March 2015 - LM - Re-imagined Fairy Tale SCORES - Page 6


Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

Thread: March 2015 - LM - Re-imagined Fairy Tale SCORES

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by W.Goepner View Post
    Here we go folks. This is a classic example of writers discretion/prerogative, PROVIDED; there is a explanation of the word as long as it is not a name. Names are commonly invented, grammar is set to a standard. If the writer wishes to invent a word, it should be marked and given a place in a glossary.

    IE; *Scrumpled: (IMO) meaning not only to collapse but to wad up, as in crumple a piece of paper.

    I also read this as a misspelled word, I would have taken a point for it wandering why it was thus. Seeing there was no explanation of the word, again I would have called it a misspell.

    To quote that, Shakespeare did something does not mean it is common practice. Shakespeare was a playwright, in his time words were not as lucrative as today, also I believe adverbs were not a common usage either. Though our presidents tend to create words like, Infamy, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Later it was explained that the word infamy was meant to be, (I believe) infinity.

    I admire your defense of your work and support your use of creation. I also believe, most judges will agree, if a term definition were given the word would pass without error.

    All this is In My Opinion.
    And a fine and fair opinion it is.

    But this is interesting. Do you take that to mean that the explanation has to be explicit? Or is the context explanation enough? By which I mean: did anyone *NOT* know what I meant by 'scrumpled' there? (Genuine question.)

    And you're right: just cos Shakespeare does something, that in and of itself doesn't mean it's good practice. But I could add many other well known authors to the list: O Henry; Roald Dahl; George RR Martin; and e.g. the authors here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...ers-authorisms - or better still, here: http://airshipdaily.com/blog/0414201...rds-from-books (this one's glorious - apparently Dr Seuss invented 'nerd'! )

    So, I'd be interested in an answer to that question (from any and everyone, not just you Mr Goepner): was 'scrumpled's meaning not clear from the context? And if it were (subjunctive), should it still have had an explicit explanation anyway?

    Cheers

    Nic

    EDIT: I've just re-read your post, and see that you are suggesting a glossary, so you do think it needs to be explicit. Fair enough. I don't think I agree personally, but that's fine.

    I think I would also disagree that 'grammar is set to a standard'. I mean, I get as narked as the next person when SPaG isn't done the way I like, but at the end of the day languages evolve all the time. Read any book written a hundred years ago, and it'll feel stilted - cos our use of language has changed. (Alice in Wonderland and the Oz books are the exception here, of course.)

    Ask any linguist, and they'll tell you that SPaG rules describe how language is done, not prescribe how to do it. Description, not prescription. (Well, when I say 'any linguist', I mean the ones that agree with me, of course.) Writing is all about communication - of emotion and feeling and context as much as bare facts - so if you're a writer, you ignore the contract with the reader those rules express at your peril. (Or "if one is a writer, one ignores that contract at one's peril" as it should have been written in, say, 1920s Britain). But you can play and tweak and bend them a little. That's the fun of it.
    Last edited by shinyford; April 5th, 2015 at 12:41 AM.
    "Ideas may seem like gold nuggets, but they're more like seeds. You have to plant them, water them, weed them, nurture them, and watch them grow. Every seed will turn out differently depending on whose garden it lands in." Nickleby, 14/6/2013

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by M. Cull View Post
    Guy Faukes, I had an interesting moment when I was reading your feedback to my story. It was your note about George R. R. Martin. See, believe it or not, I have never read anything of George R. R. Martin's. In fact, when I read your note regarding the king's statement about "this game we play" (you said it was "very Martin-esque") I didn't understand what you meant. And yet, once I read your final statement about seeing the influence of his work on my writing, I looked back at it, and discovered that you're absolutely right. Unintentionally or no, that sentence did sound suspiciously derivative. I mean, it's called Game of Thrones, after all.
    At first, I thought you were going for your own stab at a fantasy world. After reading “In this game we play, there are only losers and the dead..." I was convinced you were inspired by ASoWaF's Varys, and unfortunately, it coloured my interpretation of other parts of your prose as Martin-esque. Either way, I'm glad this misunderstanding did not cost you the win in the end. It was a great spin on the classic.
    Welcome to WF!
    Feeling lost? Want to connect with experienced members of the forum? Then meet our talented staff of Hidden Content !
    They're always looking to help and advise and don't bite... much...


