HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Screenwriter's Product
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:55:47 GMT
	<1992Sep25.221406.25801@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<22491@venera.isi.edu>
	<1992Sep29.180836.10282@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: USC-ISI
In-reply-to: ren@Turing.ORG's message of 29 Sep 92 18:08:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.180836.10282@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:

>In article <22491@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.221406.25801@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:
>>
>>>
>A pathetic attempt at being humerous...
>
>>>This is the stuff Oscar dreams are made of.
>>>
>>
>>Ouch!  Heh.  A little bitter, eh?
>>
>>jas
>
>Bitter, no. Realistic, yes.  Take Ghost for example.  In Bruce Joel Rubin's
>first drafts, Demi Moore's character was a sculptor, but one of the producer's
>reworked it so that she ended up a potter.  Sure, it made for a sexy
>scene, but it was done BECAUSE THE PRODUCER'S WIFE WAS INTO POTTERY-MAKING.

I fail to see this as a signififcant change.  The rationale behind it
may have been foolish, but the change was minimal.

>Or take Pretty Woman, which ended up looking nothing like Three Thousand,
>the original script the movie was loosely based on, where the Julia
>Roberts' character grows up, gets a brain, and leaves Richard Gere, and 
>where the Laura San Giacomo character overdoses.  I would have prefered
>to see that movie  over the drivel that was eventually made.  Of course,
>the role probably demanded a little too much of Julia Roberts (like she
>plays a strong, intelligent young woman).

Frankly, I agree with you here.  This is an example of Hollywood at
its worst(?), but the movie DID make a boatload of dough, and *that's*
what the Producer's job is -- to make the movie a success.

Now, why a producer would buy "3000" and then turn it into "Pretty
Woman," I have no idea...

>I lament the death of artistic integrity.  If that makes me appear bitter,
>then I am a bitter woman!  *sob*

I have to chuckle at the thought of the phrase "artistic integrity"
mentioned in the context of Hollywood.  It is truly show business, not
show art.

jas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan             | Research Scientist et al.
jas@isi.edu (Internet)          | Information Sciences Institute
72511,402    (Compuserve)       | University of Southern California
From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Technical Writing...need advice
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I've been reading the responses about Technical Writing and hope 
more technical writers will respond and give me advice on how to 
get started.  I may wish to be self-employed for awhile, but 
would like to hear about contract agreements, and how to land a 
full-time job too.

I'm a computer programmer now, with an MS in Information Systems 
Management, extensive computer experience with a wide range of 
languages, software, and operating system.  For the past 3 years 
I've been an Oracle Database developer/dba and systems manager 
of a VAX 4000.  I learn computer "stuff" very fast.  Most of my 
programming has been done for applications in the health field.

I also have a BA in English Literature and wrote extensively 
in my previous job - reports, grant proposals, user manuals, 
administrative memos, etc...  Now I just update user manuals now 
and then, but my writing skills are still intact.  Oh!  I also 
did graduate work in instructional design and wrote a few manuals 
as an internship with my alma mater's Center for Instructional 
Design.

So there's my background.  I think I have both the writing skills 
and technical expertise in computers to make a go of it.  But how 
does one get started?  How well, in your experience, does 
self-employment work for technical writers.

There is a reorganization going on now where I work.  So far I've 
been spared, but there is a possibility I'll be laid off.  Since 
I'm pregnant and expecting in late April, I think I'll have a 
tough time getting a new job until after the baby comes.  
(Employers really don't hire pregnant women, do they?)  So I'm 
weighing all my options and if I do get laid off, this might be a 
good time to explore technical writing.  Also, with the cost of 
daycare, being self-employed (if I can get any work done) might 
work out well.

Any suggestions?

- Peggy -
From: Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Semantics of "to be"
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:14:46 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

"There was a cat on the table"

vs.

"The cat sprawled on the table."

Notice that the first sentence is passive and the second, active.  "Was" is
an element in many passive constructions.  For that reason alone, hunting and
rewriting is a good idea.  (P.S. could I write this paragraph without using
"is?" :) )



--
Alan Barclay


alan_barclay@mindlink.bc.ca
From: bf23+@andrew.cmu.edu (Brian Frumolt)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Teaching writing
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:35:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.AeoP96y00YV9M2uJ8j
Distribution: world
Organization: Masters student, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Alan Barclay writes:

"Some excellent writers seem to have an implicit understanding of what
makes good writing, but are unable to isolate what it is they know, nor
to make it clear to others.  This sort of knowledge seems magical to me.
I myself must understand a technique or concept well enough to teach it,
before I can actually use it well.  I find the difference fascinating."

This is the difference, I think, between the writing being a skill, and
the writing being an art.  To have a skill and not understand what makes
you able to write, or even why your writing is good, does not make you
nearly as talented as if you not only know how to write, but know WHY
you know how to write, and are able to teach those principles to others.

