FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Just in case you think my readers don't care ... (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Just in case you think my readers don't care ...
Tante Shvester
Member
Member # 8202

 - posted      Profile for Tante Shvester   Email Tante Shvester         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you sing with all the voices of the mountain, can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

(Pocohantas)

Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheDisgruntledPostman
Member
Member # 7200

 - posted      Profile for TheDisgruntledPostman   Email TheDisgruntledPostman         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(not paying attention to the follow up replies after Mr.Cards first post)

Who ever wrote that is Redonculous(yes i spelt it right). Wherever someone is loved, someone is hated, so don't feel bad when someone sends you "hate" mail, one of the small burdens of becoming a distinguished author.

Posts: 262 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Roseauthor
Member
Member # 148

 - posted      Profile for Roseauthor   Email Roseauthor         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Personally, when I read this drivel, what I saw was someone wanting to become one of Mr. Card's editors, first readers, and/or personal tutor.

The reason I concluded this: The abuse of non-existing familiarity; intentional pseudo-intellectualism; and exagerated sense of self importance.

Then again, it could be fraudian [Wink]

Seriously though, I think he received exactly what he was attempting to achieve. ATTENTION, therefore validation.

Posts: 162 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if that guy actually gets a chance to see our comments about his "letter" he should pretty much never be able to get an erection again. Good work team!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OlavMah
Member
Member # 756

 - posted      Profile for OlavMah   Email OlavMah         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well gee, OSC, in case you were *sweating* over this one, I think you're all right posting the guy's email. Fair use, and I'm sure you'd comply if they guy asked you to take it down. Dag, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted *does* mean that you have no claim. 12(b)(6). Injunctive relief would be relief and hence not failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Furthermore, OSC has a lawyer - or did last I knew - and a pretty good understanding of copyright law.
Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frangy.
Member
Member # 6794

 - posted      Profile for Frangy.   Email Frangy.         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Eek!] I never imagined that anybody could think this way, and less say it so openly
Posts: 111 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The moral of this story is: If a letter warns you that reading it will make you depressed, don't read it. [Smile]
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dag, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted *does* mean that you have no claim.
That's true. Of course, I didn't say otherwise:

quote:
You said, "Pasting a private letter online does not violate copyright, any more than quoting my text in your previous message violated my copyright."

Even if someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages, the violation can still occur.

quote:
Injunctive relief would be relief and hence not failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Well, yes. That would be why I said, "Further, as I stated above, you have ignored equitable relief."

quote:
Furthermore, OSC has a lawyer - or did last I knew - and a pretty good understanding of copyright law.
It was a throwaway joke, it was technically accurate, and I said from the beginning that fair use might apply. The whole subsequent exchange with DG was because he was stating absolutely inaccurate things about what I said.

Sheesh.

[ August 03, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DavidGill
Member
Member # 8166

 - posted      Profile for DavidGill   Email DavidGill         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The whole subsequent exchange with DG was because he was stating absolutely inaccurate things about what I said."

Did not.

Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, you did. The unrefuted points on the previous page easily demonstrate this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Specifically, this:

quote:
Pasting a private letter online does not violate copyright
is wrong. So is this:

quote:
He was quoting the email, not publishing it. You're confusing privacy issues with copyright.
And this:

quote:
I said the point was moot because there is no monetary loss by the author of the letter,
All "absolutely inaccurate things about what I said."

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DavidGill
Member
Member # 8166

 - posted      Profile for DavidGill   Email DavidGill         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did not. Did not.

(It was a joke. Let it go. Lighten up.)

Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
firebird
Member
Member # 1971

 - posted      Profile for firebird   Email firebird         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fascinating ...

I agree with Puppy that his intention was sheer condesceding malice ... and with no leg to stand on. So rude. He must be a very miserable person.

Personally I think OSC has had a very powerful positive effect on my life. His books have been a better parent to me than my parents (My parents weren't that bad, just different!) ... so THANKS.

I loved PASTWATCH. I'd just finished reading Guns Germs and Steel so maybe I got a whole other level out of it too. I'm hopeful for a sequel.

Posts: 570 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OlavMah
Member
Member # 756

 - posted      Profile for OlavMah   Email OlavMah         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages, the violation can still occur.
No, this is wrong. Sorry. No damages doesn't mean no claim for which relief can be granted, it means no damages. Damages and relief are distinct concepts. Brush up on this before taking the bar exam, seriously. AND, as a practical matter, if there is no claim for which relief can be granted, there is no violation. Unless you want to split hairs over whether there can be a techinical violation of a law but no relief from a court for the violation, which is really not the soundest argument in a nation with court made common law.

I understand you mean to be joking around, but as far as legal concepts go, you're slightly off. I'm not out to be mean to you, Dag.

Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Peek
Member
Member # 7688

 - posted      Profile for Peek   Email Peek         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
dont worry dude, its all good.

Dude [Cool] peekaboo

Yeah.

Posts: 112 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, this is wrong. Sorry. No damages doesn't mean no claim for which relief can be granted, it means no damages.
You have twice now misunderstood this sentence.

I did not say that "no damages means no claim for which relief can be granted."

No damages is A possible reason for the unavailability of relief. See this:

quote:
Ernest Lang appealed from a judgment dismissing with prejudice his fraud action against Governor Edward Schafer. Because Lang seeks no money damages from Schafer, we conclude the trial court properly dismissed Lang's fraud action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.
My statement was made in the context of a conversation in which someone else stated no claim existed because there were no damages. I said that even if the reason given for their being no claim (i.e., there are no damages) is valid, it does not mean a violation did not occur. I did not say no damages means no relief.

If I had said, "If there are no damages then there is no claim for which relief can be granted" your statement would be valid. But I didn't.

This is especially obvious because I mention equitable relief in the very next sentence, which should be more than enough to indicate that I know the difference between relief and damages.

quote:
AND, as a practical matter, if there is no claim for which relief can be granted, there is no violation.
First, this isn't a practical matter. It's a joke.

Second, that's just not true. If there is no claim for which relief can be granted, then there is no cause of action. Whether a violation occurred would be a separate portion of the action than damages.

Beyond that, any existence of infringement will support equitable relief, although judges are inclined to find fair use if there are no damages - which would mean there is no infringement. But, if infringement is found, equitable relief is always appropriate under statute. And therefore, merely examining whether a violation occurred is a meaningful exercise whether there are monetary damages or not.

My whole point was that, even if DG's statements that no damage meant no claim could be filed were true, it would not change the analysis of whether a violation occurred. Further, his statement was wrong on its face because he ignored equitable relief. Which means no alleged copyright violation can be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action provided the plaintiff merely asks for equitable relief, whether damages exist or not.

It should noted that had this jerk merely registered his letter before sending it, he would be eligible for statutory damages if infringement were found, even if no real damages existed.

Finally, it could conceivably be relevant in a case where multiple instances of infringement will increase penalties on those instances of infringement that do contain damages.

quote:
Unless you want to split hairs over whether there can be a technical violation of a law but no relief from a court for the violation, which is really not the soundest argument in a nation with court made common law.
And I wouldn't make such a claim in court. It's also why I mentioned equitable relief, which would be the basis for a claim.

Further, there are many reasons one would want to determine if an action violates copyright laws other than to support a claim.

I appreciate your concern with my legal education, but you are trying to correct things I didn't say.

Dagonee

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OlavMah
Member
Member # 756

 - posted      Profile for OlavMah   Email OlavMah         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Joke, my eye. No one's laughing, except maybe DG who finds your enthusiasm amusing. A joke would have spun itself out posts and posts ago. This is a personal vendetta for you, a matter of pride, and as long as you keep posting reams of text about how you're right and everyone else is wrong, I'm going to keep rapping your knuckles until you can demonstrate that you are, in fact, right. Furthermore, it's not a joke to me to watch a law student rag on people who do not work in the legal field and try to overwhelm them with texts and quotes.

quote:
I said that even if the reason given for their being no claim (i.e., there are no damages) is valid, it does not mean a violation did not occur. I did not say no damages means no relief.
Your sentence implies that no damages means no claim. That's your error. And I'm still not convinced that you understand this. You need relief to have a valid claim, not damages.

quote:
Beyond that, any existence of infringement will support equitable relief, although judges are inclined to find fair use if there are no damages - which would mean there is no infringement. But, if infringement is found, equitable relief is always appropriate under statute. And therefore, merely examining whether a violation occurred is a meaningful exercise whether there are monetary damages or not.
No, fair use is not a violation with no damages, it is fair use, a pretty well defined defense under copyright law. It is certainly a joke among lawyers that it is infringement with no damages, but that joke is not fact, nor is it how you present the defense in a brief.