  3. #53
    WF Veteran W.Goepner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Auburn, California
    Posts
    1,329
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by shinyford View Post
    And a fine and fair opinion it is.

    But this is interesting. Do you take that to mean that the explanation has to be explicit? Or is the context explanation enough? By which I mean: did anyone *NOT* know what I meant by 'scrumpled' there? (Genuine question.)

    And you're right: just cos Shakespeare does something, that in and of itself doesn't mean it's good practice. But I could add many other well known authors to the list: O Henry; Roald Dahl; George RR Martin; and e.g. the authors here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...ers-authorisms - or better still, here: http://airshipdaily.com/blog/0414201...rds-from-books (this one's glorious - apparently Dr Seuss invented 'nerd'! )

    So, I'd be interested in an answer to that question (from any and everyone, not just you Mr Goepner): was 'scrumpled's meaning not clear from the context? And if it were (subjunctive), should it still have had an explicit explanation anyway?

    Cheers

    Nic

    EDIT: I've just re-read your post, and see that you are suggesting a glossary, so you do think it needs to be explicit. Fair enough. I don't think I agree personally, but that's fine.

    I think I would also disagree that 'grammar is set to a standard'. I mean, I get as narked as the next person when SPaG isn't done the way I like, but at the end of the day languages evolve all the time. Read any book written a hundred years ago, and it'll feel stilted - cos our use of language has changed. (Alice in Wonderland and the Oz books are the exception here, of course.)

    Ask any linguist, and they'll tell you that SPaG rules describe how language is done, not prescribe how to do it. Description, not prescription. (Well, when I say 'any linguist', I mean the ones that agree with me, of course.) Writing is all about communication - of emotion and feeling and context as much as bare facts - so if you're a writer, you ignore the contract with the reader those rules express at your peril. (Or "if one is a writer, one ignores that contract at one's peril" as it should have been written in, say, 1920s Britain). But you can play and tweak and bend them a little. That's the fun of it.
    You see you have touched on another point, reader's prerogative. Yes I believe I took it as you meant it. You must be one of the anonymous entries, I cannot find it again to verify.

    As to being explicit, I think if there is a place where a question could arise, why not give yourself the chance of saving a mark for a misspell when it is actually a created word. I agree it should not be a factor but it will be if the judge does not understand the word and its use.

    Also, many other authors use words of their own creation, when they do they define it in the glossary. I created at least one in my novel, "Rase" Which is a word given to any of the animals of a world in the story which would be considered pray. A variance in size is applied to the name giving it a suggested value for hunting. Small rase, not small rase, big rase, large rase and plains rase. Yes I do define them in a glossary of which I may refine, for I appreciate my definition here.

    By my saying "Grammar is set to a standard" It has a variance true, most collages teach to a standard here in the US, most schools for that matter. Therefore I base my statement in that mode of education, where grammar is standardize. As we age and things like Fazers and Wave cannons are entered into our daily vocabulary, which would be sacrilege in Shakespeare's time. Then yes grammar evolves through the imagination of the writer, yet the standard still exists.
    Last edited by W.Goepner; April 5th, 2015 at 07:32 AM.
    My friends and family call me Bill, you may also.Hidden Content

    When people meet people,
    Potential Strangers, Acquaintances, Friends.

    When dogs meet people,
    Potential Friends, Acquaintances, Strangers.

    I would rather be the Dog.

    It takes only,
    A second to meet,
    A moment to know,
    A Lifetime to forget.


    A word without thought can destroy.
    Please remember to think before you speak.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by W.Goepner View Post
    You see you have touched on another point, reader's prerogative. Yes I believe I took it as you meant it. You must be one of the anonymous entries, I cannot find it again to verify.

    As to being explicit, I think if there is a place where a question could arise, why not give yourself the chance of saving a mark for a misspell when it is actually a created word. I agree it should not be a factor but it will be if the judge does not understand the word and its use.

