Shalanna ([info]shalanna) wrote,
@ 2008-04-04 00:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
A ten-foot poll . . . watch out for toes
I'm concerned about how seriously people are taking my opinions or musings that I post here or on others' journal threads. What I say isn't meant to be taken as gospel, and not all the advice I give may be good for you (although it's meant well and I always intend for it to be good for you). I don't want to mislead aspiring authors (or anyone else): when I state that I believe that X is more likely to be a good strategy for getting published or writing a readable story or whatnot, that's all it is--what I believe, or at least it's to the best of my knowledge at this time. I might figure out something different later on and change my mind as new info comes in, and so should you. Don't go by what just one person says. Often, you have to discover your own truths. But you knew that.

Anyhow, I'm wondering. I know that my experience of a story or a novel or even your blogpost will be a synthesis of what you said and what I read into it, because of what I brought to the work. This also applies to things people may say here. But I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and don't assume that they're trying to be nasty whenever they make comparisons--they're just the comparisons that seemed illuminating at the time. For example: If I write that I think it's harder to bake well than to cook well because baking is really chemistry and takes more precision and cooking on the stove will usually turn out pretty well even if you fudge on the amounts a little, does that insult good cooks? It shouldn't. It's just someone's opinion. We can agree to disagree.

Let's say that I claim to be a baker (though I don't). Does that put my sample (fake) opinion above in a more sinister light? I mean, would you then say, "Aha, you think baking is tougher because you're a baker and you always think that what YOU do is harder than what others do, and you're once again proven an arrogant twit/twat?" Surely not, but I am seriously wondering how many people see it this way, and don't call me Shirley. At least not in public.

Poll #1165586 Play Ball, or Play Misty for Me
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Which is harder?

View Answers

Playing music with a band (amateur)
1 (9.1%)

Playing softball or amateur team sport
1 (9.1%)

They're equal
1 (9.1%)

They're not comparable
8 (72.7%)

*yawn*
0 (0.0%)

Does saying that one is "harder" or requires more ability bash those who do the other thing?

View Answers

No, because it doesn't matter which is harder, just that you do the one you like best
2 (18.2%)

Yes, because we have to always be careful not to say anyone's better at anything than anyone else
0 (0.0%)

To say X is good does not mean Y is not good, too
9 (81.8%)

*faint*
0 (0.0%)

Is it arrogant if a person says she thinks it's tougher to bake cookies than to fold laundry? I mean, can we hold opinions, or is that out of style now?

View Answers

No matter what YOU say, it's arrogant because you are
0 (0.0%)

You can have opinions. People shouldn't take everything so seriously.
7 (58.3%)

Try not to think so much. It always gets you into trouble.
2 (16.7%)

Someone's gonna try to read something into anything you say, so just agree to disagree
2 (16.7%)

I don't know . . . isn't this the Qwik Mart?
1 (8.3%)



# # #

From a mythology book earlier, speaking of the Norse myths: "The power of good is shown not by triumphantly conquering evil, but by continuing to resist evil while facing certain defeat." *thought-provoking truth*

"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws."
--John Adams

"Verba volant, scripta manent" ("Words fly away, writings remain")

"It's so nice when people humiliate themselves. Saves me some work.;-)"--[info]sosoclever

Don't take life so seriously.--Kilroy


(Post a new comment)


[info]abbie_normal
2008-04-04 01:35 pm UTC (link)
and i add, "life is short. make fun of it!"

(Reply to this)


[info]coneycat
2008-04-04 01:41 pm UTC (link)
This whole business of communicating solely in writing is, I think, really valuable to me as a writer. If I write something on my blog and it's clear from the comments that it was taken in a way I didn't intend... then that says something about the way I wrote it. In nearly all cases, the people who read my journal and comment on it do not know me in person--they only know the character I have created through my posts. I'm the protagonist of my own journal!

So the thing is, if you consistently find that certain types of posts are being misunderstood--then that's a message to you about the way you wrote them.

And the nice thing about using LJ as an exercise in tone is this: the feedback is immediate, so (assuming people respond) you can find out when you're hitting the tone you meant to, and when you aren't. And it's truly not personal, because your readers only know the "you" who is the protagonist of your journal. The "you" you create with your own words.

