| RavenBlog |
|
| Comments on Thursday 21 February 2002: |
| A comment on Revelations today amused me. Suggesting that I should cut out some of the unnecessary description, and that I shouldn't try to be humorous. Maybe they mistook the intent, and thought I was writing a technical document. Humour is part of the content. I wonder if Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett were ever told they shouldn't try to be humorous. Finally, I'm told it reads like fanfic. Apart from not being based around characters of other people's conception, yes. Which is the fan part. So I'd say "it reads like fiction". Coincidentally, that's what it is. Hooray!
[16:12] |
| acehotshot |
| I didn't think that the story had an unnecessary amount of description. It was pitched just about right. If you think its unnecessary, try reading something by Neal Stephenson. There's much more description in something like 'Snow Crash' or 'Cryptonomicon'. And I'm not just defending your book 'cause it's your site I'm commenting on. |
| Kevan |
| Oddly mis-aimed response, Mr B - "reading like fanfic" clearly means "reading *as if* the characters were not your own" (and possibly "as if you have no imagination of your own", but I've coughed some fanfic in my time, so ech), and I presume accusations of "trying to be humorous" imply failure, in the commenter's eyes. And what's all this about it not being a technical document? Have I wasted all these hours and electronic components in vain? |
| Raven |
| Just wanted to say Hi and that I like your site. |
| RavenBlack |
| Thanks, Mr hotshot. Mm, Mr Kevan, my response wasn't serious. I was "trying to be humorous" - ah, the irony, it burns. Incidentally, I dug up the writings of the commenter (which I shouldn't link to since the link was not provided and required some stalking), and they are truly awful, in my eye. Which is to say, they lack description and humour, unsurprisingly. |
| Tom |
| Ah, probably don't even read like fanfic. |