AntonioChavez

A short piece (183 words) inspired by Laramie in need of feedback. Given that I hate textual citation in fiction- the last line belongs to Sylvia Plath and comes from the poem Ariel and the title belongs to Walt Whitman (Leaves of Grass, A Child's Amaze)


Silent and Amazed

Drieddustblood flecked jacket near me. Intermittent moans and a sense of grey stone. I fell to meet the pavement like a lost lover. Fast and hard. Wrists bound and bound and bound to my purple-blue back, duct-taped to the small. I was shirtless and channel six would later comment that I was an example of the senseless violence that threatened the gay community in Anywhere. I was shirtless and First Baptist of Anywhere would later comment that my soul was with god and that we should be grateful that I had learned, through sorrow and suffering, to repent and would be given a chance to enter heaven with my soul clean as a straight man's. I was shirtless and my mother would later let tears swim in her morning coffee without making a sound. Later approached like an army of confused snails, now, now, now, I was a mass of crumpled flesh. It is possible to feel like a jigsaw puzzle when little pieces of your body surround you- a mosaic of missing skin. What followed: Stasis in darkness and then the presence of blue.

Lyonidus

i read this really quickly, lol most problably because it is short, but it is very good, i especially liked the part about the baptist talking of the gay mans cleansed soul and comparing him to a straight man.
really this is a very good short story.

forcedkeystroke

Revision, revision, revision.

If you don't revise a piece then the most applicable critique/advice would be to work on your grammar, sentence structure, and presentation skills.

It doesn't take long to rewrite a sentence, especially one that is well portrayed.
Other than, well, keep trying.

__________________

AntonioChavez

You missed the point keystroke. All of those "errors" were intentional. I am more than capable of using "correct" grammar and I am also more than capable of breaking the rules of grammar for artistry. And if you've ever read any Joyce - I'm barely breaking the surface of what can be done to language in pursuit of beauty.

forcedkeystroke

I'm not too sure, of either.

A lot of people try to say they're breaking the rules of grammar for artistry. But when you say that, you are merely trying to break the rules of grammar for some kind of personal recognition.

And, quite frankly, I can't honestly imply that you've pulled it off. Because you didn't. The 'rules' are there, not as restrictions but because they are, put simply, common sense.
If you have noticed this generation of children will most probably not be able to write a proper letter without using a smart word processor.

(Wrist bound and bound and bound...) simply does not work for me. As a matter of fact when you use words multiple times like that (now, now, now..) it kind of throws me off to think that you're an amatuer.

No offense whatsoever. I think I may have enjoyed the prose, but still it's difficult to follow all bunched up as it is.

__________________

AntonioChavez

I appreciate your input though I'll have to disagree. Rules were meant to be broken. You'll find evidence of it in just about every major literary work written in the past 50 years... Language is fluid in all forms. If you stick with "what works" you'll never find yourself anywhere new.

Given that you seem to be interested in fantasy novels, we'll use those as a starting point. The majority of fantasy novels since Tolkien wrote 'The Hobbit' have been knock-offs of some kind. Some are good, some aren't but few venture into new territory and as a result, after you've read twenty or thirty or more, it becomes tiresome and you move on to something else.

Your argument that the rules of grammar are there because they are common sense is paper-thin. The rules of grammar are a set of constructions that were layed down by someone who chose to bring into being a set of standards to facilitate conversation between parties. Common sense is defined as "normal native intelligence" or intelligence that operates independently of learning and I while I might be mistaken in thinking that people don't know grammar before they are taught it, I could be wrong.

I'm not offended in the least and I enjoy a healthy debate, feel free to respond. Also, I'm unaware as to whether or not replies are forwarded to you, so I'll keep up with the pm'ing until you ask me not to!

Cheers,
T

forcedkeystroke

I'm not sure whether or not replies are forwarded to me either, I haven't the time to look close at the UI of this forum yet. I'm alright with you pm'ing me and, ofcourse, I'll try my best not to present a weak case.

First, I would like to argue that rules are not meant to be broken. They are meant to be understood. You cannot say that death is meant to be overcome, that old age is meant to be prolonged, gravity to fluctuate?

I agree that language is fluid in all forms, yet it's stable because of it is constant. If you want everybody to try to manipulate their perception of the proper regulation of the English language then it would create difficulties in relating documents through generations and ultimately create an imbalance in the literary world.

