From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Transition
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:02:04 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <92093.084214KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
: 
:      I, first person, would like to offer a rebuttal to my previous
: posting 'Good Writing - Style and Content'.
: 
:      The net has responded in various shades of gray, a tint of color
: was added by Chuq, and a critique of my posting was provided by Larry
: Wall.
: 
:      This posting is an attempt to clarify, jusifty, and redeem what
: little esteem may remain of my writing style.
: 
:      Larry has pointed out that my writing is robotic, uninspired so
: that the message was buried in verbage.  That I, first person, used
: the connecting 'and' too often.
: 
:       *  Good point Larry, thanks.  I've found that connecting like
:          phrases in a sentence to be unproductive at times.  Yet, I
:          do believe there are times when using 'and' is acceptable.

I also believe that, and wouldn't want you to think that I didn't.  :-)

:      The previous posting, as Larry pointed out, contains to many
: references to the first person personal pronoun 'I'.  Larry's comment
: was to mix up the structure of the sentences to avoid overuse of 'I'.
: 
:       *  Again, Larry has pointed out an aspect of my writing that
:          could always use improvements.
: 
:      However, I believe that Larry missed the point of the original
: posting and his critism of my writing is biased.  Correct me if I'm
: wrong, but shouldn't responses be limited to the solicited question?

In general, the only place that requires you to answer the question
without any additional commentary is in a court of law.  But in specific,
I sincerely believe I was trying to answer the question you asked:

>      *  What are the characteristics of style and how can I improve
>         mine?

Now you'll notice that the only sample of your writing I had to work from
was your article in front of me.  Admittedly a small statistical sample...

: I'm sure that a lot of people post questions to the net and they may
: not always re-write their questions to satisfy a potential publisher,
: so what's the point is critism of what they write?

You can't improve your writing style without criticism.  Period.  The
point I was feebly attempting to make was that you should learn some
SELF-criticism.  In accordance with the Zeitgeist, a lot of people have
been answering you with glib variants on "There's no rules to style."
And there's a lot of truth to that.

However.  You can't develop your own style completely until you learn
what distinguishes it from other people's style.  This implies that you
understand all of (or at least many of) the options that are available
to you at any given point.  A good writer is like a good actor, who can
play either Hamlet or Ophelia.  Anything else is mere typecasting.
[Ouch.  That was a better pun in the days of Linotype...]

:      I could always sit at my terminal, careful to write publishable
: questions or comments, but what's the point.  When I choose to write
: publishable questions to the net, I'll sit at my terminal and try my
: best to include all the elements of fiction or writing so that every
: one can critique my style.  Until such time, I may seem robotic and
: verbose to a few.

Good use of rhetoric there.  Your style is improving already...  :-)

: Others, such as Chuq, may pass over the obvious
: mistakes and offer constructive critism, comments, or suggestions
: that will address the question.

Obvious mistakes?  I didn't think they were all that obvious, obviously.

Constructive criticism?  I think you'll remember what I said long after
many of these other platitudes have passed out of mind.  (I'm nothing
if not an egomaniac...  :-)

Address the question?  I thought I did.  I must have written it poorly
enough that you skipped that part out of boredom.  Here it is again,
without the surrounding burning invective:

> Every part needs to do at least one of the following:
> 
>         1) Characterize the players or their surroundings.
> 
>         2) Advance the plot.
> 
>         3) Be entertaining in its own right.
> 
> Really Good Stuff does all three at once.

If you forget everything else I said, remember that.  It's not even
original, so there's no point in putting in on your mental dartboard.

:     This posting is not intended to be a flame on Larry or anyone
: else for that matter and I hope it is not offensive.

It's not offensive, and I apologize for being such a lousy writer that
you thought my previous posting was intended merely to be inflammatory.
Honest.  I really do believe that communication is the writer's
responsibility.  If you thought I was only flaming your use of "and"
and "I", then I didn't write clearly enough.

When I showed my previous posting to my wife (a Real Literary Critic),
she pointed out that I hadn't given much by way of solution, but mostly
only pointed out the problem.  She said, "Tell him to read more stuff
from other periods.  Jane Austen would be good."

So, go read more stuff from other periods.  Jane Austen would be good.

(I also highly recommend marrying a Literary Critic...  :-)

Larry