From: mdhangton@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:55:36 AM UTC-4, over...@spam.ftc.gov wrote:   
      
   > >> 2. To write with a beginning, middle, and end. You can learn this.   
   >    
   > >I disagree. I don't see where they are supposed to be in other stories,     
   >    
   > >and don't write with any frame of what's to go where in mind.   
   >    
   > A story has a beginning, middle, and end. A vignette has a frozen   
   >    
   > snapshot with an implied beginning, middle, and end. A story may   
   >    
   > possible have an implied beginning and/or ending (for stronger values   
   >    
   > of implied than a vignette). Without a beginning, middle, and end,   
   >    
   > it's not a story.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > If nothing changes, it's not usually a story, If something changes   
   >    
   > there's at least a why which implies a beginning and middle, although   
   >    
   > the end may be either implied or left as a question for the reader.   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > If you have an obstacle with such a frame, You wouldn't be able to   
   >    
   > actually write a "story." This does not prevent you from writing a   
   >    
   > vignette.   
      
   Not everyone links the word _storytelling_ to a fixed, erudite definition of   
   _story_.   
      
   People write fiction that won't fit such a definition of a story, like a   
   feghoot or a feminist allegory or pornography.  And they fill some need an   
   audience has, like to chuckle over the stupid pun, or to watch the POV   
   character show the men what for, or    
   to make the reader come.  It might not be so sophisticated, but an audience   
   wants it.   
   >    
   > >> 3. A sense of the music of words.   
   >    
   > >I don't really know what you mean by that. Can you rephrase it?   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > I had hoped that the two examples I supplied would suffice. Brendan   
   >    
   > Behan, Under Milk Wood is a particularly obvious example. This seems   
   >    
   > to be a property of poets and occasional writers. TS Eliot in Murder   
   >    
   > in the Cathedral ("Yet we go on living,/living and partially living.")   
   >    
   > is another. Almost the entire play, JB by Archibald McLeash is a   
   >    
   > retelling of the Book of Job based on the King James Version, and it   
   >    
   > also sings. You may be able to describe it better than I can if you   
   >    
   > take a look at any of the examples.   
   >    
   I was waiting for you to elaborate also.  I would call this prose rhythm and   
   poetic language.   
      
   Maybe an innate ability is necessary to compose great poetic works, but most   
   people can get a minimum standard of competence to control the rhythm of prose   
   by study of the structure of poetry enough so it isn't clunky to read.  That's   
   as much a    
   mechanical skill as anything else in writing.   
   >    
   > >> 4. To know where to start the story, and to know when to end the   
   >    
   > >> story.   
   >    
   > >   
   >    
   > >I agree, as long as you don't mean you have to know that from the start.     
   >    
   > >(Not everyone writes that way.)   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > You don't need to know from the start. Many authors give more   
   >    
   > backstory than is needed to set up the story and continue after the   
   >    
   > climax or character growth to fill out an idea that is better left to   
   >    
   > the reader's imagination to tell.    
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > A particularly good example of this comes from Harry Potter. The   
   >    
   > epilog tells us that Harry and Ginny lived happily ever after, same   
   >    
   > for Ron and Hermione. People don't live happily everafter - when you   
   >    
   > have a series of adventures, happily ever after is rapidly boring. The   
   >    
   > epilog was 1) unnecessary, 2) detrimental to the story, and 3) out of   
   >    
   > character with the preceding several thousand pages.   
   >    
   Does it make the target audience feel good?   
      
      
   >    
   > In relation to this discussion,   
   >    
   >     1) You have to have the genetic ability to observe the emotional   
   >    
   > underpinnings of character action.   
   >    
   >     2) You have to have the genetic intelligence to project the   
   >    
   > emotional attitude backward and forwards.   
   >    
   Let us say an author is a narcissist.  Narcissists are noted for being   
   oblivious to the emotions of the people who surround them.   
      
   The narcissist writes action-oriented thrillers populated entirely by   
   characters that resemble himself in all ways except their outward appearance.   
      
   Why does this author need the kind of self-knowledge people get from   
   psychoanalysis?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)