Being able to set down a heuristic, and explain what is going on when
you do what you do best, is a sign of truly understanding what it is
that you are doing.

Brian
From: jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Screenwriter's Product
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:34:39 GMT
	<1992Sep25.221406.25801@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<22491@venera.isi.edu>
	<1992Sep29.180836.10282@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<22519@venera.isi.edu> <YAMAUCHI.92Oct1164527@sartre.ces.cwru.edu>
Organization: USC-ISI
In-reply-to: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu's message of 1 Oct 92 23:45:27 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Oct1164527@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:

>In article <22519@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.180836.10282@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> ren@Turing.ORG (Karen Prestemon) writes:
>>>In article <22491@venera.isi.edu> jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) writes:
>>>>Ouch!  Heh.  A little bitter, eh?
>
>>>Bitter, no. Realistic, yes.
>
>>>I lament the death of artistic integrity.  If that makes me appear bitter,
>>>then I am a bitter woman!  *sob*
>
>>I have to chuckle at the thought of the phrase "artistic integrity"
>>mentioned in the context of Hollywood.  It is truly show business, not
>>show art.
>
>I'm curious, have you seen _The_Player_?  If so, how accurate did you
>think it was?

Hi, Brian!  How've you been?

Yes, I saw "The Player."  It's actually very accurate, much of it
taken from actual anecdotes and spun around a little.  It's really sad
that it was so "on the nose."  You really (or I do anyway) have a hard
time beloevong that something as big as the movies is run in this way,
but it is.

The pitching stuff was especially true for me (with the short
attention span and concentration on almost irrelevant details).

jas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan             | Research Scientist et al.
jas@isi.edu (Internet)          | Information Sciences Institute
72511,402    (Compuserve)       | University of Southern California
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu (EDWARD CRAIG HYATT)
Subject: Re: Carefull, studied splatting
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:19:53 GMT

In article <15928@mindlink.bc.ca> Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay) writes:
>In a message #4543731 Fred Welden says:
>
>"What you want
>to do, in my arrogant opinion, is to splat down what you think you want
>to say on the page as close to all-at-once as you can manage.  Then go
> (condensed)
>In _my_ arrogant opinion, what a one is better off doing is learning to
>write clearly the first time.  Then you don't have to rewrite half as much.
> (condensed)
>I like the analogy of the Zen painter.  As a novice the painter will study
> (condensed)
>beautiful work in one sitting without corrections.
>
>Alan Barclay
>
>alan_barclay@mindlink.bc.ca

I don't agree that writing perfect copy the first time is a sort
of nirvana that every writer tries to reach.   

I think the "splat it down" vs. "review each sentence" question is
a matter of personal style.  If you prefer to make a rough pass and
dump your thoughts on paper for later editing, that doesn't make you
less skillful than a writer who produces perfect copy the first time
(all things being equal).  The dump-and-review writer takes time to
revise the work as a whole, and the sentence-by-sentence writer takes
time to revise each sentence.

Personally, I prefer the dump-and-review method.  In fact, I sometimes
use a tape recorder to save my thoughts, since I find talking less
distracting than typing (also, I do my best thinking while on a
stroll around the block).  I then transcribe my notes and munge them
with a text editor. 

I also use a top down approach to writing, where I get the main parts
down and do the large-scale corrections first.  I then fill in the detailed 
pieces in a sort of refining process.  I'm not dogmatic about the method--
sometimes I write some of the detailed low-level text first, and then
I incorporate it in the overall plan.

I think the style you choose has to do with how you think, and you should
use whatever helps you write most effectively.

-- 
--------------------
Craig Hyatt
NCSU@Raleigh, NC USA
echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu
--------------------
From: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Teaching writing
Date: 29 Sep 1992 13:09:56 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay) says:

>In message #4504457 Bonita Kale quotes Tom Maddox:
>
>"In a previous article, tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) says:
>>
>>       Yeah, well, that may or may not be true, but I'm still more inclined to
>>listen to advice about writing from someone whose writing I have read and
>>admire than from someone whose writing about writing is the only thing I have
>>to go on.
>

     An adage that I have heard often says that one should "read the authors
that one enjoys because they have the most to teach you." (Lee K. Abbott)

     Tom M. is saying that without knowing the Abbott adage, and I agree
with Tom.  There are some concepts that will never be fully tangible to me,
yet I suspect I will through talent (if I have any) utilize them.  If I 
don't understand the concepts, how can I use them?  I suspect that the 
reading of the works of those that I admire has inculcated a know-how
into place.  In essence, my mind is copying a technique without knowing
that it is copying and without knowing just what it is copying.


>"This sounds reasonable, but in practice, I have not found that the advice
>of those whose fiction writing I enjoy is always, or even usually, more
>helpful than that of those whose fiction I haven't read or don't enjoy."
>
>Some excellent writers seem to have an implicit understanding of what
>makes good writing, but are unable to isolate what it is they know, nor
>to make it clear to others.  This sort of knowledge seems magical to me.
>I myself must understand a technique or concept well enough to teach it,
>before I can actually use it well.  I find the difference fascinating.
>
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>

-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
From: bf455@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bonita Kale)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Novel or Play??
Date: 29 Sep 1992 11:12:50 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu




In a previous article, sbb1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Shay B. Berthelson) says:

>My problem is not dialogue.  I can write dialogue all day long.
>...
>My problem is... I can't become 
>comfortable with the actual author explanation or action in a novel format.
>I can view what I see the characters doing.  But I can't write it to sound
>like a novel.  The best I can do is write very detailed explanations of the
>surroundings and the characters.


I find dialogue easier and more fun than action, also.  Here are a couple
of suggestions that may or may not help. 

You could try starting out, or doing a draft, in first person.  Then, you
see, it's -all- dialogue.  A character in the story is telling it, in
his/her characteristic way.

I don't know much about playwrights, but novelists sneak the action in
during or between bits of dialogue.  They're talking, and they do something
else at the same time.

"But Roger, you don't understand."  She walked to the window.  "No one
understands, not really."  With a small grunt of effort, she raised the
lower sash. 

This is a real help, sometimes, with the rhythm of the sentences. 
Sometimes it's just a bloody nuisance fitting in what's going on. 

For large chunks of action with little or no dialogue (and these do come,
but not really that often), it can be a help to read it aloud.  You can
imagine that some rather formal person is telling another what happened. 
"Mother, do you know what happened next to Natalie?  The building was
burning all around her--she could feel heat through the office door--she
thought perhaps Jean was trying to reach her, and then...."

Bonita Kale
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: ScriptTex
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:42:58 GMT

coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman) writes:

>The recent list says it's available via anonymous ftp from ymir.claremont.edu.

Which directory?  I've had a couple of casual looks, but at the speed
I'm on a casual look takes a long time.

Fraser.
From: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com (Fred Welden)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Marketing -vs- Content: Which makes a 'Bestseller' - ?
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:50:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: unx.BvEK7H.Mv9
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dobonia
Originator: sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com


In article <BvED88.GH9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, dcamp@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (douglas camp) writes:
asks whether fiction writers agree that bestsellers become bestsellers
more as a result of marketing than as a result of their content.

If you've read practically anything I've posted to this group you'll
know that I agree wholeheartedly.

I say that as a fiction writer and as one who worked in a publishing
house for seven years.  The publisher I worked for published (among
other things) large-print reprints of bestsellers.  The standard way to
determine which books to negotiate for rights on was to look in
Publisher's Weekly to see what the original publisher's advertising
budget was.  Thus, the probable bestseller status of a book was often
determined, for us, before the manuscript had made its way from the
author to the editors.  Sometimes before the manuscript had made its way
from the mind of the author onto paper.  LONG before advance galleys
were available for our editors to read.

[On a side note, our editors did occasionally acquire rights to books
because they liked them, or because they felt our particular audience
had a special interest in them.  Those of us who produced the books were
generally less inclined to refer to these titles as crap, proving, I
think, that editors CAN have good taste, they simply aren't always
rewarded for it.]

By the way, as a bookseller, you're probably already aware of this, but
other net readers may not be--the bestseller status of a book is usually
determined by bookstore orders, not by how many copies leave the
bookstores in the hands of customers.  Thus, a determined sales force
can get almost anything onto the bestseller lists for a week or two,
before the booksellers figure out nobody's buying it.



-- 
--Fred, or another blind 8th-century BC  |  sasafw@dobo.unx.sas.com
        Hellenic poet of the same name.  |
From: jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: a great scriptwriting
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:52:28 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: USC-ISI
In-reply-to: glenn.devlin@canrem.com's message of 26 Sep 92 01:24:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.2168.2943@dosgate> glenn.devlin@canrem.com (glenn devlin) writes:

>Wow - I havn't sold a script and I'm the talk of this net -
>just kidding! :-)
>
>This was interesting.  It's true that it is difficult to sell
>a script on spec unless you have great contacts, but the problem is not
>many people can sell genre scripts...let's take a look at Flatliners.
>Havn't heard from the guy since then? Anyone?

Peter Filardi (sp?) was a relatively new writer, but he did have
previous credits.  also, as a result of the buzz on Flatliners, he got
several nice deals.

I think you just don't realize that it takes 2-10 years for a movie to
come together *after the script is bought*.  (FYI, Phil Robinson has
been working on "SNEAKERS" for the last ten years!)

