Re: [CRIT] Opening
- From: mkkuhner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mary K. Kuhner)
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:28:14 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1i4rep7.1ms1hnd1qth03lN%spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jonathan L Cunningham <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tim S <Tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Catja Pafort wrote:
[lots of stuff snipped]
Letting you do something you really, really wanted to do, when you
strictly ought to have been doing something else, is an authoritarian
style of relating to others which would have encountered _resistance_
from you?
My bogglemeter explodes.
Thank you Tim. I was beginning to wonder where I'd lost my sanity, but
perhaps I still have it.
Sorry about your bogglemeter though. I'd lend you mine, except it seems
to have stopped working ...
Jonathan
The thing is, though, that *once you explain what is going on* the
scenes work, they are interesting, they are believable--but it seems
to take explanation to get there. What's initially on the page isn't
quite enough.
You've gotten that reaction so consistently (and not just from Catja)
that it does seem there might be something missing from the version
as initially written. And explaining to us doesn't do anything about
that, since you can't package those explanations with your book.
Having other people suggest specific additions is not making you
happy, that's clear enough. Is there some other kind of feedback
which would be more helpful?
Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [CRIT] Opening
- From: Tim S
- Re: [CRIT] Opening
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: [CRIT] Opening
- From: David Friedman
- Re: [CRIT] Opening
- References:
- Re: [CRIT] Opening
- From: Catja Pafort
- Re: [CRIT] Opening
- From: Tim S
- Re: [CRIT] Opening
- From: Jonathan L Cunningham
- Re: [CRIT] Opening
- Prev by Date: Re: [CRIT] Opening
- Next by Date: Re: [CRIT] Opening
- Previous by thread: Re: [CRIT] Opening
- Next by thread: Re: [CRIT] Opening
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading