posted
Yes, we ask that you only post the first 13 lines, and we've given reasons for that.
We've also tried to explain how posting your first 13 lines in the Fragments sections can be of help to you with your writing.
So maybe we need to discuss why even bother posting anything here on the forum.
I offer the following as reasons you may have, and I'm asking for feedback on whether, and how if yes, posting has been of any use or help to you.
1 (and foremost?) -- to get others to offer to read your completed manuscript draft and give you feedback on it via email
2 -- to get others to tell you if they would read on ("turn the page")
3 -- to provide a specific look at your opening and learn (from feedback) what works and what doesn't about it, as well as how it does or does not give "hook"-ish clues about the rest of the manuscript
4 (not a good use in my opinion) -- to test an idea and see if the rest of the story is worth writing (having something finished is better than mucking around with potential first 13 lines)
5 -- respond immediately to any and all feedback and try to make the first 13 lines perfect (hah! not possible) before writing anything else (really not a good use in my opinion)
So, why do you post in the Fragments and Feedback sections, how has posting and feedback helped you, and how can we do a better job of helping you with your writing through these sections?
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, why do you post in the Fragments and Feedback sections,
The response sounds flippant, but it's not meant to be. But since there are no other options to post at, I post in the fragments and feedback sections.
quote: how has posting and feedback helped you,
Writing exercises in general help, though with everything else in life, it depends on what you can take from it on a personal level. However, as I have stated more than once, the openings I post on Hatrack have at times not been the true openings of a story because on Hatrack, I learned what the general response will be (and they usually are the same), and so I post an opening that will limit those particular responses.
As Matt noted:
quote: I think it can encourage certain bad habits both of critique and writing. On the critique side it encourages nitpicking, pet peevery, critiquing an imagined manuscript rather than the page in front of you, and stylistic priggishness. On the writing end it can encourage overwrought prose where writers actually need to think about streamlining.
To answer this second part of the question:
quote: how can we do a better job of helping you with your writing through these sections?
This is tricky. As Lamberguesa noted:
quote:While we're at it, I suppose it'd be worth mentioning that my first impression of the forums was that they look very dated. So much so that I had to double check the time stamps on a few posts to convince myself that people were still active here. Maybe it's not a huge deal. I can understand why forums such as these don't need all the bells and whistles like avatars and signatures and pictures and hyperlinks and the like. Still it seems very silly that Kathleen can't even make a topic "sticky" at the top. This is pretty standard for most forums. Even the visual aspect of the sight may be offputting for potential new members.
This is a very simply designed workshopping website. There's nothing wrong with that, but it does limit the type of ways to control the submissions process beyond the 13 line requirement.
You won't know if people are just posting fragments that may or may not even be an opening just to get a response to their writing. You won't know if they finish the first draft of the story first. There is no point system, so people can post without having to read and respond to anyone else. There's no in-site contests (which I have found to be an excellent way at increasing participation), there's no notifications of writing contests in general. There's no active publication submissions notifications.
Every time I hear of a workshopping website, I join, and yes, there have been several that died out completely. Though I've been an active participant of this site for the last three years, I first joined under a different email/name back in 2008, looked around, and moved on before I thought of it again in 2011. It's a very lowkey site that does little to encourage participation. Without a more complicated website in general, this won't change.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite simply, I post in hopes of getting a better idea of how to improve my work and write an opening that will get someone to read further.
I do not yet have a completed (as in finished) manuscript and have decided not to continue revising my current fragment until that is accomplished. However, even without it, the comments have helped me understand where my story is going as a whole and what I ought to focus on to get it there.
I don't know if I necessarily agree that it is wrong to just post an opening to get critiques. At what point should a story be considered ready for a full read-through? After the first draft? Half-way through? When the author feels it is as good as it possibly could be? I've only been here a short time and I can understand how this might be abused especially when the intended purpose is not being accomplished. I just enjoy reading openings regardless
One question I have (and please let me know if this is the wrong place to ask it) is why don't we have a place to post story outlines? That might help get people more involved in the writing process and interested in a story someone is working on. Could it be because it's too difficult to regulate and hard to draw the line between outline and the actual story?
posted
Kathleen wrote, "why do you post in the Fragments and Feedback sections, how has posting and feedback helped you [..]?"
As a direct result of Hatrack involvement I have one 1000 word story ("AI Robot") published at FFO, 7 short stories in final draft and three shorts that I plan to turn into novels. (All my SF writing has been on the backburner for two or three years because developing a professional jazz guitar act and writing a technical book have taken precedence.)
FWIW here's a summary of one aspiring SF&F author's positive experiences of Hatrack at an earlier, more vibrant time.
FFO (a professional market recognized by SFWA) features strongly because its then editor Jake, and its current editor Suzanne, activly participated at Hatrack, as did several of its slush readers. http://flashfictiononline.com/main/
Here's a selection of threads which illustrate the dynamic at that time. I found the crits hugely valuable because they came from people who clearly were interested in SF&F, respected Hatracks PG-ish rating and were representative of the range of tastes of my target audience - SF&F readers.
Meatloaf of the Apocalypse was notable because Deb eventually sold her story, a few others and her first novel, to another editor who at that time participated actively at Hatrack. The thread was associated, somehow, with a challenge organized by IB from which I too got a decent short story. http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbwriters/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002744#000004
Finally, for any Hatracker with a bit of spare time, I'd recommend hosting a challenge. Anyone who ran a challenge let themselves in for a whole chunk of work, but I think we'd all agree we learned something from the organising, and from working with a dozen or so enthusiastic colleagues. Here are a couple of threads from one I organized - with the invaluable assistance of "The Voice from Afar":
Thanks, Hatrack - and Kathleen for your sensitive moderation of what can sometimes be a challenging forum and was, then, vibrant, energising and, frankly, for me a life-changer.
quote:Originally posted by Lamberguesa: One question I have (and please let me know if this is the wrong place to ask it) is why don't we have a place to post story outlines? That might help get people more involved in the writing process and interested in a story someone is working on.
ANSWER: We do have a place to post story outlines. Outlines, synopses, proposals, query letters, and other such things are more than welcome in the Fragment and Feedback sections, and (tada!) they are not restricted to the 13 line rule.
So please, Please, PLEASE, PLEASE!!! feel free to post such things in the Fragments sections.
Note to self: try again to find a way to remind people that they can post outlines, etc. in the Fragments sections.
[ October 23, 2014, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Kathleen Dalton Woodbury ]
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recently, a fellow hatracker who had critiqued a piece of mine contacted me about a publication he thought I should submit the story he saw of mine on here. I did, and the story was accepted.
Even more recently, I reached out to a different hatracker and mentioned a place I had seen asking for submissions that I thought would be good for his work. He submitted and was accepted.
Networking here has been good for me and others. I recommend it to everyone I know who writes genre fiction.
Posts: 823 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpret the thread title question two ways; one, why post fragments; two, why post any old thing.
The first, because I test audience appeal. A writer mostly looks for a focus group among writers to comment on strengths and weaknesses, what works and what doesn't for any given reader as writer. Writers appreciate conventions, clichés, glitches, etc., general readers are unaware of as well as strengths like emotional engagement, close distance, craft aspects, again, general readers are unaware of.
When I post a fragment, focus group insights are what I look for. And measured, proportionate strength and weakness commentary.
Two, I don't post any old thing, raw draft, or trunk story that has weaknesses I can spot. I post fragments to test how well concepts I practice succeed at their intended reader effect. Lately and for a while, the focus of my writing has been suitable distance development through use of stream-of-consciousness methods: third person limited to one viewpoint agonist psychic access, close distance. I'm also working on setting the dramatic action into forward motion from the outset, along a lively roller-coaster track.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once upon a time, I posted here a lot because this was where I came when I originally began learning how to write. I posted for feedback because I didn't know where else to get it.
I haven't posted much in recent years because I've pulled back a lot from social writing media -- not out of distaste, but because I only have so much energy to engage my writing career, and I'm focussed on spending as much of it actually writing as possible.
This is a wonderful place for feedback and networking, even if you take a step back for a while.
Posts: 500 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I logged in under a different nickname when I first started writing in 2005. It's almost 2015 and all those years, my only goal has been to write a story so I can post my First 13 Lines in Fragments & Feedback. This place is like a rite of passage for me.
This is the most professional forum I've ever been to. That's why I keep coming. Here is where I would love to make my story better.
But it looks like a dying forum to an outsider. I agree with what others have said, this place looks dated. I know of no other website that has stayed the same for so long. Maybe this staleness in design is a symptom of staleness in other areas.
I visit reddit daily. The quality of the posts is, on a regular day, worse than the quality of the posts I used to see here. I'm not stupid, I know this place is great. But reddit is much more engaging from a user perspective. I see new people every day, I see new stories posted everyday (whole stories, to my surprise), I read some, learn from mistakes and move on to the next post. I've checked this forum 6 times in the last week and I saw the same post by extrinsic each time.
I'm 31 years old. I'm not a kid that wants .gifs and flashy unicorn banners. I'm sure someone here will think I cannot digest the written word without adornment. And they would be wrong, I just feel the UX in this forum could use an overhaul.
Posts: 93 | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
There *is* a bit of irony that a site dedicated mainly to scifi is quite so dated.
Hatrack is what it is. There's only one moderator, Kathleen, and overseeing the site is probably more of a side/volunteer gig for her. Some type of change to shake things up would be nice but, realistically, not very likely.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I post in the 'Fragments' sections for a number of reasons, not all to do with finished, or fully outlined stories.
Sometimes it is to test my use of a particular level/style of vocabulary, other times it is because I'm actively seeking a certain type of response, and usually from one contributor in particular, so that I can gain a more nuanced insight into what I'm trying/hoping to achieve with my writing. It's cheaper than doing a Masters in Creative Writing.
I have posted four, I think, actual 'planned' openings and received some moderately encouraging feedback for them. Not that I expected high praise, I was just stuck with phrasing and structure; the responses usually helped a great deal with that.
I comment/critique on pieces because I feel I can contribute to another writer's awareness of what they are doing--what works for me and what doesn't. In doing so, I have hopes that I am helping a writer gain more satisfaction from the process. It can be a lonely and soul-destroying one when things aren't going right.
In my current submission in Fragments etc. it is my intention, as I understand it is allowed for in the rules, to eventually post my entire first chapter thirteen lines by thirteen lines. And, now that I understand I can post outline/treatments there, I'll probably post my scene notes for the chapter as well. That is if Kathleen doesn't get sick of me before then.
As a final point I would add that other, less adventurous souls, might be gaining a lot of insight from reading about the travails of those of us extroverts who do post. That might be an interesting exercise in polling the membership, anonymously.
quote:As a final point I would add that other, less adventurous souls, might be gaining a lot of insight from reading about the travails of those of us extroverts who do post. That might be an interesting exercise in polling the membership, anonymously.
Even on bustling sites, lurkers are met with derision. I commented on this before, but this site definitely has a *more* active lurking community than visible community. You can tell by the way that, generally, a more contentious topic has people coming out of the woodworks to respond.
So it's less to do with introverts vs. extroverts, and more to do with the fact that most content posted here doesn't stimulate the lurkers to respond.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
I post this response using UBB's "Code" feature to illustrate "plain wrapper" Standard Manuscript Format, how, personally, I feel written-word workshop writing should best- practice visually appear. Writing is only words; that's all writers have to work with: no visual or social rhetoric, no interactive media rhetoric, no flashy Broadway marquees' rhetoric. An environment that requires exclusively writing use fosters writing skills development. Film media's spectacle rhetoric certainly influences writers, how much varies, perhaps according to how much film viewing time any given writer expends. Film is easy self- gratification reception, as effortless as being waited on at meal times. Writers are like chefs, we prepare food for others' satisfaction. Open a can and pop the contents into a microwave oven. Shove a frozen dinner into a toaster oven. Slap two slices of bread around peanut butter and jelly gobs, PBJ on toast for a "hot" meal. Are those cooking? Are they comfort satisfying? They are offhanded nourishment, perhaps empty nutrition. For diners who eat to self-comfort, they are emotionally empty satisfaction, more habit than creation. For diners who enjoy culinary stimulus and nutritious sustenance, they are unforgivable glop. Many modernists see plain wrapper Courier New typeface text, like this Code text, and think it is old, out of date, odd, not flashy enough. Yet the text, once unfamiliarity and feudal resistance to the format erodes, disappears: if the writing is up to par in terms of reality imitation. The writing becomes a sensory cornucopia in which readers participate, vicariously at least; emotionally stimulated, ideally. If workshoppers need visual content, social content, interactive media content, links to embedded external sites, like Flashbook or Ninjagram or Twaddle or InkedOn -- they are distractions from writing, and all the other non-writing media. Sensory spectacle and social rhetoric have their places in writing culture, in so much as they enhance writer networking and marketing. The words themselves, though, and their packaging format standards (manuscript and publication formats) developed over millennia as most comfortable to human eyes are all that should matter at a writing workshop site. Resistance is feudal; come on over, Red Rover, to the bright and lively, nutritious side of writing.
posted
To be fair, the only reason Kathleen posted this question is because of a previous thread. But anywho, this conversation kind of reminds me of what I tend to tell writers when it comes to their writing, publishing, editing, etc.
