snow halos

Congrats to those who won and all who entered also. Take care. Vern

belly button

pancakes

corra wrote:

(I am still teasing you. Grin on my face, and such. Not easy to see online, so I thought I should say so! My uncle and I do this all the time at the dining room table. He often hauls out the "I am older and know more" empty argument as proof of things, to his detriment.)

There was no doubt in my mind it was all in jest and would hope that my perhaps less artful tongue-in-cheek grin also was evident. And with that I respond to your Buffalo below. Take care. Vern

NICKEL

corra wrote:
vern wrote:

He walks into the sunset.

Well said! lol

I'm not convinced by your argument. The fact that a bunch of people who write westerns voted for their top ten favorites is still just opinion. They haven't said why they claim Shane as a favorite in this article -- only (it seems) that they personally prefer it, which is still ultimately an opinion. If what you mean to argue is that Shane is your favorite, that's a valid argument and we shake hands. Telling me that it is the best is negotiable and you haven't yet convinced me... or, it seems, the president of the group of writers you cite.

My mother used to watch westerns all the time with her brother and dad. The old kind, like Shane. She's seen A TON of them. She says Shane is good and I should watch it, and Tombstone is also good, but the greatest Western of all time is How the West Was Won. She then reminded me that I exist because of her. I find that to be an impenetrable argument.

Well, yeah, of course it's opinion - that's a given like everything about art -- and you can't argue with your mother, so let me know what you think of Shane after you watch it. BTW, as challenged, I did offer substantial subjective proof outside myself or yourself; just saying, lol. Take care. Vern

Dill Carver wrote:
vern wrote:

You're too young to remember the best western of all time...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhGkcOoTlkQ

LOL, yep, that would be up there somewhere in the OK Coral in the sky. Take care. Vern

Hmm, no proof? PLEASE read the below article on the subject. But, I do give you credit for your youthful enthusiasm as Tombstone is listed way down there in the top ten if you read all the way through. Oh, and just as another counterpoint, if you watched westerns all day every day of your life and someone a bit older did the same, I think it obvious who would smoke the field. He walks into the sunset. Take care. Vern


     
     SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., June 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- SHANE, director
George Stevens' classic 1953 movie about a weary gunfighter caught up in a
land war between Wyoming ranchers and farmers, is the greatest Western
movie of all time, Western Writers of America has announced.

     For top honors SHANE, which Pulitzer Prize-winning Western novelist
A.B. Guthrie Jr. adapted for the screen from Jack Schaefer's novel, edged
HIGH NOON, the 1952 movie that won Gary Cooper his second Academy Award as
Best Actor.

     Western Writers of America, a nonprofit organization of more than 600
professional writers, founded in the 1950s to promote and honor the best
literature about the American West -- including screenwriting -- announced
the 100 Greatest Western Movies of All Time on Thursday, June 12, at
Scottsdale's Chaparral Suites during the association's annual convention.

     "This year has been incredible," WWA Executive Director Paul Hutton
said. "Cormac McCarthy's brutal little contemporary Western NO COUNTRY FOR
OLD MEN did great at the box office, taking in over $60 million and was
nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. Directors Joel and Ethan Coen got
nominations, too. Paul Thomas Anderson also was nominated for THERE WILL BE
BLOOD, his amazing adaptation of Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil, with his
lead actor Daniel Day-Lewis winning the Oscar."

     Members voted on their top 10 Western movies, and the ballots were
tabulated at the WWA offices at the University of New Mexico.

     No. 3 was THE SEARCHERS, director John Ford's powerful 1956 story about
a vengeful Texan's quest to find his two nieces, taken by Comanche Indians,
based on Alan LeMay's novel. No. 4 was BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID,
the 1969 movie that first teamed Paul Newman and Robert Redford. Kevin
Costner's Academy Award-winning DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990), from Michael
Blake's novel, rounded out the top five.

     Rounding out the top 10 were director Sam Peckinpah's bloody,
end-of-the-West opera THE WILD BUNCH (1969); Howard Hawk's first Western,
RED RIVER (1948), which gave John Wayne one of his best roles; the surprise
cult O.K. Corral favorite TOMBSTONE (1993), starring Kurt Russell and Val
Kilmer; THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (1960), a Western retelling of Japanese
director Akira Kurosawa's brilliant SEVEN SAMURAI, and OPEN RANGE (2003),
which starred Robert Duvall in another Costner-directed movie.

     "It's not the Top 10 I would come up with," says incoming WWA president
Johnny D. Boggs, "but that's the fun of lists like these. It prompts lively
debate, and members of Western Writers of America can be as passionate
about Western film as they are about literature of the West."

     WWA's membership roster is filled with writers who are no stranger to
Hollywood, including screenwriters Kirk Ellis, Steve Harrigan, C. Courtney
Joyner, Andrew J. Fenady, Stephen Lodge, and Miles Hood Swarthout, whose
father, the late Glendon Swarthout, wrote the novel THE SHOOTIST, which
became John Wayne's last movie. Bill Gulick (BEND OF THE RIVER, THE
HALLELUJAH TRAIL) and Max Evans (THE ROUNDERS, THE HI-LO COUNTRY) saw two
of their novels adapted for the screen. Hutton, Boggs and fellow members
Michael F. Blake, Win Blevins, Brian Garfield, and Arthur Winfield Knight
have written extensively about Western film.

     In 2009, WWA plans to announce the 100 Greatest Western Television
Movies, Series and Miniseries of All Time during the convention in Oklahoma
City.

corra wrote:

The best western of all time is Tombstone.

http://i.imgur.com/QfN3uKF.gif

Ahh, but you haven't lived long enough to have experienced a valid sample size. I, on the other hand, have seen both the "contenders" and can say with complete unvarnished truth that "Tombstone" wouldn't even have been imagined without the previous fame of "Shane", yeah, not even a trailer, lol. Take care. Vern

Corra wrote:

(Vern, nothing comes to mind when I see your response. I don't know what you're referencing

You're too young to remember the best western of all time (Shane) of which that quote comes from the closing scene. It may be a stretch, but I was playing off the "back" part of the backwards and forward aspect of aibohphobia. I'll chalk it up to too much Twilight Zone during my formative years. Take care. Vern

Come back Shane!

Mommycock

sorority

Joe

Bit him

corra wrote:
vern wrote:

If you just ignore them, you can pretend the "little people" don't exist.

Do you remember me griping at the old forum a few years ago (I can sense you nodding, please allow me to finish), because the little peep hole on the front door of every house I've lived in is too high for me to reach, and this makes no sense, because tall people can stoop, while tiny people always have to go get a stool or hop, and it's all very illogical, so why don't they put the peephole lower for us small folk? And you reminded me that if manufacturers  lowered the peephole, all a person would see when they look out is the groin of an average-sized person? Which made me laugh, and laugh hardily, and it resolved my lifelong irritation with the peephole dilemma, for your logic is sound.

I won't explain why I'm reminding you of this. I'll just leave you with an uncomfortable silence.

To answer your rhetorical question, yes, I remember and am very honored to have evoked a hardy laugh; a greater compliment, I could not receive. Take care. Vern

If you just ignore them, you can pretend the "little people" don't exist.

668

(107 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

rhiannon wrote:

What happened to the new writing contest?  Did I miss something?  Haven't heard anything about it in ages.

Should be learning the winner(s) soon; it typically takes about a month after closing deadline and that time frame has now passed.Take care. Vern

669

(26 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Congrats! Keep "riding". Take care. Vern

670

(14 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Congrats? All authors should experience the birth of their first "child." Take care. Vern

671

(11 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

From my observation, the posts only disappear from the front page once I've opened them and otherwise stay until they are displaced by other newer ones up to the box limit. Of course, I could have special appeal which makes them want to hang around until I've read them -- kind of like that commercial about the most interesting man in the world. Take care. Vern

Edited to correct spelling of "of".

672

(43 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

A lot of people may be heavily committed in recip relationships.  If they look at your work and decide they have nothing to offer it, they might choose not to waste your time as well as theirs.

So what's the point? Say I receive 100 reviews from different people and I don't care to start another recip relationship, then I simply click the response box and say "Thank you for the review. My plate is full and I can't take on any further reviews at this time." Now, yes, it might take you a few seconds to type that the first time, but once you've done so, you can simply copy it and paste it in all the rest. Conversely just type an X in each response and the message should be clear. Oh, wow, in either case that took about five minutes of my precious time to inform 100 people I don't want to be bothered. Maybe I should just post at the beginning of all my work that I'm not interested in any more reviews and save all that wasted time. Oh no, another five seconds wasted. Take care. Vern

673

(43 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

jack the knife wrote:

I don't see a huge problem here. You review, expecting feedback; when you don't get it, you move on and forget about that author. No big deal. Coercion is not the answer, in my view.

There's no more coercion involved here than putting out a story looking for a review and then not responding. The story itself is a form of coercion for the reviewer -- and for anyone who thinks the points is payment in full, perhaps you'll loan me a few million bucks and I'll promise to pay you back someday with no interest.
Like I've stated before, it's not a big deal for me if they don't respond since I automatically don't review the offenders again, but if you want to talk about no "big deal" then you might also say it's no "big deal" for the folks to click on the response to let the reviewer know they have at least seen the review and then no one is waiting around to see if they are dealing with someone they wish to continue reviewing. The reviewer is not a guilty party here, the non-responder is to those fair souls who have a bit more tolerance for that sort of thing than I do.
I have another not so politically correct suggestion: Create a more even playing field by posting in big red letters on the front page the names of those who do not respond so that others have the option to opt out before wasting their time on a review. You don't want to respond, you are not seeking reviews. Put it in bright lights. Take care. Vern

674

(43 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

njc wrote:

From time to time I find I've missed a review in a flurry.  A reminded would be enough for me.

What happens if I'm getting ready to paste a chapter in when a review comes in?  Does the paste fail?  Does the chapter refuse to update because of one--or several--reviews that come in just at that moment?  What if I'm running on a laptop with a limited battery runtime?

There was/should be a time lapse to avoid such scenarios as you state. I don't recall the time differential, but I think something along the order of three days or a week even should be plenty of time to respond; however, that's just me and the exact timing isn't really the point. If one couldn't post a chapter or whatever because of not responding to a review, then all they would have to do is respond; I mean how long does it take and would another instantaneous posting be that critical (to ignore a review) in the grand scheme of things. To each their own; I've solved the dilemma to my satisfaction as stated previously. Take care. Vern

675

(43 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Once upon a time, if you didn't respond to a review, then you couldn't post any writing until you did, but I don't know if that is still the case. Actually, I'm sure it is not since I have done a review which has not been responded to in quite some time and the author has definitely posted again. So, I suppose, that is my way of saying that the more things "improve" the worse they get in some situations. One thing is perfectly clear from my perspective, if an author doesn't respond within a reasonable time and they are clearly still on site and posting (not out sick or dead), they will absolutely get no further reviews from this perhaps not so politically correct reviewer. Take care. Vern

Edited to add PS: BTW, ignorance of not knowing you have a review you haven't responded to is no excuse since all you have to do is look at your list of reviews if you've been absent for a while and it will tell you if you have responded or not. AND not knowing that option is not an acceptable excuse either.