That's kind of freaky to think about, but certainly cool as well. I may need to explore this idea further in my own journal!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sartorias
2008-04-04 03:09 pm UTC (link)
*Nodding*

I think we're sometimes most invisible to ourselves. (I know I am, I can't tell when I'm coming off like an asshat until someone whaps me.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]heleninwales
2008-04-04 03:26 pm UTC (link)
The really interesting thing is when some people read it as intended and others take umbrage. I don't normally post anything in the least controversial, but from the replies to my recent series of posts on what I think makes a saleable novel, I felt that some people were missing the point of what I was trying to say. I was trying to be clear (naturally!) and on re-reading what I wrote, I don't think they were replying precisely to what I'd written, but there was something in what I had said that was triggering a reaction that caused them to misread.

Or was I just not writing as clearly as I thought I was? :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]coneycat
2008-04-04 03:41 pm UTC (link)
I think Stephen King was onto something in On Writing, when he said that if over half your readers misunderstand or dislike something you've written, then you have a problem. Less then that is reader variation and opinion. I generally give myself the benefit of the doubt until I start to see a real trend where the same problem crops up consistently. (Which is why I have shelved by first attempt at a mystery. When 75% of the editorial readers pick out the same two flaws... they're flaws!)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]shalanna
2008-04-04 07:17 pm UTC (link)
That's what always happens--a couple of people take umbrage to something that seemed like a tossed-off comparison. The trigger for their misreading (and their blood pressure rising) is IN there, and they're replying to their criticizing mother, their controlling father, that arrogant dean of students who kept them from getting a scholarship, and so forth. We would like to write clearly enough that these things don't happen, but I fear that's impossible. I notice many times that I react to plot points or events in a novel all out of proportion to its importance in the story, and I usually know what it is that bugs me about it, but the only answer is not to read those kinds of stories. *grin*

But anyway, I would have commented on your posts, but I was afraid I *would* say something that would slow you down--you seemed to be on a roll, so I didn't want to contaminate it. I particularly like the idea of putting something cool every 300 words or so!! In fact I feel that I *do* this, if you count things like using a newly coined word or expression or making some kind of pun. However, my problem there is that not everyone agrees that those things are cool. -0.0- Still, I'm pretty sure this is what keeps me reading books . . . something cool or funny or an amazing fact ("Who knew that platypuses are purple and the plural is supposed to be 'platypi'??") every now and then.

And so often, when I ask people, "Coke or Pepsi," they answer, "Smirnoff." So what's the use of all this clarity anyway? :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]coneycat
2008-04-04 07:37 pm UTC (link)
Again, though, if it "always happens" on certain posts--take a look at those posts, you know? As [info]sartorias says, we are often invisible to ourselves and can't see how our behaviour affects others (and I am guilty of that myself) but if there's an identifiable trend it may be in the writing, not the dean of students.

Just a thought from a writing point of view. Because if we dismiss the idea that the reader is reacting to what she read, we're not only back to blaming the reader, we've also lose the opportunity to grow as a writer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]heleninwales
2008-04-05 01:02 pm UTC (link)
I'm reading [info]mevennen's novel The Demon and the City at the moment and I think she's another writer who manages something cool every page or so. Well, so does [info]matociquala and lots of other successful writers. And the "cool thing" is wholly dependent on the type of story. It could be a pun or moment of humour just as easily as a dramatic moment or shocking revelation.

I like your writing and I think you do manage the "cool stuff" trick, though I think I prefer your non-fiction (which is confident and assured and definitely has a distinctive voice) to the snippets of fiction I've seen, but that may be just because with the fiction you've been posting the passages that you weren't happy with and therefore wanted comments on. :)

Anyway, now my challenge is to take on board all the stuff I've been talking about and try to combine it successfully into a brand new novel!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dennismhavens
2008-04-04 03:22 pm UTC (link)
I really should start blogging again. I kinda miss being misundertood and occasionally excoriated. On the other hand . . . that'd be the left, right? Okay, the left, correct? I can't believe so many people said that playing in an amateur band and playing baseball "are not comparable." Having done both, I know how many points of commonality they have. Good hand-eye coordination are crucial in both, and the list goes on from there.

As for how seriously I take your blogging, it depends on the subject matter. Some deserve sober consideration, others require a "ha-ha" because they're funny! Yet others betray your frustration, and those often require paying the most attention of all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]sosoclever
2008-04-04 07:26 pm UTC (link)
I have done both, also, and while I agree there are similarities, there are not enough to say they are comparable. You can, perhaps, compare the single points, but when you look at the entire experience, those points become almost meaningless.