Are you satisfied with the results of your writing once it's out there? Are you meeting the goals you set forth? If you are, then change nothing and continue as is. If you aren't, then you better try a new approach to your craft.
Yes, as a writer, you can do anything you want, and write any way you want. But to write a fictional piece, not get the results you want, and then decide that everyone else is wrong, is futile, and a sign of immaturity. As I said, to be fair, I don't think Kathleen thinks anything needs changing with the site. And I don't think she has a problem at all with the current level of activity, which, again, groovy. But let's face it, the site is fairly stagnant. Same voices, with Extrinsic's voice being by far the most dominant. Same 13 lines, same type of responses. Same revolving door of membership.
Now, there are members here who are perfectly happy with the status quo, and that's groovy. Of course, besides Extrinsic, almost everyone else takes extended breaks from the site, become lurkers, don't respond to fragments posted, more often (but still seldom when you look at the numbers) don't respond to Open Discussions About Writing.
There's an "old guard", so to speak, of this site, and only one moderator who is a bit older herself. This isn't the type of environment that fosters change. You get older, you like your comfort levels as is. Change is risk, change is work, change is for new bloods, which this site attracts but doesn't hold on to.
quote: Resistance is feudal
That which doesn't evolve with the times becomes extinct.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hammer hasn't changed since steel became available. Even a copper hammer of old is shaped the same as a hammer of today; likewise, a hafted stone hammer is visually and usefully similar, such that a stone hammer's function is obvious. Hammers are in no risk of becoming extinct. Sexy and glamorous hammers, though, contrived to visually appeal, they don't endure.
Today's modernity appeals for newness, more newness, more emotionally empty appeal, more spectacle. more display of wealth, status, prestige will be tomorrow's cliché. There comes a moment, location, and situation of the glass overfilled with empty appeal saturation.
If design of Hatrack's visual interface were given to me as CXO -- Chief Experience Officer (cf UX -- User eXperience) experience appeals would be similar to how the design is now, only more so like SMF and SPF and layout appearance akin to book and magazine, favoring book, and a degree of column-inch online magazine format. Fragments and discussion threads, though, in standard MF two-eyeblink line widths. Journalism column-inch format relies on one eyeblink width.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The hammer hasn't changed since steel became available.
For writers, a better example would be writing utensils. Once, we used our hands to scratch messages, then reeds, then a metal sylus, then quill feather, then lead pencil, then quill pen, then typerwriter, then computer, then laptop.
Sure, essentially we're still crafting narratives on a surface, but the method in which we do it changes.
quote: If design of Hatrack's visual interface were given to me as CXO -- Chief Experience Officer (cf UX -- User eXperience) experience appeals would be similar to how the design is now,
But you wouldn't do this to get greater activity or participation. That wouldn't be your goal as I'm fairly sure that you're totally comfortable with the current state of the site.
The idea that this is simply an ebb to the "ebb and flow" of the site is short sighted, in my opinion. There's nothing about Hatrack which would create a sudden boom in participation. Not when there's so many options online to engage in discussions about writing, to post ones writing, and to get feedback. A lot of other sites don't change much either, but they have a core group that's many times larger than the core group here, and much more active. Add this to the constant flow of new members bringing in new ideas along with their unique fiction narratives, and you have dynamic sites made dynamic not by physical change but by the members themselves.
Before the 28th, the previous post to this thread was October 29th, almost two months ago. This would never happen on an active site *unless* this topic was tacked to the top of the forum.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
My reasons for not posting in this thread when it was first active are simple yet intensely personal. Some of the reason had to do with work and other such-like commitments, the majority to do with the aforementioned personal issue which I have discovered is somewhat cyclical and unlikely of resolution in the near future.
For some of us, writing is a hobby, a pastime we enjoy vicariously, for others, to become a published author, no matter the scale, is their worthy goal, yet others want simply to learn about, and further improve their art.
I hold a particular disdain for the term Lurkers, as this implies people hiding in the shadows, usually for nefarious purposes. I would be more convinced by an argument stating that there are members here who do not feel confident enough in their own understanding and grasp of the finer points of writing to risk making themselves look silly.
I already know I'm capable of looking silly--repeatedly--so I don't really care about that; I just want to learn.
posted
For writing metpahors, how humans prepare food is more apropos of writing's evolution: raw flora to raw fauna, then fire used to restore meat's warm temperature, then as an unintended though realized aid to digestion. Raw wood fire became tamed fire in stoves and ovens, then charcoal fire, gas fire, resistance electric fire, microwave fire, induction fire. Yet sustenance is still the sole purpose of food preparation. Like composition for communication purposes has not changed since Grog first grunted a direction briefing for a hunt.
One direct evolution of compostion was from orated to handwritten word a long time ago. Evolution of writing machines is not so old; computers, laptop or desktop, are evolutions of linotypes and typewriters, not of pen, chisel, stylus, quill, brush, pencil, finger scratches, or hand gestures. Like fire's transition from wild fire to tamed fire.
Other writing sites I browse have also declined, ebbed, recently, and have done so over a span of recent years. Who and how participants participate hasn't changed appreciably; quantity has ebbed, regardless of how flashy a given site is.
What has changed most that drove writing culture interest to a subtle degree are improved economic conditions and a lapse of blockbuster media content. Folk expend more of their time now gainfully employed and no runaway Potter or Frodo or Swan or Katniss franchise books and films to compel writers to write.
Arguably, a claim may be construed that self-publication also has drawn down blockbuster content and, consequently, workshop participation. The easy just-get-by option of effort-limited self-publication might be a driving force for lowered writing caliber and expectation. Writers are drawn to the promises of higher revenue and lower screening criteria from self-publication. Less reason also to workshop writing if a work can go from writer's imagination to digital print without external evaluation pre-publication.
My comfort level with this or any site design and participation and content parameters -- the rules too -- is solely driven by other purposes. Readily accessible content for evaluation practice is the sole reason. I'm not in it for approval or acclaim, nor for personality cult popularity pageantry, nor for hobby or daydream purposes. I'm in it for strengthening my writing skills, which to me is the only noteworthy purpose of writing workshops.
Shared writing and publication culture wisdoms are an added bonus, like where to study Standard Manuscript Format criteria as well as other submission practices.
Wednesday marks a day which for me is a life turning point. Not because the day is New Year's Eve, because I go for an evaluation of me before an audience that will decide a large part of my near and foreseeable future. The next day is New Year's Day, resolutions are in order, part from outcomes of the evaluation, part from circumstances brought to a head, most from because my time has come to split wood or get out of the woodlot or graduate to nuclear fire.
quote:Originally posted by Grumpy old guy: I hold a particular disdain for the term Lurkers, as this implies people hiding in the shadows, usually for nefarious purposes. Phil.
