dagnee wrote:

Dill,
Well, you are never too old to learn. So bottom line means more than: 1.  (Commerce) the last line of a financial statement that shows the net profit or loss of a company or organization.

I've always used bottom line as shorthand for 'summary'. In the future I will be careful how I use the term, not wanting to give anyone the impression I was making a demand backed up by a threat.

smile

So, if you were reading a British novel and within a passage of dialogue a character said,

"The bottom line is that if you don't pay up, we'll break your legs." 

The ultimatum delivered within that phrase would be unintelligible and/or nonsensical to your North American interpretation of the English language?

As I said, the same, different language.

dagnee wrote:

Your post leaves me with one question: You don't want to go back to a centralized forum?
smile

I don’t understand your point. I didn't actually realise we came from a centralised forum.

On the old tNBW it was called ‘The Forums’ and there were four Forums entitled  ‘thenextbigwriter:’
‘your writing’ ‘writing groups’ and ‘general’

http://old.thenextbigwriter.com/forum/index.php

For me the subject threads were like groups.

I interacted mainly within community threads of specific interest to me - like the 'Shred Thread' and Threads within the ‘books and reading’ section. I totally ignored those threads and groups (the majority) that I had no interest in or commitment to.

I much preferred the ‘specific areas of interest threads and groups (workgroups)’ rather than the ‘general forum (spats and announcements) ’
I can’t see how that is functionally different to this site?

All I miss from the old tNBW are the writers themselves (their personality, knowledge, wit, spirit of comradery and sense of community; the banter). I hanker after that. I miss that.

The forums/forum is merely the paper to their page. The page was their voice.

Like a Christmas party, I know it is gone and I understand that it can’t be brought back. I was merely reminiscing, not asking for anything to change.

I don't understand why you voiced your strong opposition towards a change to the forum mechanism of this site when no such change had been suggested, requested or demanded at that point? (post number six of this thread)

dagnee wrote:

smile

Ps That was not an ultimatum, it was a question. For it to be an ultimatum I would have to had made a demand whose fulfilment is requsted in a specified period of time and which is backed up with a threat to be followed through for noncompliance.

smile

We speak the same different language

bottom line

n
1.  (Commerce) the last line of a financial statement that shows the net profit or loss of a company or organization
2. the final outcome of a process, discussion, etc
3. proclaims an ultimatum
4. the most important or fundamental aspect of a situation
Cambridge English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © Cambridge Press Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

cobber wrote:

Isn't it the same five people talking about forums all of the time?

Yurp

Best thing you can do is to read the entire thread three times over and then complain about reading it.

dagnee wrote:


The bottom line is this: Is it worth getting rid of the group forums just to please the minority?
smile

WTF?

It started with;

Dill Carver wrote:

....to me it feels like the new site is a little formal, stiff and devoid of interactive fun stuff compared to the previous.

TirzahLaughs wrote:

The new site has many nice features...but a sense of community? No.

How do you get to your 'bottom line’ ultimatum from that?

As you said;

dagnee wrote:

... This is not a social site, it is a writing site..

Fair enough; the majority of the social minded writers from the old site have left. This is a different community, a different sprit and a different format. Times change and things move on. That is accepted.

This thread started with a few people reminiscing about the previous site...  until post number six when you jumped in with the following…

dagnee wrote:

I think the old site focused too much on what went on in the forums…..
I think it would be a mistake to return the focus of this site back to a centralized forum…….

But hold on!!!  The thread speaks for itself and nobody actually mentioned or suggested anything whatsoever about making changes to the forum structure of the new site until you piped up out of nowhere with the comment; “I think it would be a mistake to return the focus of this site back to a centralized forum”

And with that random and out of context 'troll' comment people get played as you sow the seed for the entire ensuing debacle that you vociferously complain about.

Weird. Like one of those arsonist firemen who start the fires they love to hate to fight.

Your game is up. You state "This is not a social site..." Within a social discussion that you can't wait get involved in. But true to form you prove unable to discuss, because your opinion has to dominate and provoke confrontation. According to your MO, the next phase is for you to play the wounded party.

There is none so queer as folk.