Wait, I can't remember, are we allowed to have opinions?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]shalanna
2008-04-04 08:15 pm UTC (link)
I can't remember. Look at the poll again. . . . *grin* I think they voted to allow opinions! At least where not prohibited by law!

Playing with a band was like having group sex, not that I have any experience with THAT, but it's like what you might imagine that would be like--I kept looking over at the flute player and he'd take over the top line, or if someone seemed to be changing to a waltz rhythm, I would have to figure out which song they were going to. Whew! Playing softball was more predictable in a way. Plus, I knew I was not expected to shine, and so I didn't worry so much. On stage, I got really frozen up because my friend Terry had gone around telling everybody how great I was on the baby grand--well, this keyboard wasn't a baby grand and I couldn't hear myself playing because I was behind the speaker stack, so . . . eeep!

I like soloing a lot better than playing with a band. That way, if I get lost, I can just do a few jazz runs (or, if playing Mozart, a few chromatic runs) and pick it up at the next memory point. With a band, that's a REAL problem. I suspect that one accordionist could've kept up, though; he was really good, even though he kept returning to the German beer garden playlist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]shalanna
2008-04-04 07:28 pm UTC (link)
*I* can't believe that you said it was tougher to play softball! I mean, okay, maybe it IS tougher for me and for you, because we have some special motivation or relationship to music. (In case anyone reading this doesn't know, Dennis is a famous Vegas lounge player who was in the Bobby Sherwood band, among others, and played instruments backing up people like Vic Damone and Judy Garland--his late wife's AUNT--among others. So when I say he plays music and writes marches for orchestras and has a granddaughter who has a contract to put out a CD with Warner Records soon, I am not just whistlin' Dixie off key!)

What prompted this was that over on another journal, we were talking about how people sometimes don't perceive musicians as smart. This may be because so many of the musicians they talk to are stoned at the time. *GRIN* But anyhow, I (as is typical) launched into some passionate defense of how tough I found it to play along with a band the couple of times I did it. When I worked at DSC, I somehow got rooked into playing an unfamiliar electronic keyboard during a series of lunchroom Christmas parties, and I had to LEAD the Christmas carols . . . playing with (you won't believe this) two accordionists (I am not making this up), a flute player, and a tambourine (I am still not making this up.) The most common remark made when requests were asked for was, "Take music lessons!" *Grin* I was expected to just "pick it up," as no one had any sheet music and they were all playing "by ear," and the accordionists kept launching into "Roll Out the Barrel." I am STILL not making this up. Hey, I should send you copies of the photos of this event. We all had to wear fuzzy Santa hats.

Anyway . . . that was hard. I have also played outfield on a church softball team and played the goat on an inter-office team when I was at E-Systems Garland. All I was ever really able to do was be the comic relief for sports teams, as I am a clumsy ox, but that's not necessarily the case with the majority, in my experience; most of my co-players could catch the ball, whereas I was usually panicked and dodging it for fear it would hit me in the face. My dad scared me when I was a child once, yelling that I'd break my nose catching the ball or whatnot. I don't know for sure, but that does come to mind as a reason. AT ANY RATE *ahem*, I think that the ability threshold to play the average position on a softball team is lower than to play guitar onstage. I gave an entire rationale on this when I replied in that thread, but to no avail, as the respondent still thinks I am an arrogant twit. *regurgitating hands* But whatever, I didn't mean to put down all softball players. Or software players. I just think it is harder to play "Reverie" when an entire auditorium is gaping at you and the piano is a quarter-tone sharp (and it's a Yamaha with a stiff action) than it is to stand in the outfield like Lucy Van Pelt with the sun in her eyes and yell, "BatterbatterbatterSWING!"

*grin* But yeah, I'm with you on the part about both activities being similar. You must coordinate with the team and not play E-flat when the others are on E (and not try to steal third and fail miserably), you must anticipate what others will do, etc. So I'm surprised that the first six respondents said the activities weren't comparable. What was your rationale when you said softball is harder?

P. S. Always take me seriously

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sosoclever
2008-04-04 03:27 pm UTC (link)
I've been quoted by [info]shalanna! I've made it to the big time!:-)

I'll have to add this to my curriculum vitae.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…