Do cheetahs roar?
Exactly. No they don't. Damn, that was too easy, lol. But perhaps the author will think they do and we can discuss that. Take care. Vern
Do cheetahs roar?
Exactly. No they don't. Damn, that was too easy, lol. But perhaps the author will think they do and we can discuss that. Take care. Vern
"The roar of a cheetah startled me when I snapped its picture."
Let's say you came across the above sentence in a story you were reviewing. What comment, if any, would you leave for the author? Take care. Vern
Open question to the author community, (and out of genuine interest):
Which 'great storyteller' do you emulate and what is it about that particular 'storyteller' that made you imitate them?
I tend to admire and lean toward Mark Twain in my writing. That probably has more to do with my own upbringing and also having had him read to the class during our "rest period" in elementary school. Most kids napped; I listened to the exciting stories. I submitted a sample of my writing to one those online sites which tell you whose writing you resemble and it said Mark Twain. I submitted another sample and it said Samuel Clemmons. It is what it is, lol. Take care. Vern
Doesn't it depend on when it is being told to the reader? The story could have occured in the past, but the telling is in the present. So the tense would be present tense when the aside comments pulling the reader into the story are made, and in past when the story is being told.
Pretty much the opinion when the narrator is speaking in a more or less conversational tone, using both past and present tense as most of us do when telling story in person. Take care. Vern
It is not true that the story has already occurred if it's being told to the reader.....
Just think: any action = past tense. Commentary, random tidbits, truth, audible or internal thoughts along the journey = are cool as present.
I suppose it's all in the eye of the author or reader as the case may be. However, if a story has already occurred, it is by definition in the past regardless of the amount of time difference. Still, you may as an author relay it as unfolding in the present tense if it fits your narration style.
By the same token, no rules are set in concrete. "So, I pick up my beer and take a drink" is action in present tense, not the past. "I flip him the bird" would also be action in the present tense as told by the author in a conversational voice. There really is no right or wrong for these particular situations; one can have their cake and eat it too. Take care. Vern
Edited to extend quote.
There are exceptions to every "rule" except of course the one I just stated. You can find success stories which break basically every so-called rule of writing. That doesn't mean that "you/we" can break them with impunity. It also doesn't mean that we will be put to the guillotine should we break any "cardinal rules" placed upon the shoulders of would be authors. If it works, it works. But the odds are that you and I as unknown authors will not pass the preconceptions of agents/editors/publishers, etc. which may take a gander at our stories. Sure we can self-publish if that is the route we wish to take and there are success stories in that category also -- just a whole lot more that don't quite pay the rent. So, we must ask ourselves, "Do you want to take the shot or not; well, do you, ...? Go for it. Take care. Vern
I agree with all that K says with one possible exception in the eye of this totally non-expert. I take it to mean that when you refer to a "guard" informally that you are referring specifically to a member of this elite guard and it is merely a substitute for their complete title much the same way we refer to "Mom" when referring to our specific mother rather than just any mother out there in the crowd of mothers. If that is not the case, then I withdraw my input. But either way, thee is a reason I don't as a rule comment on grammar/punctuation in reviews I may give. Take care. Vern
Strictly from a logical perspective, nothing to do with any rules which may apply, I would say you are even in the "informal" usage using it as a substitute for a specific title/name and thus I would use "Guard." To not do so would render the "guards" simply any guard which doesn't seem your intention. Just an opinion from one with no expertise whatsoever other than a bit of logic and layman's perspective. Take care. Vern
This is kind of in the same vein as using improper speaker tags such as "he laughed, he blushed, he smiled, she giggled, etc." You can't actually laugh or blush, etc. words but that doesn't stop people from using them or editors/agents/publishers, etc. from frowning upon such usage. To be sure eyes can burn from various things, but they don't burn with frustration. But if an author is going to argue for such use, then it is probably a waste of time to try to dissuade them with the technical impossibility of it. Most likely a future publisher will be the only one with that influence. My opinion for what it's worth. Take care. Vern
There is no debate about the word "boats"; it is plural period.
There is no debate about the word "testicles"; it is plural period though if referred to as a pair (which they generally are) then that would be a single pair.