Ditto.
Are the silent majority of publication readers lurkers? No, they are audience wanting emotional satisfaction from artful composition, wanting human correspondence if one-sided monologue and vicariously and at a distant remove from everyday alpha realities, yet intimate and personal though spanning time and space. Writers generally want the same, and Hatrackers active, dormant, or unregistered followers even if sporadic or episodic.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't, and only rarely comment on anything there. Mostly it's from not having that much to post---generally I've completed whatever to my satisfaction, or I don't complete it at all. (My satisfaction---whether or not anybody else is satisfied is still up in the air.) I think it's kind of rude to "dish it out" and not in any way "take it."
I also am not thrilled by the notion that the "first thirteen" are important. Long-standing, occasionally hashed-out argument 'round here. My position is that I've never bought or read any written work based on the first thirteen lines.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hammers are in no risk of becoming extinct. Sexy and glamorous hammers, though, contrived to visually appeal, they don't endure.
Today's modernity appeals for newness, more newness, more emotionally empty appeal, more spectacle. more display of wealth, status, prestige will be tomorrow's cliché. There comes a moment, location, and situation of the glass overfilled with empty appeal saturation.
This is exactly what I thought someone say. You equate improving UX to attract new users to bells and whistles without purpose. You dismiss my views so quickly it's disheartening. If any idea I might have is met with such condescension then I am sad to say, this is not the same forum I used to visit back in 2005.
I said in my post, and I will repeat it: I'm 31 years old. I'm not a kid that wants .gifs and flashy unicorn banners.
quote:If design of Hatrack's visual interface were given to me as CXO -- Chief Experience Officer (cf UX -- User eXperience) experience appeals would be similar to how the design is now,
quote:But you wouldn't do this to get greater activity or participation.
What Denevius said is completely correct. I work in the UX business.
I mean, it's baffling how you, extrisic, can outright assume that the best choices in design and UX for the entire forum have already been made -- because you said so. If something doesn't bother you but it might help others feel more welcome, why take the position of dismissing other people's views? Why not roll with the times a bit and see if change brings more people in?
quote:The hammer hasn't changed since steel became available.
Well, gee, has the nail changed at all?
I express my opinion that the dated design of the forum might turn people off and you compare web design geared to engage people, forum dynamics and user experience to hammer technology? Humans, and human interaction, fortunately change and evolve through time. We are not nails.
It seems to me people who like the site as it is think the people that ask for a change want to turn this into Facebook or somesuch idiocy. No, far from it. I've seen this topic get shut down before people are even allowed to toss ideas about what things would be nice to have.
[ December 29, 2014, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Captain of my Sheep ]
Posts: 93 | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Argument claims of change for change's sake are as specious as overwrought web sites: showy, sensorily attractive, false displays of "truth" or genuineness empty of actual substance. Substantive argumentation states a persuasive claim, provides persuasive, meaningful reasons for the claim that matter, and substantively and persuasively supports the claim. I've seen no susbtantive claims yet as to why Hatrack ought to change. Specious arguments for more up-to-date content miss the mark.
What exactly up-to-date content and why? More visual media? Visual rhetoric may be composition; however, visual rhetoric isn't writing composition. More aural media? Music? Voice recordings? Motion picture media? Same as visual rhetoric, not writing composition. More social networking and external links to same? Mere distractions from writing.
More interactive media? The available interactive media at Hatrack are minimally, if at all, used. Their use also has been disparaged as "patronizing, showy, ostentatious, condecension." The available UBB interactive media of Hatrack are problematic for many members, coding for one, less than secure content at the other end, simple imperatives given without content summaries that persuade link following. The interactive content Hatrack culture is not up to, generally, the intent and need of existing interactive media. Like so: Click here. No, please don't; the link is empty.
Why, besides specious appeals of spectacle, update Hatrack's visual interface? To foster more quality writing growth, writing, and writing discussion and attract dedicated writers are substantive reasons. However, the words and the site speak for themselves. A reputation of all writing sites is on overabundance of harsh, unnecessary, and uncalled-for negative evaluation. A large span divides constructive and destructive criticism, the former the ideal of workshop, the latter the common default practice. Hatrack could be different from the fray, instead of a battle ground, a forum for frank and open exchange of ideas and wisdom and writer growth such that Hatrack's reputation is of noble and beneficial outcomes.
One appreciable recent change at Hatrack is less combativeness, which, obviously, attracts combative personalities. Loss of or less combativeness resulted in less participation by combative persons who participated solely to disparage other members. The combative appeal gone!? Combative members left in drifts. Maybe if time and patience allows, if a more civil workshop persists, more sensitive writers will fill their places. Combativeness isn't writing either.
posted
May I first of all point out that I have absolutely no control over the software that has been chosen for this forum and therefore how it looks or how it works.
I submit that things work here the way they do because that is the best I can figure out how to make use of the forum constraints.
I'm really not sure I understand what you all would like instead.
And second, I do use other types of social media, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. I don't see how such places could be more helpful to aspiring writers.
So, if these are the kinds of more up-to-date venues that you all feel are needed for writers, then could someone please tell me why 140 characters would be better than 13 lines?
Again, this forum and the UBB software is what OSC has provided for the Hatrack River Writers Workshop. We are doing what we can with what we have.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like this site as it is visually and technologically, however if it can be improved I'm all for change, "Rha! Rha! Rha!"
This then sets the parameters of the argument; what needs to be changed and why?
In thinking about one of Denevius' replies on my Daisywolrd thread, another reason for posting in Fragments and Feedback is that not only can you have an almost real-time conversation, this site forces you to defend your decisions as a writer. For instance, in my first 13 I used a certain narrative distance, narrative style and particular wording for a particular purpose. In having the ensuing conversation and in trying to defend my own choices, I have gained a deeper insight into both my thought processes and the execution of the intent in that particular instance.
Now I can refocus and hone the opening scene and then move on to the next one. And I find that a very powerful learning and development tool.
Phil.
Added Later:
Just had a look at reddit; I must be more of a Luddite than I normally admit to. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose, but if I'd seen something like that, even if only marginally similar, I wouldn't have bothered lurking around here a bit before I joined.
Oh, btw, all hammers are not the same, nor are nails. You can't do filigree with a sledgehammer nor use a treenail to anchor concrete blocks. And, human communication and interaction has remained fairly unchanged since our brains achieved a certain size, only the methods have changed. I will be interested to see what the switched-on and wired-in, on-line generation think about what they went through 50 years from now. My best guess will be a lot of regrets.
Added after reading KDW's post: Sorry, Kathleen, missed that when I posted mine. Kudos to you! We do what we can with what we've got and I can live with that, after all, I'm the Luddite who likes this site just the way it is--with possibly some submission changes, but that's another issue.
[ December 30, 2014, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:And second, I do use other types of social media, including Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. I don't see how such places could be more helpful to aspiring writers.
I would really like you to point me to the part where I said I wanted to turn this place into Facebook and Instagram. I considered this claim offensive, by the way. I truly did not expect this from you, Kathleen. You're using the same kind of argument extrinsic used, reducing anything I say to an extreme proposition. Here is the part where I mentioned Facebook:
quote:It seems to me people who like the site as it is think the people that ask for a change want to turn this into Facebook or somesuch idiocy. No, far from it.
I am not even on facebook or twitter since I don't like that silly word limit.
quote:So, if these are the kinds of more up-to-date venues that you all feel are needed for writers, then could someone please tell me why 140 characters would be better than 13 lines?
This, I did not expect from a moderator. I thought I was having a rational discussion.
I don't think Merlion-Emrys was treated this badly for his different opinions. I thought this was a safe place where one could discuss things calmly, without being mocked. Kathleen, you know this is not what Denevius and I are positioning. You have to know otherwise you haven't really read what we're saying. We're talking about a new look, with maybe some extra functionality. (I speak for myself here since I think that's all Denevius is asking but I'm not sure).
quote:I submit that things work here the way they do because that is the best I can figure out how to make use of the forum constraints.
And you do a wonderful job as I have stated multiple times. This is a great forum. I have said so many times. I will quote them here since half of the things I say are mangled beyond recognition or ignored.
quote:This is the most professional forum I've ever been to. That's why I keep coming. Here is where I would love to make my story better.
quote:I'm really not sure I understand what you all would like instead.
Just a fresh look. I haven't thought much about it beyond stating my opinion as an outsider that checks the site a lot and as professional that works with websites, designers and UX Evangelists.
quote:But let's face it, the site is fairly stagnant. Same voices, with Extrinsic's voice being by far the most dominant. Same 13 lines, same type of responses. Same revolving door of membership.
I agree with this completely. I am telling you, as lurker of the site that this is how the forum feels. And this is how I am feeling now. Unwelcomed and condescended just because I said the site looks dated and it might drive new people away and I think you need new people because the site is stagnant.
This is all I said. I repeat THIS IS ALL I SAID.
quote:Just had a look at reddit; I must be more of a Luddite than I normally admit to. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose, but if I'd seen something like that, even if only marginally similar, I wouldn't have bothered lurking around here a bit before I joined.
I only mentioned reddit to compare its vibrant community to this one. Nothing else.
But it's telling how you think I care how reddit looks, reddit works not for its looks (it's hideous), it works because of its brilliantly addictive strategies for user engagement and its functionality. You all still think I asked for bells and whistles when I repeatedly told you the contrary.
quote:I'm the Luddite who likes this site just the way it is--with possibly some submission changes, but that's another issue.
And that is a great position that I cannot deny. I respect that position, I respect you. Even if you don't respect me by disagreeing with me in the least polite possible way. I will not mock you or take what you say to extremes. I respect that opinion.
If it was stated anywhere in the forum that you all like it the way it is and no opinions are allowed to have on the matter then I would've shut up.
I know why this place has stayed the same for all this time. I will not ever speak of this again.
Posts: 93 | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
As another confirmed Luddite i think the forum software and its lack of change (= stability; = not having to learn a new UX or a new abbr'n every so often) is an attraction. If lack of participation is a problem we should look to ourselves and the quality of our contributions - "quality" in terms of helping fellow writers forwards.
I do not see this thread going anywhere while it concentrates on software that is unlikely to be changed: I guess it was OSC's decision not to change it. In his position(hosting a free writer's website) I would not change it either: why spend time and money on something that ain't broke?
olde-fasionedly, Pat
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hatrack, unlike multi-purpose reddit, is a single community focused around writing culture. reddit is a multi-community site for shared current-event popularity content and a roughhouse generally, not a writing workshop. Original content offered by creators for external evaluation of artistic merits is Hatrack's mainstay: reddit, secondhand or thirdhand or more content and commentary.
Hatrack is a primary and secondary discourse site oriented around creative writing. reddit, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc., discourse, oriented around social networking.
Creative writing is a social science and art; the art and science is persuasion through written word. Social networking is also a social science and art subject, though the research and study at a degree or two further separated from the actual practice compared to writing netwroking. Writing networking is a study of self-expression methods, the artistry of the expression, not per se the information content. Social networking involves personal popularity content, though through association with and use of externally generated information content.
As a single-central-topic community, Hatrack's practices, rules, purposes, functions, and such anticipate a social decorum of a congenial nature and behavior. Writing workshop is personal, potentially brutal at even the best intended of times, and painful enough without deliberately contentious comabativeness for combativeness's sake. One first practice of the community is reading and abiding the workshop community's conduct principles on the "Please Read Here First" forum. Among the principles are how on-forum behavior is expected to be congenial, respectful, and polite. This is Hatrack's social mores and manners contract.
Self-introductions on the "Next, Please Introduce Yourself" forum are equally vital writing workshop social practices, if a member would persuade the membership of her or his sincerity and courtesy and respect.
A new member who begins off the established user terms and introductions cycle track and starts off with a first post disparaging the site, the content, other members, etc., disrespects the workshop and its complement. Then firm, no less opinion, respectful assertion responses to the original, inciting disparagements draw accusations of disparagment responses misinterpreted as misconduct. Blame assigned externally is misdirected.
Hatrack is no more and no less a folk group than any other social group. The group is open to respectful new members. Disrespectful new or current or oid members naturally draw centrifugal expulsion forces. The respect of the group must be earned before respect is bestowed; otherwise, naturally, the group risks uncalled-for and needlessly painful torments.
Miss Dickinson's Poem No. 1263 entails most insightful rhetorics about the arts and sciences of persuasion, not to mention writing.
"Tell all the truth but tell it slant — Success in Circuit lies Too bright for our infirm Delight The Truth's superb surprise As Lightning to the Children eased With explanation kind The Truth must dazzle gradually Or every man be blind —" (Emily Dickinson, "Tell all the truth but tell it slant")
quote: So, if these are the kinds of more up-to-date venues that you all feel are needed for writers, then could someone please tell me why 140 characters would be better than 13 lines?
Inaccurate depiction of twitter. Though a single twitter post must fit the 140 characters, you can post 140 characters as many times as you like. On Hatrack, you can *only* post the first 13 lines. If the site were to model twitter, you'd be able to post multiple 13 lines in succession. Besides that fact that twitter allows different forms of media, like photography and videos.
quote: I've seen no susbtantive claims yet as to why Hatrack ought to change.
And that's fine. But I, and others, have.
quote: Specious arguments for more up-to-date content miss the mark.
That's your opinion, but I, and others, disagree.
Trying to convince you of the merits of almost anything is futile, Extrinsic. You almost never concede a point, and you're dismissive of anyone who doesn't agree with you. And the sad thing about that is that I know you mean well.
quote: I submit that things work here the way they do because that is the best I can figure out how to make use of the forum constraints.
Until this comment, I didn't realize that the changes you could make were limited by the parameters of the site that's already in place. I'm not surprised, as the Writer's Workshop has remained *exactly* the same over the years. But I submit, or admit, that I was ignorant of what you could and could not do.
Since this is the case, however, further dialog on the subject is moot. An individual who can instill substantive changes doesn't seem to exist.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can be persuaded to change, if only the argumentation is persuasive. One major deficit of many argumentation assertions is a lack of objectiveness. Personal assertions are overtly subjective.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can be persuaded to change, if only the argumentation is persuasive.
Perhaps others will, but I have neither the time, patience, or inclination to "persuade you to change". Especially since I know you can go almost ad infinitum adding dense responses all in defense of your opinion. After a number of replies, it starts to feel like I'm taking to a younger person who keeps asking, "Why?", to every answer I give.
Again, I can have a healthy respect for someone, but I *never* drink the kool aid. And I know, Extrinsic, that after a certain number of replies, anything further becomes pointless repetition.
What we've come to is this factual reality. There's a camp of people who think alterations to how the site exists will increase participation and hold on to newbies longer; and there's a camp of people who think the site is fine as is, and the level of participation is fine as is. And straddling this divide is the new reveal that, either way, no one is around to actually make any types of changes whatsoever.
So it's like, okay, well, what are you gonna do? The site is what it is.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew from day one that Hatrack is what it is. I read every iota of the site's often-disregarded context before I signed up. I knew from a close read of that context that Orson Scott Card is our host, from reading the front pages how often he participates, how subject to face change the site is. Part of the appeal is the face of the site doesn't change.
Hatrack River is part of the Orson Scott Card Network. The Hatrack River writing workshop forums are a small part of that larger network.
Back when I joined, however, I noted the site membership was too personally contentious for my tastes. If the site has changed, it has become more civil, though still members make contentious personal comments. The site, in my estimation is still too contentious for sensitive sensibilities. Oh my, sensitive sensibilities are a prime force behind creative expression. At the present time, the workshop site poses in the balance between a roughhouse free-for-all and an inviting, cooperative forum for dynamic creators of artful persuasion. Once the site goes one way or the other, participation will increase. I hope the site goes the latter way.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Denevius said "What we've come to is this factual reality. There's a camp of people who think alterations to how the site exists will increase participation and hold on to newbies longer; and there's a camp of people who think the site is fine as is, and the level of participation is fine as is. And straddling this divide is the new reveal that, either way, no one is around to actually make any types of changes whatsoever."
I refuse to be in one of your camps, which are not a factual reality, but a disappointingly divisive opinion. I do not recall a time when we had camps; we were simply Hatrackers - one "camp" sitting around an e-fire sharing stories and learning. As a side note I like the energy in the HUB thread, reminds me of former perhaps more constructive days. if more participation is wanted there's the model: energetic writing!
I'd summarise my view as, grateful to KDW and OSC for putting this site up and especially Kathleen for her fine facilitation, better than I've seen in several online forums I've participated in over several decades. If they are happy with the site technology and the levels of participation and retention, then so am I. I think of Hatrack as a little campfire in the e-wilderness, one I'm happy to have found, and pleased to be allowed to participate in, and I'm not inclined to be pushed into someone's poorly identified camp in a debate about whether the camp fire is bright enough to attract more participants because it's OSC's and KDW's fire, and I'm their guest, and I was brung up to believe that complaining about one's hosts and their facilities is rude. Not to mention strange given that it's all free and change costs time and money. So that it's not going to change is hardly a "new reveal"; it has been implicitly clear for some time IMHO.
I do not think the OP was an invitation to criticise the basic facilities and premises (like first 13) of the site and am disappointed this thread has derailed itself way off topic and outwith the generous spirit of KDW's OP.
olde-fashionedly Pat
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I don't know what you and Denevius are suggesting, Captain of my Sheep, and my mentioning certain social media sites was not a mockery, but an attempt to see if that might be what you were talking about.
As you said yourself, Captain of my Sheep:
quote: (I speak for myself here since I think that's all Denevius is asking but I'm not sure).
you're not even certain about what Denevius is asking.
I see things like "change, change, change" and "this site is outmoded" and yet I don't see any clear (to my mind, at least) explanations of what you all are asking for a change to.
I apologize for making you think I was mocking you. I really am trying to figure out what you all are saying.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:I apologize for making you think I was mocking you. I really am trying to figure out what you all are saying.
Thank you, apology accepted.
I said I wasn't sure because I'm not in the habit of presuming to know exactly what other people are thinking. But we agreed on the core point that the site looks dated and this might turn people off because I read what he wrote. Beyond that, I could not know if Denevius had any other thoughts about the subject.
quote:I see things like "change, change, change" and "this site is outmoded" and yet I don't see any clear (to my mind, at least) explanations of what you all are asking for a change to.
For a site that is about content, I'm not sure how can you miss what I said before but here it is again:
quote:Just a fresh look.
A fresh look is a new design. I'm sorry if my meaning was obscured somehow.
I've said all I had to say and I'm being asked the same questions again. The site isn't open to any criticism, however well phrased it is. This is my last post on this subject.
Posts: 93 | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
As I have said, I have no control over the software, and therefore, that aspect of the look of the Hatrack River Writers Workshop forum.
So it's not so much that suggestions (or criticism) regarding the look are not welcome, as it is that they aren't much help because I don't know what I could do about them.
It feels to me as if I had put up my 13 lines and all the feedback I've received has been along the lines of "this doesn't work for me, you need to change it."
Constructive criticism is truly constructive when it offers suggestions that can be implemented in place of whatever does not work for the critiquer.
"A fresh look" really doesn't tell me anything. Are you suggesting a total revamp of the forum software, or merely a reorganization of the different discussion areas (instead of "Open Discussions on Writing" we should have ----), or something else altogether (different background colors, a different font)?
I truly am at a loss here.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you suggesting a total revamp of the forum software
That could've been an option.
This is question that could've been asked a few posts back and the one I expected from you, to be honest. You knew I wasn't asking to Twitter-fy this form, that is a ridiculous notion. I am glad you are making an effort to understand.
quote:As I have said, I have no control over the software, and therefore, that aspect of the look of the Hatrack River Writers Workshop forum.
Then I see no point in discussing this further. It is not productive for anybody and it is time we could also use to write stories or read. I say this without a drop of sarcasm, I really feel we're wasting everybody's time with something that cannot be changed.
