[LAIKA by Elecivil]

The characters and the humor are unique. I can't wait for more.

Looks like I might wind up liking it even more than "Leaves and Lunatics," which is saying something. This boy has a real gift.

[LAIKA by Elecivil]

Could be a browser default text size thing. When I zoomed to 150% I could read it OK. And I'm only 350-1/2 years old.

[Driver- Simply the Best?]

I think the quality of Buffet's writing is head and shoulders above almost anything I've ever seen in amateur online fiction. He's one of the few guys I know who I feel has actually achieved a real "literary" quality in his work, without any of the affectations or attitude.

I wonder if you'd care to expand a bit on what makes for "literary" quality in general, and also how it applies specifically to Buffet's work, "Alpha Male" in particular. I admit to having a problem separating my reacation to the thematic content of the story from its writing style. Perhaps you could address this in another one of the forums, if this isn't the appropriate one. Still feeling my way around here. Thanks.

[Driver- Simply the Best?]

For the record, the best author I've read is here on Awesomedude, and that would be David Buffett. In particular, his story Alpha Male is light years ahead of anything I've ever read on Nifty.

Would you like to expand on that? What it is you like about this story?

[Whither Stormnation?]

This one still gets me to a page that says it was updated Sept 6:

http://www.stormnation.com/

[Driver- Simply the Best?]

Thanks to all the previous posters who said everything I would have.

[Anachronisms]

There are anachronisims for authenticity's sake that are IMPORTANT, but there are also anachronisms the writer can put in to "show off" their knowledge.

OK, just to clarify here... an anachronism is something that doesn't fit the time period in question, not the other way around. An example: President Lincoln goes to Ford's Theater that night to see "Cats."

Here's an example of how an author (though in this case, the example being a film, I should probably say auteur) doing a period piece can drop in an unfamiliar concept with no explicit explanation: In "Barry Lyndon," Stanley Kubrick (a noted stickler for detail and authenticity) depicts a duel which later turns out to have been a sham. Unbeknownst to both parties, the "winner's" pistol had been loaded with what is described in dialog as "tow." For years, and after many viewings of the film, I had no idea what the heck "tow" was. It was only recently that I discovered that "tow" was flax or hemp fiber. But the lack of explanation in the film made no difference in conveying what was going on; the context made it plain that a false bullet had been used. The use of the contemporaneous term "tow" served to heighten the feeling of period authenticity, even for those of us who, at the time, had no idea what the stuff was.

[Anachronisms]

It's ALL about the details. Really. If you know something's wrong just don't do it...Overkill I know, but still. If you CAN do it right, that's the way.

Ah, truly a man after my own heart. I fully understand the need to make some alterations in language for the sake of comprehensibility to modern audiences, but at the same time it's a slippery slope. The more that's changed to conform to modern ideas, tastes, feelings, worldviews, the more we're separated from the period depicted. And the whole idea of a period piece is to get an idea of what living was like in that period. At least for me, anyway. I have no interest in characters wandering around in Elizabethan, or Victorian or Edwardian garb while their behavior and attitudes are purely 21st-Century. It's a big gripe I have against so many period-piece films made thiese days, and it makes most BBC adaptations of the past 15-20 years well-nigh unwatchable.

Here's an example of what I think you're talking about. I got hooked, and easily, on Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series (source for the film "Master and Commander"), and wound up on a non-stop binge that took me through all 20 volumes. What kept me going, besides the exquisite characterizations and thoroughly involving narrative, was the feeling I never stopped having that this must have been the way it was. This is how people talked, how they felt, how they saw the world and their place in it. And how did O'Brian achieve this? By getting all the details right. How do I know he did, that every single detail was 100 percent correct? Of course, I don't. But never once did I come across anything that even seemed suspect; just a handful that were, or maybe even one, would have colored my whole outlook, spoiled the sense I had of looking through a window to another time.

The fact that O'Brian took his work seriously meant that I was able to as well.

[Anachronisms]

Ouch! Duly chastised, he hangs his head in shame. Still, the customary willfulness of the miscreant cannot help but surface, albeit timorously.

I'd be interested in seeing Flexner's cite(s) for "put on" from that period, to see if they're fully consonant with what you might call the "Laugh-In era" sense of the phrase. Maybe it's just because I find it difficult to place Mark Twain and Dick Martin at the same spot on the drollery scale.

[Anachronisms]

I was originally going to post this in the Spelling & Grammar Q&A sticky, since we seemed to be heading in the direction of usage that changes over time ("all right" vs. "alright"), but I figured the following is too much of a drift.

I've always been quick to notice anachronisms in period pieces, be they films or fiction. My favorite most recently was in the 2001 film "The Cat's Meow," set in 1924. There's a close-up shot of pages in William Randolph Hearst's address book, and most of the addresses have ZIP Codes.

This, of course, is a danger for younger writers when attempting to set stories in times before their own. Not only can facts and details be gotten wrong, so can language.

For example (and I intend no disrespect for the Awesome One, it's just that he's provided a convenient target, one that set off my anachro-dar the first time I saw it): The Dude's sig, which is attributed to Mark Twain: "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."

Now, exaggerated reports of his death notwithstanding, the guy did die in 1910, and I believe the use of the phrase "put on" in the sense of deceiving or kidding did not come into use until much later in the last century. In addition, though there are zillions of references to this "quotation" floating around cyberspace, I've never seen an authenticated source for it. Also, http://www.twainquotes.com/ doesn't mention it at all.

I didn't mean to rain on anybody's parade, but I think that's a useful example of what to look out for if you're going to be writing a period piece. Or scrounge up some old codger for your editor.

[Spelling and Grammar Q&A]

I really don't see why there should be a problem with "used to," as in "I used to drive an Isetta, but now I have a Yugo."

Saying simply, "I drove an Isetta..." could imply a one-time occurrence.

"I formerly drove an Isetta..." conveys more formal, perhaps even pretentious, speech. OK, if that's what you intend. There are other constructions one could use that avoid the problems of either of these but why? "Used to" strikes me as perfectly acceptable in informal speech.

The two references to "used to" in my 1959-vintage Perrin's Writer's Guide and Index to English merely exhort one to avoid the misspelling "use to," but make no reproof against its usage in general. Indeed, I don't recall encountering any admontions prior to this.

As a side note, I decided to check Perrin on what used to be a minor pet peeve of mine, alright vs. all right. Here's what it says:

"All right is the spelling of both the adjectival phrase (He is all right) and the sentence adverb, meaning "yes, certainly" (All right, I'll come).

"Alright is a natural analogy with altogether and already but is found only in advertising, in unedited writings, and, rarely, in fiction. It will be worth watching to see if alright makes its way into general English. In the meantime, be on your guard."

Prophetic words indeed. As my personal vintage predates even that of Perrin, "alright" triggers a reflexive sense of semi-illiteracy whenever I come across it. Obviously, evolving usage has passed me by.