@waitingforzion Honestly? Just post the page this part is of so we can get a clearer picture. At this point, it seems we are parroting the same remarks everytime and could use a roader view of what you are trying to write.
I don't understand why it is still not clear. I understand that the argument has a fallacy, but I thought I made the faulty argument clear at least. Why do you find it unclear?
At this point, I think that the problem isn't entirely the writing, but also confusion in the thinking. The writing is still a little hard to follow, but the main issue is that the ideas are harder to follow. If someone said, "I told you how much I like slate roofs, so that you would understand why I didn't want an English muffin," I'd say, Huh? That line of logic doesn't make sense. Those two things aren't related. If someone said, "I told you how much I admire baked goods, so that you would understand why I didn't want an English muffin," I'd say, Huh? English muffins are baked goods. Why is your admiration of a baked goods proof that you don't want a particular baked good? You say that you mentioned that she was beautiful in order to prove that you didn't feel lust. Most people would say that lust is often accompanied by a perception of someone as beautiful. And even if they didn't, even if lust has nothing to do with beauty, just as slate roofs have nothing to do with English muffins, the fact that they have nothing to do with each other means that the one doesn't prove the other. The fact that in the past or present you found her beautiful, doesn't prove that in the past or present you didn't feel lust for her. In fact, most people would say that it means that it was MORE, not less, likely that you felt lust for her. Maybe the issue is that you see lust as not unrelated to beauty, but actually contrary to it? Maybe you see lust as the equivalent of contempt or hatred, as a bad thing that you couldn't feel toward someone that you admire? Maybe you're assuming a world view where sex is always a bad thing, a thing that communicates contempt for the person that you're having sex with? But that's not how most of the world sees it.
Okay-- what I get out of it was that he mentioned how he had originally been hot for her to prove that he had self-control-- not to show that he never had any lustful feelings. Maybe I'm reading it all wrong, but it struck me in more of a "Now I will scourge myself of these unclean feelings; back, you devil!" than in a, "My current assessment of her as beautiful means that I never like-liked her, so booyah."
Okay, I could not help myself but rewrite the paragraph once again. But this time I was much more careful. I don't know if it is clear now, and if it is clear it is probably through chance and having rewritten it so many times before. I know I need to get past this paragraph, but I would still like to get my meaning across. Please tell me if you can understand it now, or if it is still unclear. If you believe I wanted to be more than friends with her, you did not interpret my words correctly. For in the past I did want to be more than friends with her, because I was attracted to her physical and personal beauty, but once I I knew that she had a boyfriend, I put my desire aside. But in that desire was no lust, for it filled me with no yearning for the physical, but admiration of the same, drawing me to conversation with her, and the building of knowledge within us of each other. Of these things I spoke in writing not long ago, to evoke my past integrity, and to establish it for today in my desire to be her friend.
It's still archaic and unnecessarily over-complicated, but I may finally know what you mean. There's enough coherence there that I could actually address specific problems if this were a piece in the review room. And now I strongly recommend that you write something prosaic, terribly terribly prosaic, for the review room. I would suggest writing a set of instructions for scrambling eggs. And, yes, I'm serious.
I like that much better. It may still need tweaking but you took the logical fallacy out which had been your biggest stumbling block.
At least I know how to scramble eggs, I think. Don't I have to critique someone else's work first? That is going to be a little hard for me. I have trouble gathering information from text and analyzing it. I will try, but I don't think I can say anything useful. And besides, I don't know enough about any genre to critique properly.
My first thought was that you could suggest adding rhythm, but nobody wants the fistfight that would ensue. You could go with a couple of SPAG (Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar) critiques. That's not necessarily what people want, but it is what some people need, and you seem to be in pretty good shape there.
It's always hard for a new writer to critique at first. Start with your overall impression, did you like it/hate it? Is it good or bad but you can't put your finger on why? You can't see until you start to look.
I don't understand who you is referring to in this paragraph. Is it supposed to be the reader or is it a letter within the story to someone who's supposed to care for some reason or is it dialogue? I don't really know the context, but there are situations where it would be better to take you out. I don't know, here's my rewrite: I liked her, but she had a boyfriend. That made it awkward so I decided not to like her. She thought I was creepy so I wrote her a letter telling her I liked her so much that I decided not to like her. I just wanted a friend. Oh yeah, her name was Marie. Yeah, I don't know if you can word it simple enough, it seems like a flawed concept. People have flawed thoughts like that, so its not the most terrible thing, but if you combine it with the tone you've given your character the guy becomes someone I want to punch instead of someone I feel bad for.. preposition, that was close.
Is it the tone of the whole paragraph or the tone the first sentence? The first sentence originally was not supposed to sound like that. In the previous paragraph, it was clear that certain words were being talked about. So I originally worded the first sentence like this: "But you did not interpret my words correctly, if you believe I wanted to be more than friends with her." It is not supposed to sound downgrading, as in the version where the if clause comes first. I think that with the if clause occurring after the main clause, the tone changes to something less pompous. But I could be mistaken about that. Also, I don't accept your interpretation of my words. I don't believe that is what I meant. There is a difference between refraining from a feeling and refraining from a pursuit. The desire was to be more than friends. The feelings that produced that desire were still there even after the desire was put aside. So there is no contradiction, and I don't think my paragraph must be interpreted that way. But if I am wrong, then I need to fix it once again. But I am going to write a critique and post instructions about scrambling eggs at some point sooner than later, either tonight or tomorrow, or Saturday.
