Ubereil:
When reading litterature history in School some pepole were complaining about this when romantism changed to realism. That happened somwhere in the 1840s...
After that contence was more important than form in the general eye (exept some conservatives (not talking politics here, just taste)).
Übereil
For someone who's studied literary history, you don't seem all that literate. Litterature? Romantism? Contence? Please. Oh, and if there's a valid movement for "content rather than presentation/form" alive somewhere, right now, point it out to me. With serious scholarly references, not "I remember what I learned from primary/secondary school." That's just pathetic.
And, if what you say is true, then I am sure you will be able to provide examples of professionally published books filled with the same sort of grammatical errors, awkward phrasing and other indications that the writer is - to put it gently - barely on speaking terms with English? They're aspects which, apparently, we so admire in Alrik's... poetry.
Note this emphasis: professionally published. That means published in such a way that the author actually received a monetary reward for the act of publishing, rather than the "author", out of sheer desperation, paying for it out of his or her own pocket because it is such crap that it will only be bought by members of his or her close circle of friends and relatives. Speaking of which, considering Alrik has expressed his desire to "self-publish" - in other words, to pay for someone publishing his work - may I express my hope that Alrik's circle of friends and relatives will be sufficiently large that he will at least break even?
Womble:
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> What a troll quote. Brilliant in its inanity but entirely obvious in its singular use to gain a rise from someone.
Oh, come now. Someone's bound to use it in a dramathon like this; I might as well call the dibs!
Something I would never do because of people like you.
Aww, aren't you such a poor oppressed widdle baybee? Oh, the horror of complete strangers on the Internet telling you your work is complete crap. Your self-esteem must be fragile; do you genuinely care what "people like me" think, hmm?
I think thats possibly the most insulting thing I've ever heard.
Ah, no love for honesty? How sad.
Lets read some of your efforts, otherwise, leave him alone.
Look up Ebert's law, chum; thanks for invoking it. I totally expected someone to. It's oh, so predictable. Just like the rest of... well, everything else.
Alrik:
Well, all I can say is, that for example Picasso did what he wanted to do, or Dalí for example or Gaudí, to take a look at architecture.
I think that some artists simple do what they see fit, no matter whether they break "rules" or whatever.
Some of them even get famous after doing so. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
Oh, dear, is that the siren song of delusion you are listening to?
To begin with, some (please note the modifier "some") qualified critics do consider Picasso, Dali, or Gaudi, or any other names you care to drop. But... do you deem your applauding audience qualified? After all, if they had the faintest idea of what they were talking about, wouldn't they have been able to compliment you on the on your meter, your form, or anything technical? Something beyond "Wow, this is nice"? I suspect their familiarity with literary criticism of any sort is about as great as, or less than, my acquaintance with quantum physics. Don't you notice how the compliments they so cheerfully give are terribly... generic? It's like an adult patting a child's head and saying, "That's nice, dear" without actually looking at what's being done. I could have given the same comments to
any piece of poetry or prose without reading it at all. That's how useless, empty, and insincere it is.
As things stand, Alrik dearest, you are the pre-college student who thinks mixing pigments into the most hideous shades imaginable, then splashing them randomly on a canvas with your eyes closed, is "art" because the shoddier it is, the edgier and more artistic it is in your unschooled eyes. You are the emo teenager who thinks liberal repetition of "buzzwords" like "dark/darkness", "pain", "loss" and "nightmare" makes you perhaps creative and original (rather than banal because, well, it's been done and done better: ever heard the saying "You're different. Just like everyone else"?); that by breaking rules you aren't even that well-versed in yourself, you're maybe postmodern or avant-garde. But, thanks to your absolute refusal to learn your subject matter properly or improve, what you end up is like what these teenbrats vomit onto paper: generally not worth the cyberspace it takes up. The sad exception is that these teenbrats are generaly more than two decades your junior.
