Charles_F_Bell wrote:

. . that the number of points be proportional to the number of comments left. 

As it is now, it is all or nothing at five comments whether the piece is 50 words or 5000. The proportionality can remain, say, at 5 comments per 2000 words  (typical) but could be 1 comment per 400 words for 1/5 the points. 

I think there is somewhat of an external and unnecessary force to keep a chapter at around 2000 words just because more reviewers will review more of it to get to those five comments by the end. A longer chapter gets much of it at the end ignored, and a very short chapter will not get reviewed at all (what?! five comments for 400 words to get a measly half point?!)

From one who typically leaves comments numbered well over the minimum and often into the teens and beyond, I fail to see how basing the points on the number of comments would increase the number of reviewers getting to the end of a story. If the reviewer is simply going for points, then they would go with the longer chapter since they would automatically get more points regardless of the number of comments once reaching the minimum. And any reviewer simply going for points with more or less a drive-by isn't going to spend much time on any portion of the story - whether it be the beginning, middle, or end -  regardless of the length of the story.

A decent reviewer (the only ones that count) looking for more points can review a longer work and leave the same number of comments they would on a shorter piece and receive more points in the process which invalidates the assumption they don't/won't review longer works because of the point structure. I speak from experience; I don't care or look to see how long a story is when deciding to review and I most always leave a great number of comments well over the minimum. I also read the entire story before starting my review and then read again as I'm doing it regardless of story length. Take care. Vern

PS: Edited for clarification of number comments.

1,127

(11 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Suin wrote:
vern wrote:

Most stories could fit in more than one genre to some degree. Why not just consider it "Commercial Fiction" (broad category) and let any future agent/editor/publisher place it in another if they think it belongs elsewhere. Take care. Vern

I think my issue is that it's written about a teenager but it's not really aimed at teenagers and possibly not of much interest to any particular audience for that reason.

The age of the protagonist is irrelevant to Commercial Fiction. For example, To Kill a Mockingbird was written in the pov of a young girl, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were teenagers and I'm not sure there was even such a thing as a YA genre at the time; if there was, they crossed it and appealed to a wide audience -- adults read books about children all the time. As stated earlier, many works cross genres and often times an agent/editor/publisher will choose a different genre from the one you might think it belongs in. The broad category of Commercial Fiction seems to fit the bill, but where you place it at this point will make little difference in the grand scheme of things. The genre you choose is not a deal breaker for getting published, it's all about the story -- Harry Potter was not written for an adult audience but it certainly brought millions of readers into the so-called YA arena with a huge crossover. Good luck. Take care. Vern

1,128

(11 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Most stories could fit in more than one genre to some degree. Why not just consider it "Commercial Fiction" (broad category) and let any future agent/editor/publisher place it in another if they think it belongs elsewhere. Take care. Vern

Garfunkel

1,130

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:
Charles_F_Bell wrote:

anyone is free to infer from what I have said that punctuation and spelling rules are inflexible written-language rules.

So, help be clear on your position in an attempt to bring this to closure. From what I have gleaned from your statements direct or inferred, let me pose a direct question.

Cite an example where Virginia Woolf, who directed by her style did not inject punctuation normally, in publication used a semicolon incorrectly.

That really clears it up, LOL. Argue with yourself; you just might win. Take care. Vern

1,131

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:

anyone is free to infer from what I have said that punctuation and spelling rules are inflexible written-language rules.

So, help be clear on your position in an attempt to bring this to closure. From what I have gleaned from your statements direct or inferred, let me pose a direct question. Should someone with what I would consider at least above average knowledge of punctuation, say an editor, says that although a certain writer (famous or otherwise) uses punctuation (any punctuation not just the semicolon) which is not standard (which you seem to think are concrete rules), said writing is still appropriate (or one might say creative) as it is their style, would you then say that both the writer and editor are inept? That is what I gather from your past positions so hopefully you can clarify it for me as true or misconstrued and we can wind this subject down. Take care. Vern

1,132

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Charles_F_Bell wrote:
vern wrote:

To anyone who thinks language and writing are set in concrete,

Who said that? 

Straw-man argument if there ever was one.

Who said that? Really? Are you now denying you think language, to include written, is set in concrete? For some strange reason I doubt it, but if so, then case closed.

