Subject: I sincerely apologise, sir. (nm)
Author:
Posted on: 2011-03-27 19:33:00 UTC
-
Announcement! New PPC history! by
on 2011-03-27 12:36:00 UTC
Reply
Hello, everybody. I hope you're all well. To explain in short, after much back and forth consultation over more than a year, hS asked me if I'd be willing to carry on the latest of his stories chronicling the PPC's history, and after much back-and-forth consultation, and with his guidance and editing, the first chapter of Origins is finally complete. It can be found here:
http://ppchistory.webs.com/OriginsPart1.htm -
It's not bad, really, it isn't. by
on 2011-03-27 20:22:00 UTC
Reply
Just needs some work, is all. A dabble of humor here, a bit of repetition-cutting there, a couple of beta readers, and voila, you have something worth showing off. It's hard to write something as epic as this, especially when hS sets such a high standard. Stay calm, listen to the concrit, and keep working at it, that's all I can say that hasn't been said already at least twice...
-
. . . well I liked it. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 19:42:00 UTC
Reply
-
Seconded! Nicely done, KG. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 23:31:00 UTC
Reply
-
Not bad. by
on 2011-03-27 19:24:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
And a third. :D by
on 2011-03-27 19:40:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
Afraid I'll have to disagree with the "fault" bit. by
on 2011-03-27 20:05:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
Well, yes. by
on 2011-03-27 20:13:00 UTC
Reply
If you already know the ending, there's little that will surprise you in the telling (actually, for Origins, that's not true after, um, the prologue. It gets complicated).
I... have no idea about icebergs, alas. Don't know about KG, who's doing the actual writing on this one.
hS -
Not necessarily. by
on 2011-03-27 21:38:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
I tried to work in explanations and they disrupted the narra by
on 2011-03-27 20:15:00 UTC
Reply
-tive too much. I went with what flowed better over explaining every little thing. For example, the "law" comment was going to be explained but I couldn't make it go smoothly. My personal theory is Aldebourne was just giving Mike a hard time.
-
Icebergs... that takes me back. by
on 2011-03-27 20:08:00 UTC
Reply
That's the thing where there is the top layer, which is what is written, and then two more layers below the surface, one being the implied things and the other being metaphorical. Or something like that. I think I just butchered it. >.
-
No, but that's cool. by
on 2011-03-27 20:12:00 UTC
Reply
I was referring to the one that says that what goes into the story is only 10% of what the author actually knows about it.
~Neshomeh -
Aye, I've seen it done by
on 2011-03-27 19:45:00 UTC
Reply
Many times, in fact. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm a big fan of it. Personally, I like the prologue!
-
A Song of Ice and Fire comes particularly to mind. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 19:41:00 UTC
Reply
-
Story seemed to flow best writing that way, is all. by
on 2011-03-27 19:25:00 UTC
Reply
Sorry to have wasted everybody's time. I don't know what I was thinking.
-
Don't be so quick to blame yourself. by
on 2011-03-27 19:29:00 UTC
Reply
Yes, it seems to be the general consensus among us (myself included) that it could use some work. But that doesn't mean it's a waste of time. If you keep working at it, you'll have used time, but you won't have wasted it. It'll only be a waste of time if you give up on it, and you're not going to do that.
Are you? -
Response by
on 2011-03-27 19:21:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
A comment. by
on 2011-03-27 19:36:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
Response to the comment by
on 2011-03-27 19:43:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
Probably one of those spots I had to fill in blanks. by
on 2011-03-27 19:49:00 UTC
Reply
I generally tried to make it basically a fleshed-out version of hS's short, and where I couldn't stick as close to it as possible I had to fill in a few areas where there wasn't as much detail and the like; given how it's being worked on, I figured hS would stop me if he saw something that clashed with his story and whatnot. I think the prose might've ended up looking a bit patchwork, because I kept changing bits around and whatnot. I don't know, sorry.
-
I concede the point. by
on 2011-03-27 19:48:00 UTC
Reply
Maybe it's an AU Earth? I mean, Voyager isn't a real ship, and she was certainly never eaten by a plothole.
hS -
Star Trek? (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 19:49:00 UTC
Reply
-
... you're too good at this. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 19:52:00 UTC
Reply
-
Wait, it wasn't a reference? (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 19:53:00 UTC
Reply
-
The story is seven years old. by
on 2011-03-27 19:55:00 UTC
Reply
It may have been a reference - I had to have gotten the name from somewhere, and it's a good reference. The only other source is Admiral Ackbar's Galactic Voyager, which isn't nearly so apt. So let's say you're right. :P
hS -
But who's left? (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 21:12:00 UTC
Reply
-
Well, I guess hS did allow you. by
on 2011-03-27 17:50:00 UTC
Reply
So I can't really complain. Too much.
You went overboard on epithets, and I call bull on the 'I could say you're breaking the law' bit in regards to importing plants from Europe to the Americas.
