Thank you, Stacey!!!

Dick

Thank you Stacey.

Dick

Thanks for the suggestion, deemarie.  Posted it  in Community Center with an added request for at least 450 x 450.

Dick

Hi David,

I also cringed at the usage.   English is a malleable language, but ouch!  They should have put quotes around "favorited," IMO.

In a way, the new feature is an invasion of privacy.  Are you keen to have a stranger come up to you and say, "I'm going to watch everything you do."  The operative word here is "stranger;"   someone who hasn't introduced himself.  As though they feel entitled, unbidden, to sit in on your life/work, and tell you they're there.  Especially when they may not say one word. 

People will do that.  Stalkers will do that.  I'd rather Renderosity not bring it to my attention and tell me who  they are and that they're lurking.  Do please tell if one of them has a gun, yes, but...

Dick

Oh.

Well, technology enables.  But gee, this feature removes a layer of civility, IMO.  Early on after the June make-over, I was surprised to be notified another member had added me to his/her favorites, in much the same fashion as comments are flagged.  Comments I want, but I'd prefer critiques.

[Oops, wrong soap box.]

Yeah, I feel saddened by this new feature.

Dick

Hi again, Deemarie,

Yes, the flexible meeting time hurts.  I found I could work ( all right, play/noodle/dink-with-words) toward the meeting times.

And with a small group, interpersonal dynamics become ingrained - responses become automatic.  I rarely saw my other group members away from meetings, and then only by chance:  an architect, accountant, two doctors, commercial artist, farmer, gay convicted felon (who made me ill at ease on both counts - honest time), house wife, computer systems guru, junior college English instructor (she grew into her job while a group member), and one eternal university student.  I was the earth scientist/oilman/bum.

Larger groups help, but truly, more than eight in a meeting is not so good.  The COLD read aspect keeps the members focused and leaves little time for them to embroider their pet themes into your work.

On critiques, check   http://members.aol.com/asterling/amypage.htm  
Amy Sterling Casi'sl take on the matter - scroll down about 4/5 of the way and you'll see it under "Writers Resources."

Dick

Hello Deemarie,

YES!  Writing critique groups are the way to learn the craft.

For many years I belonged to two weekly groups: one for general fiction, and the other a Romance writers group.  No snickers, please.

The general fiction group met every Monday night 6-9 p.m. all through the year.  Well, except Christmas and New Years.  And this was during the reign of Monday Night Football.

Steve, a large man in his late thirties, served as moderator. He chose who would start the first critique of the evening – that was his sole appointed task.  After the next piece had been read, the next in the circle would start critique, and so on around the table.

The submissions were 2000 words or less, just one copy for the one who read the piece COLD in a clear voice.  Where that reader stumbled, you had best flag it for revision.  Reading your own work was frowned on.  A female voice is often the best (sharper) for choosing the reader

Although the fiction group numbered 15 regulars and semi-regulars, usually 6 to 8 would show of a given Monday.  The pieces were read in the order of arrival, except for those who hadn't submitted for a while were worked in.

One precept ruled: make your critique for improvement of the piece, or pass your turn.  Personal attacks were shown the door.

We were all adults and accepted rough language, rough situations, but drew the line at prurient, gratuitous sex and/or perversions.  Some of the members would be incensed about certain attitudes.  We each were there to learn.

During the critique of your work, you kept quiet, unless asked a direct question – this saved time.  [Not everyone would get read of an evening.]

That critique group was loosely affiliated with the city-wide writers group which met monthly, reported members publication news, up-coming events, and often a guest speaker.

The city-wide group was affiliated with the state-wide organization – which held the BIG writing contest early in the year, and the annual convention in early May.  Agents, editors and publishers would attend the convention: interviews could be scheduled, etc.

The Romance writing group was, except for me, a ladies club.  One published writer (Harlequin published at least two of her works every year) anchored the group.  In the three years I met with them on Wednesday nights, two of the younger writers sold Romances – and then each got pregnant.  When they switched to Monday nights, I left.