Just in case you wish to continue the concrete delusion and speaking of your straw-man argument - LOL, that's another good one - you've been shown how language has definitely changed over the past 5000 years since cuneiform is generally accepted as the first written language found to date and all the rest have evolved or changed from that (even going out of general use is change as is a whole new language); so now, you must wait 5000 years with no change to sustain your argument that language ( I think we're talking English, but pick any you wish) is set in concrete.

BTW, if you can find another language from any other place from the same time period which has not changed - good luck with that - I'll accept that and even give you a few millennia to boot in order to find the always and forever language as I'm not adverse to considering valid evidence within a broad framework.

Just in case you want to grasp at more straws, you might bake your straw into bricks as straw used to be used for added strength, but alas even that has changed over the years for most of the world though there are still some holdouts - far from the norm - as you might note to stay entrenched in your straw-man never changing world. Take care. Vern

MrsPiddles wrote:

Sol, I don't know if you can look on my page where the quickies are, but I got a really weird message. Someone wants to be my close friend and wants me to look at her photos! Can you delete this thing and maybe block the one who did it?

Has anyone else had something like this?

Mrs Piddles

Check this forum thread:  http://www.thenextbigwriter.com/forums/ … elete.html
Tale care. Vern

Edited to add "thread."

1,134

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Just dropped in to see if any cuneiform has been presented. I don't see any so I reckon the concretist doesn't know any. Can't say I'm surprised. I'll be back. Take care. Vern

freckles

1,136

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

To anyone who thinks language and writing are set in concrete, I challenge you to present your next argument in cuneiform and see exactly how many folks understand you. After all, if it's all set in concrete we should have no trouble reading how things were written 5000 years ago. But alas, language and writing has been evolving since the first intelligent grunt and the first cave drawing.

Even if one believed that rules are set in concrete, that still would not preclude them from changing since the hardest concrete still crumbles with use and abuse over time - and a jackhammer works wonders. Words change spelling and meaning over time. Rules adapt over time. There is an exception to every rule and with enough exceptional uses, the exception becomes the norm. But, hey, show me your cuneiform and let's go from there. Take care. Vern

Edited to add this excerpt on knowledge:
***
Buckminster Fuller created the “Knowledge Doubling Curve”; he noticed that until 1900 human knowledge doubled approximately every century. By the end of World War II knowledge was doubling every 25 years. Today things are not as simple as different types of knowledge have different rates of growth. For example, nanotechnology knowledge is doubling every two years and clinical knowledge every 18 months. But on average human knowledge is doubling every 13 months.  According to IBM, the build out of  the “internet of things” will lead to the doubling of knowledge every 12 hours.
***

With this vast increase in human knowledge, does anyone think language has remained or will remain static?

1,137

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:

I guess that would place most agents/editors/publishers in the prescriptive camp and most aspiring authors in the descriptive arena...

Speaking of rules, a question you might be able to answer...

Are you calling me a prescriptivist?!

smile (No idea. Sorry!)

lol, Only in knowledge, not necessarily orientation; I expect you're a bit further down that road than I and more acquainted with their methods.
Actually, you having no idea gives me my answer, I think. Thanks. I'll explain later - out of time, got to run for now. Take care. Vern

"Schlemiel! Schlimazel! Hasenpfeffer Incorporated!"  Well, it's one word when Shirley and Laverne say it, lol. Or, you can just use the first one. Take care. Vern

1,139

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

corra wrote:

Back to the topic predominating the thread?

I just read this article and thought it was interesting? (For those who haven't heard of prescriptivism/descriptivism, a brief definition follows. But the article I was citing is here.)

"A prescriptive grammar is one that lays down the rules for English language usage, while a descriptive grammar synthesises rules for English usage from the language that people actually use. A prescriptive grammarian believes that certain forms used are correct and that others, even though they may be used by native speakers, are incorrect. Many prescriptivists feel that modern linguistics, which tends to place emphasis on actual rather than perceived language usage, is responsible for a decline in the standard of language... Descriptivists look at the way people speak and then try to create rules that account for the language usage, accepting alternative forms that are used regionally and also being open to forms used in speech that traditional grammars would describe as errors."

(source)

I guess that would place most agents/editors/publishers in the prescriptive camp and most aspiring authors in the descriptive arena. I would probably fall somewhere on the road to the descriptive side with the drawbridge leading forward in the upright position, lol.

