Anyone up for experimental collaboration?

[FCS]

It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Whereas those who are making the effort to
stick around seem to be genuinely capable
of writing--and the purpose of the group is to
elicit good original writing.

So I wondered if anyone remembers the old
party game where you fold some paper in 3
and different people draw different parts of
outlandish figures.

As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
game where people speak until the bell
sounds, and then the next person carries
on, only with however many people as can be
bothered to collaborate.

I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
the first instance, if someone wishes to
start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
1500-2000 words. And if we do start it'd
be nice, perhaps, to have an idea of who's
up for it. With maybe 3-5 people it could
be quite a laugh.

But with the charter as it stands it seems
there's almost a Kafkaesque council of
willing critics to post feedback to work
but without any of them having made too
much effort to show any writing ability in
this forum.

I was just thinking that maybe if a bunch
of us actually started doing some writing
then some of the aspirinbg bards out in
cyberland might be more forthcoming with
their homework for us to mark, so to speak.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Blue Sow]

Post by FCS
As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
game where people speak until the bell
sounds, and then the next person carries
on, only with however many people as can be
bothered to collaborate.
I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
the first instance, if someone wishes to
start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
1500-2000 words.

I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable. However,
as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
might be a more realistic target for each turn. The amount of written text you
are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
thing to drag out over months).

Your starter for ten:

"The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
eased. He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
for the long day ahead. As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
food could be scarce at this time of year. Sometimes, his entire day would be
taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it. Yet he had survived.
Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
spirits. Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious. They did
however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option. The
pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
soon, he reached the first of the rocks. Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
could be found and today was no exception. He feasted hungrily on all that
there was to eat. The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
further and further until he reached the waves."

[FCS]

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
As such I wondered if anyone was up for a
bit of fun in terms of collaborative narratives;
kind of a variation on the "Just a Minute"
game where people speak until the bell
sounds, and then the next person carries
on, only with however many people as can be
bothered to collaborate.
I'm going to suggest a single narrative in
the first instance, if someone wishes to
start the ball rolling with, say, an opening
1500-2000 words.

I can see that such an idea could be both interesting and enjoyable. However,
as a minute of continuous speech is likely to average about 250 words, that
might be a more realistic target for each turn. The amount of written text you
are suggesting would require the participants to do more work than is reasonable
for an enterprise of this nature (and more than most authors unless you want the
thing to drag out over months).
"The day dawned cold and wet as had been the norm for has long as Sigismund
could remember, but at least the wind had calmed and the stinging rain had
eased. He paused before setting out, taking in his surroundings as he prepared
for the long day ahead. As always, there was the question of sustenance, and
food could be scarce at this time of year. Sometimes, his entire day would be
taken up in foraging and it seemed to him that on those days, he used more
energy finding and consuming his food than he derived from it. Yet he had survived.
Sigismund banished all negative thoughts from his mind and set off in good
spirits. Crossing the sand could take a long time on a bad day and any morsels
found along the way tended to be small and not especially nutritious. They did
however take the edge off the hunger and frankly, there was little option. The
pauses to consume these finds did not add significantly to the time taken and
soon, he reached the first of the rocks. Sometimes a variety of foodstuffs
could be found and today was no exception. He feasted hungrily on all that
there was to eat. The quantity would never be great at this distance from the
sea but the more he ate, the more energy he would have to continue his quest
further and further until he reached the waves."
--
Blue Sow

The uneven surface of the rocks had caught some of the rain and
although the sun was now warming the sand under his feet back to
its orange-gold hue from the grey-brown it had seemed in the blue
light of dawn, and the rocks had lost their teeth to the rise in
temperature,
there were still pools enough of the morning rain to drink from and
wash
down his breakfast.

He leant down to kiss the rocks and was grateful for the shellfish he
had found and already eaten having eased away some of the gritty
taste of night and softened his tongue. Extending his upper lip onto
the surface of a puddle with his lower braced against the stone, he
sucked, rolling each sip of the water around his mouth and building
a small reservoir beneath his tongue to swill those strands of flesh
which had become lodged between his teeth.

