Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
knee tunes wrote:
Harmless wrote:
Cheers guys. This went well. I have video. You will see it eventually. I was nervous as fuck for the first couple of minutes but then it went fine. My other readers were brilliant, as usual.
Looking forward to seeing/hearing it!
Now if only orpheus would post that video of his stand up...
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:41 pm Posts: 23014 Location: NOT FLO-RIDIN Gender: Male
Harmless wrote:
Cheers guys. This went well. I have video. You will see it eventually. I was nervous as fuck for the first couple of minutes but then it went fine. My other readers were brilliant, as usual.
Great news! Glad it went well.
_________________
given2trade wrote:
Oh, you think I'm being douchey? Well I shall have to re-examine everything then. Thanks brah.
Cheers guys. This went well. I have video. You will see it eventually. I was nervous as fuck for the first couple of minutes but then it went fine. My other readers were brilliant, as usual.
What's the consensus on using dashes instead of parenthesis? Or do they have different use?
Also, what's the consensus on semi-colons? I think I remember reading somewhere that Vonnegut hated them, though I may be mixing him up with someone else.
Dashes are different to parenthesis, I believe, in the following way:
Dashes would be used for a fragment within a sentence which is an aside related to the sentence around it.
ie. 'New York -- a massive, fruity city -- is so massive and fruity, they call it the Big Apple.'
Parenthesis would be used for a fragment within a sentence which is not related to the sentence around it, but is extraneous info added on, in a 'by the way' fashion. That's why a lot of people find them very annoying if used too often; they're pretty unnecessary most of the time.
ie. 'New York (oh man, I got a huge boner there once) is so massive and fruity, they call it the Big Apple.'
I like semi-colons. They're useful, if used sparingly.
A colon is used to attach another clause to a sentence, even another sentence, which is very closely related to the previous one, but not closely enough to use a comma, and too closely related to use a full-stop / period.
ie. 'New York is an extremely large and fruity city; so large and fruity, in fact, that they call it the Big Apple.'
Seriously, you gotta be feeling great. That was a pretty thorough review & you came out shining. & holy shit the poetry too--that ain't no amateur hour!
_________________ Can you feel the magic? Oh, yeah
Seriously, you gotta be feeling great. That was a pretty thorough review & you came out shining. & holy shit the poetry too--that ain't no amateur hour!
Hehe, yeah I'm pleased. I know a bit about Jane Holland, and I don't think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.. so I'm particularly glad that she liked me, when she ordinarily (or so I thought) wouldn't like a poet like me. I might want to quibble with a couple of things she said, but hey, give me a review that doesn't make one feel like that, and I'll eat my hat. So yeah. Really pleased.
There's another place reviewing it in the next few days; that place will publish three reviews by different people at the same time, so that you have three different opinions. Nervous about that one, but hopefully I'll come out of that not scarred too badly as well.
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:51 am Posts: 4009 Location: S. Florida Gender: Female
Harmless wrote:
Hehe, yeah I'm pleased. I know a bit about Jane Holland, and I don't think we see eye to eye on a lot of things.. so I'm particularly glad that she liked me, when she ordinarily (or so I thought) wouldn't like a poet like me. I might want to quibble with a couple of things she said, but hey, give me a review that doesn't make one feel like that, and I'll eat my hat. So yeah. Really pleased.
There's another place reviewing it in the next few days; that place will publish three reviews by different people at the same time, so that you have three different opinions. Nervous about that one, but hopefully I'll come out of that not scarred too badly as well.
I don't think you have much to be nervous about, the writing is impressive--not much to find fault with. (unless they're in pissy moods )
_________________ Can you feel the magic? Oh, yeah
Dashes are different to parenthesis, I believe, in the following way:
Dashes would be used for a fragment within a sentence which is an aside related to the sentence around it.
ie. 'New York -- a massive, fruity city -- is so massive and fruity, they call it the Big Apple.'
