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.
:/
I don't know how to feel about this one.
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.
This one is kind of :asplode:
Quote from: Richter on November 02, 2008, 09:59:48 PM
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.
... these examples of 'tragedy' could be juxtaposed against examples of 'success' ...
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Patrick Henry McVerry.
Anybody else laugh while reading this?
Am I a horrible person?
Btw - Freedom of Choice > Not
I AM NOT A ROBOT.
I ummm, I will have to get to you on this. It is disturbing.
This is good.
(Should it be "processed stuff" instead of "unprocessed stuff" ?)
Just as a brainstorm, what if it focused on people being killed by others not following The Rules?
The person who died when hit by the car that didn't have the speed-limiter chip.
The child who died because his mother thought she knew better than the state-approved dietary plan.
The family that died because the father wouldn't stand for the police camera in their house.
Selfish people who chose freedom for themselves and death for you.
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.
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 06:43:39 PM
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'.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 07:38:10 PM
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.
the "death" in the piece is the death of privacy and freedom
it has nothing to do with the characters, who are just vehicles for the imposition of regulation.
I think that by identifying the characters, you'd lose some ability to relate to the piece. They'd no longer be the everyman, they'd be specific dead people.
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 07:38:10 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 07:58:58 PM
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 07:38:10 PM
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.
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 08:01:36 PM
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.
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 08:02:33 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 07:58:58 PM
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 07:45:29 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 07:38:10 PM
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.
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 08:03:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 08:05:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 07:38:10 PM
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 06:43:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 09:23:18 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on November 03, 2008, 07:38:10 PM
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 06:43:39 PM
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.
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.
...
Here lies another perfectly good piece of work ruined by spagwankery.
RIP
Quote from: Richter on November 02, 2008, 09:59:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Richter on November 02, 2008, 05:02:33 AM
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.
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 06:43:39 PM
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.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2008, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from: Richter on November 02, 2008, 09:59:48 PM
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?
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2008, 01:03:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2008, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from: Richter on November 02, 2008, 09:59:48 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 04, 2008, 01:19:57 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2008, 01:03:13 AM
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2008, 12:43:17 AM
Quote from: Richter on November 02, 2008, 09:59:48 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 04, 2008, 12:45:55 AM
Quote from: Richter on November 02, 2008, 05:02:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Kai on November 04, 2008, 12:43:17 AM
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. :)
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 08:03:06 PM
Quote from: nostalgicBadger on November 03, 2008, 08:01:36 PM
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.
It could work both ways.
Those who'd see it done differnent are welcomed to do so.
I wonder how a pro-safety nut would respond to this... hmmm i'm sending this to my mom.
will post her reply later if its funny and if i don't forget.
PS not implying that she's nuts, only more pro-safety than me.
Nice rant! And, more to the point, a great illustration of why this shit happens. Most of it isn't down to Eviltm bastards who want us all to be miserable. It's because some kid wandered off the edge of a cliff and a bunch of people got upset and built a fence which totally killed the view. Understandable maybe but, nonetheless, we can't see the ocean now. :argh!:
:mittens:
Quote from: GA on November 03, 2008, 02:58:18 PM
This is good.
(Should it be "processed stuff" instead of "unprocessed stuff" ?)
no it shouldnt it should be raw data instead of some human test dummy. draws the deattachment most people get in tragic things when after they learn what the press tells them they go eh and move onto the next thing, its not personal for a reason because for most people tragic things happen to other people, their life is perfect.
the concept wasnt about the reader or the people these tragic things happen, but to the watchers who are forced to just sit back when they illegally watch us because they are told by those above them not to break cover. it draws into conflict our ideas of a society and encourages discord or discussion of said idea. and the purpose of a rant is to do just that.
Quote
Just as a brainstorm, what if it focused on people being killed by others not following The Rules?
The person who died when hit by the driver who thought a few beers was ok.
The child who died because his mother thought she knew better than the state-approved dietary plan.
The family that died because the father wouldn't stand 1984's nightmare imposed on his life.
Selfish people who chose freedom for themselves and death for you.
reworded to encourage more of this
Quote from: Regret on November 11, 2008, 04:16:44 PM
I wonder how a pro-safety nut would respond to this... hmmm i'm sending this to my mom.
will post her reply later if its funny and if i don't forget.
PS not implying that she's nuts, only more pro-safety than me.
I'd be honored to know what she says :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 11, 2008, 05:55:19 PM
Nice rant! And, more to the point, a great illustration of why this shit happens. Most of it isn't down to Eviltm bastards who want us all to be miserable. It's because some kid wandered off the edge of a cliff and a bunch of people got upset and built a fence which totally killed the view. Understandable maybe but, nonetheless, we can't see the ocean now. :argh!:
:mittens:
Thanks.
As my father the roofer likes to say, if you fall off the roof, you're fired before you hit the ground.
Quote from: YattoDobbs on November 11, 2008, 07:54:55 PM
Quote
Just as a brainstorm, what if it focused on people being killed by others not following The Rules?
The person who died when hit by the driver who thought a few beers was ok.
The child who died because his mother thought she knew better than the state-approved dietary plan.
The family that died because the father wouldn't stand 1984's nightmare imposed on his life.
Selfish people who chose freedom for themselves and death for you.
reworded to encourage more of this
We've all heard sentiments such as "Live free of die", or "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
No 1984 control scheme will EVER make you safe, and bad shit happens whether you're "free" or not. This is life, bad shit will happen regardless, and you won't get out of it alive, whatever way you try to live.
I'm not saying lock us all into cotton coffins with tubes, or allow anything in the name of personal freedom. The only thing I can really advocate is people having enough latitude to fuck up and learn from it if they're still around. Idiot proof something, and life will give you a better idiot.
Quote from: Richter on November 13, 2008, 12:31:30 AM
Idiot proof something, and life will give you a better idiot.
VICTORY
(http://www.mingara.com.au/media/gold%20star.jpg)
Quote from: Richter on November 13, 2008, 12:31:30 AM
Idiot proof something, and life will give you a better idiot.
This be newsworthy.
my moms response to OP:
yada yada yada, boring 'be responsible' crap, free will rules! freedom limiting stuff kills creativity! "i avoid areas with security cameras
unless i don't wanna [her bold] "This leaves me free-er than just avoiding it" "your brother was really happy with the apple pie we made"
I love my mom :D
Quote from: Regret on November 13, 2008, 01:37:52 AM
Quote from: Richter on November 13, 2008, 12:31:30 AM
Idiot proof something, and life will give you a better idiot.
This be newsworthy.
my moms response to OP:
yada yada yada, boring 'be responsible' crap, free will rules! freedom limiting stuff kills creativity! "i avoid areas with security cameras unless i don't wanna [her bold] "This leaves me free-er than just avoiding it" "your brother was really happy with the apple pie we made"
I love my mom :D
:lulz: Oh well. Can't win 'em all.