The transformation this morning had been easier, now he was more
used to it. An itch in his claws, and a glow in his pores, as he'd
made the shift back to human form and got back up from all fours.

He wiped his nose of some of the less savoury elements he'd been
srawn to foraging amongst the dunes and as the water hit his stomach
braced himself now for the metabolic shift as his human bile
neutralised
the canine, alkaline, gastric wine before pausing buffered slightly
below
neutrality state, with that slightly queasy feeling he knew would
pass,
until the balance of digestion was restored.

Sitting, still turning his head this way and that in order to catch
the
scents he knew he couldn't now smell, he trusted back to the dim
grey vista he recalled from the early light of dawn and tried to
orient
himself as to where the shore was. He thought he could hear the
boom of the waves on the shore and wondered if she would show
today, pulling herself up the beach until her sun kissed scales
fell away and she could stand once more.

He was sure she was trying to tell him something, something that
was important. Something she knew from her borderless freedom
in the waves. It was to do with the sun. But she'd only been able
to draw some lines in the sand with a stick of driftwood and that
had been washed away by the tide. He'd give her until the shadows
started lengthening, once more. He would need to get back to the
cave in order to get some sleep before his nightime hunting routine
kicked in, hardwired despite the lack of live prey.

He found some empty shells, with iridescent colours playing in
the light, and set them out in patterns on the sand.

What did she mean? Was there some land which had no night?
Would he be able there to keep his human form long enough to
re-orient to language instead of feral grunts and simple couplings
combined with gesture. And if he could talk, which he knew he
could from his childhood, then why couldn't she?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

[Blue Sow]

Post by FCS
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

Corrected to:
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.

Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.

But back to the plot - whose turn is it next? Any takers?

[FCS]

Post by FCS

Post by FCS
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
But back to the plot - whose turn is it next? Any takers?
--
Blue Sow

Hockay,

As you like.

Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Blue Sow]

Post by FCS

Post by FCS

Post by FCS
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
But back to the plot - whose turn is it next? Any takers?
--
Blue Sow

Hockay,
As you like.
Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

Only whose turn it is (-:

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?

[FCS]

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS

Post by FCS

Post by FCS
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON-SOW
--

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
in respect of the text contributed by FCS.
Text contributed by Blue Sow is not joint copyright with others, nor is
copyright claimed by Blue Sow in full or in part on text contributed by others.
But back to the plot - whose turn is it next? Any takers?
--
Blue Sow

Hockay,
As you like.
Any other special considerations we should discuss at this point?
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

Perhaps we could add a seance scene ... is there anyone theeeeeerrreee ?
--
Blue Sow- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Blue Sow]

Post by FCS
Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.

Post by FCS
But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Indeed. At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.

Post by FCS
Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
which you led him was something of a surprise. However, his behaviour since is
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

[Skipper]

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.

Post by FCS
But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Indeed. At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.

Trolls are terrified of blue sows.

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
which you led him was something of a surprise. However, his behaviour since is
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.

[Blue Sow]

Post by Skipper

Post by Blue Sow
Indeed. At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.

Trolls are terrified of blue sows.

But it is a flower!

[Skipper]

Post by Blue Sow

Post by Skipper

Post by Blue Sow
Indeed. At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.

Trolls are terrified of blue sows.

But it is a flower!

Hmph. Obviously you don't know what that flower does to the olfactory
nerve endings of trolls.

There's your story, right there.

[FCS]

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
Well, I read, wrote and posted. Is one post a week
per participant too many or too few? What I'd not
like to do is have us set a texture which can be
worked with then crash in with something which
takes it one way while someone else is thrashing
out the nitty gritty of a contribution they've put time
and energy into and pull that rug from under them.

I have no view on how often a participant should post, but it would be nice if
there were in fact some participants aside of the two of us.

Post by FCS
But as far as I'm concerned there's no reason not
to open it to anybody as blatant, timewasting, trolls
can be excised by way of picking it back up as a
new branch from the last worthwhile contribution.

