Tragic

[nostalgicBadger]

Wrong again, dipshit.  Not everything in life is defined by your anal Writer's 101 rules.

Look at the forum, asshole, this is Or Kill Me... this wasn't a fucking short story it was a rant, and I felt the emotion and I felt the point.  If you didn't its probably because you're 'life retarded'.

That's not a Writer's 101 rule, it's why this "rant" didn't work for me. Using the word "death", even implying how somebody died, does not automatically evoke an emotional response. The word "death" is an abstract concept, and only an abstract concept until you can somehow humanize it, which the writer failed to do. Why should I care about the death of somebody who doesn't feel at all like a person?

By the way, for a purpose like this, you can develop a character in a sentence or two. Even something pretty generic like mentioning the woman's child could help to elicit a stronger response.

Maybe you got something out of this. That's fine. It did nothing for me though, and I'm pretty sure that's not a sign of retardation. The writer asked for a critique, and I was offering my input. The writer did not ask to be defended from criticism. So. fuck off.

What Cram said.

Guess what nB?  You're on a forum here... a public forum.  Everything you write is up for my criticism, whether the author of the OP asked for me to do so or not.

Perhaps you should post some fiction on here... so we can all take a look at what sort of fruit your many rules and opinions have provided us with?  Hm?

You aren't doing the writer any favors by discouraging criticism when he specifically asked for it.

[Golden Applesauce]

Perhaps, Cramulus, but without the human element, aren't privacy and freedom merely abstract concepts as well?

It's very possible that I'm missing the point, but if the idea was to create a sense of tension between conflicting drives toward freedom and protection, I do strongly feel that involving the reader as a human would strengthen the piece. Otherwise, the death of the person doesn't really feel like a sacrifice.

If that's not what you're going for, I suppose I just don't get it. Perhaps you could explain.

It works better with the characters left vague - chances are the reader can imagine a relative who might fall asleep behind the wheel.

[hooplala]

Wrong again, dipshit.  Not everything in life is defined by your anal Writer's 101 rules.

Look at the forum, asshole, this is Or Kill Me... this wasn't a fucking short story it was a rant, and I felt the emotion and I felt the point.  If you didn't its probably because you're 'life retarded'.

That's not a Writer's 101 rule, it's why this "rant" didn't work for me. Using the word "death", even implying how somebody died, does not automatically evoke an emotional response. The word "death" is an abstract concept, and only an abstract concept until you can somehow humanize it, which the writer failed to do. Why should I care about the death of somebody who doesn't feel at all like a person?

By the way, for a purpose like this, you can develop a character in a sentence or two. Even something pretty generic like mentioning the woman's child could help to elicit a stronger response.

Maybe you got something out of this. That's fine. It did nothing for me though, and I'm pretty sure that's not a sign of retardation. The writer asked for a critique, and I was offering my input. The writer did not ask to be defended from criticism. So. fuck off.

What Cram said.

Guess what nB?  You're on a forum here... a public forum.  Everything you write is up for my criticism, whether the author of the OP asked for me to do so or not.

Perhaps you should post some fiction on here... so we can all take a look at what sort of fruit your many rules and opinions have provided us with?  Hm?

You aren't doing the writer any favors by discouraging criticism when he specifically asked for it.

I'm not discouraging criticism at all; merely criticizing the criticism.

[nostalgicBadger]

It works better with the characters left vague - chances are the reader can imagine a relative who might fall asleep behind the wheel.

A little vague, I agree. I feel that it could be a little bit less, though. The key is to make a person feel human without making them feel like a specific human.

I'm not discouraging criticism at all; merely criticizing the criticism.

On the contrary, you're criticizing the author of the criticism, which is not constructive in the least. Arguments ad hominem fail to address the issue in question. GA was criticizing the criticism and made a perfectly valid argument. Did you happen to fail intro to philosophy, Hoopla? If this isn't already common sense, and you didn't learn how it works in a writing workshop, you at least would have learned it there.

Ultimately, the author's revisions are made at the author's discretion. The point of constructive criticism is to give him an idea of how his piece has been interpreted so that he can revise to get his point across as effectively as possible to his target audience. If Richter chooses to ignore my input, that's certainly up to him, but he did ask for input, and I made an effort, as a writer, to oblige.

[hooplala]

For this to be effective, their deaths actually have to feel tragic in some level. Even if the reader does not agree that the cause of their death is tragic, that they should have agreed to the regulations, etc. the death itself needs to be felt.

But it's not.

The reader doesn't know these people. He is in no way invested, and he has no reason to empathize. Death itself is not really tragic, especially the person who dies. Perhaps for those he leaves behind, but the reader knows nothing of these people. The piece basically presents a hypothetical individual and kills him in the same sentence.

Death doesn't work without character development.

Wrong again, dipshit.  Not everything in life is defined by your anal Writer's 101 rules.

Look at the forum, asshole, this is Or Kill Me... this wasn't a fucking short story it was a rant, and I felt the emotion and I felt the point.  If you didn't its probably because you're 'life retarded'.

Nope.  I criticized your criticism here.  Elsewhere I criticize you as a human being, but here I stayed primarily on topic; you fail again.

[nostalgicBadger]

For this to be effective, their deaths actually have to feel tragic in some level. Even if the reader does not agree that the cause of their death is tragic, that they should have agreed to the regulations, etc. the death itself needs to be felt.

But it's not.

The reader doesn't know these people. He is in no way invested, and he has no reason to empathize. Death itself is not really tragic, especially the person who dies. Perhaps for those he leaves behind, but the reader knows nothing of these people. The piece basically presents a hypothetical individual and kills him in the same sentence.

Death doesn't work without character development.

Wrong again, dipshit.  Not everything in life is defined by your anal Writer's 101 rules.

Look at the forum, asshole, this is Or Kill Me... this wasn't a fucking short story it was a rant, and I felt the emotion and I felt the point.  If you didn't its probably because you're 'life retarded'.

Nope.  I criticized your criticism here.  Elsewhere I criticize you as a human being, but here I stayed primarily on topic.  You fail again.

Actually, you disagreed. Constructive criticism, like arguments, use premise(s) to reach their conclusion. What you said amounts to "you're wrong, dipshit," which really does not qualify.

Anyway, let's stop thread-jacking. I doubt if it's helpful.

[The Dark Monk]

I agree with NB, specific characters might be easier to feel emotion to.
It all depends on the type of person you are though, whether vague or specific tugs at your heartstrings more. I personally like character development, but, like I already said, it's about personal preference and life experiences that made that preference so.
I suggest, if it's at all possible, two versions using vague and in depth personalized characters and testing out reactions. I think it would be a hoot.

[Golden Applesauce]

...

Here lies another perfectly good piece of work ruined by spagwankery.

RIP

[Kai]

That's actually the response I was aiming to invoke.
Just hoping it did so in the right way.  Feedback on revision / polish is always welcome!

Edit: I can't spell.

It definitely evoked a response to the juxaposition of social responsibility versus personal privacy, in that my emotions strongly went both ways leading to a mindfuck because the decision was binary. It made me stop and look inward.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It was a tragedy they died.

IF they had been reasonable, if they had said YES to the rules, the restrictions the observations and controls, they'd be alive.

That chip in the car never letting her drive above 70 mph, and the camera to watch her for falling asleep?  They'd have saved her.

Restricted sales and medical approval to make sure they were healthy enough to eat that unprocessed stuff people used to eat all the time, instead of state approved, easy to digest SMARTFOOD, that might have kept him from a heart attack and death at age 45.

A camera in the house to inform police of the intruder that killed her husband and children as they slept?  It could have made all the difference.

What a tragedy they didn't take them.
What a tragedy they died.
What a tragedy they lived with privacy, and the freedom to make their own mistakes.

Freedom is ALWAYS preferable to safety.

If you're a biped, I mean.

TGRR,
Has found no dilemma, here.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For this to be effective, their deaths actually have to feel tragic in some level. Even if the reader does not agree that the cause of their death is tragic, that they should have agreed to the regulations, etc. the death itself needs to be felt.

But it's not.

The reader doesn't know these people. He is in no way invested, and he has no reason to empathize. Death itself is not really tragic, especially the person who dies. Perhaps for those he leaves behind, but the reader knows nothing of these people. The piece basically presents a hypothetical individual and kills him in the same sentence.

Death doesn't work without character development.

[Kai]

That's actually the response I was aiming to invoke.
Just hoping it did so in the right way.  Feedback on revision / polish is always welcome!

Edit: I can't spell.

It definitely evoked a response to the juxaposition of social responsibility versus personal privacy, in that my emotions strongly went both ways leading to a mindfuck because the decision was binary. It made me stop and look inward.

Question after myself: If you don't have personal freedom, are you really living?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That's actually the response I was aiming to invoke.
Just hoping it did so in the right way.  Feedback on revision / polish is always welcome!

Edit: I can't spell.

It definitely evoked a response to the juxaposition of social responsibility versus personal privacy, in that my emotions strongly went both ways leading to a mindfuck because the decision was binary. It made me stop and look inward.

Question after myself: If you don't have personal freedom, are you really living?

NO.

[Kai]

That's actually the response I was aiming to invoke.
Just hoping it did so in the right way.  Feedback on revision / polish is always welcome!

Edit: I can't spell.

It definitely evoked a response to the juxaposition of social responsibility versus personal privacy, in that my emotions strongly went both ways leading to a mindfuck because the decision was binary. It made me stop and look inward.

Question after myself: If you don't have personal freedom, are you really living?

NO.

I was pretty sure that was the answer.

[Richter]

It was a tragedy they died.

IF they had been reasonable, if they had said YES to the rules, the restrictions the observations and controls, they'd be alive.

That chip in the car never letting her drive above 70 mph, and the camera to watch her for falling asleep?  They'd have saved her.

Restricted sales and medical approval to make sure they were healthy enough to eat that unprocessed stuff people used to eat all the time, instead of state approved, easy to digest SMARTFOOD, that might have kept him from a heart attack and death at age 45.

A camera in the house to inform police of the intruder that killed her husband and children as they slept?  It could have made all the difference.

What a tragedy they didn't take them.
What a tragedy they died.
What a tragedy they lived with privacy, and the freedom to make their own mistakes.

Freedom is ALWAYS preferable to safety.

If you're a biped, I mean.

TGRR,
Has found no dilemma, here.

Need more bipeds.

It definitely evoked a response to the juxaposition of social responsibility versus personal privacy, in that my emotions strongly went both ways leading to a mindfuck because the decision was binary. It made me stop and look inward.

Well, semi coherent attempt top bounce around freedom and accepting the associated risk anyways.