I want to point out that I commended you on the work you've done, I said this place is awesome and professional. Yet you tell me you feel as though I'm critizing you. I am truly baffled. You might feel attacked but if you read what I wrote you will see I did not say a bad thing about you or your first 13 lines. I respect the work you do. I wanted to express my opinion, that is all.
I made an assessment of the state of the traffic in the forum. I said its look might turn people away.
Did I make an assessment of the content of the forum? No, I did not. Ever. If you doubt me go read my posts, I don't want to repeat myself anymore.
I really appreciate your effort Kathleen. Truly. I wanted to reiterate that this forum has done great things for countless people. And it will continue to do so.
Thank you for listening to my opinion. I wish you all the best.
Posts: 93 | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged |
In my current submission in Fragments etc. it is my intention, as I understand it is allowed for in the rules, to eventually post my entire first chapter thirteen lines by thirteen lines.
Phil.
It occurs to me that this idea may not be as daft and mischievously outside Hatrack's intent in the first 13 line idea as I first thought (although as no doubt you realise, it's probably tantamount to publishing the whole first chapter and could be a good loss-leading marketing ploy).
I've often wondered if one could write a "page turner" by sequencing 13 line fragments together, each hooking the reader into reading on, and on, to a cracking 13 lines at the end of each chapter wherein the hook is the cliff hanger.
Your concept of posting each 13 line fragment in a sequence of posts reminds me of those cartoon serials they used to run in newspapers, featuring men with steel jaws, damsels in distress and always in danger of wardrobe malfunction, and Rupert Bear.
Posts: 1796 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the past, I posted my 13 because I'd never received feedback on anything I'd written. Seriously, I was that new. My 13s got pretty beat up and I realized I wasn't as far along in this writing things as I thought.
Then Skadder told me he used to run the 13 line contests in order to improve his and others' openings. (This is around the time he'd won WotF.)
So I started running 13 line contests and guess what? My writing improved. Loads.
I stopped posting them because I feel much more confident in my openings now, and I don't need a treatise on 13 lines.
Regarding the software, PHPbb is a viable option. It's free and highly customizable. It's got a modern look, and is updated frequently by its moderators.
The drawback is it's open source, and as such tends to get hacked periodically. To combat this, back up the forum frequently, and keep it updated.
There's also the Codex software. I've never seen it elsewhere. Makes me think Luc had it commissioned. It might cost some bucks to get it here, but maybe something could be worked out with him?
UBB is practical for text, but ancient. I could see it turning off someone young, or less determined. I remember first logging in five(!?) years ago and thinking, yuck. But I wanted to join a writers group, and here I am. Still.
So does it stay and retain only the determined? Or does it modernize and perhaps gain new blood?
I've initialized several PHPbb boards, so I offer my services if the desire arises. If not, no problem, but for the record, I'd be willing to set up the whole thing. (The current threads couldn't be copied, nor the user names, etc. Everyone would need to start over, and these would become archives.)
Posts: 1543 | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I don't know what you and Denevius are suggesting
I suggested this in the previous post, but I'll suggest it again here. A variety to the 13 line opening format. We've been doing it for years, and it limits the types of responses one receives in the Fragments section.
I'm a bit unsure how it can be claimed that what I'm suggesting is unknown considering I've stated this several times, but here it is again. And because I have made this request before, I've already heard the counter-arguments, and I know that there are members who don't think it's necessary, and members who are fatigued by the same 13 line opening format.
I'm actually not requesting this again for more discussion.
However, Kathleen, if you're truly unsure what my suggestion was, here it is again. Let's try 13 lines, or a page (perhaps a maximum of 300 words). I agree with Robert on this. It's the rare story I pick up that I stop at 13 lines. And for those stories, it's probably 1-3 lines, not even close to 13, that has me moving on.
Once again, I understand if you don't agree with this, and we've already discussed it here. But to say that my suggestion for the site isn't even *known* seems strange.
quote:Your concept of posting each 13 line fragment in a sequence of posts reminds me of those cartoon serials they used to run in newspapers, featuring men with steel jaws, damsels in distress and always in danger of wardrobe malfunction, and Rupert Bear.
Honest people cheat the system when the system seems broken. Posting multiple 13 lines as if they're your opening is cheating the system here.
Hatrack, as is, isn't set up for an entire story to be posted. But even OSC asks for a complete page for his Bootcamp, as I mentioned before. Having the option to post 13 lines, or a full page, doesn't seem un-doable to me.
Again, I'm not looking for further discussion on the topic, as we've gone over it a lot already. But for Kathleen to suggest she doesn't know what my suggestion is seems odd considering I've been fairly explicit about it over the months.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Denevius, if you read the submission guidelines, multiple 13 line submissions, as part of a larger work, are allowed provided each is contained within a separate post. Pushing the boundaries, possibly, but that's why we pay lawyers to argue for us.
To my mind, the system isn't broken, it just needs some clarification.
The 13 lines rule is for submissions to editors of publishers, not simple critiques. And, to preempt a suggestion I have for improving the accessibility of the site (pending some research which others seem not to want to bother with), submission criteria is a completely different kettle of stew to reader appeal.
quote: Actually, Denevius, if you read the submission guidelines, multiple 13 line submissions, as part of a larger work, are allowed provided each is contained within a separate post.
I'm unsure to what guidelines you're referencing. However, in the Fragments section, it says:
quote: Then post the first 13 lines. Please do not post more than the first 13 lines of your work in any topic here at Hatrack.
Where are you taking your submission guidelines for Hatrack from?
quote: The 13 lines rule is for submissions to editors of publishers, not simple critiques.
Many publishers will say (yes, I know it's a fabrication) that they give each work they receive a thorough read. Lie or not, I've never seen one that said they stop after the first 13 lines. This is an assumption which isn't based on recorded fact.
Only newbies to publishing will believe that the first 13 lines is a make or break to getting a work published. If you've ever worked behind the scenes, you know that mostly it's networking that yields results. Or someone who's already interested in you as a writer, or the project as a whole. This is why almost all professional publishers don't ask for unsolicited material.
The idea that it's the first 13 lines that determine anything when it comes to publishing or gaining an audience is actually quite amateur.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, Denevius, I suppose SFWA doesn't know what they're talking about. But those 13 lines are the ones you have to induce the editor to turn the page (knowing the story context beforehand) Check out their manuscript submission guidelines. Also, when you submit to an editor it is (usually) accompanied by a query letter or a synopsis so the editor has some grasp of story context. Here at Hatrack, people submit 13 lines (half a page of courier 12pt with lines double-spaced) without any context; which is something I'd like to see changed.
Originally posted by Deneveius:
quote: This is why almost all professional publishers don't ask for unsolicited material.
Really? When was the last time you checked publishers websites. Here in OZ there are three that will accept unsolicited material, provided they conform to their guidelines and genre requirements, and there are regular months where publishers--McMillan, Random House etc.--will accept unsolicited manuscripts for evaluating new and promising writers.
Finally, to quote you:
quote: I'm unsure to what guidelines you're referencing. However, in the Fragments section, it says:
quote: Then post the first 13 lines. Please do not post more than the first 13 lines of your work in any topic here at Hatrack.
Notice the tiny word topic. pedantry maybe, but legal.
Phil.
[ December 31, 2014, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Grumpy old guy ]
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well then, Denevius, I suppose SFWA doesn't know what they're talking about. Check out their manuscript submission guidelines.
Phil, what are you talking about?!? I'm specifically suggesting a change to Hatrack about *it's* 13 line policy. What does SFWA have to do with anything here?
quote: Also, when you submit to an editor it is (usually) accompanied by a query letter or a synopsis so the editor has some grasp of story context.
This is more often the case for novels, not short stories. However, ok, even if it is true, I'm unsure what that has to do with the policy of Hatrack staying exclusively to the 13 line opening.
quote:Here at Hatrack, people submit 13 lines (half a page of courier 12pt with lines double-spaced) without any context; which is something I'd like to see changed.
More often than not, people here will explain what they're going for when posting their 13 lines. Groovy.
This, in my opinion, doesn't say much of anything about extending 13 lines to a page so that the range of comments to material posted can change and grow.
quote: Here in OZ there are three that will accept unsolicited material, provided they conform to their guidelines and genre requirements, and there are regular months where publishers
Ok. But none of these markets ask *only* for the first 13. The idea that your opening paragraph makes or break you is an assumption at best. Personally, I don't think the first 13 lines has much of anything to do with if you'll publish. Working behind the scenes, I've seen where interns are instructed to read the entire manuscript.
quote: McMillan, Random House etc.--will accept unsolicited manuscripts for evaluating new and promising writers.
That's two. I can, if it helps anything in what I'm suggesting, list all of the professional publications who don't accept unsolicited manuscripts.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: Notice the tiny word topic. pedantry maybe, but legal.
And just to clear this up, is it the correct reading that you can post 13 lines of a story numerous times, so long as it's not in the same topic?
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The principle of a double bind is reconciling an apparent cognitive dissonance. Two superficially irreconcilable circumstances contradict each other. Between them is a satisfaction circumstance. The law says, for example, thou shall not steal. How much theft taken place under the consent of the law violates that basic tenent? Rhetorical question. Lawbreakers and lawbenders find a reconciliation, at least through self-justifications.
Hatrack's Thirteen Lines principle is no different. The rule is not so ironclad it brooks no deviation. Its purposes twofold -- one, protect publication potentials; two, foster introduction composition skills -- reconciling the double bind of need to post more content within the principle is a creative negotiation of the statutory limits. Such that readers are enticed yet unaware a second or more installment is posted.
A possible site workaround is a deeper password layer where longer excerpts may be securely posted and responded to that exclude "public" access.
Exclusivity appeals are a prime user experience appeal for social networking, a subtle one that many networkers are unaware of. Facebook's relevance to its original users has faded because it lost exclusivity appeal for those users. Now anyone and everyone is at least aware of the network and it has become trite from universal access.
Part of Hatrack's appeal in earlier years was published writers who participated meaningfully and respectfully. Those writers moved on. Their particpation appealed in large part because as yet unpublished writers could rub elbows with published writers in a somewhat exclusive venue. Exclusivity appeals.
Along came a crop of published writers who looked down their noses and browbeat other participants. Combativeness became the order of the day. Stll, every once in a while, a new member will come along who acts that way and is soon shut out by the group, after upsetting the apple cart and unnecessarily bruising participating members' feelings. Some members move on, too, because, who needs the grief. Writing culture is naturally and necessarily brutal enough without uncalled-for grief.
Another double bind there: a competitive culture in the larger culture of publication and a cooperative culture of writing workshop's intent at crossed odds. Reconcilable though. Assume writing discussion and fragment response are toward best-practice possible publication outcomes.
Another site enhancement of note: Standard Manuscript Format is a core visual appearance experience as the site design is. SMF looks raw. I like it raw. However, Standard Publication Format looks finished, polished. Okay, so the writing may not be ready for publication. If it looks ready, it appeals more. Production values have appeals.
Graphics? Social networking sites may allow photo publication. Do the pictures enhance the text content and vice versa? Often not. Who needs a photo of Darkmoor Heath Castle guest accomodations mid narrative if the narrative is about, say -- if the article is topically focused -- dramatic structure (plot)? The picture unresized, unresampled, uncropped, unretouched, raw from the camera and as wide and high as four web pages' worth of screen display.
Relevant tables, figures, photos, graphics visual media, require both a site and user savvy with the technology and production values.
Forget aural media altogether; motion media mostly leave off -- unless relevant and produced for best-practice receiver access and production values. Too many formats of disparate and probable incompatible platforms and applications, plus system resource hogging. Embedded links, no go, they automatically pull superfluous content that might be, probably is, unwanted, and cause page load latency issues.
User savvy with inline and external links is not yet fully part of online culture, though links are useful methods for connecting to external content that receivers may find of interest. That's where to put the Darkmoor photo, the audio recording of howls from the moor, the video of Darkmoor's ghoulish car park valet digging for nose gold and dingleberries. On a personal or other linked-to website. Again, though, online citizenship is not yet fully savvy enough for that practice.
Yes, I know how to manage all the above. No, I don't have an active personal website. When I will, and the time is foreseeable near future, I will no less guard my privacy rigorously. The site will introduce a new publication that will predicate exclusivity appeals. Production values and user experience will be high though understated to signal seriousness about writing.
That latter is what appeals to me now about how Hatrack Writers Workshop Forums are designed: the site signals seriousness. That to me is a core consideration for any, if any, upgrades to the site's design.
posted
well Kathleen wasn't the only one bemused by the long rambling posts. I was too. (I have neither the time nor inclination to go back over them, but i seem to recall change for the sake of change and some kind of new look.)There's no evdence I'm aware of, nor any cited in the posts; it's just an opinion, not one I share, that the 13 line limit constrains responses. I think that if responses look too similar, it's because critiquers are reciting either their own hobby horse or standard guidance on POV and other writerly stuff without taking the time to craft the crit for the sensibilities of the individual piece, and without considering the reader experience and saying why their guidance matters to this particular piece. All the 13 line fragments are unique so I see no reason why crits too can't be unique -- if the critiquer is prepared to get off their high horse and craft an individual response to an individual fragment written by a unique individual.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