Please don't miss my post above. But to add to that, what tone do you think the letter writer should adopt to avoid someone wanting to punch him in the face?
The part in bold reads clearly but just doesn't make any sense to me. The first three words in the definition of desire according to Google, whatever that's worth, probably not much, are "a strong feeling". I get the difference between desire and pursuit but I really don't see the separation between desire and feeling. You can put aside the pursuit of the desire or the feelings, but I don't think its possible to go midway and put aside the desire and not the feelings since the only distinction is that one is a more intense feeling. The actual separating line doesn't exist. I could be the only one hung up on that, but I feel like it may be a big part of the problem to everyone that's saying there is a problem with the concept. As for the tone, just something more straightforward. It sounds like a politician trying to dodge around a question by distracting people with the wording rather than someone saying what they really mean.
Dictionary.com lists as a first definition for desire, "to wish or long for;crave;want." In what I am trying to say, there are two separate desires, the desire to be more than her friend, and the desire to be her friend. Both desires involve wanting to get to know her and wanting to talk to her. The first desire ceased to be acted on, and the second desire was focused on instead. The main difference is the whether she is considered a friend or a girlfriend. Is is hard to explain, but somehow the feelings of admiration lead to putting aside the first desire, and keeping the second. The admiration was still in effect, but without the desire to have her as a girlfriend. Imagine I give you a ginger bread house, but it is not really edible. At first you might think it is edible, but soon discover that it is not. However, you find the ginger bread house aesthetically pleasing. Originally, you wanted to eat it, but now you just want to look at it. Both of these desires originated from the pleasing appearance of the house. I am not sure if that makes any sense to you, or if I just have the wrong understanding of reality.
You already took a bite out of it so how is it still aesthetically pleasing? I get what you're saying, I just don't believe people think like that.
Plain as dirt is a fuck load better than mellifluous confusion. Purple prose is soooo 1800s. Edit: I wrote this before discovering the latest version above, which isn't great but addresses some of my points a little. ... Aside from the shit writing, here's the real problem. You're not saying what the desires actually ARE. You don't desire to be a friend. You desire to spend time with someone. Friendship is the means to an end. You say the desire is wanting to get to know her and wanting to be her friend, but to what end? Saying 'I want to be your friend' is bullshit. The truth is you want to spend time with them. The question is always, why? To what benefit? What IS the friendship? Often being in someone's company is wonderful and rewarding in itself. So THAT is the real desire. To be a part of her life. To spend time with her. To mean something to her. The desire to hold hands and fuck is replaced with the desire to simply spend time together. Also, clarity comes through understanding. Explain why you liked her, beyond the beauty. Not THAT you did, but WHY you did, and WHY that justifies still wanting to spend time with her beyond shagging.
Thanks for calling my writing shit. I can't post in the critique forum because I can't find a piece that is bad enough for me to critique, so I am just going to dump this here, this thing which I wrote a few minutes ago just for the sake of writing something: The black mist ascended from drains all along the road, covering the peek of wheels on vehicles, and causing a tingling sensation on the ankles and feet of pedestrians all throughout the city. James, walking along its walls from the outside, beheld a shower of coal from above, flaming with black fire, and spiraling down into the city from all across the sky, until the smoke was felt in his lungs. Surely his family could be saved, but he could think of nothing to that end. With no other hope than the peace of limbo, he rushed into the gates, and embraced the immolating heat of the flaming coals. But when he entered the city walls, he felt no flames, but felt tingling and saw the black mist, which was ever rising upon the walls, dissembling the coals as it welcomed them. The coals ceased to fall, and the mist suddenly became water, which the drains swallowed up, taking vengeance for its earlier departure. No one could discern the cause of these events, not even James who was beyond the city, but still his father grounded him for running away.
I feel like proofreading will help you write better. Try redoing just this sentence without hearing any criticism and see if you like what you come up with any better.
Critiquing doesn't only mean pointing out the bad. If all you can do is say what you liked about something, do that.
We all have to start somewhere when it comes to critiques. It feels a bit awkward at first but it gets easier, and it will help you learn to view your own work from a more dispassionate place. It's worth doing and doing regularly. It seems to me you have little perception of how your work is being perceived, and you are quick to say the reader is interpreting your words incorrectly. Gotta ask... whose fault is that? Us for being poor readers, or... Critique can help you with that aspect. I noticed your post on where you could post your Epistle... it almost seems as if you are looking for reasons to not open yourself up to criticism, but yet you are still looking input in this thread. Just stick it in General, and see what happens. Aside from the above passage contravening the rules, what point is there in giving a sample you've rushed out? Where is the benefit in us critiquing something you haven't even taken the time to try and polish? Unless you are saying this rushed passage is representative of your writing as a whole? A sample you have already edited to the best of your ability would make for a better learning experience for you, and those who take time out of their day to lend a hand.
