Search options (Page 9 of 30)

You needed to have created a voice/character with separate identity from author/first-person narrator to express those thoughts NOT IN ITALICS.  For the reason why this TNBW meme of italicizing IM is destructive to communication and incorrect grammar (an illogic that cannot be foisted on readers by author's preference) please read my Unaffixed Dialogue posted here. You could set off that extra-personality narration with those four vertical bars, but before that, you would have to give the reader the secret code of your communicative style at the start - a hard thing to do and maintain a good story-arc flow.

I created a modern-day Greek chorus intrusion on the reader in Chapter 12 of Remembrances and Reconciliation (A World of Her Own Making) by mimicking Aeschylus' chorus with a "character" called Choro, and the reader ought to have learned my secret code of communication (e.g., Joan = Helen) of the entirety of that chapter by understanding the character, Joan, who is the "her" of her own making. As a rule, when I as an author go off into a la-la land of subjectivist writing I tether--objectively--the reader to my thoughts and style with a simple and ordinary declarative statement: Joan stepped out of the house into a world of her own making.  If I had started the chapter with next sentence, “Come, Helen, leave here. It is not safe,” the old man said. I am being a wholly subjectivist uncommunicative author. You and John Hamler write that way, with secret codes to the reader you give no key.

I'm sorry, one cannot be statuesque without being "frozen" but one can be "frozen" without being statuesque, so if Max wishes to convey some beauty that accompanies being statuesque then he should use "statuesque" alone. However, there is something ugly about that word -- sort of technical, actually, and I don't agree that the word connotes beauty but rather a formal dignity that is of a particular beauty, perhaps, but not the sort of beauty that most people think of as "beautiful" - unemotional (no tears), mentally depressed, and listless/unmoving.

Having been satisfied that TNBW does not present a problem, I have expanded the discussion to anything that may have been seen on the web -- ever -- except for short excerpts, perhaps, especially a truly self-published Kindle book.

I thought that to be the case, but I have never seen it work that a non-member can read something on TNBW without being a member first. I have not tried it on anything mine 'to the whole web' because Google can't find anything I have published 'to the whole web.'

It's too defensive to start by admitting the book exists (unsold) elsewhere, but what about an ebook you've put up on Amazon without an e-publisher - it is not that hard to do actually, but essentially pointless without marketing - the book is "freely available" without being free?  So, you've sold Amazon Kindle books only to your mother and five friends, that could hurt by demonstration of un-commercial value of the book -- but really only that nobody knows about it in order to have considered it for purchase. I can't see the requirement to have no such internet presence prior to publication, so long as there is no competing presence after it is published, unless it is to provide the publisher a loophole in its favor to dicker over royalties. Bringing this up in solicitation I guess is not a good thing to do.

In that connection I have wondered how the optional designation of "available on the internet" for a published TNBW piece works. In a google search, does the piece show up, but in order to read one has become a TNBW member? I've never been able to google anything of mine, but I can't be sure of the keywords to use.

Caroline Alexander in The War That Killed Achilles, for example, claims otherwise.

"Today, headlines from across the world keep Homer close by," she states in her note to reader. She ends her book with: "A hero will have no recompense for death, although he may win glory."  Hector lost his life in a stupid war defending an ignoble brother, vainglorious father, an insipid wife, and an ungrateful civic population. Achilles lost his life for love.

Life is more precious even than glory. Achilles never wavers in this judgement. It is not, after all, that he sacrifices for glory but for Patroklos.
Caroline Alexander, The War That Killed Achilles p. 224

It is primarily a spelling issue between the two words which is not helped by Webster's jumbling all the spellings and meanings into one entry. Forgo and forego are two different words with two different spellings and two different meanings. I have never used, or heard or seen used forego except in the expression foregone conclusion. I was thinking he went without a week's vacation "to forgo a week's vacation" in the past tense: "he forgoed that vacation" --no-- "he forwent that vacation" --huh?-- so I said "he had forgone that vacation", but also in that context I cannot have meant "to forego" = "to go before" but the best I could hope was the person listening might understand  he had forgotten to take his vacation and have the same effect without conveying the same meaning, and it worked. However, when I corrected myself, mostly speaking to myself, "he forwent..." I got nothing but a blank stare from a college grad.

He forwent foregoing the vacation schedule means he went without going ahead of the vacation schedule which put him forgoing his vacation until he was suppose to take his vacation on schedule. At least, with the two different spellings for two words that have different meanings, it is possible to derive correct meaning from the written form, but in speaking, it sounds like a double negative "to forgo forgoing" - to keep to the schedule which is still what I mean!

Certainly the fun to me of virtual social networks is to distance myself from morons and nincompoops, and the fun to you is to surround yourself by them in a birds-of-feather arrangement. And you should know, but tiny egos haven't the capacity to absorb such information, that if you hit someone, if that someone is anyone, he will hit back harder.  Make America Great Again!

Thank you, Ferengi, for the opportunity to clarify two things.

First, I intended to point out that:

is good advice, not otherwise.

Second--- and I allow myself here a rare moment of impoliteness--- your contribution to the topic was awful.  Please remember the 112th Rule of Acquisition: Never have sex with the boss's sister.

While I may be a nuisance to some, though never to stray cats and old women, I am a high-class nuisance, and you, well, are a nothing, and a low-class nothing at that.