Parenthesis would be used for a fragment within a sentence which is not related to the sentence around it, but is extraneous info added on, in a 'by the way' fashion. That's why a lot of people find them very annoying if used too often; they're pretty unnecessary most of the time.
ie. 'New York (oh man, I got a huge boner there once) is so massive and fruity, they call it the Big Apple.'
I like semi-colons. They're useful, if used sparingly.
A colon is used to attach another clause to a sentence, even another sentence, which is very closely related to the previous one, but not closely enough to use a comma, and too closely related to use a full-stop / period.
ie. 'New York is an extremely large and fruity city; so large and fruity, in fact, that they call it the Big Apple.'
Thanks, harmy. That helps.
I like semi-colons too, but for some reason I thought they were a major faux-pas of some sort. Like they were out of fashion or something.
Dashes are different to parenthesis, I believe, in the following way:
Dashes would be used for a fragment within a sentence which is an aside related to the sentence around it.
ie. 'New York -- a massive, fruity city -- is so massive and fruity, they call it the Big Apple.'
Parenthesis would be used for a fragment within a sentence which is not related to the sentence around it, but is extraneous info added on, in a 'by the way' fashion. That's why a lot of people find them very annoying if used too often; they're pretty unnecessary most of the time.
ie. 'New York (oh man, I got a huge boner there once) is so massive and fruity, they call it the Big Apple.'
I like semi-colons. They're useful, if used sparingly.
A colon is used to attach another clause to a sentence, even another sentence, which is very closely related to the previous one, but not closely enough to use a comma, and too closely related to use a full-stop / period.
ie. 'New York is an extremely large and fruity city; so large and fruity, in fact, that they call it the Big Apple.'
Thanks, harmy. That helps.
I like semi-colons too, but for some reason I thought they were a major faux-pas of some sort. Like they were out of fashion or something.
Some writers hate them. In a way, you could say they're as unnecessary as parenthesis (and some do) but I like them for the reason I said; sometimes a full-stop is too abrupt, too jarring, but loads of commas just make like a massive run-on sentence. There are good reasons for just using full-stops, if you like that kind of thing. The thing in a poem, some say, is to make the punctuation as unintrusive as possible.
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
Quote:
This year’s winning passages include prose published by established, successful scholars, experts who have doubtless labored for years to write like this. Obscurity, after all, can be a notable achievement. The fame and influence of writers such as Hegel, Heidegger, or Derrida rests in part on their mysterious impenetrability. On the other hand, as a cynic once remarked, John Stuart Mill never attained Hegel’s prestige because people found out what he meant. This is a mistake the authors of our prize-winning passages seem determined to avoid.
This year’s winning passages include prose published by established, successful scholars, experts who have doubtless labored for years to write like this. Obscurity, after all, can be a notable achievement. The fame and influence of writers such as Hegel, Heidegger, or Derrida rests in part on their mysterious impenetrability. On the other hand, as a cynic once remarked, John Stuart Mill never attained Hegel’s prestige because people found out what he meant. This is a mistake the authors of our prize-winning passages seem determined to avoid.
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power, bro.
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 20059 Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
Quote:
This year’s winning passages include prose published by established, successful scholars, experts who have doubtless labored for years to write like this. Obscurity, after all, can be a notable achievement. The fame and influence of writers such as Hegel, Heidegger, or Derrida rests in part on their mysterious impenetrability. On the other hand, as a cynic once remarked, John Stuart Mill never attained Hegel’s prestige because people found out what he meant. This is a mistake the authors of our prize-winning passages seem determined to avoid.
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power, bro.
you lost me at bro
_________________ stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part
This year’s winning passages include prose published by established, successful scholars, experts who have doubtless labored for years to write like this. Obscurity, after all, can be a notable achievement. The fame and influence of writers such as Hegel, Heidegger, or Derrida rests in part on their mysterious impenetrability. On the other hand, as a cynic once remarked, John Stuart Mill never attained Hegel’s prestige because people found out what he meant. This is a mistake the authors of our prize-winning passages seem determined to avoid.
The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power, bro.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum