Jump to content

DavidBuffet

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DavidBuffet

  1. Sorry for the delay, folks. Having some computer problems. Hope to post 3.0 and 1.1 in the next round on Wednesday. David
  2. Ah. Good feedback. I'll consider that in the rewrite.
  3. You could read it that way. But it is Bo, not Beau. It also has a meaning in its own right. Different etymology than the French. David
  4. AJ gets a star! Now the only thing left to figure out is what Bo means! Boy, you guys are a tough crowd! Can't get anything by you! What point was that in chapter 1.0? That was not meant to be implied. He was considering suicide. If that was not clear, please tell. Earlier emails of last year never answered? Emails to me? I answer every email I get. If you didn't get a reply, it was because I never received the email. My apologies, if this is the case. David
  5. Back home to the northern climbs, and back to work. The kind of comment Trab made and Colinian echoed (I may be completely misinterpreting what I'm reading, but I'm taking Morey to be the Angel of Death, and he is there to visit someone who has started thinking about him some time ago, namely, Todd. Bo, on the other hand, is another diety altogether, there to uplift people in general, and Todd specifically) is exactly the kind of input I'm looking for. Tells me whether I'm doing my job in keeping readers on track or creatively misleading them. Very, very helpful. Thanks! David P.S. AJ - A very generous offer. Thanks! Could you email me at tightserve@hotmail.com and we'll talk about logistics?
  6. Spelling? Grrr. My downfall. Mark Twain once said, "a good speller is the sign of a wasted childhood." I agree. Anyway, someone has, very kindly, offered to proof it. Corrections will be posted. In talking with Mr. Dude, the consensus was that updated chapters will be numbered -- 1.1, 1.2, 1.25, 2.1. 2.2 etc. -- but they will replace (not supplant) previous versions. I'll indicate somewhere whether the changes are important or not -- some might ony be word choice and spelling, others more drastic. My expectation is that the drastic ones won't happen for a little while. We've moved on to Barbados, where the resort's internet connection is far more tenuous. I'm home on July 17th. If I'm not heard from until then, blame it on the dropped connection, not disinterest. David
  7. God, what an interesting process! I'm delighted by the debate. My editor for CONTROL and KAOS had two other qualifications going for her, in addition to her absolute mastery of the language: she is a good friend, and she did it for free. So she had more latitude than others might give her... For no other reason than it's a good place to flame, the one that kills me is the all-too-common "that's a whole 'nother thing." I, who wanted to write "could of" and who argues for the living-evolving-entity view of language, still can't bring myself to write that (let alone say it!) Chapter 2 is submitted. I expect it will be posted on Sunday.
  8. Wow. So much to consider...and me here in Jamaica, mon, sitting poolside with a pineapple smoothie! (Is it evil of me to admit I'm on vacation and at a resort? It's not to rub it in the face of you working stiffs--much as I love doing that, too--it's to point out that I'm really into this process. So much so, that I'm spending my time at a resort writing and thinking about your comments!) In no particular order: no, sisyphitic is not a word. The word, points out Cole in a private email, is sisyphean. Thanks! Yes, for that kind of thing it is certainly appropriate to point it out in this forum. More than appropriate, it is helpful. That way I get to say things like: Todd was drunk. He got the word wrong. And it set up the syphilis joke. Does it work? Is it allowable? My editor in CONTROL and KAOS would not permit me to use made-up words, even when I had a reason for doing so. I wanted Topher to consistently say, ?I could of? when, of course, it is correct to say, ?I could have.? She wouldn?t let me. But I know people who make that mistake all the time! It?s colloquial! She was unmoved. She said it didn?t make Topher sound colloquial, it made the author sound stupid. I pointed out that Shakespeare made up hundreds of words. She suggested when I'm as good as he was, so can I. I don't have a proofreader yet for this project. So I'll not say that I got the word wrong (which is, of course, true), I'll say Todd was drunk, and I wrote the wrong word on purpose! Anyway, the reason it?s helpful in this forum is that I get to ask at large: should I change it (which would require getting rid of the joke)? Is it okay to use invented words when it?s pretty clear from context what they mean (and there?s a reason to invent one)? Granted, perhaps not in the third paragraph, but in general? What are people?s thoughts? I do need a proofreader, but generally don?t ask for one until enough chapters are posted that the person who volunteers knows (s)he is going to enjoy the task. Also, I need someone who knows the language well enough to be able to argue (for weeks!) arcana such as whether the comma is distributive. They?re hard to find. But that's going to explain a number of errors in early chapters. Trab, I know people will know I?m looking at the thread. Still, my participation will have the effect of steering the conversation, as Graeme points out. I see that as both a good and a bad thing. But I will participate, since that seems to be the consensus. And rest assured: I am no alpha male. Nor am I a writer by trade or habit. It?s something I?ve discovered and am learning about as I go. As a side note, I can?t tell you how many people confused the author with the characters in Alpha Male. It actually got a little annoying as it was most generally assumed I, the author, was interchangeable with Mark, the narrator and protagonist. Not so cheery a thought as I did my best to have Mark be a real dickhead! Writebymyself, the asterisk bar *** is probably a good idea. Yes, I had intended that the line break would signify a perspective shift. It?s much easier to see that on the written page than on the web. I expect I?ll include the asterisk bars in the first rewrite. Meanwhile, in the second chapter (a quasi-acceptable version of which I?ve just completed, and will post as soon as Biff gives feedback on it) I stripped out even the line breaks when changing perspectives. I?m curious about whether or not it works. Fear not, colinian. It?s not going to be a druggie story. Cole, regarding ?the guy?, and colinean ?(He?s a drug dealer? Nah)? I have two questions: it is intentionally unclear what Bo thinks his work is. I hope, though, it is clear what Todd (and, at this point, I?d expect, the reader) thinks Bo?s work is. Is it? If it is, then does Bo?s use of ?the guy? make it seem like it takes more than just a name for Bo to distinguish one gentleman from another? That was the intent of writing it that way. If I missed, I missed. In fact, it is my hope that deciding who Bo really is and what he really does is going to be one of the tasks for the reader in this book. Bo and Todd certainly don?t agree now, and the reader has a choice to trust one, the other, or neither?s observations. That might be it for today. The late-afternoon clouds are begining their rise, the rumble of thunder is thrilling the few guests around the pool, and I have to get Biff to read chapter 2.
  9. I agree with you on the first page -- but my experience is that I can't write (read "rewrite") that to the level it needs to be until I'm almost done with the entire book. Trab, good suggestion, posting Chapter 1.1, 1.2, 1.25 etc. along with chapter 2.0. So here's a question for you(s): should I participate in this thread, or should I just let the discussion unfold and be informed by it? Or perhaps only chime in to answer specific questions directed toward me? I'd like it to be a free discussion of the pros and cons of the story (and its telling), and I expect it might be freer if I don't participate much (except, of course, to read it avidly.)
  10. Very helpful feedback! It is my intention, here, to play with the idea of time (hinted at in the title), and the kalaidascopic perspective shifts are beginning to set that up. Clearly, not as effectively as I had hoped. I expected/intended a bit of confusion, but perhaps it's excessive. Here's a topic I'd like to return to as the story unfolds. Does it stay confusing? Does one get used to it? More importantly, does it stay annoying? I've been diagnosed with pronounitis before! It's a malady for which I'm in treatment. If it's at the beginning of perspective shifts, I'm okay with a bit of confusion. In the middle of a paragraph is just bad writing. I'll try to pay particular attention to this. Thanks! Bo's "newness" to town is being overinterpreted, and I can fix that easiy. "New" in a small town just means he didn't grow up there. It doesn't mean he just arrived. I can make this clearer. Thanks. David PS As for "this isn't going to be easy", thanks for taking the time and effort! That kind of criticism is EXACTLY what I'm looking for, and VERY helpful!
×
×
  • Create New...