Indeed. At the moment, finding even a troll seems difficult.

Post by FCS
Wouldn't some kind of a baddy though, surely, be
a pre-requisite to table turning...

Well, the character 'Sigismund' was based on a real being and the direction in
which you led him was something of a surprise. However, his behaviour since is
not totally at odds with some elements!
As to table turning, I suppose that depends on what genre is being written.
--
Blue Sow

OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat. I didn't
want to follow-up too explicitly in case it was seen
by some as spoilering but it did feature a kind of a
"werepig" range of characters and I was really going
to compliment you having implied it so neatly with
what I initially saw as a double-level of anti-spoiler
protection. so I've been waiting for the last scheduled
repeat of the show in order to post.

I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying. After
rejecting any kind of avian life-form, marine or land,
on the basis they wouldn't be walking, I was toying
with things like, erm, a pig, a hedgepig, and finally,
actually, a horse--which I did then kick myself for
not running with the idea of.

Then again, my experience with horses is minimal;
this isn't something I'm particularly proud of, it's just
the way it's gone. I am assured by people who do
have experience of horses, though, that the linguistic
element may have some credence as they do tend
to genuinely understand concepts expressed in
words--once they've had enough life experience to
associate the words with either things or people
or actions.

In other words, I am entirely happy to believe in the
intelligence of horses in a linguistic frame but lack
enough solid experience to work on any convincing
narrative featuring them as main characters. I know
they count. It would be easy enough to make a few
key changes and end up with a werehorse.

Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.

But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Blue Sow]

Post by FCS
OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
unsure of the connection. As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
remember much of them.

Post by FCS
I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes. Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
with 'lycanthropy'. Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
were inevitable I suppose.

Post by FCS
My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

I see beings as beings, and they are as they are. I do not accord any one
species a higher status than any other, especially my own. I am different from,
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant. Ants are rather better builders
than humans, at least better than modern humans. I have not tried to converse
with an ant but have no objection to doing so. If I considered I could do so

Post by FCS
Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying.

Ah. Well. I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
story. Perhaps after it is done.

Post by FCS
Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

I can do that. You are as wide of the mark as a wide thing on a wide day (-:
Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).

Post by FCS
As I say, I really did like what I thought you'd implied
in the first post, without meaning to be all lovey-lovey
soopah-soopah uncritically praising it. I just maybe
should've read it, then slept on it, then followed up.
But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.

[FCS]

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
OK, well, I hadn't seen Dr WHO last Saturday but
caught the end of it on the Sunday repeat.

I have not seen Dr. Who at all, at least not in its modern incarnation, so am
unsure of the connection. As to the earlier productions, I cannot say that I
remember much of them.

The Daleks created a bunch of slave-pigs from humans.
It's not just the Pratchett copyright issue. It's also that
<glances over shoulder> there maybe specials about.

I maybe ought to check the post times as it's possible
I misremember but I think I logged off from suggesting
the idea of a concatenative collaboration to catch the
end credits of the show rolling. That's how into it I am!

I did catch the end of the next showing at a friend's
the next evening, where I was very poor company as
I was absorbed in running through it all to date and then
saw the whole thing on its final repeat on Friday.

It was the first of this season's I'd seen.

I thought that's what you were getting at--the whole
"Have you no life? Posting? While Dr Who is on?"
ethos. I'm somewhat encouraged you weren't.

They're apparently making the effort to script the
new assistant as having an IQ slightly higher than
the number of pills she consumes each weekend.

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
I only remembered after I'd kind of belted out what,
in the event, I've been concerned may have been a
bit too constraining set of conditions that the FAQ
stroke charter does counsel against lycanthropy as
a characteristic. oops. Too late. And if we're running
with it we're running with it.

It goes as it goes. Why take two species into the shower, now I just lick an'
thrope ... or not!
A colleague, some years ago, Answered the 'religion' question on a census form
with 'lycanthropy'. Conversations about whether 'dog made man in his own image'
were inevitable I suppose.