    Also, many other authors use words of their own creation, when they do they define it in the glossary. I created at least one in my novel, "Rase" Which is a word given to any of the animals of a world in the story which would be considered pray. A variance in size is applied to the name giving it a suggested value for hunting. Small rase, not small rase, big rase, large rase and plains rase. Yes I do define them in a glossary of which I may refine, for I appreciate my definition here.

    By my saying "Grammar is set to a standard" It has a variance true, most collages teach to a standard here in the US, most schools for that matter. Therefore I base my statement in that mode of education, where grammar is standardize. As we age and things like Fazers and Wave cannons are entered into our daily vocabulary, which would be sacrilege in Shakespeare's time. Then yes grammar evolves through the imagination of the writer, yet the standard still exists.
    Yes, mine was an anonymous entry - The Tower, with the bad Rapunzel pun.

    I take your point about providing an explanation if an opportunity arises - that makes absolute sense.

    And you're right that it's often taught as a standard (presecriptively, as I think of it). That's the same in the UK too (at least, when it *is* taught, that is: it wasn't taught at all to my generation, at least not for English [non-first languages were taught differently and more traditionally] and that's been a constant point of miffment for me).

    Thanks for the debate - I find this extremely interesting.
    "Ideas may seem like gold nuggets, but they're more like seeds. You have to plant them, water them, weed them, nurture them, and watch them grow. Every seed will turn out differently depending on whose garden it lands in." Nickleby, 14/6/2013

  5. #55
    WF Veteran W.Goepner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Auburn, California
    Posts
    1,329
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by shinyford View Post
    Yes, mine was an anonymous entry - The Tower, with the bad Rapunzel pun.

    I take your point about providing an explanation if an opportunity arises - that makes absolute sense.

    And you're right that it's often taught as a standard (presecriptively, as I think of it). That's the same in the UK too (at least, when it *is* taught, that is: it wasn't taught at all to my generation, at least not for English [non-first languages were taught differently and more traditionally] and that's been a constant point of miffment for me).

    Thanks for the debate - I find this extremely interesting.
    No problem on the debate. I never realized it as a debate but more of an understanding.

    Not all words which a writer creates are in need of a definition, sometimes I do feel where it is necessary to give a person reading, a clarification of the word necessary, especially in a judging situation.

    Like your word, miffment; meaning, aggravated confusion or agitated mystery, (as I read it) or even a combination there of. Sometimes we have difficulties expressing our selves and these words fit the situations very well. Like miffed is a word recognized by the spell checker, miffed meaning to be upset, or frustrated. So "a constant state of miffment" would be correct.

    I recall,(very clearly) my feelings of frustration trying to explain to my father my feelings. It was especially difficult when he was not willing to listen. Which was most of the time. I try to listen no matter what to the younger peoples because of my experience, even though I have no children. One should never have to feel they are not worthy of speaking or being listened to.
    My friends and family call me Bill, you may also.Hidden Content

    When people meet people,
    Potential Strangers, Acquaintances, Friends.

    When dogs meet people,
    Potential Friends, Acquaintances, Strangers.

    I would rather be the Dog.

    It takes only,
    A second to meet,
    A moment to know,
    A Lifetime to forget.


    A word without thought can destroy.
    Please remember to think before you speak.

  6. #56
    *Pssstt* Debates are verboten, you are having a discussion.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by bazz cargo View Post
    *Pssstt* Debates are verboten, you are having a discussion.
    As long as it stays respectful it's a discussion.

    "Life is a risk; so is writing. You have to love it." ~ Richard Matheson

  8. #58
    Creative Area Specialist (Fiction) Folcro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    1,499
    We don't use the D word in this house, little lady.
    For any who are wondering...

    Show: Stephanie's eyes rose and her lips curved down as Melanie ambled through with intentional grace. Men's eyes widened ablaze; Stephanie's narrowed in darkness. Her snarling lips caressed the edge of her glass.

    Tell: Stephanie was jealous of Melanie.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by J Anfinson View Post
    As long as it stays respectful it's a discussion.
    That's debatable.

  10. #60
    OP Folcro. We don't use the D word in this house, little lady.
    Honey, I told you it is only on Wednesdays I'm your little lady, the rest of the week is someone else’s turn.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.