Sexist or whatever, but the ladies liked to talk.  We would gather at 8 p.m. and maybe the first offering would get read around 9:30.  The group was rarely more than six, and the critique part was a free-for-all.  However, constructive criticism only.  Those ladies were sharp, and always thought in terms of the story, rather than dwell on grammar.

One of my 40-page wonders hammered in that forge won second place in Historical Romance at the statewide competition.  For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, a 40-page wonder is submit the first two chapters and a three page synopsis (double spaced at about 250 words per page).  And then later you wonder how in blazes to finish it after the creative spark fizzled.

The romance group tolerated me as a loose tie to reality.  When I called attention to an impossibility, they would say, "Oh Dick!  It's a Ro-mance!"  Yes, I was the-long-suffering male, but they did open my eyes to plotting.  They were the ones who got me to read Robert McKee' seminal book "Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting."  A must read for those who write genre fiction.

Of online writing groups, I found www.toasted-cheese.com excellent.  If nothing else, look at their front page categories, and dig through the archived articles in "Absolutely Blank."  You must join to post and make critiques.

Rambled.  Sorry.

Dick

Good find, Dialyn.  Skimmed the KISS article: concise and to the point.  Will have to go back, and back, and back again.

Dick

Golly Jon,
Don't you kill the power strip at the first rumble of thunder?  Maybe I'm one of the few who doesn't leave things on standby overnight, or when I leave the house.

Since I don't have power back-up, I'm goosey about thunder.  Every time the lights blink, I'm facing three or four minutes waiting while the computer checks itself - grumble.  Easier to shut down, go to the window,  look for rain,  and wait... and wait.
Life in northeastern Oklahoma.

Dick

"Well, isn't that interesting."  Me too.  I thought I was up to snuff on Firefox.  Just now downloaded the new version and am anxious to see.  Thank goodness the BBC "Latest Headlines" are still there.

Thanks Jon, and Thanks CrystalWizard.

Dick

I've always heard of it as a "snuffle."

Hi,

Nice piece of writing.  I especially applaud your paragraph breaks for the "Creak(s)"  White space, as advertising execs say, "Sells."  But, of course there has to be something in all that white space, and you supplied the caring words.

Dick

Hi Marlene,

A good piece of writing, yes.  And you've made nice word choices, as others  mention.  Also, you show a flare for adding drama with the short paragraphs – great!

But please consider a few things to tweak this solitary midnight tale:  first, you jump in and out of her head, from close third person POV ("Where is he?") to omniscient POV as you tell the reader what she's thinking.  Those jumps/shifts unsettle the reader and destroy the fictive dream.

Most of the prose posted in the gallery  and here in this forum uses synoptic, omniscient (god-like) POV.  I blame the mechanics of reading a monitor screen.  But omniscient POV is the TELLING POV.  SHOW don't TELL.  If you tell the reader what and why, then dear reader shuts down, and doesn't get into the main character's skin, doesn't worry or hope for the character, which is necessary for the fictive dream to succeed.  

The proof of whether a fictive dream works comes at the end, when the reader says "Oh, so that's what happened," or "Ah-h-h."   Fool that I am, I hope to say, "Ah-h-h."

 Second, because of the serious use of omniscient, there are 26 "she" words in some 412 words of total text.  Maybe give her a name.

Third, I side with Jon about "that place."  I'm unclear as to your meaning.  I wondered if it could be a house of ill-repute.  I'm older than Jon, and apparently more foul of mind.

We only learn from feedback.  Be of good cheer, for you've received many helpful comments, which certify you have talent.

More, please.
Dick

Hello Dialyn, Your posts above have caused me to think about perfectionism. Everyone has self-doubts about their projects. Thank goodness. But once you're certain the core idea is developed, on paper or other media, tweaking for the optimal word, phrase, color, or perspective is a dodge. [ I'm a dodger with a colossal and fragile ego. ] But time flows. Either get the idea out in the world, or forget it. I've wasted years, decades even, dodging under the guise of perfectionism on some things. Blast! Those years won't come back. Dick p.s. Dodged putting these thoughts into bytes for two days, and this morning dodged for another lost hour of tweaking.

Go get 'em, Girl! Prizes are nice, but to get recognized, ah-h: nirvana.