A kind of Wagnum (P.I.) then? Or more a debate
about Wolfery vs deter me is'm?

Certainly I remember when I got my first ever taste
of the Internet it was very much a feeling of (man+bytes)=>god

Did you manage to catch any of the "Never mind the
Full stops" at all?

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
My major concern is that I'm not really a one for
anthropomorphing animals in the real world. I do
like animals of various kinds and consider I do do
a reasonable job of communicating with them, but
speculating on internal representations of logic via
the prism of linguistic thought is perhaps a leap too
far. And that is perhaps selfish of me, but there we
go.

I see beings as beings, and they are as they are. I do not accord any one
species a higher status than any other, especially my own. I am different from,
say, an ant, but I am not better than an ant. Ants are rather better builders
than humans, at least better than modern humans. I have not tried to converse
with an ant but have no objection to doing so. If I considered I could do so

Hasn't Marco Pirroni piled the pounds on? I do wonder
if he's consulted his about it.

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying.

Ah. Well. I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
story. Perhaps after it is done.

Post by FCS
Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).

Post by FCS
But if you're happy enough with it as it stands then,
well, your call in the absence of any other posts.

I shall add to the story within the next few days then.
--
Blue Sow

Cool. I look forward to it.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[FCS]

Post by Blue Sow

Post by FCS
Otherwise I've spent a lot of the past week pondering
precisely what species you were implying.

Ah. Well. I am not sure that revealing that, at this time, would benefit the
story. Perhaps after it is done.

Post by FCS
Go on. Now tell me how utterly wide of the mark I am.

Sigismund is of a species-type which you specifically discount above (although
that is one of the parts which I have snipped in the interests of brevity).

I nearly didn't come back and check for additions today.

I might have to take some of the things I said about Dr
Who's assistants as well. I wouldn't but if what I hear
is anything like the reality I've missed too much LSD
by too narrow margins too many times this year already.
that is something I do like a bit of from time to time.

So, having thought, this is an exercise in tern-taking.
Yes?

To clear up a few more unanswered questions from the
throwaway exchanges, I kind of see James Joyce as a
bit like Marshall McLuhan, in that he reflected values
enshrined the cultures around him. I was staggered to
read McLuhan for myself and discover he was quite the
unreconstructed racist.

Since then I've been somewhat dismayed to find that
his little thought-focus trick "The Medium IS The
Message" is almost universally accepted amongst not
only Graphic Design students but employed practitioners.

I conclude there is something rotten in the state of their
marks. But so long as it looks good--who cares? What's
even sadder is that he made this comment primarily in
relation to radio...which is presumably why none of them
ever deign to read him themselves, not that he tends to
be cited anyway as it's just so obviously true, when you
think about it, as a designer, from a design perspective...

Yadda yadda yadda etc. The majority of Zen Koans and
trite Confuscianist homilies hold more water than the
uncritical acceptance that every semiologist since De
Saussure has been completely wrong in a theoretically
very deep sense...

Getting back to the point however, James Joyce had
fled Eire for the somewhat more relaxed and cosmopolitan
Parisienne ethos, and then relocated to Trieste, way before
the rise of anti-Semitic genocidal practices in '30s Germany.

I reckon he just liked the idea of all those sex magick covens
that were springing up at the time, hoary old pervert that he
was.

But once you get past his somewhat rabid proto-nazism and
anti-semitic bias in places he's the most inventive polyglot
morphohomophonologist I've seen. Or perhaps he was just
taking the mick.

Having first encountered Clive Barker via Books of Blood I
eventually tried to get into Weaveworld, on the basis that
virtually everybody I'd spoke to had read it and loved it and
said I should read it. I'd quite liked the Inspiral Carpets up
'til that point. But I looked at the cover and realised just
darn influential the guy really is.

