posted
Thanks to all of you for your input on this question. Thanks for offers to help with changes.
And thanks for your support and your caring about this forum.
The choice to use UBB, as I understand it, was made by OSC's webmaster (who is most assuredly not I) and so far as I know, said webmaster is totally fine with that choice.
I believe I may have the option of creating a "private" space on the forum for those who truly feel the need to take up Hatrack bandwidth for more than 13 lines of their work, but I'm not sure how to determine who would be allowed entrance to such a space and who would be excluded. I'm also not sure I want to be in charge of such exclusivity.
Maybe we should just get back to writing, but if some of you want to explain how we could privatize some of the forum in a fair and kind way, I might consider creating such "private" space.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
A private forum password to post and access the content and respond to topic threads could be global. One global password for everyone who chooses to participate would allow those activities from within the site, and only after registration and a registered member logs in is the forum password entry dialogue accessible.
A splash page would have the password entry dialogue and prompt for access only from registered and logged in members, prohibit unregistered users access. Though the password would be public knowledge, the splash page would state the content is private and the usual disclaimers of protected, private content and workshop confidentialty clauses. Also, otherwise, the content would not be publicly displayed for unregistered users' public viewing access.
At least that's how I understand UBB and HTML combined allows private access. Publication rights are preserved yet access is through self-selection and registration.
Personally, I would probably not participate. For the good of the interested membership, though, I abstain from a yea or nay vote.
posted
Why not just create a space for those wishing to post more than 13 lines? If anyone is worried about being seen (an irony in and of itself for those seeking publication), then they just shouldn't post there.
I'm unsure why it has to be exclusive as if if the space is created, people will be drawn to post there against their will. I believe everyone who joins this site is 18 or older. Let them decide the risk they're willing to take in making their writing public.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Denevius in a sense. To my mind the simplest solution would be to create an additional forum titled: Would you turn the page? where you could post the first page of your short/long story. Typically, a typeset page of text is 350 words so, for a page with a chapter title I'd estimate a 300 word-count limit.
Of course, even simpler would be to just tell people that they can ask contributors if they'd like to read the first page in addition to their first 13.
posted
please don't encourage him, Phil, he seems to think he's some kind of Messiah here to save Hatrack from becoming too old fashioned, and convert our place into something that conforms with his vision (which often seems to me like Critters, but with Denevius in charge) -- a messiah free to treat with contempt the forum moderator and those who dissent with his railing against the agreements he signed up for when he joined.
Yes, sure, hooking a reader with just 13 lines is hard, but it's a good paradigm for learning to write such as to get attention in the slush pile and to write prose that draws the reader into the story. Although he doesn't say so, his crits often blame the 13 line limit for problems he perceives in fragments: nobody ever did anything useful by complaining over and over that it's too hard let's change the rules.
And having read slush at FFO for a while, let me assure Hatrackers who may be in doubt that the goal of a slush reader is not to make sure that no gems in the pile are overlooked, it is to fill the next issue of the mag. and there's a lot of dross out there that's mind numbing to plod through. So one doesn't. A few lines is all it takes to decide "I ain't wasting my time reading that." and if someone's precious gem gets overlooked too bad: I found that I'd find what I thought were the gems in my slush pile faster by not wasting my time on what seemed from the first few lines obvious duds.
And so, back to writing. Kathleen please don't change Hatrack's basic principles just for one annoying squeaky wheel that hasn't the grace to look for consensus with the rest of us by ignoring not addressing our concerns. Or if you do and want general consensus please announce the consensus call in a new thread because I'll not be scanning this thread any more.
Phil, I liked the suggestion you and Smiley made earlier to get back to writing. And critiquing without being repetitive, by crafting the crit for the writer and the piece at hand -- and not repetitively carping about the 13 line limit in crits.
quote: please don't encourage him, Phil, he seems to think he's some kind of Messiah here to save Hatrack from becoming too old fashioned, and convert our place into something that conforms with his vision (which often seems to me like Critters, but with Denevius in charge) -- a messiah free to treat with contempt the forum moderator and those who dissent with his railing against the agreements he signed up for when he joined.
Yes, sure, hooking a reader with just 13 lines is hard, but it's a good paradigm for learning to write such as to get attention in the slush pile and to write prose that draws the reader into the story. Although he doesn't say so, his crits often blame the 13 line limit for problems he perceives in fragments: nobody ever did anything useful by complaining over and over that it's too hard let's change the rules.
Wow, that got negative fast. But either way.
quote:Of course, even simpler would be to just tell people that they can ask contributors if they'd like to read the first page in addition to their first 13.
A setup in which someone posts their first 13, receives feedback, and then post the first page in its entirety, might work.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Talespinner, I can relate to your frustration, but that really was a bit much. We're not here to critique each other, we're here to critique each other's writing.