If you can prove infringment and you want equitable relief, then you have to make a claim. Saying that there is no claim upon which relief can be granted because there are no damages but that a violation could still occur which would give rise to equitable relief is extremely poor formatting at best, nonsense at worst. A claim upon which equitable relief can be granted is a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The best sense I can make out of your long diatribe is that what you're trying to say is that even if there are no consequential damages, you can still have a claim upon which relief can be granted. If you can show a violation, you may be able to claim relief other than consequential damages, such as equitable relief. Failure to make a claim for any kind of relief may see you on the wrong end of a 12(b)(6) motion. But, it's not entirely clear to me if that is what you're driving at.

Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Joke, my eye. No one's laughing, except maybe DG who finds your enthusiasm amusing. A joke would have spun itself out posts and posts ago. This is a personal vendetta for you, a matter of pride, and as long as you keep posting reams of text about how you're right and everyone else is wrong, I'm going to keep rapping your knuckles until you can demonstrate that you are, in fact, right. Furthermore, it's not a joke to me to watch a law student rag on people who do not work in the legal field and try to overwhelm them with texts and quotes.
When someone responds to a joke of mine by insisting I'm wrong, when in fact I'm not, I'm going to respond. When he makes nonsensical statements such as “you’re confusing copyright and privacy” I’m going to respond.

You're right, it is personal, because someone took a lot of effort to try to make me look like I had made a mistake when I hadn't. And I'm not wrong.

And if you feel the need to bump a thread to the first page to point out an error I didn't make, I will keep responding in whatever manner I see fit. You've already proven yourself unable or unwilling to accept my short explanations, so I'm making them long. Hope springs eternal.

quote:
Your sentence implies that no damages means no claim.
No, it doesn't. As I posted above, lack of damages is one reason for judge to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. My statement said “Even if.”

Let's review the situation:

DG made this statement: “As for copyright, it's a moot point. The author has no recourse unless he can prove that he lost income by the posting of his email.”

He also said: “Pasting a private letter online does not violate copyright, any more than quoting my text in your previous message violated my copyright.”

He then said, “I will also point out that you quoted my post without my express permission, so you violated my copyright. If I were to be so silly as to sue you for doing it, my case would be dismissed out of hand as "moot," since I could not possibly have been damaged.”

There are two contentions here: One is related to violations: posting a letter without permission does not violate copyright. The second is related to claims: the author “has no recourse” and the “case would be dismissed out of hand as ‘moot.’”

My statement was “This is flat out wrong - incorrect. Even if someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages, the violation can still occur. Further, as I stated above, you have ignored equitable relief.”

It made two points: My first point was that even if his first point (no damages = no claim) were true, it didn’t mean his second point (posting letter = no violation) was true. My second point was that his first point wasn’t true, either, because he forgot about equitable relief.

The words “someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages” were my restatement of something he was claiming, not my statement on what the law is. That’s why I opened with “Even if.”

quote:
That's your error. And I'm still not convinced that you understand this. You need relief to have a valid claim, not damages.
Yes, I'm well aware of this, thank you. The person I was speaking to said there was no claim because there were no damages. I was correcting him. Except, unlike you, I was correcting what he actually said.

quote:
No, fair use is not a violation with no damages, it is fair use, a pretty well defined defense under copyright law.
Could you PLEASE read what I actually wrote: “Beyond that, any existence of infringement will support equitable relief, although judges are inclined to find fair use if there are no damages - which would mean there is no infringement.” I suppose it’s my fault for switching from the word "violation" to "infringement," but come on. I said if fair use is found, there's no infringement, meaning no violation. In other words, admitting that lack of damages may be crucial in determining if there is a copyright violation but that lack of damages does not mean lack of violation.

