 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |
| User | Post | ||
Silvershield   580                  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonHahahahahaha  .
Anyhow, on a serious note, I was under the impression that a monarchical position in most any First World country nowadays is exclusively ceremonial, but you seem to suggest otherwise. What legitimate power do those people really have? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| First of all, thank you for knowing what paragraph breaks are. In my experience, the biggest turn off when reviewing someone's writing is the absolute lack of any visual separation, and it usually leads me to just ignore the piece altogether; it's nice to see someone actually be aware of that sort of thing, because it's so often forgotten.
I appreciate that you choose a sort of unhappy ending in favor of one where everything turns out a-ok. It gives me the sense that this short story is just a piece of a larger universe - our main hero and heroine die, but this organization that unjustly hunts them is still very much alive, and so I am led to believe that, beyond the scope of this story, there is a larger battle going on. Which, of course, could be fodder for a later story (or stories), which would be nice. If I have to offer a criticism, it's the somewhat cliche idea of the protagonist discovering a previously unapparent power or ability, and then some sort of mentor or sage-like character appearing to guide the protagonist in the use of that ability. Like I said, it's something of a cliche, and it could be dangerous if overused or used improperly. That's not to say that you've overused it or used it improperly, but is instead just a caution against such a mistake should you write more on this in the future. Another cliche that I think might actually have hurt your story, instead of just having the potential to hurt it, is Harrison's exposition prior to attacking. Originally posted by ClockworkzI fully understand that his name and his background are vital for the reader to know, but you've written it in more of a "super villain speaking to the hero just before killing him" kind of way. Which is what the situation is, of course, but that makes it cliche, somewhat unwieldy, and very unnatural-sounding. If you could introduce Harrison's name, his background, and his motives more naturally and organically, it would help that part a lot. That said, I really don't have any larger problems with it. The tone is dark, as Hiryuu said, and I think it lends itself to an image of a greater universe in which this struggle is widespread. It could be really, really good. (Of course, I don't know if you've already written more about it, but I'm going on this assumption that this is a stand-alone piece.) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Do you have a link to it? | |||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| I appreciate the humor, and I think you do well leading up to an ending that actually made me giggle a bit. My main complaint would have to be that the story can be a bit far-fetched at times. Not that the story is supposed to be a perfect representation of reality - it is fiction, of course - but a main idea is that this mechanic somehow enters his crappy car into a high profile, professional race. That's the backbone of the humor and of the ultimate ending, but it's possibly too outlandish for the reader to suspend his disbelief. I feel like you could achieve the same ending if the race he enters were not a professional event, but rather an amateur one. You could twist it, however, so that he still seems utterly incapable of winning the race for whatever reason, and it would no longer carry with it the impossible thought that this guy has gotten himself into a legitimate professional event. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Or you could just erase the apostrophe altogether.
A high school soccer team for boys is "boys soccer," not "boy's soccer" or "boys' soccer." |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Would it be reasonable to suggest that people include word counts in the body or title of their threads? I hate diving into a story, only to see that it drags on for a million more pages. Scanning it quickly would generally be the simple solution, but with differences in layouts and font sizes and whatnot, it's not always easy to tell at a glance how long a piece will be just based on how much space it fills on my screen. And all a person needs to do is paste their text into any word processor to get a quick wordcount, so it's not really a huge issue, I think. | |||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by AlkisSo easy in theory, so impractical in reality. Do you really want to be compelled to personally vote on every single little issue that passes through government? What about the issues you don't care about? What about when you can't make it to the polls on that day? What about the fact that present American voting population is so dismally low, even in the case of such a major election as that of the president? The thing is, it's nice to think about having the ability to personally lend one's own voice to every going-on in one's own country, but it is simply unrealistic, both logistically (how much longer would it take for the government to make any sort of changes if they had to wait for the entire American population to decide on it first?) and otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have an "old man" who I elected making my choices for me - I don't know enough about the vast majority of what goes on in government to make an informed, intelligent decision about it, but it's that old fella's job to know about and vote on those issues. That doesn't mean he's always right, or that he'll always vote how I'd like him to, but I can promise he'd have a much better track record than I would. (And don't just say "we can outlaw dumb people from having a say," because I'm not dumb - I'm just politically apathetic.) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by KoryoEven something as seemingly clear-cut as this particular example might not be so simple. I mean, would failing to wear your seatbelt in the event of an accident not screw with everyone else's insurance rates? (I don't really know how this sort of thing works, so I could be wrong.) The point is, it's easy to point out crimes that are visibly harmful to only the perpetrator himself, but that have more subtle effects on other, inculpable people. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo...bro, I'm on your side. Chill out. You're beginning to sound no better than Ziff _¬. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ZiffNote the smiley  . |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiXI think you're a bit misguided. There's something to be said for speaking in very accessible terms - I won't argue that for a second - but there's no need to demonize the use of more mature language. If I can say something and make a second-grader understand it, good for me; but, if what I'm trying to convey is simply beyond that second-grader's sphere of understanding, or if the words I need to use to do that subject justice are more advanced, I'm not necessarily pretentious or elitist or anything of that sort. And, of course, I'd sooner use one big word for a specific purpose rather than ten smaller words to accomplish that same purpose. (And, yeah, I went out of my way to make this post sound a little more pretentious than usual.) Edit: By the way, 11.83 for the above post. And I'm not going to apologize for it, because I know darn well that every single person here could read and understand it. (edited by Silvershield on 01-12-07 04:17 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeI'm not going to step in to the larger debate here, but I feel obligated to point out that this particular point is far oversimplified. I won't argue for a moment that addiction is not a terrible state to be subject to, but don't try to paint it as if these people are victims. You're going to be hard pressed to find a person who was given drugs at gunpoint, or who first used drugs without being aware of their addictive and harmful properties. Do addicts need help? Sure. But are they innocent victims? Not hardly. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SinfjotleThe difference between an alcoholic and a drug addict, if such a difference exists, is that most hard drugs are universally addictive - anyone who uses them, with few exceptions, will become hooked - while alcohol is "safe" for most people. To play devil's advocate for a moment, an alcoholic is a victim because he possesses a certain genetic attribute or personality trait, beyond his control, that causes his addiction to a substance that is relatively harmless for most other people; a drug addict is not a victim because the substance he uses isn't safe for anyone, and in that way the addiction was initially totally within the control of the user. Originally posted by SinfjotleLied about by whom? The facts about the various effects a drug causes might be lied about by whomever, but it's undoubtedly common knowledge that those hard drugs are addictive. You know that using this drug will cause you to become addicted to it, and you are therefore responsible for that addiction when it inevitably occurs. Does that mean that you should not be given help? Of course not. But it means that you are not a victim. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeWhat you've said avoids my point. I never made a move to deny that an addict is "sick" under some definition of that term. However, your argument uses "sick" with the implied assumption that the afflicted is in a state of victimization. That is, this person who is sick is without personal fault for his illness. Originally posted by SinfjotleI don't think any sort of study is necessary. The self-evident fact is, heroin (to use it as a singular example that shall represent all addictive hard drugs, for simplicity) will invariably addict any person who uses it (with very few exceptions). On the other hand, alcohol will addict very few people who use it. Heroin is addictive regardless or who a person is, regardless of that person's personality or genetics or whatever; alcohol addicts only a small fraction of its users, meaning that the people within that fraction have some trait - as above, either personality or genetics or whatever else - that sets them apart and causes the addiction. The specific root of the problem is irrelevant. All that matters for the point I'm trying to make is that a person who uses a hard drug and becomes addicted is entirely at fault, because he knows that the drug addicts effectively every person who touches it. Conversely, a person who drinks alcohol is "less" at fault, because he could not have anticipated that his drinking would lead to an addiction. (Alcoholism is relatively uncommon when viewed as a percentage of the entire drinking population, which would make it a stretch to predict that any given person will become an alcoholic should he drink.) Originally posted by SinfjotleI have no idea, but you can bet that if I planned to use it, I would at least do the cursory research that would reveal that single, simple fact before actually going through with it. Originally posted by SinfjotleDARE was so long ago that I honestly could not tell you half - or any - of what I learned there. Every bit of knowledge I have about drugs and alcohol, I've learned through first-hand experience. And it's not as if I live in a ghetto or anything like that - even here in suburbia, knowledge about any sort of drug is so easily accessible that I can't imagine a single person being unaware that x drug is addictive and will ruin you if you go near it. Originally posted by SinfjotleMaybe not after one use, but how many people do you know that do it "just one time?" A stupid friend of mine tried cocaine, and he couldn't do it just once. He's done it maybe four or five times in total, and, in the end, had to be torn away from it, both literally and figuratively. And even now, months after he last went near it, he still craves it fairly often, and if he sees it or is otherwise near it, he cannot help himself and needs to be physically removed from the room. Addiction is a scary thing. Drugs are scary things. Marijuana might be more or less harmless, but take a step past pot and most anything you come across can potentially hurt you pretty darn bad. Edit for a misused homophone. (edited by Silvershield on 01-14-07 12:29 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeRight, which is why I was careful to say "what you've said avoids my point" rather than "you are avoiding my point"  . |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ICheatAtGolfUmm. If you smoke, you are a smoker. I don't care if it's three packs a day, or one pack every three days, or whatever - you smoke cigarettes, you are a smoker by definition. It's not an insult (save for any undesired connotations it might carry), it's just a description. Originally posted by ICheatAtGolf...not quite. Originally posted by ICheatAtGolfYou talk about it as if it's a habit you're born with. If a person who smokes was somehow born addicted to nicotine, then you'd be crazy to hold it against him. But, of course, becoming addicted in the first place is a fully conscious choice. As far as I'm concerned, I don't do it and never will. If you want to do it, go ahead, but if I care about you at all I will badger you until you stop. I've seen cancer, and it's not fun, and I don't need a loved one dying at 35. Even if it means I have to be a nasty bastard to make someone quit - that's better than the alternative. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombOut of curiosity, how do you consider the disapproval of adultery to be "backwards social thinking"? Maybe forbidding it through an actual law is overboard - well, I'd say it's definitely overboard, regardless of how reprehensible the act of adultery is - but you seem to suggest that the mere rejection of such a practice is a somehow prehistoric or puritanical notion. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombFair enough. I understood you to mean that simply disapproving of adultery is wrong, rather than actually outlawing it. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| Grammar in English is about as broad and complex a topic as you could ask for, but punctuation specifically - basic punctuation, at least - isn't too hard. If you're looking for a treatment of all of the language's intricate details, you'd be better served with a dedicated textbook or a qualified teacher.
Essentially, a period (called a "full stop" in British English) appears at the end of a sentence. It's that simple. When a complete thought has been exp Other symbols, including exclamation points (!) and question marks (?), are used in the exact same places and situations as the period is used, only for a different effect. While the period simply completes a thought, the explanation point gives that thought more emphasis ("There's a robber in our house!") and a question mark indicates that the thought is, of course, a question ("Would you like a sandwich?"). The comma is the last of the simple punctuation marks (with things like colons and semicolons being somewhat more difficult to use properly). One way to look at a comma is that it simply indicates to the reader an instance in which the writer intended a "pause." There are specific conventions concerning when a comma should or should not be used, but those sometimes come secondary to a specific writer's style. Comma use is difficult to explain without resorting to technical terms, but for the moment you can imagine it as a tool that helps to transition between related thoughts within one sentence, or as a point at which the reader should mentally pause so that the sentence reads more clearly. (Read this post and others, and note where commas are used and what effects they create.) I would imagine that it would be pretty difficult for you to learn everything you need to know about grammar over a message board, but maybe this helped a bit. The trick to memorizing the various rules and conventions is simply to write often and in whatever context you're able. Even when you're writing informally, like on a message board, try to use grammar properly - it will reinforce the correct techniques and style. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 5920 days Last view: 5908 days |
| ||
| It just doesn't come easily to some people.
I've never had a problem with run-on sentences, but I would imagine that if you were to try reading aloud what you've written, your ear might be able to detect really glaring problems like that. Another fairly rudimentary idea is simply to note how long a particular sentence is - if it's several lines long, or if you see that it has a whole bunch of commas, you might want to make sure it isn't a run-on. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Silvershield |
