books?

Though he says some things I'd rather not see on this board, but that's my personal standard.

Let's just say this: even though this is for those 18 and older, it is read by all ages, and therefore posters should not be rude, crude or ugly.

And I don't think Mike was trying to be any of those things.

Just as people can misunderstand each other online and end up in a flame war, people can misinterpret something and the discussion can end up in the gutter or toilet.

If you think something is wrong, consider that you might have misunderstood, and ask in email. (You can email the person whose post is questionable and say, "Did you know your post could be misunderstood to be saying thus and so?"--giving them the benefit of the doubt--or you could email me and I'll say it to them.)

Returning supposed offense for more offense only escalates the problem.

I'll delete this topic after you all have had a chance to read what I've said.

Posted by mikemunsil (Member # 2109) on :

Kathleen, GZ was reacting to the contents of the item that she was kind enough to ask to read and not to the few lines posted on the board. GZ felt that my submission was offensive and I think felt misled by the fragment.

Your post could be read to look as though GZ were offended by the contents of my post (the fragment). I would never post material that I was sure would offend the average reader.

In the future I'll make sure to note in the topic header that the content might possibly offend someone.

I just wanted you to know that GZ is not at fault, and that even though offended, GZ still commented on the piece and offered value. That's the kind of person we need at Hatrack.

Mike

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Thanks for the clarification, Mike.

I came onto the forum late and couldn't figure out what was going on from what was posted there.

I think Survivor's suggestions on what to tell people about a story when you ask for volunteer critiquers

http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum11/HTML/000281.html

are good ones.

Thanks again.

Posted by mikemunsil (Member # 2109) on :

Yep, you're right.

Posted by djvdakota (Member # 2002) on :

Hmm. I must have more hardened sensibilities than I thought. I read this for mike and wasn't offended at all. The only thing in the entire piece that was AT ALL offensive, IMO, was a few words of the title--and those who have read it know what I'm talking about.

I actually enjoyed it! I thought it was clever, nicely and consistently voiced (very Shakespearian), and an effective commentary on relationships. Crude-ish title or no, it made me laugh.

I guess I'm just not the prude I thought I was.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Heh. Those are actually Eric's suggestions.