To cut a long tale short => of course, I remember what I said, you quoted it - but maybe my message was not clear: I bitch at you, because you pick on people, who can't defend themselves, regardless of topic. And in this thread, you used your usual predictable way again to use language and critic as a tool to cut down creativity and imagination. Letting aside the way that you prefer to attack instead of using constructive language, you dumb down literature to cold mathematics: formalism, style rules, grammar, spelling are the axioms for good writing.

I disagree here strongly. I doubt you have ANY idea how to write or even determine what writing is about. So far, so good - you're free to have your opinion. What I promised you, is a promise I intend to keep: to speak up - regardless of you liking it or not.

There is a strong similarity between cliche chars (MS) in literature and stereotypes in RL. And here I butt in: a person thinking in intellectual cold formalisms shuns emotional writing, natural law - like it or not. A person not being able to play with cliche chars and find out individual shades to develop - unable to feel herself into a cliched MS char/plot is simply unable to write, why? Simple: lack of imagination, inability to play with fantasy. Why? Because cold maths butt in. This RL stereotype is unable to enter this world of another writer's imagination, it's like as if a full plate armour individual is trying to catch the wind.

Formalisms, rules to write a story (let alone review one) are simply not the adequate method to give a writer credit, encourage to develop variations. I consider both: writing and critic a method to develop one's own way to improve writing. I miss this in your case. So far, so good. BUT! You simply take too much pride in considering yourself a literate - sorry, you're not! Why? Well, formalisms should help but not rule - should aid the structure of a story but not tyrannize. A writer (a serious one!) should be able to play with ANY char/story instead of simply discharging. A formalist will always point out lacking petty stuff - and not be able to feel the story, delve into it - search for the gems. Why? Natural border within the formalist, seems to be a phobia. Pity - for the poor writer displaying her work and seeing it ripped apart. Pity for the lost chance to try out own imagination and play with another char/plot to sharpen one's own imagination.

You can't follow this way, because you don't want to. You choose to remain on your standpoint - ok for me, no loss. Stay on your formalism side, keep this illusion - but I will continue to speak up. For you?

Nope, closed ears are a waste of time and energy (a Carebear has to care for, in order to care about and bother - you don't fit in either category in my case) - I speak up for those, who might be discouraged - who see formalism as a gag, a tyrant and secretly try to throw away their work. Or those, who sit in front of their work and can't carry on. Creativity, imagination comes first - this is training. Developing a cliche char as a start is no crime and simply a basis to start from (maybe with aid from others). This is the way to write - using the cliche char as a frame to step out and develop own individualistic approaches - and then, afterwards, prune the story into a formalistic manner (not as a rule, simply as a gentle way of forming). Like or or not, has no impact on me.

@Just to writers: There are rare cases, where young writers start off with a living char instead of a cliche - fine, wonderful. But again => a MarySue char as your first attempts to express your creativity, because you know no other way first, is NO crime. Try it - write it down, develop your own cliche plot; present this to caring persons, who want to play with your story and delve into it. Take Carebears, or people who love to read - who are willing to take up the atmosphere, who like to make suggestions. Read them - choose freely what you wish to take, play with these suggestions if it fits your style, discuss, ask. After you have found out methods to express your creativity (I call it, flying free) - THEN develop your OWN formalistic style. You might not become a famous writer - but you will have this gain in any case: Expressing creativity and imagination - aside from trodden paths.

@to all who may read this thread => Apology in advance for length, short attention span or the impression of being off-topic: it's not IMO. It's just the combat in the literature scene as I know it: formalism vs creativity. Both can go hand in hand - but sadly... as this thread shows... turns out into a black/white debate.

Last edited by kiya; 24/08/04 06:27 PM.