There is no debate about combined words "summer and winter"'; they are two different seasons and together are plural period.
Are you ready for a political debate yet? Take care. Vern
The US and UK differ here. In the US, a group is. In the UK, a group are.
Maybe that's why we had a revolution. That's not politics, just a speculative written narrative, lol. Take care. Vern
Perhaps a good way to look at it is that if you put "A couple" as opposed to "The couple" the correct "is" would certainly sound better to the ear than "are" would. The "a" shows correctly that it is one couple which is singular; make it "two couples" then you are plural. Keep in mind that I am probably one of the least qualified on this site to answer questions concerning grammar. If it helps, use it, if not, the trash can is close by. Take care. Vern
In thinking about this "correct" use of grammar in writing our stories, I thought about how we use "I vs Me" when speaking conversationally in reality or often times in writing. We all pretty much would say "Johnny and I went to school" which would be correct. But we also more often than not will say "Me and Johnny took a trip" which though incorrect grammatically is more the norm than not because it just sounds better to the ear than "I and Johnny." That would also be the case with the scenario presented by Tirz.
So, let's expand this line of thinking into a hypothetical scene about Tirz's character in Plum:
***Me and Binny got into an argument because he washed my drawers with his crotch rot underwear. So, I slapped him silly when I found out and he got mad and jumped in his car. I'm flipping him the bird while he's driving away staring at me scratching my hooch because just thinking about what he done makes me itch like crazy. When he drove into a fire hydrant and it burst, filling his car with water, I'm laughing my ass off which I shouldn't have done, but it at least made me forget about my itching vagina. ***
Now, mind you, these aren't Tirz's words from her novel, but they are pretty much in character with the voice of Plum though Tirz says it a whole lot better. You might have legitimate grammatical questions from the first "Me and Binny" to the changing tenses throughout, but they all fit with the voice and character even if not quoted directly because the narrator is speaking in a conversational tone to the reader and she is a bit quirky to say the least. That's the way I see this debate about "correct" grammar. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:Hi, Tirz, you are telling the story in first person, but the story has already occurred or you wouldn't be able to tell it; therefore, you "flipped" Binny the bird as you are not in the process of flipping him the bird while you are telling the reader that you did so in the past.
Don Chambers writes a lot of his stories in first person, present tense. So I believe he would write it: I flip Binny the bird. You can tell a story as it is happening, which is present tense. Send him a message if you want him to comment on this. He's not very active on the site at the moment.
Yes, you can tell a story as it is happening, but that is not the way Plum is written for the most part; the story has already happened and is being relayed to the reader. Take care. Vern
Hi, Tirz, you are telling the story in first person, but the story has already occurred or you wouldn't be able to tell it; therefore, you "flipped" Binny the bird as you are not in the process of flipping him the bird while you are telling the reader that you did so in the past. Beyond that, if it sounds strange to you, then it is probably "wrong" even if many might think it is technically "correct." I've read a great deal of Plum, but don't as a rule comment on grammar things in a review because I am not the best qualified person to do so and there is also a "voice" the narrator uses which is unique and it would be totally natural for said voice to screw things up now and again.
I would suggest that you finish the book and whatever edits you wish to make before losing any sleep over a grammar situation which appears to be a toss up between reviewers. You and/or a future editor can make that ultimate decision regarding tense and other technical things which might create a difference of opinion among current reviewers. Lord knows Plum has enough to deal with without getting embroiled in a grammar debate, lol. It might be helpful to note that I ran into a similar situation with Root Hog or Die regarding dialect; some love it, others call it a no-no. I finally decided I would keep it with some slight toning down and hopefully let some future publisher/editor decide if it should stay or go. I put that decision in the summary at the beginning but still told readers comments either way were appreciated. Take care. Vern
You can add comments to existing comments. You can't start a review in xline, placing new comments.
I suppose I'm a bit confused by this. Why would you want to "start a review" in xline as opposed to inline. The xline is so that you can see all the comments at once and if you are just starting a review there obviously wouldn't be any more comments there to see. Vern scratches his head. Take care. Vern
You can't leave inline comments in xline view, at least not during the initial review. Also, as Bill said, the 2x2 summary field at the bottom requires html tags.
Of course you can leave comments in the x-line review, I do it all the time; matter of fact just finished one. Just click on the highlighted area and you get another comment box. Take care. Vern
Edited for PS: Others can also leave comments within the review which is a benefit very few use or possibly even know about.
Why don't you simply open the review in "x-line" to start with; that way you don't have to switch back and shouldn't have a problem. Take care. Vern
Hello, Deth, not sure where you posted the chapter, but it's not on the home page with new listings and your portfolio shows nothing. BTW, when you do get posted, you might provide a link with your message hear. Other than that, welcome to the site. Take care. Vern
No one is forced to go into a specific forum thread. I'm not quite sure what the big deal is, other than to say people really need to lighten up. The world is full of offensive and noxious stimuli (try reading some of the "trolls" commenting on mainstream news and entertainment web sites). Some people just seem to be looking to be offended. I use TNBW as a reading and writing workshop - period. Even when I'm not actively writing / going through a dry spell, I still hone my skills by reading and reviewing/editing a broad range of writing types. I occasionally check out the forums, mostly because the "arguments" are often amusing and well-written. Barring overt hate speech -- which I haven't encountered -- I'm not sure why anyone would want to censor the forums or take anything too personally. As for newbies who are turned off by the forums, I'd suggest they spend more time cultivating relationships with some of the talented and exceptionally generous writers/reviewers on this site.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN! We go through this type discourse periodically (too often) when it is totally illogical. Best way to put a stop to it is put a big glaring neon sign on the front page telling everyone who is or might be offended by opinions which differ from theirs not to read the forums, period. No one is forcing anyone to do so and quite frankly imo removing or hiding the forums is the best way to slowly (or not so slowly) kill the site. Take care. Vern
I joined the old site in 2007 and reviewed for several months before starting to post my work. Folks want to review without posting, that's their right and our benefit. If someone wants to post their writing, yet doesn't want reviews, then that is their right also, but they should state that upfront so that others don't waste their time; just a simple courtesy. People review different ways and accept reviews in different ways, some use regular, some use in-line reviews and some writers prefer one over the other while others don't care as long as you give an honest review pros and cons. People are different and should be left to their eccentricities as long as they don't adversely effect others. That's just plain decency in my humble opinion. I'm already getting nostalgic for the "good ol days" of a different sort of debate. Take care. Vern
So, let me get this straight. People are so concerned about the discussion of politics/religion in the forums that they're basically banned from the Premium Group because folks want to discuss only writing subjects. No political discussion here for several days now. And here we have a "writing/reading" thread generating more contention than most political ones and it's turning people away from the site.
There is something wrong with this picture. Perhaps it should be placed in the flash fiction contest. I've made my point before, but I'll reiterate here that "readers" are more important in reviewing our work than "writers" for the same purpose. I'll just close by saying that you can regulate the subject matter within these threads, but you can't regulate the difference of opinions which some seem to think is an albatross around our necks when in fact it is our strength. Take care. Vern
For me, it's just a way to kill the spontaneity of the discussions. Setting out to discuss politics and religion outside of everyday discussions from which they emerge and evolve seems rather contrived, but what the hell, give it a shot. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:Good luck with that one. Take care. Vern
Arguing with advocates of keeping weapons of war in the hands of non-soldier citizens is a waste of time. There are 10 standard arguments that are replayed over and over in a thousand debates going on every minute. Both sides have taken it to an art, and nothing new comes out of it. The only argument they can’t sensibly rebut is why this is a uniquely American problem. No other developed country in the world has kids slaughtering kids with weapons of war on school campuses on a regular basis. And no other developed country in the world makes it so easy to put weapons of war into the hands of their citizens. Only morons and the hopelessly belligerent fail to make that connection—and an argument with either type is a waste of time. The solution takes will. It begins by voting for leaders who don’t support putting weapons of war in the hands of non-soldiers. And only then can we find a way to “start” to bring sensibility to the forefront of this debate.
Yes, I agree it is a waste of time, but possibly a better waste of time than some other things I might be doing, lol. Thanks for the input. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:Rachel (Rhiannon) Parsons wrote:I'll end by asking the question, to vern and anyone else--how does disarming me (or any victim) make you safer?
No one, especially me, is asking to disarm anyone of sensible defense. Let's be clear, if someone wishes to ambush you with an automatic (yes I use that term because that is what it is or becomes in the matter we're talking about) there is no defense. Even if every citizen were armed with an automatic weapon, they would never get the chance to use it in most cases before mass carnage had already happened. Sure you can kill people, several people, with typical guns of what could logically be called upon for self-defense or sport, but you could not cause the mass killings with bursts of hundreds of rounds by pulling the trigger for a few seconds and spraying everyone in sight. And to call using an automatic weapon for sport is ludicrous. I've stated I'm a gun owner and would never deny anyone that Second Amendment right, but that does not extend to basically military grade weapons designed for mass killing and not self-defense other than in theaters of war.
Take care. Vern
None of the mass murders since 1972 (maybe since the '30's) have involved automatic weapons. Yes, often, rifles that mimic, in style, automatic weapons. (In the Isla Vista case, a Glock and a knife. Half were killed by stabbing.) In all but one of the mass murders in that time frame, a handgun could have taken out the shooter. And there are plenty of defenses, even cowering in a bathroom, hoping the shooter won't notice you. (Worked really well at the Pulse, if I recall.) The scenario that most closely resembles yours was the Las Vegas shooting, in which, unless people had their own AR-15's slung over their shoulders, they really wasn't a defense (well, except for an alert security force and a call for an armed posse once the shooting started). That involved a bump stock, not an automatic weapon. And yes, I think there is a case for banning or at least restricting bump stocks, including them under the FFA, as long as there isn't a general ban on accessories. They harm the firing pin of your gun, reduce your accuracy to almost the limiting case, so would "have no rational relationship to the training of the militia," even under the Founders interpretation of 'militia' (like everybody). True automatic weapons are severely limited, banned by several states, and to get one, you have to pass a background check, submit two photo id's and register your weapon (not to mention shell out the $10,000 purchase price, which may be doing more to limit their use than a ban). You then need a 'love letter' from the local CLEO. ("Vern's a good old boy; he deserves a machine gun for varmint hunting.")
Although, in general, arguments that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern weapons are unsound (Yes, the 1st Amendment only applies to anything printed on a Gutenberg press--no. smh. I agree with Justice Gorsuch that, for instance, in the digital age, 4th Amendment rights should extend to electronic communication, how extensively for the whole Court to decide.), the Founders did make a distinction between weapons in common usage among the people ("the militia") and weapons used by the army. Cannons, for instance. You had no constitutional right to a cannon.
The AR-15 is the tomato of the issue. Under Heller v DC, weapons in "common usage" for self-defense, sports, and hunting were protected under Miller v the US, but "exotic" weapons, e.g., machine guns and assault weapons, weren't. (Miller, though, was about sawed off shotguns. Oh, well.) The trouble is, the AR-15 is both--20% of rile purchases are AR-15's and they are "assault," i.e., "scary," weapons. It's probably best to leave that up to legislatures, and ban the ones that are black but allow the ones that are pink (pink not being a scary color). That's what some States have decided to do, and SCOTUS has, so far, declined to speak about it. It is not w/o political peril, not because the NRA has a Kryptonian mind control device in Wayne's closet, but because "the people are the ultimate guardians of liberty," and I think most Americans understand, at a visceral level, the relationship between self-defense, defense of country, and the perrenial struggle against tyranny. Or maybe they don't won't benevolent and wise men like Trump and Sessons deciding what weapons they get to use. And let's be clear, that is what we are talking about with gun control at the federal level.
Be safe, Rachel
PS: Yes, there are people demanding to deprive ordinary citizens of self-defense.
You can call them exotic, assault, machine guns, Tommy-guns, automatic, freaking fire ants if you wish and the result is the same. They are not defensive weapons. And no one that I know of is trying to prevent ordinary guns whether hand guns, rifles, shotguns, pellet guns, or whatever a sane person might possibly need or want for sport or self-defense. If nukes were as readily available as automatic weapons I suppose it would be okay for everyone to have one for self-defense. Good luck with that one. Take care. Vern