Unfortunately, however, where Joyce's renditions of sermons
of hellfire and damnation contain enough hooks so as to be
largely independent of creed--anyone who's listened to one
in any denomination, including presumably the more hardline
fundamentalist versions of Islam and Judaism can recognise
themes of universal human manipulation and coercion, I did
find that not having a postgraduate qualification in Catholic
metaphysical theology rendered Weaveworld just so much
irrelevant, self-indulgent, nonsensical disjointed twaddle.

I suppose "crass, not class, so bemoan his advance."

Even as far back as Dubliners Joyce's sketches of people
with craggy Celtic features benefit from a figurative economy
of phrase that makes them truly delightful as well as instantly
recognisable as very, very real people.

Now you wold be very right here to surmise that the main
point of bothering with all this is to say: Ha, no, I really have
read James Joyce extensively, and so few people bother.

And up to a point it is. However I should still far rather
write like James Joyce than Clive Barker, despite Clive
Barker's the one coining it in from delivering seminars
and workshops and doing radio phone-ins and suchlike:
his short stories are OK; I've yet to finish one of his novels.

Obviously, as I'm about to continue to demonstrate, this
doesn't mean I'm at all any good at actually writing...

I shall however pause to mull this one over and maybe
even try to grab some early evening kip after Casualty
and see what I can come up on a nocturnal stint in time
for the morning.

I'm not certain whether Mark's going to bother pitching
in.

I certainly don't recall any of us setting any kind of minimum
word limit though, more a ballpark as to what would be a
guide to a worthwhile chunk length.

I dispute your statistic that the average person speaks
at 250wpm though, Blue Sow. It's more like 100-130.

IIRCTI...

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Blue Sow]

Post by FCS
I dispute your statistic that the average person speaks
at 250wpm though, Blue Sow. It's more like 100-130.

I am not sure it was a statistic. It was more that I had just finished
transcribing one minute and four seconds of speech from a radio broadcast and
that amounted to 243 words (which I rounded up to a cuddly 250).

I am aware that some authors aim to write 1000 words in a day, while others aim
for 500. I accept that sometimes, some people can sit and dash off a few
thousand without pausing for a cup of tea but that is not the norm.

In any event, quality is always preferable to quantity (not that I make any
claim of any kind for anything I post here).

[Mark Wallace]

Post by FCS
It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.

I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can be said
in 25 words, then let it be so.

[Blue Sow]

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were, if
not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can be said
in 25 words, then let it be so.

Then let it be your move next (-:

[Mark Wallace]

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can be
said in 25 words, then let it be so.

Fine. Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh? It's way
too silly).

It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.

The trickier the better.

[FCS]

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can be
said in 25 words, then let it be so.

Fine. Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh? It's way
too silly).
It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Thus none of it was worth writing.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Mark Wallace]

Post by FCS

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can be
said in 25 words, then let it be so.

Fine. Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh? It's way
too silly).
It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing? Knickers?

Post by FCS
Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

Post by FCS
Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

That is: What the Hell are you talking about? Come back when you're sober.

Post by FCS
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting. I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
material.

[FCS]

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can be
said in 25 words, then let it be so.

Fine. Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh? It's way
too silly).
It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing? Knickers?

I don't know, iyt would depend what was
encasing your poor bugger bugger bum.

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?

Nope. Lapsang Souchong?

Post by Mark Wallace
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

"Oh, bugger bugger bum"

such gems as some

for all their flames and misgrasped
meanings

blame the world for retentive leanings?

You mean that site? which I saw from
the URL you posted? Erm, either last
weekend or the weekend before?

Doubt away.

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

Now, either you're trying to trap me into
using the word "rhetorical" or it's one you
may benefit from looking up, particularly
in its context of The Rhetorical Question.

As, however, you appear to have answered
the question which didn't need one and in
a way which suggests that, actually, I may
have over-rated your efforts.

Post by Mark Wallace
That is: What the Hell are you talking about? Come back when you're sober.

I'm talking about your poetry, and what seems
to be a fetish for hanging around groups about
writing whilst trying to cunningly dissuade people
from actually doing any.