1,006

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Memphis Trace wrote:

From what I can glean, the original manuscript(s) Lee submitted of Go Set a Watchman and To Kill a Mockingbird was about a young woman disenchanted when she found out her father was just a run of the mill racist after believing as a child that he was an unambiguous saint.

Having just read Go Set a Watchman five or so years after reading To Kill a Mockingbird a second time as an old man—after reading it 40 years prior as a young man—it reads like a sequel rather than the sections of a work elided from a larger work containing both a young, idol worshiping daughter and a grownup daughter realizing her father had feet of clay. I would have to see the original manuscript with the To Kill a Mockingbird lines elided to believe Go Set a Watchman was part of one ms.

Once To Kill a Mockingbird made such a cardboard cutout, two-dimensional saint of Atticus—and a wealthy woman of Lee—I think she wisely decided it was in her best interests as an aspiring writer not to tell the whole story she set out to tell. And I fully understand why she would want to protect the sainthood she established for Atticus: it embodied her own ethic for race relations.

The little I know about Lee, she was was an enlightened daughter of the south, a woman who resisted allowing the prejudices swarming about her to make her into the unrepentant bigot her fictional hero Atticus was.

Without a shred of evidence, I believe Lee contrived the denouement of Go Set a Watchman many years after she had won the hearts and minds of non-Southern America with her heroic Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird. This to make some sense of how her innocent Scout was able to have her values despite having a father she worshiped with an opposite set of values.

Her denouement in Go Set a Watchman completes the arc of the story of a grownup woman who maintained the goodness she showed as an innocent Scout. In essence, Go Set a Watchman is the telling part, the analyzed part, of the whole story of Jean Louise Finch. To fully admire Lee, I will choose to believe that she courageously, in full command of her wits, chose to finally tell the truer story she set out to tell when she was an aspiring, young writer trying to write the great American novel.

Whatever her motives, the story of a young southern woman's life Lee has told with these novels combined rivals the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for my trophy as The Great American Novel.

Memphis Trace

Awesome MT.  Awesome.

dagnee wrote:

This is not a social site, it is a writing site whose main purpose is to improve members writing through feedback. smile

dagnee wrote:

I myself was called crazy because I believe in a deity by people who did not know me. smile

Applying what you state is the main ‘purpose’ (objective) of this site within your first comment, to your second comment , then I hope you gather lots of feedback and it begins to have the proposed effect upon your writing. smile

dagnee wrote:

My experience with a centralized forum was quite different. I saw people bullied, made fun of and called out to fight over the way someone reacted to a review. I myself was called crazy because I believe in a deity by people who did not know me. Those posts lingered in the forum for every new member to read.:).....

I think it is a horses/courses thing.  I remember being called 'evil' because I expressed my doubt in respect of the existence of a deity. I had a good laugh about that. There will always be people who simply cannot accept an opinion or belief they themselves do not hold.

The old forum was always optional and no one had to go there and interact. And what you say is true. Some went there to offend whilst others, strangely enough, seemed to go there so they could become indignant about being offended. All in all spats were quite rare and limited to those who seemed to enjoy them -- or enjoyed being outraged by them. Overall, the vast and overwhelming majority of forum stuff was either good fun or good literary advice and camaraderie.

Save to say, if I recall the old tNBW site correctly, you came late to the party and were a bit of a square peg in a round hole.
But now I can appreciate how you must have felt because the new site has been squared-up and I find myself a round peg in a square hole. smile

1,009

(342 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Superhero Origins Competition Page

[Bug?] The status of the competition (on the contest overview page) on 18th Sept, says ‘Competition Open’ Whilst the deadline is specified elsewhere on the same page as 13th Sept.
Cheers!

TirzahLaughs wrote:

... I miss the forum writing discussions.  Even if I didn't always join into the discussions, I loved reading them whether it was on the oxford comma or a discussion of dialogue. ...

dagnee wrote:

... This is not a social site, it is a writing site whose main purpose is to improve members writing through feedback. smile

Having reflected upon the two points of view, I remain convinced that my own understanding of creative writing (that led to an improvement and broader skill) was more due to the interactive discussions upon literature, grammar and writing within the interactive forum that Tirzah mentions, than the direct feedback system.