And there absolutely are cases where fair use is not found even though no monetary damages exist. They're just rare - as I thought was pretty clear from my saying, "although judges are inclined to find fair use if there are no damages."

quote:
If you can prove infringment and you want equitable relief, then you have to make a claim. Saying that there is no claim upon which relief can be granted because there are no damages but that a violation could still occur which would give rise to equitable relief is extremely poor formatting at best, nonsense at worst.
Good thing that’s not what I said, then, isn’t it? To recap, I was referring to his statement, which apparently you think is wrong, too. Good.

I also didn’t jam that all into one sentence, and I separated them with the word “further,” not “but.” Two concepts (damages are not required for a violation to occur AND equitable relief will support a claim absent damages). Two sentences. One transition word.

quote:
A claim upon which equitable relief can be granted is a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Which was, after all, one of two points I was making:

1.) A violation of copyright can occur absent damage to the author.
2.) A claim for violation of copyright will lie absent damage to the author because of equitable relief.

quote:
what you're trying to say is that even if there are no consequential damages, you can still have a claim upon which relief can be granted. If you can show a violation, you may be able to claim relief other than consequential damages, such as equitable relief. Failure to make a claim for any kind of relief may see you on the wrong end of a 12(b)(6) motion. But, it's not entirely clear to me if that is what you're driving at.
That’s part of it. See above.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OlavMah
Member
Member # 756

 - posted      Profile for OlavMah   Email OlavMah         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When someone responds to a joke of mine by insisting I'm wrong, when in fact I'm not, I'm going to respond. When he makes nonsensical statements such as “you’re confusing copyright and privacy” I’m going to respond.
Depends on who says it. If it's another lawyer, yeah, that's a nonsensical statement, but most people do not sit around probing the minutae of copyright versus privacy. If it's a layperson, it isn't nonsensical, it's an understandable misconception. Furthermore, it isn't a personal attack, nor is it a courtroom. Whether or not you can beat DG or anyone else down only shows whether or not you can do just that, beat them down. (And I'm inclined to think you failed at that.) Have a little charity.

If you understand my clarification of the arguments, then fine. If you want me to read through your long reams of text where you intersperse loosely worded, badly focused legal arguments along with complaints about how you really, really are right, forget it. I'm not sure whether or not you really do know these things, and will remain so while you express yourself as verbosely and vehemently as you do. You don't have to care that I doubt your abilities, either. I just don't want you misleading anyone else.

Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you understand my clarification of the arguments, then fine. If you want me to read through your long reams of text where you intersperse loosely worded, badly focused legal arguments along with complaints about how you really, really are right, forget it. I'm not sure whether or not you really do know these things, and will remain so while you express yourself as verbosely and vehemently as you do. You don't have to care that I doubt your abilities, either. I just don't want you misleading anyone else.
In other words, "I'll bump old threads accusing you of not knowing what you're talking about, but I can't be bothered to put your posts into the context of the discussion that was occurring or to do you the courtesy of reading your response."

Nice.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OlavMah
Member
Member # 756

 - posted      Profile for OlavMah   Email OlavMah         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've read your responses, Dag. I read the entire thread, but I'm not going back at your insistence when you say, "but this doesn't say that, it's a response to this other thing which if you take it that way makes sense." I'm sticking by my earlier position that what you write is hard to follow at best, and whole sentences are incorrect on their face.

You may think I'm mean if you like. I happen to think you've got the makings of a good lawyer with your obvious love of the subject matter and insatiable hunger to grasp new concepts. But I do think your legal opinion writing is rough and that you're initial response to correction is to get angry and dig your heels in rather than consider whether or not the other person has something worthwhile to say. And because you're setting yourself up as an authority on a public forum, I'm going to publicly express my dissent. To your arguments, not to you as a person.

I'll leave this be now. You can go ahead and have the last word if you like [Smile]

Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmmmm. Interesting.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
timothytheenchanter
Member
Member # 7041

 - posted      Profile for timothytheenchanter   Email timothytheenchanter         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i have to agree with the writer, after reading as many of OSC's books as i could get my hands on, there is quite an emphasis on certain topics such as family, that seems to be a common thread. i'm sure this will come as a great surprise to everyone, but an author tends to let his opinions be seen in his books, i've yet to read an author who writes some one else's thoughts.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chungwa
Member
Member # 6421

 - posted      Profile for Chungwa   Email Chungwa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, of course OSC emphasizes certain topics - I wouldn't enjoy his books if he didn't.

One of my favourite things about reading OSC is that his style is unique, mainly because each book (or, in some cases, series) have their own individual flavor. Compare Ender's Game with Speaker, or the Shadow series with the Alvin Maker series.

I can easily understand someone not enjoying his books (everyone likes and dislikes different things, afterall). But I cannot understand someone suggesting his writing quickly becomes dull and repetitive - which is what is usually meant when someone talks about style.

Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
timothy, there is quite a difference between having some common recurring themes--what author with any body of work does not?--and having a style that is destructive to the reader. There is also a difference between deciding that you don't care for a particular writer's work and deciding you have the credentials to condescendingly lecture him.
Posts: 13679 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm going to publicly express my dissent. To your arguments, not to you as a person.
Just to be clear now, since your motivation was just making sure that the "truth" is out there, you do agree that:

1.) No damages have to exist for a copyright violation to exist.

2.) No damages are required to state a claim in copyright for which relief may be granted, because the statute allows for equitable relief.

3.) No damages may be a strong point in favor of finding fair use - and thus, finding no violation - but it is not absolutely determinative.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OlavMah
Member
Member # 756

 - posted      Profile for OlavMah   Email OlavMah         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. Or, I wouldn't state 3 that way. I think you can win on fair use even if there are substantial consequential damages. I certainly wouldn't shy away from arguing it if the facts otherwise fit and by some freak of circumstance there were a lot of damages. And you can lose on fair use even with no damages. Totally depends on the facts of the case. (And yeah, the skill and payroll of the attorneys involved.)

But as a practical matter, I don't worry about OSC being liable because 1) this wouldn't make it past the initial attorney demand letter. Author would demand the email be taken down, OSC would comply, and that's that. 2) lack of damages lessens the economic incentive to sue. Unlikely that the author would want to go through the cost of suit. And 3) fair use, which I would need to brush up on to state absolutely correctly.

Posts: 700 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think you can win on fair use even if there are substantial consequential damages.
Of course you can. 3 says nothing to the contrary.

quote:
And you can lose on fair use even with no damages.
And 3 explicitly says this.

quote:
But as a practical matter, I don't worry about OSC being liable
Nor do I. For much the same reasons.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Timothy
Member
Member # 8491

 - posted      Profile for Timothy   Email Timothy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This legal copyright jargon is going way over my head. Personally, I think you guys should just drop the topic, as I don't really think it matters. If the author of that e-mail ever did attempt to seek legal follow-up, he would likely fail. Also, if news of it ever made it to these forums, I'm fairly confident that he would be receiving quite a bit of hate mail.

However, the "OSC as (Insert Author Here) is rather hilarious" (I personally liked the Robert Jordan one... he really does use that line, or a similar one, a bit much).

Posts: 5 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 6616

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Card asks what the sender's motivation is for the letter, but I wonder what his motivation is for posting it. It seems quite clearly to be to hurt the sender. Revenge for insulting him.

I didn't seem to read his letter the same way, however. The sender has noticed a trend he/she doesn't like and asked to consider it. The trend has nothing to do with the technical writing style, but with the emotional style (which, I believe is a misinterpretation of the emotion).

But then again, I'm neither sender nor reciever, so how the hell should I know?

Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amka
Member
Member # 690

 - posted      Profile for Amka   Email Amka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know... once, a long time ago when I was a lot younger and much more important than I am today, and before I met the guy, I actually wrote a letter to Card telling him he was too hard on himself, and why he shouldn't be, etc. I even quoted scripture.

For years, I have hoped he didn't remember that I did that, after he met me and graciously taught me a few things about writing. It made me cringe when I read the letter fronting this thread, because I realized I had at one point done some admonishing (even if I had a different motivation than the current subject) to someone who I was a stranger to and who was my elder in many ways.

