Lit Writing Quality in EU

KJA didn't even know how to spell poorse prose in that book.

But it was kind of like going over to your Aunt Judy's house......

You love the person, but you don't want to stay there long.

PS

 

Here's the thing:

If I read something aloud, I both see and hear it, and it helps me to understand it. Remember back in school when we were taught about how people learn in different ways? Some are visual learners, others audial, and others kinesthetic? I'm not a visual learner. I need to either write it down or hear it in order to better understand it. And if a passage in a book is confusing, I will act it out to better understand it.

Not everyone is able to read silently. And when others attack those readers for how they read, they are less likely to read, as they will fear judgment.

 

He didn't need to know how to spell anything, he didn't write that ****, he dictated it to a handheld tape recorder and then threw at his secretary.

 

Umm... I believe that makes you a VISUAL learner. If you need to ACT it out and SEE the actions, that's pretty much the definition of visual; rather than being able to read something and understand it.

 

Why do you not care? Do you think not learning how others work is worthless? Psychology/Philosophy is so loss on the current and upcoming generations it's sad.

 

No, I need to act it out to see and hear the actions and the experience of acting it out helps me to better understand what is written on the page.

And honestly... Does it matter how people read? Does it?

 

Obiously it does to him. Now point to the ignore button so he doesn't have to see your comments anymore!

 

Good thing I never once made fun of him. Good reading skills on that. (See what I did there? Ha. Joke. Not making fun of you either. Despite your condescending tone and attempts at calling my actions worthless, and psychoanalyzing me despite your very own comment, so in a circling manner calling yourself worthless.... furthering a vicious cycle? What would Freud call all of this? Or better yet Jung?)

 

It was a joke. The old cliche of "What would Freud say", I'm sure you've heard it said if you were born in 1983 like your name implies. (Or older if your name further implies it.)

I just find it funny you calling my "psychoanalyzing" (remember, you brought it up first, thus leading to my joke of Freud, who is the father of psychoanalyzation) "worthless" when that in and of itself is a form of psychoanalyzing (you cannot place a judgment value on something without analyzing it, and if doing so with mental motives, you must surely psychoanalyze the action to be able to place a judgment value on it, thus meaning you are psychoanalyzing my comment which is what you yourself called 'worthless', thus the cycle I mentioned, thus the joke leading to Freud). Stop being so defensive about things that don't require defense, especially when noone was insulting or implying otherwise, or "making fun" of anyone.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone can post on this site without some pissant assaulting their opinions.

 

anakinfansince1983
You could be reading it upside down.

 

As long as you're still able to read it, by all means.

 

While we're on the subject of the completely trivial, I'm pretty sure it's bad form to have most of a paragraph in parenthese. Kinda defeats the purpose.

 

Enough. This is off topic. No more personal comments.

​

 

Look "bro", (does that better suit your generation? Since Freud doesn't.) I wasn't looking for a fight, nor did I start one, I asked a simple question. You read into it however you want, and then you start your fight.

Done story as far as I see it. You can "psychoanalyze" me all you want, open book, please do so. And I'd rather learn from people and figure out why they read the way they do, and how they read, rather than be dismissive like yourself, least of all of learned scholars (like in the way you dismissed Freud, especially given the way you dismissed him due to a singular thread of his entire vast reservoir of writings which shows a clear lack of knowledge of Freud that you have, or most likely of the neurological and psychological realm, despite your attempt to posture yourself off as using it such, especially given in how you dismissed the usage of it and threw out the term as more of a 'look at my point' rather than 'make my point' kind of way).

If you want to psychoanalyze me, please do so, I'm sure you could learn something from it, just as I learned something from hearing how/why he read(s) the way he does. I've also learned something of yourself in your attempt to start a fight for no good reason, despite being 39 years old, which should be an age of maturity rather than attempting to pick fights with people on the internet when they are trying to learn.

If you wish to read condescension in my post, perhaps its more of an outlook of yourself rather than anything else. Do I find it credulous that grown people act out scenes from books with toys? Slightly. Do I really think it needs to be done? Not really, regardless of how one learns. Did I make fun of the person? No, and in no way did I even do so just now giving my opinion of it. Star Wars is meant to be fun, not intelligent, but it can be both, and should at least aim above things like this. Do people really need to act out scenes - I rather hope not, one from a writing standpoint of the author, and two, on the premise that that's putting too much of a strain on caring in the minutia of how a scene plays itself out. Star Wars is whimisical, if a scene makes so little sense that you need to use toys as grown adults to configure the scene in your mind, just reconstruct it using your imagination for the sake of things in the best way you can given the authorial attempt, most likely it will be more enjoyable, less embarrassing when your wife walks in on you, and most likely not as distracting from your own reading, and quite possibly better than the author him(her)self could have done.

For the record, I'm still a bit confused about how you manage to do it. Do you hold the book with your left hand reading while glancing down to play with the toys and configure them to go along with each sentence/paragraph, moving them in time to your reading, or do you read a paragraph, configure said toys, read a paragraph, reconfigure the toys, and then continue onwards for the 3+ pages of the fight?

 

I sit the book down and read it aloud while I act it out. If the paragraph is short, I memorize it and act it out. If it helps me to better understand a confusing scene description, so be it.

 

Again, I wasn't saying "don't do it" nor was I insulting. Curious more about the logistics of it than anything else.

 

Off topic. Last warning. Danz Borin, for someone who was complaining about wasted space and off-topic posts earlier in this thread, you seem to have become quite the exemplar of what not to do.

 

Well, I sure hope having the last word for two hours was worth it. For all the talk of reading comprehension in this thread, the ability to read and understand warnings appears sadly lacking.

 

As someone who has taken dictation... I can say that it is not the best way to write a story. I had typed up my brother's short story and all throughout, I was fixing tortured wording and suggesting different ways to describe something. People do not speak perfectly. Writing forces us to slow down and think. If you dictate your stories, you run through it without thinking, and if your typist is just typing without actually listening to the prose, then a lot of weird, rambly bits are going to make their way onto the page.

When it comes to editing, it's best to read the work aloud. You find more mistakes this way. If it sounds awkward, it definitely reads awkward.

Though, I have to wonder... did KJA give his typist strict orders to not revise while typing? If the prose was revised while it was being typed up, or even afterward, it could have been smoother. Nowadays, though, with voice-recognition software, the need for typists to take dictation is dwindling quickly, and with the convenience of voice-to-text, we'll be seeing more tortured wording if the prose isn't revised afterward.