As I said, this was my own experience and I’m not expressing a view that the same experience was true for everyone.

dagnee wrote:

I think the old site focused too much on what went on in the forums. People got banned from the site simply because they had the poor judgement to post something disagreeable about another member. ......  smile

Only a few cases and that over a number of years. With a wealth of community sprit, camaraderie  and laughs. The old tNBW was one of the friendliest, welcoming and vibrant writer communities to be found on the web anywhere at the time  -- in the face of that, why would you focus on a couple of little negative nibblets?  In terms of disruptive factors found in any Internet community or interactive site, the old tNBW suffered remarkably few incidents of trolls or disgruntled members.

In comparison the new site is devoid of character and I'm stunned at how few of the old site stalwarts have survived the transition.

dagnee wrote:

....This is not a social site, it is a writing site whose main purpose is to improve members writing through feedback..... smile

Anti-social then?

Yes, I suppose you are correct, the new site is a place to post writing and pickup critique --the serious stuff. Not a place that is conducive for writers to hang out, chat, joke, jape, wind-down from the writing and be social. Obviously the old site was never meant to be like that either; I suppose it just happened along the way; a bi-product.


I'm not complaining BTW, it is what it is; a vast functional improvement, more clinical in its objective. A product that the customer is welcome take or leave upon their own volition.

1,012

(20 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Then I'm thinking crazeesharon or Janet Taylor-Perry

1,013

(20 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

j p lundstrom wrote:

..... Then those who want to learn can accept their help without niggling concerns about "credentials."
What do you think?  JP

Wow. you should buy stuff from me. For I am indeed the Certified King of all you don't know and all my products are solid gold and packed with protein (no trans fat, MSG or sugar - honest). Oh, yeah and I was at Woodstock, so you can add my experience of that to the value of my product. wink

1,014

(20 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

In my opinion Vern was right to question the membership credential. I’ve been in and around tNBW since 2006 and am not familiar with ‘LAMackey’

I too was interested if this was a tNBW old timer returned to the site under a new alias?

We live in a world where the corporate and governmental standard business ethic has become ‘the sale comes first and truth comes second’. No wonder that spam and scam are so prevalent. We also know there a plenty of substandard and charlatan products and services offered to amateur creative writing students.

LAMackey is asking us for a monetary investment to enrol into this course and we are all entitled to expect a legitimate product, quality and value for money.

Please don’t misunderstand or misconstrue my sentiment here; I am not for a moment suggesting that  LAMackey’s course is not a fine, upstanding and legitimate product.

However, in-line with Vern’s thought process I too wondered about the ‘founding member’ credential. It is after all promoted as a sales device, a marketing credential; to establish a substantial tie-in with the tNBW site that reassures the tNBW buyer. If true it lends a degree of legitimacy to the product whereas if the introductory credential is a false or untrue claim, how do you qualify anything else about the product?

I know that all Americans over fifty reckon they were at Woodstock, but in my opinion you cannot wear the medal if you didn’t serve in the campaign.

A.T.Schlesinger wrote:

As topic.  Do the old forums still exist in any form? I had some great stuff there.

You did have some great stuff there! You had some great funny stuff there too. Remember the old ‘Nonsense Café’ Forum with your 'that's when the fight started' and those old writers-word-games and stuff?

http://old.thenextbigwriter.com/forum/v … .php?id=33

Maybe I’m missing something via my unfamiliarity with, and a failure to navigate this, the new tNBW site’s forums, but to me it feels like the new site is a little formal, stiff and devoid of interactive fun stuff compared to the previous.

1,016

(9 replies, posted in FAQ for members)

JL Mo wrote:

Have you replied to all of your very kind reviewers? ....

..... Reply to the reviewers. It’ll only take a minute, and it’s the polite thing to do.

Don't' knock the non-reply!

I think that NOT replying to a review (or the choice to reply or not)  is an essential action/function that has served the tNBW community well, from the earliest days of the old site through to the here and now upon the new site.

Traditionally it has been an 'unspoken rule' used by the authors to signify in a subtle and non-confrontational manner that they do not wish to garner reviews or comments from that particular reviewer again. Whereas an obligatory reply, even a simple thanks might encourage further critique  from a reviewer you'd rather not hear from.

Where I can see that some of those I have reviewed have not acknowledged or replied to my review -- whereas they have replied to other reviews subsequent to mine -- I know they have no wish to solicit any further reviews or interaction from me, and that is fine. Writer/reviewer relationship issues resolved without a word exchanged and in a subtle manner with no fuss or confrontation; both parties can simply move on.

Not replying to reviews is a clean and simple (brilliant) solution to a possible stressful and embarrassing situation.

SolN wrote:

Content on the new site transferred in the exact state that it existed on the old site. If content was published but inactive on the old site, it transferred that way here. Then, all that needed to be done is reactivate it without paying points.

If content was uploaded but not published on the old site, it exists in the same state on the new site.

If you come across an example where this is not the case, let me know and I will investigate. No one should have to pay double points.

Hi Sol

On the old site there was no 'group containers'.It seems that I CAN re-publish my old-site published works to the 'thenextbigwriter BASIC group' on this site; but if I want to re-publish it to the 'thenextbigwriter Premium group' then I am required to pay points again in order to do so. Does the 'No one should have to pay double points' statement only apply to the re-publishing of pre-published work to the Basic Group?

Cheers!

1,018

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Linda Lee wrote:

You nailed it Dill. The X-factor is everything. Once an author sells a premise enough to allow the reader to immerse, there's almost nothing they can do that will turn us off enough to walk away without finishing. If there is one thing that being a long-term member here has taught me, it's to put aside my preconceived notions. Strong story telling, regardless my usual tastes, biases, or preferred reading genres, always wins me over.  So much so in fact, that I still get surprised it.

As a young man I used to read Ian Fleming's James Bond novels and loved them even though on the inside I knew the plots were outlandish and ludicrous  to say the least.
...and the same author wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang - a flying car visits imaginary countries full of caricature level stereotypes and it has totally immersed and enthralled children and adults alike for decades. Har!

1,019

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

dagnee wrote:

But, seriously, how plausible is it for a whaling ship's captain to search the sea for the whale who bit off his leg? (I'm not including the metaphoric aspect of Moby Dick, because the average reader is of average intelligence and reads for entertainment and not enlightenment.) Or could anyone hold a grudge as long as  Javert did against Jean Valjean in Les Miserables?

The suspension of disbelief? The degree of which the quality of the story telling induces, being the X-factor.

If our characters are believable, then they live and anything is possible when the quality of writing supports those characters.
I read the Ken Follet’s the century trilogy, which is a serious investment in terms of time and effort. Over the course of the 20th century it follows a handful of families from different nations. Somehow family members are all interwoven in all of the major historic events of the era. The coincidence factor is completely off the scale; billion to one odds over and again. And yet it is an extremely successful series of novels and a decent read (if I say so myself).

Once we believe, we’ll believe anything. (Les Misérables, Moby Dick? Try the Old Testament of the King James Bible for the wildest and most irrational plots within any literature).

On the other hand I’ve read works with a totally plausible plot/storyline that I’ve put down part way though because I’ve lost my belief or never believed from the off. A wooden character, a cardboard cut-out character will do that for me as quick as you like.

1,020

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

vern wrote:

◾ Linda Lee, Supergirl's secret identity.

smile

1,021

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:

I still feel fraudulent because in essence, everything has been done before

KHippolite wrote:

I disagree. Yes, the basic archetypes have all (mostly) been done, but there are limitless possibilities out there....

Yes, yes.... I totally agree with your disagreement... and this is where I know I'm never going to be a writer, because I always seem to fail to convey what I mean.

Irrespective of however the situation really is or whatever is the reality or actual fact of the matter; I (me personally) feel like a fraud and that is what blocks my confidence within my own writing.

It is like someone with acrophobia, a height or risk of falling may be minimal, intangible or imperceptible to the average person but the vertigo, the sensations of spinning and dizziness, the fear that the sufferer feels are real and unstoppable even though the situation is imperceptible and the ailment inconceivable to the vast majority of the non-suffering population.

I’m not saying that ‘this is the way it actually is;’ I’m saying ‘I know it is irrational, but this is the way it is for me’.

1,022

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Dill Carver wrote:

…unless your fictional characters are believable to real world readers, then your fiction will flop

dagnee wrote:

As for my fiction being a flop, I have a book coming out the first of next year and I guess we'll see.

I apologise that my comment was ambiguous enough for you to interpret it as being personally directed.

I was speaking in terms of a broad and sweeping generalisation and what I actually meant was;

“…unless an author’s fictional characters are believable to real world readers, then their fiction will flop”

I’ve read mountains of fiction from new writers over the last decade and cannot think of any case where poor prose in respect of unbelievable/unnatural characterization has gone on to achieve high appraisal and commercial success.

Well, that’s not quite true, I am familiar with a couple of titles where the writing is so truly awful and plots so ludicrous that they’ve achieved an infamous degree of success and widespread readership as a result of the car-crash value of their shockingly poor prose.   

However, I cannot recall reading anything of yours and was not judging your ability to characterize within your own fictional writing.  I sincerely wish success to every new writer and that includes you and your publication.

All the very best, Dill.

1,023

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Linda Lee wrote:

My husband has dragged his feet for 30 years about getting involved in writing as a creative process. He believes "there are no true original works because all they've all been done before." .......

I fully understand his concerns (I understood the first time you stated this and can see the direct link between writing music, lyrics, fiction and poems -- they all follow the same creative process in terms of invention and composition).

I've been put off creating fictional stories for the same reasons your husband has been put off writing music. I read an awful lot and when I write, even though I've put a lot of conscious effort into making it original, I still feel fraudulent because in essence, everything has been done before. There are only a certain amount of words and phrases and there is not a story that is not like another 10 or 2,000 in one way or another.

The trick is (of course) not to worry about it. But even knowing that, some of us are ruled by a self-conscious pedantic attitude (even if it is a subconscious influence).

Yesterday I started to write an entry for the Superhero competition. It is way out of my natural genre scope and I thought that unfamiliar ground would provide an exercise in making my writing fresh (i.e. if I don’t read the genre then I'd be less likely to fall into the ‘common genre cliché mode’ that can occur when authors write a type or class of story). What I forget is that genre fan readers actually expect the platitude of the common formula – often which is the hook or attraction for them).
   
Anyway, I read back what I’d written and although I thought it an original plot and prose, as I wrote, I was mortified to notice similarities to other works (written and film) that must have surreptitiously influenced my train of thought as I created the story. When read objectively, my work seemed to me like a borrowed and rehashed ‘same-old’ churned out story.

I can see where you husband is coming from.

1,024

(62 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

I believe that you may have just proved that.

1,025

(99 replies, posted in TheNextBigWriter Premium)

Jube wrote:

You don't feel you are following in the footsteps of the Dennis Conner argument?

Dennis Conner, back in the day, was the U.S. representative for America's Cup in sailing. He ran into a particularly troublesome foe with a better designed New Zealand boat that he just couldn't overcome. His solution was to go back to the descriptions of the rules stipulating the sizes of the boats to compete and so used a Catamaran, thereby winning by a ridiculous margin against the New Zealand boat. When the issue made its way into court, the judge admonished DC for looking to use the literal statements of the rules while intentionally ignoring the spirit and intent of the competition.

The context of the examples that male circumcision was daisy chained together with was clearly meant to cast it in an abhorrent light. I stand by the validity of my objection, although I will yield to any counter of it's very likely few reading this will be in the near future deciding on circumcision of their newborn son. If that is the case, then I've simply been crying my Paul Revere warning from horseback for no good reason smile It was, however, a frequent sore point back in the insurance days from the customer base who would ask, "My friend says the procedure will maim and half-kill my newborn if I do this?", "I heard only a monster would do this to their own child?" Etc. I'm not saying Dill spoke to each and everyone one of these parents back then, but if you put enough Dills together on the subject, you get a 5,000 pickle count bucket at McDonald's smile

I'm sorry but in respect of other people I really could not give a toss who is circumcised and who is not -- or why. Each has their own choice and my personal choice is that you don't come near me or mine with your knife unless you are a surgeon performing a medically required surgical procedure. Other than that you can circumcise the world… or not, because I truly couldn't care less. Within all that I’ve written I have never expressed an opinion that other people should not be circumcised or even that male circumcision is a bad thing… I merely stated that cultures that don’t do it for religious reasons have difficulty understanding those that do.  Obviously from the responses here, the opposite is also true and cultures that do circumcise cannot relate to cultures that don’t, so eager are they to promte and justify the practice.