Re: Experimental collaboration
- From: Blue Sow <blue@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 12:20:25 +0100
FCS wrote:
On May 8, 11:18 am, Blue Sow <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I do get the impression, and I hope I'm not going
to doubt the wisdom of saying this, that whilst you
do play around with language and information, you
are basically honest. So that when you say you
"know" something it means "know" in the dictionary
definition sense of the word, rather than, say, the
rather looser rhetorical sense of the word whereby
people "know" they're going to experience eternal life
one way or another.
Thank you. I am basically honest and I used the word 'know' in that instance to mean 'know for an absolute fact because I have seen the evidence to prove it'.
In other contexts, playing with language is more or less my job (-:
I do not give personal details on the Internet, but to answer your other question 'any and all' would be a fair description.
It is highly unlikely that one would expect to find quality criticism in a
public newsgroup. This is not to say it is impossible, but there is no good
reason why it would be probable.
Erm, no. You're just wrong here.
We must agree to differ on that.
Perhaps it is more important to consider where one might look for quality criticism. Certainly, if and when I have had something for which I sought criticism, Usenet was not, and never would be, my first choice. In keeping with the principle of honesty, it would be true to say that it would be the last place I would look given that there are so many others.
it has pretty much reverted back to such types, in that
it's the people who were into it anyway who still are.
I wish I agreed with you on that. The amount of trolling and abuse on Usenet (in some groups) is as bad, or worse, than ever.
As such there have been times when intelligent discussion
and informed criticism have characterised USENET.
Possibly so, but as above, not high on my list of places to go. Certainly for literary work, I would not seek criticism by placing the work in the public domain. Even writers have to eat.
Most publishers that I know of will not touch something which has been published before, especially if published on the Internet. We should exclude Shakespeare et al from that generalisation.
As for the standard of criticism, I should've thought
there was more chance of finding real, worthwhile
criticism in a group such as this now than at any
time since about 1984.
As mentioned, I would never look here anyway, in 1984 or at any other time since.
It is not unusual for posting assignment work on the internet to be considered
an offence for which students can be sent down. I am not sure what would happen
to tutors who did so, but it would be unpleasant.
Bwahaha! In a field such as creative writing there
are no right or wrong answers such as there are
in maths or physics or chemistry.
There are no right or wrong answers in the humanities generally. I cannot state this for all universities but in those with which I am familiar, posting course work on the Internet, regardless of if it is from a humanities course or the sciences is a very serious offence. This does not mean it never happens - people commit murder and that is frowned upon by the law.
It depends. If he's being satirical in his repeated
reproductions of other artists' work which he then
passes off as his own until they complain, on the
basis that the last supper was reworked (i.e., copied)
goodness only knows how many times by various lesser-
known artists wishing to showcase their skills to
potential patrons, then he's made his point and,
in many ways, perhaps should seek some advice
on how to handle his aversion to generating original
material.
I was not commenting on his alleged copying, or not, of other writer's work.
His standard of writing is not high, regardless of the originality of the content. As I suggested, it is like reading a child's essay (only much longer).
He was one of the people who was instrumental in
this group appearing on USENET in the first place.
Lots of people have set up lots of groups on Usenet. Some of them, I know and most, of course, I do not. This does not automatically mean they are competent to perform any other function although some certainly are and some obviously are not.
I think it still has, and should have, a future, but only
after the basic assumptions have been reviewed.
It provides a meeting place for those interested in writing for whatever reason.
That should be the only basic assumption needed.
One thing I was going to ask anyway though is
if this has indeed irredeemably ground to a halt
would you prefer if I removed the quoted material
(i.e., your posts) from my contributions prior to
reposting mine.
If you don't want your contributions up here any
more this wouldn't be a problem but would be a
waste of time if you honestly don't care either
way.
Honestly? I do not care either way.
My efforts did not represent any significant investment of time or thought.
--
Blue Sow
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Experimental collaboration
- From: FCS
- Re: Experimental collaboration
- References:
- Experimental collaboration
- From: Blue Sow
- Re: Experimental collaboration
- From: FCS
- Re: Experimental collaboration
- From: Blue Sow
- Re: Experimental collaboration
- From: FCS
- Re: Experimental collaboration
- From: Blue Sow
- Re: Experimental collaboration
- From: FCS
- Experimental collaboration
- Prev by Date: FAO Simon Pegg V
- Next by Date: Ping FCS
- Previous by thread: Re: Experimental collaboration
- Next by thread: Re: Experimental collaboration
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