Typing is a skill in the writers' canon. If 1500
words at a time is too much for you then I do
wonder why you bother considering you're a
writer rather than someone who just tries to
put words which sound alike into infantile
frameworks and calls it poetry.

There was something about cats too I recall.

I shall have to google "cats" sometime. I had
not unil now considered it was a particularly
original subject matter.

But, far from you taking the initiative and trying
to discuss what it is that constitutes effective
wrtitng, it seems you're happier to rely on
cheap jibes and childish taunts.

Now, OK, on consideration I was up for the
exercise of sticking chunks, which I presume
should be self-contained, of no more than 25
words together.

But to propose it as an absolute ceiling above
which all communication becomes meaningless
really is silly. I agree with your sentiment that
if something can be said in 25 words then why
use more; it does not, however, follow either
that writing is about saying one thing and one
thing alone.

I am familiar enough with the medium of the
book to have noticed that whilst significant
pieces of action can take a few pages to run
through, very many do indeed have shorter
sections.

Only I can't think of many that only have 25
words in their shorter sections.

Then there's the whole genre of serialised stories,
not something on which there's a whole load of
literature for the novice writer but which have been
a defining form in the culture of writing in the UK.

I was considering making posts of varying
length depending what it was I wanted to add
and how much time that week and suchlike.

But now I shall simply announce that no longer
do I have a mental picture of you as a kind of
Nick-Park-created yuppie coding away in Den
Haag, but it's more like the artist guy in that
The Comic Strip Presents... comparatively recent
thing about swinging parties.

I am of course aware there are various people
who for a variety of reasons really struggle to
do more than 25 words. Either they pick out
each letter, labouriously, with a head-mounted
stylus, or work against some other disadvantage
biology has saddled them with. Don't go thinking
I have no sympathy for them.

Join in if you want, please don't misunderstand,
but if you don't actually want to add more than
25 words at a time I'm not convinced you'd really
enjoy it.

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting. I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
material.- Hide quoted text -

At least you aren't a stalker. If you were you'd know
this had been done to death several times over already
and wasted your 13 words--remember that's over half
your quota for this post, Mark, in some other form of
impotent abuse.

As I have tried to say a few times, you could maybe
actually use your writing skills to benefit others by
making the [Alt]-[F4] key combination more widely
known about on your website as, the way it relies
on pop-ups, the back button you instruct visitors to
make use of, erm, doesn't actually work.

Post by Mark Wallace
- Show quoted text -

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Mark Wallace]

Post by FCS
Now, either you're trying to trap me into
using the word "rhetorical" or it's one you
may benefit from looking up, particularly
in its context of The Rhetorical Question.

Would you kindly go back and read this thread (preferably sober)?

Your response to my posting made absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you
think it made sense, then kindly explain the machinations that take place
inside your head which make it appear, to you, to make sense.

Post by FCS
As, however, you appear to have answered
the question which didn't need one and in
a way which suggests that, actually, I may
have over-rated your efforts.

Again, that comment makes no sense whatsoever.

Post by FCS

Post by Mark Wallace
That is: What the Hell are you talking about? Come back when you're sober.

I'm talking about your poetry,

But we were not talking about my poetry. If you wish to talk about my
poetry (which I don't), then do us all the favour of telling us what the
Hell you are talking about, before striking off on an unconnected path.

Post by FCS
and what seems
to be a fetish for hanging around groups about
writing whilst trying to cunningly dissuade people
from actually doing any.

I strongly suggest that you look through the archives, before making such
unfounded statements.

Post by FCS
Typing is a skill in the writers' canon. If 1500
words at a time is too much for you then I do
wonder why you bother considering you're a
writer rather than someone who just tries to
put words which sound alike into infantile
frameworks and calls it poetry.

I type with two fingers. I write well.
1500 words of garbage is not worth 25 well placed and well written words.

Post by FCS
There was something about cats too I recall.

Not live ones.
And I confess that I still do not see how you could have got to
mwallace.net, when the DNS is unassigned.
Gotta love that internet.

