Re: Writerly skills
- From: Helen Hall <mhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 13:44:32 +0100
In article <1hdu3lz.64o5xo7jcoqbN%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Catja Pafort <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
When I said there was no correlation, I was speaking in a strictly
My experience is that there *is* a certain correlation.
Someone who writes good usenet prose is not necessarily capable of
writing good fiction.[1] Heck, someone who is a good editor - who has
the skills to _recognise_ good fiction, might not be able to write it,
and someone who writes it might not be able to say why.
mathematical way. That is, if one took a sample of Usenet posts, graded
them according to some agreed measure of "good" and then read samples of
fiction by the same writers and likewise graded those, you would not
find a 1 to 1 correlation.
But can someone who writes bad usenet posts write good fiction? If the
posts are bad because they are incoherent, have large holes in their
argumentation, are making the same point over and over in an inflexible
manner, prove that the writer has poor command of grammar and a limited
vocabulary, show that the writer is unwilling to think outside the box
and consider new ideas, as well as a complete lack of imagination, to
mention only some of the aspects of what I would consider to be 'bad'
posts - can such a writer posess all those skills and wilfully suppress
them for the sake of usenet?
It depends on what you mean by "bad". When I said "no correlation", that
means that some people who post bad Usenet posts will also write bad
fiction. (These will be the people who just can't string a coherent
thought together or write in any way grammatically.) But others who
might also write "bad" Usenet posts might be bad because they ramble off
topic, are slapdash with their spelling and punctuation and layout, but
do this because they can't be bothered with casual online writing, but
who have a vivid command of language, a quirky imagination and who put
the effort into their fiction or have someone check the text for errors
before submitting. Possibly even someone who is dyslexic who makes less
effort online than for their fiction writing.
I suppose that's _possible_, but it would involve a modicum of
dishonesty or desire to inflame. I don't think it is possible to acquire
all of these qualities *only* in the context of writing in one medium. I
have yet to read prose by someone whose usenet posts are eloquent and
witty to find the fiction coarse and incoherent
There is an overlap in the skills required to write fiction and non-
fiction, obviously. But I have read fiction by people who write very
clear and fluent non-fiction and found it very dull. I have also read
excellent fiction by people who write sparse, scatty or cryptic posts to
online forums, that could be considered, if not bad, at least not
"good".
But as I have no wish to give examples, we will just have to agree to
differ on this. :-)
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Writerly skills
- From: David Friedman
- Re: Writerly skills
- From: Brian M. Scott
- Re: Writerly skills
- References:
- Erosion
- From: obilon
- Re: Erosion
- From: Jacey Bedford
- Re: Erosion
- From: Catja Pafort
- Re: Erosion
- From: S. Palmer
- Re: Erosion
- From: obilon
- Re: Erosion
- From: Catja Pafort
- Re: Erosion
- From: obilon
- Re: Erosion
- From: David Friedman
- Re: Erosion
- From: obilon
- Re: Erosion
- From: Wilson Heydt
- Re: Erosion
- From: obilon
- Re: Erosion
- From: Wilson Heydt
- Re: Erosion
- From: obilon
- Re: Erosion
- From: Helen Hall
- Writerly skills
- From: Catja Pafort
- Erosion
- Prev by Date: Re: Erosion
- Next by Date: Re: Lord D'Arcy and steam elevators
- Previous by thread: Re: Writerly skills
- Next by thread: Re: Writerly skills
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|