Speaking of rules, a question you might be able to answer: What exactly are "interrelated clauses?" More precisely, I know they are "related" in some fashion, but would both have to be independent if two are joined with punctuation other than a period? I have a specific reason for asking and hopefully you can clarify it for me. Thanks. Take care. Vern

PS: Edited to add more detail to question.

1,140

(15 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:
vern wrote:
Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Here are mine. A former student designs all my covers.

http://amzn.to/1ld8grm
http://amzn.to/1iWuYmP
http://goo.gl/6YTwyz
http://goo.gl/1eLv66

Pretty cool and eye-catching. (S)he must've had a good teacher. Not crazy about the wine glass depiction for Broken - it's not - but the art itself is still good. Take care. Vern

The wine glass is broken off the stem. The stem itself is on the spine with the unbroken wine glass in shadow on the back.
Read the first chapter and you'll see why the broken wine glass with the bullet and the red substance (wine or blood or a combination thereof) fits. Someone didn't get the blue eye on Lucky Thirteen. But blue eyes run throughout the story. And the covers do speak to the content of the story.

Christopher Chambers can be reached at cchambers@juroddesigns.com if anyone is interested in his work. Tell him I sent you. smile

I'm not saying a "broken" glass doesn't fit the story, just that the glass depicted isn't broken as seen and to me personally, it would fit even better with the title if it were actually broken where the observer could see it. Just an observation and personal view on my part and I may well be the only one who would see it that way on a store shelf. Good artwork regardless. Take care. Vern

1,141

(15 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Janet Taylor-Perry wrote:

Here are mine. A former student designs all my covers.

http://amzn.to/1ld8grm
http://amzn.to/1iWuYmP
http://goo.gl/6YTwyz
http://goo.gl/1eLv66

Pretty cool and eye-catching. (S)he must've had a good teacher. Not crazy about the wine glass depiction for Broken - it's not - but the art itself is still good. Take care. Vern

1,142

(15 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:

   

And the first ever that didn't got a trademark 'Take Care...'  smile

lol, yeah, that was by design. Actually have omitted it on very rare occasions before - though I don't think on this new site - to enhance the image presented. Take care. Vern

1,143

(15 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:

BTW, Janet

Never underestimate the packaging!

That's huuuge.

00: Women and then 007

Martian: Women

Of course that would probably be my response to almost any word you put up, lol. Well, they're beautiful on any planet, anywhere, any day, any color, in any language, etc. Take care. Vern

Linda Lee wrote:

I Wonder if anyone clicked the link for those important photos.... smile

This is all there was:

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/shit/guy-pooping.gif

1,147

(15 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

You did especially well on the T-Rex bait; draws you in immediately. Take care. Vern

1,148

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
corra wrote:

But the cup is hot?

Why? Does it depict Lady GaGa wearing nothing but a staple through her midriff?


So, on Mars and in Georgia you'd always say;

'A chilled glass of wine,' rather than 'a glass of chilled wine?'

and

'A cold can of beer,' rather than 'a can of cold beer?'

and

'A hot plate of food,' rather than 'a plate of hot food?'

and

'A full room of people,' rather than 'a room full of people?'

and

'A steeple with a church',  rather than 'A church with a steeple.'

and

a 'knocker on a door' rather than a 'doorknocker?'



Are you a cart horse or a horse and cart type? '

In my opinion, it is that degree of confusion which has led to you people eating nothing but this https://letsblogaboutamerica.files.word … oodusa.jpg

I wouldn't say any of those things, but I might say:
A bottle of wine from the cooler and two glasses, please
An ice cold beer
A hot bowl of soup or a cold watermelon or just, Food, I'm hungry
A crowded room or the room is too crowded
The church puts on a good steeple chase
A door-bell or the door has/had an antique knocker

Take care. Vern

1,149

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
vern wrote:

I think it's a natural law or something right up there with gravity.

"Up there with gravity?" Newton would have a baby. I think we got us a case of oxymora breaking out! smile

Oh yeah, I'm quite sure. At least they both start with a nice guttural sound, lol. Take care. Vern

1,150

(296 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:
vern wrote:

I "got" a different opinion...

LOL! Are we going to 'get' quotation marks, apostrophes, bold or italic wherever we 'get' "got" from now on? smile

Ditto the lol. Yeah, we probably will; at least till another subject comes along to dim the memory. I think it's a natural law or something right up there with gravity. Take care. Vern