Also, your post. Learn to decide what format you're going to go with for phrases. 'Back and forth' or 'back-and-forth', especially if you're going to use it twice in the same sentence. -
Reasons I am highly amused. by
on 2011-03-27 19:32:00 UTC
Reply
1/ The plant import thing is straight from my original version of Origins.
2/ No chapter of Reorg or Crashing Down (including the ones written by two people and then mashed together!) was ever drafted or significantly edited.
hS -
Re: Reasons I am highly amused. by
on 2011-03-27 19:36:00 UTC
Reply
- You never said anything in regards to plant importing being illegal. Which is why I'm calling bull in regards to that bit. (Nevermind that sunflowers are American in origin.)
2. Timeline?
- You never said anything in regards to plant importing being illegal. Which is why I'm calling bull in regards to that bit. (Nevermind that sunflowers are American in origin.)
-
Response: by
on 2011-03-27 19:45:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
Then I call you out on that as well. by
on 2011-03-27 19:46:00 UTC
Reply
Also, fish.
I'm distressingly confused and not quite sure what's going on anymore. -
I can't even remember why it was that way. by
on 2011-03-27 19:50:00 UTC
Reply
I'm sure there was a very important reason. But as a method for getting Old and New World plants dropped onto Origin together (I did know sunflowers were American at the time), it left quite a lot to be desired.
But wait! That just makes it a plothole! And the whole story is about plotholes! Problem solved!
hS -
Hmm... by
on 2011-03-27 20:05:00 UTC
Reply
So, it doesn't matter if we as authors screw up, because the whole story is about authors screwing up? I'm not really feeling the logic here, hS. Isn't it, like, a precept of ours that our missions can't suck, because what the missions are about sucks and we don't want to introduce a double standard? I may be trying to hard to connect the dots, but it seems to me like you're splitting hairs here...
-
But I split them with style. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 20:13:00 UTC
Reply
-
Undeniably. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 22:29:00 UTC
Reply
-
So the plothole there is a metaphorical one? by
on 2011-03-27 19:57:00 UTC
Reply
Inside the actual plothole that's visible in the story?
(Also, KG, I can SEE you and I can tell you're wanting to slam your head against something or are facepalming or having some sort of existential PPC crisis. So stop it and take a breath and just chill and wear some underwear on your head for a bit until calm down and see what there is you can do to improve what you wrote without losing the point of what you wanted.) -
Well, there are many kinds of plothole. by
on 2011-03-27 20:09:00 UTC
Reply
The swirly blue kind is probably the least common. There's geographical compression, character alteration, anachronisms... sure, the portal-through-space is the most obvious, but the PPC is built on very carefully not-talked-about plotholes by the bajillion.
hS -
I sincerely apologise, sir. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 19:33:00 UTC
Reply
-
Stop it, will you? by
on 2011-03-27 20:10:00 UTC
Reply
We don't want you to apologize. Or, if we did, you have already and we don't need you to anymore. What we would like is if you'd take in some of the concrit you're getting and work on this some more. Any of this sinking in at all?
-
What in the world for? Don't answer that. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 19:47:00 UTC
Reply
-
Stop apologizing. by
on 2011-03-27 19:38:00 UTC
Reply
There is no reason for you to apologize. Take your concrit like a mature, reasonable, and sentient being and stop apologizing for your imagined screw-ups.
I don't know how to slot your spine back in, so you're going to have to do it yourself. -
Okay, that came out mean. by
on 2011-03-27 17:59:00 UTC
Reply
What I mean is, your writing in that is okay. Nothing more. It's not all that great, it's not terrible, it's just mediocre; and sort of disappointing for that fact, especially since you said you were consulting with him and it was edited, and you spent a year before this generally discussing.
It doesn't read like you took a year to discuss it, and it doesn't even read like it's much more beyond a first draft with an initial editing, which is never the feel I got from Reorganisation or Crashing Down, and is something I'd come to associate with this sort of background writing. That, y'know, if it's going to be written, that it's going to be novel quality writing despite being a fannish work, and this just isn't. -
Yes, it did. by
on 2011-03-27 18:26:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
I am not picking on him. by
on 2011-03-27 19:04:00 UTC
Reply
Expand this post →
-
Okay. by
on 2011-03-27 19:23:00 UTC
Reply
Yeah, I overreacted. I probably shouldn't have tried to respond in the middle of an emotional point where I was pointing due "everything is out to be mean", and that clearly carried over into my post.
I take it back and apologise for the accusations I made. I really don't want to start a massive fight over this. -
Whoa! by
on 2011-03-27 17:35:00 UTC
Reply
Really, really nice job! That was excellent! I applaud your excellent writing skills.
-
There is no call for sarcasm. (nm) by
on 2011-03-27 19:30:00 UTC
Reply
-
...? I'm sorry? by
on 2011-03-27 19:45:00 UTC
Reply
I'm a little miffed that you thought it was sarcasm, but it wasn't. I'm not good when it comes to sarcasm.
I actually, genuinely thought it was good.
But if you want to be hard on yourself and think that it was sarcasm, go right ahead.