Filardi's alter work may be in turnaround, development, or just about
ready to come out.  It's hard to say.

jas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan             | Research Scientist et al.
jas@isi.edu (Internet)          | Information Sciences Institute
72511,402    (Compuserve)       | University of Southern California
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 6 Oct 1992 08:09:58 MST
From: Jon L. Campbell <KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject:    Long hand.

Not bony or a long hand, but writing in long hand.  Just in case anyone
mistakens what this posting is about.  I wanted to find out how many of
you good people in netland write in long hand?  I tried writing everthing
out first, but found that once I transcribed the story onto the computer
the story took a different shape and meaning.  Words seemed to change
as I typed and their meaning differed from what I originally intended.

At the time, I thought that there was something unique about writing
stories in long hand first.  Now, I'm not so sure that there isn't a
kind of mystic enchantment that flows through my hand and creates a
purposeful story.  One that seems to be less flawed.  With a clarity
and purpose that I found interesting and yet, I can't seem to bring
the exact writing over to my computer.

Has anyone else experienced this when they attempt to write a story
in long hand first?


Jon - There was a time when I could spell words in my head, but that
      was before I learned to spell.
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: jim@thinkage.on.ca (James Alan Gardner)
Subject: Re: Semantics of "to be"
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:09:35 GMT

Since this group deals with writing, why not look at the verb
"to be" as it actually affects the quality of prose?

Ever since I read about English Prime (in Harpers, about a year
ago),  I've made it a policy to question every use of "to be" in
my own writing.  Sometimes I let the verb stand; but often, I
realize that using "to be" makes my prose flaccid.  Writing
thrives on more active verbs.  Using "to be" often waters down
the effect of what you say.

I've found I have a natural tendency to write descriptions along
the lines of "There was a cat on the table," when I could have
written "A cat sprawled on the table."  Of course, you need to
have a sense of perspective and avoid purple prose; but most of
the time, the danger lies in bland verbs, not florid ones.
Avoiding the verb "to be" has the added bonus of avoiding the
passive voice and all the fuzzy thinking associated with it.

I would heartily recommend that every writer try the exercise of
writing a few paragraphs without "to be".  Doing it without
producing stilted prose can tie your brain into knots, but the
effort rewards you with a greater appreciation of how words go
together, not to mention a tremendous sense of accomplishment.
If it carries over into your real writing and helps brighten
up your usual prose style, so much the better.

		Jim Gardner, Thinkage Ltd.
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,bit.listserv.politics
From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: Trade News: Australia, NZ may join NAFTA
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:02:38 GMT

[Via misc.activism.progressive from PeaceNet's trade.news]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Inquiries by email, please, to harelb@math.cornell.edu, for more
information about PeaceNet/EcoNet or about misc.activism.progressive]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Topic 165       TRADE.NEWS 9-24-92 
kmander Updates on GATT & NAFTA Negotiations    12:06 pm  Sep 24, 1992 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TRADE NEWS BULLETIN 
Thursday, September 24, 1992 
_________________________________________________________ 
NAFTA News Summary 
_________________________________________________________ 
AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND MAY JOIN NAFTA 

Despite the fact that they are far from North America, Australia and  
New Zealand may eventually join the North American Free Trade  
Agreement.  Central and South American countries are also  
interested in joining the pact, which includes an accession clause for  
other countries. 

Judith Trotter, the New Zealand High Commissioner to Canada said  
her government has been "extremely interested in the negotiations"  
and that New Zealand and Australia want to keep their "options  
open."   

The US has invited Australia to join NAFTA, but Australian officials  
say they have not discussed joining the pact and that so far they've  
been more interested in making sure NAFTA does not curb their  
exports to North America.  A stumbling block to Australia joining  
could be a U.S. refusal to dismantle existing barriers to critical  
Australian exports to the U.S. like steel, sugar and beef. 

Under the agreement, new countries in the pact will not go through  
an extensive renegotiation process.  They will only need to receive  
approval from the existing members and be able to show they can  
meet the agreement's terms. 

The following is the statement regarding accession found in Chapter  
22 of the NAFTA draft: 

Article 2205: Accession 

1. Any country or group of countries may accede to this Agreement  
subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed between such  
country or countries and the Commission and following approval in  
accordance with the applicable approval procedures of each country. 

2. This Agreement shall not apply as between any Party and any  
acceding country or group of countries if, at the time of accession,  
either does not consent to such application. 

Source: Ian Austen, "Australia, New Zealand May Join Trade Group,"  
THE GAZETTE, September 5, 1992, p. D3; Emilia Tagaza, "Keating Fears  
Being Shut Out of Asian Trade," FINANCIAL TIMES, September 23,  
1992, p. 8; NAFTA DRAFT, Chapter 22. 
_________________________________________________________ 
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive