EPTI shall bow down to your eloquence, you cunning linguist!
Please reserve a thought of me in the heart of your bowel when you accept your Pulitzer!
The Thorn Remains - Page 2
| Blogs > p4NDemik |
|
lazyitachi
1043 Posts
I shall bow down to your eloquence, you cunning linguist! Please reserve a thought of me in the heart of your bowel when you accept your Pulitzer! | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On November 29 2012 16:15 lazyitachi wrote: Hahahaha... Sorry wordmaster. I shall bow down to your eloquence, you cunning linguist! Please reserve a thought of me in the heart of your bowel when you accept your Pulitzer! hahaha | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I don't feel like I misinterpreted it with that explanation. You fooled yourself. Of course it is about you? That is what "I was in love with the idea of the person" means. You didn't try to understand her, instead you tried to pretend she was something she wasn't. Right? How did I misunderstand? It's not her fault, it's yours, but that's not profound. Well, it doesn't matter. If you wrote this for yourself, don't post it or don't respond to comments. You can't get offended when people criticise your work. It's not a personal attack. Your work is not you. Either you say 'oh, that makes sense I'll think about that next time' or you think 'no, that doesn't make sense and I don't agree, I won't do that next time.' If you get offended well good job, you'll only hear nice things and no one will tell you what you can work on. It's easy enough to fool yourself on the internet by only looking at praise. Considering your topic, you'd think maybe you're tired of fooling yourself. | ||
|
meteorskunk
Canada546 Posts
In response to Chef, i don't know what gregarious or iridescent mean. gregarious is vague to me.. i picture rocks and something tricky and difficult. when i hear "iridiscent" i picture a light bulb. So yeah, i guess i have child's definition for those words. That said, I think the way it sounds is just, so passionate and the high sounding-ness of it illustrates the way someone having such thoughts might talk. The words make it sound very seriously emotional. I don't know, i liked it because i could appreciate it and it was better than I have ever done. I respect your criticisms as well now that they are articulated more clearly. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
You're mistaking iridescent from incandescent. Iridescent is a lot of bright colours. Like iridescent summer clothes. reds, yellows, oranges, light blue etc. The OPs emotions I would say are all very dark. blacks, blues, maybe very dark reds (for self-frustration/anger/conflict). Iridescent can mean shifting colours, similar to how the OPs understanding of her shifted, but it only shifts once. Iridescent opinion would be one that moves a lot, and goes happy, sad, frustrated, excited etc. It would have a broad range like a rainbow. So to me, using the word gregarious instead of lonely, which is what you might say if you're feeling like suddenly the illusion of the person you've imagined has been dissolved, is an odd choice that needs to be justified (and isn't so far as I can see). He says iridescent, and you're probably right about what you imagined. We probably wanted a word like burning, maybe. Burning works better with terrible, and violent. | ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21242 Posts
On November 30 2012 06:02 Chef wrote: Gregarious means fond of others. Likes to be in a group. Like animals in a herd or flock. The OP is only thinking about one person and doesn't say anything about hanging out with friends the way gregarious would suggest. If we think of this situation and the word gregarious, we would normally be describing trying to get over someone by spending time with friends. Not really what the OP is doing. It's a state of mind, not a description of actions. You can easily wish to be with friends without actually being surrounded by friends. You're making assumptions that are not supported by the text, nor by contextual knowledge of the author's circumstances (which you don't have), nor by authorial intent (which, again, you don't know). A lit student should know better. You're mistaking iridescent from incandescent. Iridescent is a lot of bright colours. Like iridescent summer clothes. reds, yellows, oranges, light blue etc. The OPs emotions I would say are all very dark. blacks, blues, maybe very dark reds (for self-frustration/anger/conflict). Iridescent can mean shifting colours, similar to how the OPs understanding of her shifted, but it only shifts once. Iridescent opinion would be one that moves a lot, and goes happy, sad, frustrated, excited etc. It would have a broad range like a rainbow. Iridescent doesn't necessarily mean bright, it can also mean a spectrum of colors, especially if you learned the word first through a scientific context. Nor does it mean colors shifting on their own, but rather how colors shift as the observer shifts. There is absolutely no limitation on how many times it shifts as you seem to suggest. It shifts as many times as the observer moves. You are deliberately choosing definitions (or parts of them) that make the text sound silly just to further your point. Not to mention that, once again, you have zero idea about what the OP's state of mind actually is, and are merely making assumptions that make sense to you. Unfortunately, these assumptions are supported neither textually nor contextually. So to me, using the word gregarious instead of lonely, which is what you might say if you're feeling like suddenly the illusion of the person you've imagined has been dissolved, is an odd choice that needs to be justified (and isn't so far as I can see). He says iridescent, and you're probably right about what you imagined. We probably wanted a word like burning, maybe. Burning works better with terrible, and violent. You like to jump on the "let's not fool ourselves" theme, so let's not fool ourselves here. There is no "we" here lol, this is "how Chef would rewrite p4ndemik's work, unilaterally, with no input or collaboration from p4." This has all been an exercise in disguising a lecture on "how Chef thinks everyone should write" as constructive criticism. | ||
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
 Honestly mistaking a word is not so bad, but flat out misusing them, especially when simpler words fit more naturally, is kind of glaring. This might be trimmed down into a nice poem, with the image of the wilting rose and what not. | ||
|
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21242 Posts
On November 30 2012 06:27 Mothra wrote: Have to agree with Chef, as much as I'd like not to. Honestly mistaking a word is not so bad, but flat out misusing them, especially when simpler words fit more naturally, is kind of glaring. This might be trimmed down into a nice poem, with the image of the wilting rose and what not.I don't disagree with the basic premise of such a criticism, nor do I think the OP is some perfect form of writing that is immune to any criticism; however, the "use simpler words" criticism is the laziest, most unhelpful and uninvolved advice ever. Whenever someone posts original writing, you always get a fleet of self-important, condescending "lit students" who regurgitate stock advice like "use simpler words." It's true that it applies often, but not always. Then we get a situation where someone glances at a work, sees "big words," and automatically go through the "see big word -> tell author to use simpler words" process, without stopping to actually consider the text. It is both unhelpful and extremely disrespectful. If Chef had accompanied his criticism with real reasoning and a demonstration of having made an effort to consider the text, there would be no issue here. Instead, his criticism is simply nitpicking on trivialities in an attempt to sound like a seasoned, world-weary editor of a literary magazine and live out whatever unfulfilled fantasy he may have. What we see here is not someone reading the work, considering it, and then offering advice on where the diction is imprecise or inaccurate. What we see here is the opposite: someone deciding a word is misused, and then finding evidence to support it. It's the difference between a deduced conclusion and seeing only what you want to see. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
his criticism is simply nitpicking on trivialities in an attempt to sound like a seasoned, world-weary editor of a literary magazine and live out whatever unfulfilled fantasy he may have hahahahaha who is psycho analysing who?! Gregarious doesn't necessarily mean you're with others, I agree. But I don't think someone in a gregarious mood is being super introspective and talking about a thorn in his heart. It doesn't work with the rest of the text. I'm not criticising him for being ostentatious, the way you think. Use uncommon words if you know what they mean. But don't just use them because you think it sounds more poetic. There has to be a reason for using words. If praise is coming from people who didn't know what the words meant, maybe there's something wrong. I think I made pretty legit criticisms, and all you're saying is 'no you're wrong. you don't know how the OP felt.' It doesn't really matter how the OP felt writing it or what it meant to him. Of course my opinion is not the be all and end all. I'm not the master of all writing. It's obvious by the fact I said it that it's just my opinion and not the absolute truth. Take what you will from it, take it with a lot of salt if you want or ignore it altogether. I offer ideas and reasons for you to contemplate on your own and decide whether to incorporate it later. That's all anyone's opinion is. It's not that big a deal if I point out a specific awkward phrase like 'bowels of the heart' or some specific words which didn't really make sense to me. All you have to do is say 'ya, bowels of the heart does sound kinda awkward' or 'no, you're just being immature, hearts can have bowels just like the earth!' Only you have to be satisfied with your work, but if someone points something out you didn't notice, maybe you can feel a sense of improvement. I don't have to write a thesis on why it absolutely is wrong or right, cause it never will be. I just know if you say bowels of the heart, I'm gonna think of bowel movements, so maybe use a different word if you think that's a problem. The same if I point out that he's using dead metaphors. Either he thinks 'yeah, I could have been more original' or 'no, that's classic and works.' I'm still gonna think it's unoriginal and cliche, but maybe he won't and doesn't care if I or anyone else thinks that. Know your audience, and maybe your audience isn't me. A lit student should know better. Just for the record I'm not a student... And your "a lit student should know better" quip was hilarious. You can say that if you want, but it kinda makes it clear you don't know what lit students do. | ||
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
On November 30 2012 06:33 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: I don't disagree with the basic premise of such a criticism, nor do I think the OP is some perfect form of writing that is immune to any criticism; however, the "use simpler words" criticism is the laziest, most unhelpful and uninvolved advice ever. Whenever someone posts original writing, you always get a fleet of self-important, condescending "lit students" who regurgitate stock advice like "use simpler words." It's true that it applies often, but not always. Then we get a situation where someone glances at a work, sees "big words," and automatically go through the "see big word -> tell author to use simpler words" process, without stopping to actually consider the text. It is both unhelpful and extremely disrespectful. If Chef had accompanied his criticism with real reasoning and a demonstration of having made an effort to consider the text, there would be no issue here. Instead, his criticism is simply nitpicking on trivialities in an attempt to sound like a seasoned, world-weary editor of a literary magazine and live out whatever unfulfilled fantasy he may have. What we see here is not someone reading the work, considering it, and then offering advice on where the diction is imprecise or inaccurate. What we see here is the opposite: someone deciding a word is misused, and then finding evidence to support it. It's the difference between a deduced conclusion and seeing only what you want to see. Except it is valid criticism when you use a near oxymoron like "terribly, violently gregarious", and the overwrought "effusively proselytize", then ignore/defend when someone points it out. I didn't like Chef's comments about how juvenile and lazy ("you just got out a dictionary to help you write") the piece was, but the specific criticism about certain words is definitely valid. Perhaps you are responding emotionally to the former. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 30 2012 06:02 Chef wrote: Gregarious means fond of others. Likes to be in a group. Like animals in a herd or flock. The OP is only thinking about one person and doesn't say anything about hanging out with friends the way gregarious would suggest. If we think of this situation and the word gregarious, we would normally be describing trying to get over someone by spending time with friends. Not really what the OP is doing. You're mistaking iridescent from incandescent. Iridescent is a lot of bright colours. Like iridescent summer clothes. reds, yellows, oranges, light blue etc. The OPs emotions I would say are all very dark. blacks, blues, maybe very dark reds (for self-frustration/anger/conflict). Iridescent can mean shifting colours, similar to how the OPs understanding of her shifted, but it only shifts once. Iridescent opinion would be one that moves a lot, and goes happy, sad, frustrated, excited etc. It would have a broad range like a rainbow. So to me, using the word gregarious instead of lonely, which is what you might say if you're feeling like suddenly the illusion of the person you've imagined has been dissolved, is an odd choice that needs to be justified (and isn't so far as I can see). He says iridescent, and you're probably right about what you imagined. We probably wanted a word like burning, maybe. Burning works better with terrible, and violent. I'm writing this blog in hindsight. I look back at this moment and I fucking hate it. When I was in the moment however, those words describe how I felt. Don't tell me that they don't describe my emotions, because they are my emotions. Iridescent, again exactly what I meant. Everything felt more vivid, I felt I was experiencing the world in a different way. Again, because this doesn't fit with your experiences doesn't mean I am somehow wrong or trying to misrepresent what I felt. You are trying to make these arguments as if I have transported myself through time from that moment to this, and expect the two to be completely compatible. They aren't people change, their emotions and perceptions of certain events shift. I don't expect people to understand how I felt, but its extremely fucking frustrating when you tell me I don't know the meaning of words when I know without a doubt that I do. Not only that the inherent criticism that comes from that is that I am trying to misrepresent or simply don't understand my own feelings, when I do. It is going to happen in life when you just don't understand something. When you cannot possibly know the full reality of how someone else perceives the world. I'm not saying I'm better than you. I am not saying you are too intellectually stunted to understand how I feel. I'm saying we are different, and you can't force the way you perceive the world upon anyone else. It's an insult of the highest order when you come into this blog to tell me how I feel or how I felt. I know how I felt. You don't get it? Just accept it and move on instead of being a prick about it. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 30 2012 07:54 Chef wrote: I didn't say the OP was lazy and I don't think he is. I said he pulled out a dictionary, but maybe he just remembered some weird words (I don't think it's that different). When I said juvenile, I mean the topic is juvenile (it's a girl blog), not the writing or the OP himself. Meaning that the high diction clashes with the topic. It is ok to write about juvenile topics, it's not a reflection on the author's overall maturity. But I think it's hard to argue this isn't an adolescent problem he is describing. We might say that having gone through this, he may become wiser, and not make the same mistake again. So to rephrase: what I noticed was not just that it's juvenile, but that the words he's using seem almost to be trying to shroud that it's juvenile. Maybe that's ok, but it's something I noticed and something anyone would notice in any other melodramatic girl blog. I've already expressed that this is not a girl blog. This is a self-assessment. If you can't accept that and look at the post from a different angle, whatever. If you want to call me juvenile because I didn't respond agreeably to your tone, so be it. But I wrote this as an exercise in openness and humility. The moment I was describing here was probably my lowest moment in 25 years on this planet. It's taken 5 years for me to write anything about it. It very nearly ruined my life. So I'm very emotional, very passionate in defending the definition of my words, and why they were the ones that popped into my mind while I was composing this. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I looked at your post from a different angle. It seems less plausible, but if that's the truth maybe it's a lot more profound than boy meets girl, girl meets boy in high school and finds out all the stereotypes they learned don't actually make a complete human. | ||
|
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
This is not the can of worms I signed up for, cya. | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
The words actually match an experience I had that was probably completely dissimilar to yours but they still somehow fit. | ||
| ||
