Re: 'mode' for a scene?

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 15:09:30 GMT, R. L. <see-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:26:00 GMT, spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jonathan L
>Cunningham) wrote:
>/snip/
>>>R. L. wrote:
>/snip/
>
>[ re Bickham ]
>>>> There's much to dislike in him and to disagree with, but at least he
>>>> supplies some memorable terms and gives many simple examples of those
>>>> terms.
>
>/snip/
>
>>I'm someone who can't even remember what all these Bickham terms mean.
>>Obviously Rosemary finds them useful in some way but, perhaps, a
>>relatively small number of us find them useful? If Rosemary wants to
>>discuss process with the rest of us, again perhaps, some alternative
>>ways of talking about process, or pov, or scene transitions etc. might
>>be appropriate?
>
>I don't want to invent new terms that duplicate existing terms. If someone
>else has neater terms, fine. I do like to make connections, to point out

That's not the problem, for me. The problem is that I can't
remember[1] the underlying *concepts*. Inventing new terms would make
no difference to that.

So, when I said "some alternative ways of talking about process" the
actual words chosen were (to me) irrelevant. I was asking for a
different way of looking at it.

But that was an invitation (to think about it differently) not a
criticism of how you like to think about process.

[1] I don't mean that I've forgotten them (though I have) but that
I don't find the concepts memorable - I remember ideas, not words,
and if the words don't translate into ideas (concepts) in my mind,
there's nothing for me to remember. Just as, if you spoke in
Urdu, there would be nothing for me to remember: I don't know the
language.

Jonathan

--
Mail to spam auto-deleted, use jlc1 instead.
(That's jay ell cee one, if your font makes l and 1 look the same)

.