I will not argue your reference to the fantasy genre, but instead will directly argue change in sentence structure and the use of proper grammar.
Unlike the change's in notable works like that of Shakespeare, or Tolkien, what I see on a regular basis has no obvious point to it. (i.e. Using the plural elves instead of elfs makes literary sense, and relates to other, similiar usages in the English language. Using multiple conjunctions or improper punctuation, on the other hand, makes very little literary sense.)

My argument on common sense and grammar may be paper-thin, but it holds water. Just as a person does not grind the gears in their vehicle when driving, it's common sense not to go beyond certain boundaries when writing.

There's nothing wrong with having a certain style, but, but, but using it like this when, when such... such emphasis can be implied in various different ways doesn't have much of a point. As well as grouping together paragraphs that make it difficult to piece together the sentences and certain punctuation which eventually and subtly takes away from the original piece, in such a way that as this part of my argument demonstrates.


Apologies for the time I've taken in responding... had to get up to make/eat dinner (my love for the holidays...)

__________________

AntonioChavez

No problem with the time it took to respond!

As to your first point, I'll concede I made use of a colloquialism there and indeed all rules are not meant to be broken. Good examples, by the way!

On your second point, I still disagree. Language is anything but constant. Vocabulary changes even from city to city, dialect changes from neighborhood to neighborhood, new words are constantly being added as is evidenced by ever growing dictionaries. You cannot constrain language based on what a few old farts tell you.

Third: I do agree that I could be a little bit more clear! And enjoy the fact that we've come to that. Revising the piece, I've found a few changes I'd like to make, unfortunately not too much of my grammar changes.

Fourth: Learning not to grind gears isn't common sense. It's an acquired response! And the phrases paper-thin and holding water tend to be polar opposites in cases like these, but I'll forgive you for it.

Last, but not least, using uncommon grammar in critcism tends to be far less effective so the point you tried to make using the tactic against me is greatly diminished!

When you bind your writing to certain constructs, you bind your manner of expression. I understand the more traditional view and have nothing against say, Shakespeare or Tolstoy (and indeed am quite fond of both). I'll be posting a revision at some point and would love to have you take a look at it so we can go at it again.

Cheers,
T

forcedkeystroke

Well, I for one am definitely looking forward to reading your next piece. With more of an open mind, of course, as you have carried yourself with strength and etiquette throughout this discussion; earning my respect and intriguing me to learn more about you.

I am still somewhat adamant on the second point, though do understand what you're implying. But even with the small shifts in vocabulary from place to place, the language being manipulated still retains its' crucial structures (though the use of double negatives by the growing population is fighting my argument.)

On the fourth point, I just meant that I may have made a weak point, but not one just shot out there without thought or objective.
And as for learning not to grind gears being a response, it's a response based on the common sense you develop as you mature.

I also agree on the fifth point, and over a quick revisit to my post I realize not only did the point greatly diminish but it may have concluded the collective of my replies to have been slightly offensive. I promise that I had no intention of implying any.

As I said before, I am looking forward to your revision and of course your other works in the future. Though, have no expectation as I am quite held back after the holidays (today marks the end of my Easter weekend.)

Cheers,
Forced Keystroke

__________________

Charlie_Eleanor

The debate was a good read, in addition to the story.

Perhaps I am merely dimwitted, but what does broken grammer add to the story? I don't understand why it is necessary if it is artistic? It doesn't seem to fit the character. I understand that grammer is open, but, I also feel that the complexity of your characters thought processes would imply that he is well educted? Hope that makes since.

Well Done.

Konignacht

To Forced Keystroke:

For this argument to be accepted as true, one must accept that natural principles and man-made rules deserve to be treated the same. Nobody (not many bodies, at least) will argue that it is possible to overcome death, or to fluctuate gravity, but that does not mean that people think it is impossible to jaywalk, or to repeat a word three times to an effect.

That argument is non sequitur.

While I am not exactly willing to accept that language is stable, I will accept it as a premise for an argument. However, it is incorrect to claim that language is stable because it is consistent, because language is not consistent, especially the English language. Therefore, consider that language is consistent because there is a standard for it that is accepted as right (not entirely true, but true enough for the argument). This standard, known as grammar, is the stability of the language, and sets up a bar that one must reach to be properly grammatical.

Just because one must reach this bar to be grammatical, however, does not mean that one is not allowed to reach and then jump over the bar in their pursuit of art. This jumping over the bar has happened many times, and there is a difficulty in relating documents through generations. This difficulty, however, is only created in cases in which the starting literary standard, the grammar, the bar, was different. In these cases, it is the instability of the language, the different grammars, and not the authors ‘jumping over the bar’ that creates the difficulty in relation. On the other hand, as long as it is accepted that two authors were aware and aquatinted with the same standards of what is correct in their language, then their works can be compared by how those authors used that language.