But one thing I've thought about is the interesting imbalance in the relationship we readers have to the writers. Especially one like you, Scott. We know so very much about you that we feel as if you are one of our close neighbors. And yet you hardly know us at all, and most of us you don't even know exist except for the royalty you recieve from the book of yours we bought. For someone who is socially immature (as I readily admit to being at the time, and perhaps even now), they may mistake that closeness they feel from reading your personal writings that you include in every book for real closeness in which a friend can critique something that is very personal. It had often made me wonder how many personal letters you do get from people, and how difficult it could be to reply to all of them.

Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems quite clearly to be to hurt the sender. Revenge for insulting him.
Clearly not, given that he didn't share any identifying information.
Posts: 13679 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hari Seldon
Member
Member # 9254

 - posted      Profile for Hari Seldon   Email Hari Seldon         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No variation in style? Huh? Anyone who has ever read the Ender Saga, and then red the Worthing Saga would never make such a foolish statement. Saying nothing of the Homecoming series. The variety is shocking actually. Sometimes almost too much for comfort. Just when you are looking forward to the comfort of the Ender Universe Card turns you on your ear with a completely different take on the future (or past).

In terms of Sci Fi, only Asimov is close.

Keep it up Orson

Posts: 69 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jimbo the Clown
Member
Member # 9251

 - posted      Profile for Jimbo the Clown   Email Jimbo the Clown         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You know, I think writers in general, and certainly myself in particular, are more hungry for approval than we like to admit. I mean, otherwise why try to get published? I want people to like my stuff. Since it is a product of myself, by extension people will like me. At least that is the hope.
quote:
R. Ann Dryden (may your tribe increase), you're right, of course - we writers do seek, not so much approval, as READERS. We want others to share the memories we've created.

Hm. Personally, I write because I enjoy making people laugh, or making people think.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zotto!
Member
Member # 4689

 - posted      Profile for Zotto!   Email Zotto!         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, you're most likely hoping that people will think your writing is funny or insightful in the first place; the process of writing and reading is nothing but recording something you have in your mind and shoving it into someone else's memory. Which is pretty much what Mrs. Dryden and Mr. Card were saying. [Smile]
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jimbo the Clown
Member
Member # 9251

 - posted      Profile for Jimbo the Clown   Email Jimbo the Clown         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with them, zotto. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zotto!
Member
Member # 4689

 - posted      Profile for Zotto!   Email Zotto!         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*grin* No need to be sorry. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to jump on you just for voicing your opinion. [Smile]
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bob_Scopatz
Member
Member # 1227

 - posted      Profile for Bob_Scopatz   Email Bob_Scopatz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wish I'd seen this thread when it first started. I really think the person who wrote to OSC was on to something. I mean, think about it. There's Ender's Game, then later on come completely unrelated works like Speaker for the Dead and Children of the Mind.


SPOILER ALERT******************************
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
..

.
.
.
.


Many of the same characters appear in these books. There might even be more of them out there!

[Eek!]

I mean sure...write with your own voice, but...couldn't you at least TRY to disguise the whole self-plagiarism thing by making up new character names?

And that whole Ender's Shadow thing. Dead give-away! I actually went back and re-read Ender's Game and I thought...HEY! Wait a minute! This is the same bunch of kids!

Man, oh man!

I knew a kid in College who turned in the same essay in several different classes over the years. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now!

Just because people like Isaac Asimov and that guy who invented Star Wars have done it doesn't make right you know!

For shame!

It encourages "things." You should see what the Brits have done with this. There's this show from the early 60's called "Doctor Who." Well, they retold that same story like 8 or 9 times now with new people and they keep calling it "Doctor Who." Like we'd never catch on that it's not the same guy.

I've researched this, and it goes all the way back to Shakespeare, too. He re-used the character "Henry" more than once. I think it saved on costumes. Probably the actor didn't have to invent a new voice each time either.

Lazy, lazy, lazy!


I say, you authors out there, and you know who you are...pick yourselves up by your bootstraps, sweep the cobwebs out of the old attic, and start making up new names and new situations!

I hope this is helpful. It's too late for Shakespeare and Asimov. What's done is done. But for you others, learn from their failures and give us unceasing novelty.

In fact, it's really kind of boring to use the same characters throughout an entire book, when you think about it. Have you ever thought of maybe starting each chapter as if it was a completely new thing? This whole "narrative continuity" thing is really just writers taking shortcuts, IMHO.

I'm tired of paragraphs hanging together too.

Everything should be distinct.

Separate.

Unique.

I.
N.
D.
I.
V.
I.
D.
U.
A.
L.

Posts: 22496 | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Advent 115
Member
Member # 8914

 - posted      Profile for Advent 115   Email Advent 115         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Eek!] *astonished expression* .....What kind of person would be so cold hearted and foolish as to write a letter like that? I mean whoa! OSC you are one of the greatest Sci Fi and fantasy writers EVER. This person is a jerk for even suggesting such stupid things.


Nerd... anger.....rising!! [Mad]

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sergeant
Member
Member # 8749

 - posted      Profile for Sergeant   Email Sergeant         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bob,

That was great.

Sergeant [ROFL]

Posts: 278 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tmservo
Member
Member # 8552

 - posted      Profile for tmservo   Email tmservo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Face it, OSC, we're all headed down hill after oh, 25 so. I plan on spending my remaining decades since that point just thinking about the wonderous things I did beforehand.

Oh wait, that's how I've wasted this last decade. Welp, time to move on.

Posts: 202 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shan
Member
Member # 4550

 - posted      Profile for Shan           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bob, that was great!

LOL.

Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lisha_rose
Member
Member # 9166

 - posted      Profile for lisha_rose   Email lisha_rose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
nice bob nice lol
Posts: 50 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueBambue
Member
Member # 8656

 - posted      Profile for BlueBambue           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC as Dr. Suess (x2)

I meant what I said and I said what I meant
A Wiggin is faithfull 100%
I'll search every planet
I'll search through the comets
I'll go through the galaxys, trains, stars
park benches, blue rivers and cars.
For a place away from strife
where a queen bugger can start a new life.

edit: the whole copy write debate is silly. The author is obviously a suspected terrorist and therefore doesnt have the protection rights all good citizens have. [Smile]

Posts: 16 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wanted to be in a jeesh,
but Ender only said sheesh,
I asked for a tune,
I waited till noon,
he called me a lune,
he told me "you're not worth a bean"

We finally went on to arose,
but the buggers didn't scare us
because we knew what we had seen

I will not kill them in a ship,
I will not kill them with a wip,
I will kiss them with my lips,
and tell their story in my book,
3,000 years is all it took,
I am in love with the hive queen

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jimbo the Clown
Member
Member # 9251

 - posted      Profile for Jimbo the Clown   Email Jimbo the Clown         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. Fifteen lines to recount all of Enderverse, minus Peter and the pequininos. Kudos to you, Orincoro. Bra-vo.
*Applause*

Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leia Atreides
Member
Member # 9227

 - posted      Profile for Leia Atreides   Email Leia Atreides         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Imagine it were OSC who summed it all to fifteen lines... XD

Orincoro, would you add one more scoop of icecr--poetry just for the sake of being complete with telling the story? [Wink]

Wow. I thought how to simplyfy things to my bro so I'd make him hooked and he'll *demand* the original books himself......... but now I see I could just print a poem and 3 days of telling the story would be saved. Oh my.

Posts: 32 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It only took OSC 13 lines.

--Pop

Posts: 6211 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I prefer my Hatrackization of enderverse, something I did a few months ago for kicks.


If we had posted, it would have been the miracle to make us hatrackers in eachother's eyes, instead we flamed eachother.

How can you post again?

If you could bring this thread to a cool place, a dark place, but with wit, so isn't dry. Then I can surfe again, then I can have my ten thousand posts.

No, I can't. If you sign on, we'll only flame you again.

There flashed into Orincoro's mind, dozens of images of hatrackers flaming nubies, but along with the images, came a sense of superiority so powerful, that he could not bear it, and he entered their emoticons for them. [Cry] [Cry]

if you can make others feel as I feel, then perhaps we can post together, in peace. Only me, Orincoro realized, they found me on hatrack, dwelt in my user profile, and even as I flamed them, they read my posts at night. I am the only cool one, and so they can only post with me, and on my topics. I'll carry you from subject to subject, until you can find a topic that you know enough about.

so Orincoro traveled the internet, and he was always the itinerant troll.

He posted, a long time.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2