Support of what we're trying to do here and they way we are trying to do it is always appreciated. Feedback that helps us improve in ways that are possible for us is also appreciated.
My main misgiving of the posting of the first page after feedback on the first 13 relates to the "but it gets good in line 14" complaint.
If the whole point of this forum were to make the first 13 lines perfect (and to encourage multiple versions of the first 13 until it is perfect) -- which it truly isn't, by the way, then rewarding someone for improving their first 13 lines by allowing them to post the rest of the page (assuming there actually is more to the first page--in short stories, there shouldn't be) might make sense.
But that isn't the whole point, is it?
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why post at all? A: Enlightenment. Not the fluffy, sit on top of a mountain kind. The kind that makes one strike one's head and say, 'I can see that point of view.' We all perceive differently because we all have our own unique (deliberately redundant) little stage plays running through our brains that we compare to everything we see, do, feel, read. Through posting, I seek to enlighten myself to the way the majority perceives my work. I would be a moron if I believed that everyone perceived my work as I do. (I might still be a moron, but not for that reason.
I want to know how different my thinking is from a majority of other interested parties. People who write speculative fiction read same, buy same, so that's why I have posted on Hatrack.
B: Substantive feedback. This is tricky because, as above, perception plays a large role in what each of us considers substantive.
I believe that substantive critique informs an author of what a story is missing. A woman I know tends bar and drives a bus, reads often but doesn't write. She gave me the best feedback I have received. After reading a story I thought I had completed, she asked, "What are they wearing?" Substance!
She compared my story to those little stage plays that she had running in her head, the ones marked, 'published books that I buy', and found something missing from my work.
Substance can be less or more sophisticated. If a story wants for clothes, I need to know. If a story wants for suspense, I need to know the fact, but I might also need to know how to create that suspense, so a tip or a book reference would be necessary to substance. Everyone, no matter their level of expertise, can offer substantive feedback.
C: 13 lines. Why not two sentences? I want to continue reading or not based on two sentences or less. The problem with any limit is that it that word, 'limit.'
Raise your hand if you started writing a story, thinking about the first 13 (good). Raise your hand if you've looked at your first 13 and altered it to tell more of your story (not so good). Raise your hand if, after reading crits of your 13, you said to yourself 'they don't know the whole story' (bad).
If I want to tell friends about how I once wrecked a car, I start with, "I wrecked my car." Storytellers must first persuade the audience to attend to the story (I'm telling a story, be interested!). In Medias Res has been around since Homer. Starting in the midst of things is what the first 13 is all about. Interest must be immediate in all storytelling. Live With It! Become it. * Hey! Who took my soap box? I'm done. Kent
Posts: 133 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kathleen, I revisited this thread again seeing your name against its last post.
For me the thing about not critiquing each other is like a similar requirement in the Fagan review process that's commonly used in the software industry to focus the critiquing ("reviewing") process on the work at hand, not its author. So when we're critiquing stories or first 13s we refrain from critting writers. This is a thread that isn't about a story or a first 13, which seems to me is being used by Denevius to drive change for the sake of it, following the agenda he stated in an early post thus:
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.
The age prejudice displayed is shocking.
I suggest that appeasing Denevius may only encourage his agenda which apparently is changing Hatrack either for the sake of it or perhaps to conform with his preferred methods of developing new writers.
Further, I guess in Denevius's crude terms I'm "old guard" and to me this is an implicit, insulting critique of me and others. And the idea that only young people can embrace change is a gross generalisation (that many people believe) for which there is absolutely no evidence. I have recently retired from a career consulting to industry in the USA and Europe in telecom, software and high tech where I often led organisational change, and I don't recall any evidence-based research studies that concluded older people are more resistant to change; indeed they're often in my experience keen for constructive, useful change because they're tired of old ways that don't work and require constant workarounds.
Then in a later post Denevius cast us into what he called "Camps":
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.
Some more of Denevius's agenda becomes clear: to increase participation and hold on to newbies longer ( Why?). Appeasement without making him justify change will surely encourage more of this stuff. And if the purpose of not critiquing each other is to civilise discussions like this on changing the way Hatrack functions, then I would suggest a few more rules, based on the behaviours Denevius exhibits that have driven me into annoyance, and maybe others, yourself perhaps Kathleen, into frustration:
Don't classify other Hatrackers into camps, or by collective nouns such as "old guard" because it's divisive. Don't ignore dissenting views because it's annoying (Denevius has not addressed the material objections I've raised in this thread, such as my point that crits of first 13s are not limited by the format, but by the critiquer). Don't display age prejudice and don't find ways of obliquely criticising other Hatrackers by disguising comments upon them as generalities: make a specific point with specific evidence. I've not expressed this well, maybe someone has access to the kind of debating rules I saw my kids being taught at school in the USA? Such might help alleviate our frustrations, help me contain my annoyance and enable us to get back to writing and talking about writing instead of defending a perfectly workable system that has helped many writers over the years against someone who apparently wants to change things for the heck of it and increase participation and retention - again with neither justification nor discussion.
Maybe we need some more rules something like those that make the US constitution hard to change i.e. :
If changes to the way Hatrack runs are proposed, then:
the software will not be changing;
any process changes will require changes to "What we all signed up for" and will require broad consensus by requesting everyone to consent (weaker than agree; consent in this context means "I can live with it") to the new agreement. the changes will be discussed in a dedicated discussion topic and the proposer(s) is (are) honour-bound to address all concerns and questions and requests for evidence and rationale raised by Hatrackers with respect.
posted
Robert's Rules of Order contains conduct principles for informal parliamentary debate and is the procedural basis of most formal and informal U.S. group interactions. Everyday social life, too, and broader, pretty much global application.
Debate strategies, tactics, and methods entail a broader, yet more specific principles set first espoused formally by Plato and revisited frequently since then. The most recent, comprehensive debate theory was published by Stephen E. Toulmin, British philospher influenced by Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, circa 1958. The general area is known as argumentation theory. Toulmin was largely disparaged for his argumentation theories in Britain, though celebrated in the U.S. and Australia.
Toulmin's theories have passed out of fashion in the U.S.. and argumentation principles largely, due primarily to preferences for fallicious argumentation's easier emotional gotcha-ambush practices of everyday television news gossip setting the example and a low bar at that.
The basic template of Toulmin's argumentation theory is as follows:
Assert a claim (thesis) Assert reasons for the claim Support the claim Anticipate objections to the claim Rebutt objections Assert conclusory merits of the claim and argument based upon the support and objection rebuttal
posted
To get back to the writing/posting question.
Originally posted by Kent_A_James:
quote:In Medias Res has been around since Homer. Starting in the midst of things is what the first 13 is all about. Interest must be immediate in all storytelling.
IMHO the first 13 is not about developing in medias res story openings; that's just an unfortunate by-product and the route most novice writers take.
Yes, it is designed to make the writer agonise over how to generate intense reader interest with only a few lines. No, it isn't about developing a better in medias res opening. Most published novels don't begin that way and, of the ones I've seen attempted on Hatrack, most people seem not to understand exactly what in medias res means. It doesn't mean in the middle of a battle with magic or laser bolts flying past your ears.
quote: My main misgiving of the posting of the first page after feedback on the first 13 relates to the "but it gets good in line 14" complaint.
If the whole point of this forum were to make the first 13 lines perfect (and to encourage multiple versions of the first 13 until it is perfect) -- which it truly isn't, by the way, then rewarding someone for improving their first 13 lines by allowing them to post the rest of the page (assuming there actually is more to the first page--in short stories, there shouldn't be) might make sense.
But that isn't the whole point, is it?
The first 13 isn't a bad idea, it's just a limiting idea. We've discussed this in the story fragments as well as in the writing threads, but many stories don't open with a "hook". And in fact, as a result of the discussions, you've seen people changing the way in which we critique the openings, avoiding the necessity of having a hook in the opening at all.
We've had people say that their narratives begin slower, a buildup so to speak. And that they enjoy stories that are written in the same vein. And that's fine, but one can more forcefully question that idea when a buildup is still happening at the end of the page in which the narrative still doesn't seem to be moving.
And we've also had the least helpful rewrites, for the writer, in which they try and cram something interesting into the opening when the oft stated comment that nothing much is really happening is given.
Having an option of a full page opening instead of the same 13 lines changes the dynamics of the critiques. Sure, you can still get the response that it gets better after the first page. But then, that won't happen a 100% of the time. I'm more confident that you'll still get rewrites from suggested comments. We'll just have a broader range of literary topics to discuss that's not available in 13 lines.
As someone who has read a lot of fiction from members here, there often is a substantial difference noticeable in the writing after that first 13. Most problems a narrative is going to have manifests itself in that opening page. As someone else here says, who stops reading after the first paragraph? If it's a short story, you probably give the writing at least past the first page. If it's a novel, maybe a couple of pages.
But saying you often stop reading after just 13 lines, not 13 sentences but 13 lines, is awful stringent of prose for the casual readers. And since I'm not alone in the members who have expressed misgivings about solely the first 13, I'm unsure why we cant give it a test go and see what madness is wrought.
quote: This is a thread that isn't about a story or a first 13, which seems to me is being used by Denevius to drive change for the sake of it, following the agenda he stated in an early post thus:
Not responding to people often have them escalate, so I just want you to know, Tailspinner, that I appreciate your analysis of my ulterior motivations. We'll just have to agree to disagree, however. Plus, getting overly frustrated in online chat conversations isn't grand for your health, in either case.
Posts: 1216 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