I beg to differ, multiple conjunctions or improper punctuation allow an author - among other things - to modify the rhythm or flow of their work to suit their fancy. Perhaps you need a certain amount of syllables – turning and turning and turning, if I am not mistaken has eight syllables as opposed to the five of turning and turning. Turning and turning and turning also gives a different impression than turning and turning, even if, unless taken literally, it means about the same as turning and turning.

Language is a tool, and it is true that one has to know the standards, the grammar, of their language to be able to work with it to its fullest extent. But if one know the ‘rules’ then one can break them for effect, not only to achieve the logical end, like elves v. elfs, but to do what language is intended to do, and express what one really wants to express, to get across the understanding of what that is, even if the language’s rules would obstruct that understanding. Sometimes that understanding requires the rhythm, or whatever device the author uses, to create a feeling inside of the reader, to present the work in such a way that they receive it in such a way.

You Dig?

P.S. Please don't take this as an attack, I'm just trying to respond to your arguments.

For Antonio:

First, a quick question on the grammar -

Wouldn’t, if it is the church commenting, god be capitalized? I assume that god is not capitalized for a reason, but since it is organized religion entity, and one enough conscious of appearances to have a capitalized name, don’t you think that their release would maintain the sanctity of God over god?

Besides that it is a nice use of language, tricky almost, but mostly clear. I’ll be honest and admit that I don’t get the reference in “Stasis in darkness and then the presence of blue.”

If I understood that final line, maybe the following would change, but my current impression is that while, as a whole, the piece is a nice snippet of language and image, that is all it is – it seems incomplete, unconcluded – a pleasant fancy but nothing more.

forcedkeystroke

The intention follows the argument completely.

The principles of nature are there for our own good. And the only reason they are not questioned are because they are constant and have to be followed. They are rules set in stone that can only bend when the need arises, and stiffen as well, to our advantage if not our fancy.

The rules implied by men work in the same ways; to better ourselves through restrictions. Though these restrictions, being written by ink are not forced upon us, therefore leaving area for the mind to often question and ignore, if not follow.

But even so, take jaywalking for example; when you cross a busy street, an exit from a curve, or decide to cross five meters from an intersection cross-walk, you are endangering yourself from a multitude of anomaly's. If everyone jaywalked then it would cause disruption, aggravation and eventually a situation of turmoil that could have been easily been avoided if we only abided the rules implied on us (with our generations losing grasp of the common-sense we treasure, it is unlikely we would get by without these rules.)

As it stands, I cannot see how one can argue that rules are meant to be broken. No matter how popular that quote is with the igeneration.


First I would like to argue your allegation that there is a difficulty in relating documents through generations. Not once have I ever come to a difficulty when studying past Canadian generations, and have only met the language differences when studying early European histories and transcripts.

Every author I have read--whether it was their profession or a diary entree I had studied--followed this bar of standard closely and only extended on these standards when the language alone would not allow them.

The current English language allows an author a variety of ways to present himself and is so flexible that one can expand onto it with an infinite of possibilities. LOL can be disgraced by some professionals, but I will never present a problem with it because the current English language does not have a substitute nor a structure for proper execution. Whereas using multiple adjectives, if used, should at least be used grammatically correctly, even if it's just to add to the length (i.e. My wrists were bound, bound, and bound.)

And my opinion on looking at a sentence like that being immature is because there are a variety of ways to better describe the position the narrator is in and yet keep the flow of the poem.

So yes, there is a line of difference between what is expanding on a language and what is just cutting corners. Therefore I must agree that the basis of the English language is consistent, and where it's not it should be.

Instead of "turning and turning and turning.." how much harder would it be to instead of using multiple conjunctions for emphasis, to actually utilize the English language properly and add in this emphasis in other ways?

This route is just a quick slice through the butter to save time and effort.

I concur.

I disagree. These rules should never be broken, even if one understands them and changes them for his own situation.

'Elves' is still a plural. If you understand what I mean?

The only way I see the English language obstructing a way to portray an artists' understanding is a lack of words which can easily be assumed by the author.
It barely needs to be bent if the artist would strive to utilize it to its fullest.

Of course. You did not come out as offensive and you explained yourself without the use of slander so there would be no means for me to look at this as an attack. My life is a basis around perspectives and I understand yours, even if I contest it.

__________________