Post by FCS
I shall have to google "cats" sometime. I had
not unil now considered it was a particularly
original subject matter.
But, far from you taking the initiative and trying
to discuss what it is that constitutes effective
wrtitng, it seems you're happier to rely on
cheap jibes and childish taunts.

Are you sure that you are responding to the person you think you are
responding to?

Post by FCS
Now, OK, on consideration I was up for the
exercise of sticking chunks, which I presume
should be self-contained, of no more than 25
words together.
But to propose it as an absolute ceiling above
which all communication becomes meaningless
really is silly. I agree with your sentiment that
if something can be said in 25 words then why
use more; it does not, however, follow either
that writing is about saying one thing and one
thing alone.

To this, I can only reply: WTF?

If I make a single point, it means that I have made a single point. That
does not give you carte blanche to assume to know everything I think about
everything.

And trust me: You don't.

Post by FCS
I am familiar enough with the medium of the
book to have noticed that whilst significant
pieces of action can take a few pages to run
through, very many do indeed have shorter
sections.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I said. There is no tally that can
be used to decide how long a piece of string is.

If something requires 25 words, use them. If it requires 1500 words, use
them.

Post by FCS
Only I can't think of many that only have 25
words in their shorter sections.

Now you're arguing like a student.

Post by FCS
Then there's the whole genre of serialised stories,
not something on which there's a whole load of
literature for the novice writer but which have been
a defining form in the culture of writing in the UK.
I was considering making posts of varying
length depending what it was I wanted to add
and how much time that week and suchlike.

That you even consider length to be such an integral part of the process is
disturbing.

What I say is that 25 well placed and well written words are worth a
thousand pictures; and that a thousand less well used words can be worth
less than a webcam snap.

Post by FCS
But now I shall simply announce that no longer
do I have a mental picture of you as a kind of
Nick-Park-created yuppie coding away in Den
Haag, but it's more like the artist guy in that
The Comic Strip Presents... comparatively recent
thing about swinging parties.

Do you always build such fantasies about people you meet on-line?

I'll tell you this much about me:

Mark Wallace is a character I created to appear in a completely ridiculous
story. Because, at the time, I was working for Cambridge Press, amongst
other such "noble" entities, I decided not to even think about publishing
the story (and thereby risking my reputation), and instead posted it on the
Internet.

I "borrowed" the character's name and used it for myself, when posting the
Internet publication of the story, and I now use no other name on-line (I
even have credit cards in his name).

Whilst I myself no longer really care about the secrecy, it has proven
useful (the nature of much "Mark Wallace" material is such that I am a
target for 14-year-old hackers), and has become an "in" thing, where those
who know that me and the Wallace chap are one and the same are quite proud
of that knowledge, so I've kept it up.

That is as much as you will ever need to know about me.

Post by FCS
I am of course aware there are various people
who for a variety of reasons really struggle to
do more than 25 words. Either they pick out
each letter, labouriously, with a head-mounted
stylus, or work against some other disadvantage
biology has saddled them with. Don't go thinking
I have no sympathy for them.
Join in if you want, please don't misunderstand,
but if you don't actually want to add more than
25 words at a time I'm not convinced you'd really
enjoy it.

If I can say what needs be said in 25 words, then 25 words it is (and a
/lot/ can be said in the proverbial 25 words).

Until you can say the same, don't go telling people you're a writer.


Take this:

"Consciousness returned to Sigismund like a wave moving through a treacle
sea.
The first thing of which he became aware was that everything hurt. Every
part of everything that was him felt heavy and sore. Even the realisation
of the sensation made him wince. He looked around but there was no sea. He
recalled making his way toward the sea, as was his morning custom - he
looked up - it was past midday and the tide had been and gone."

Is it somehow more effective at communicating the necessary feelings than
this:

God, but he hurt.
His eyes sluggishly deigned to open, but where was he?
Where was the sea? He had been on his way to the sea for the morning tide.
Where was he?
The sun had passed midday; he'd missed the tide.
Where was he?


Is it 25 words or less?
I don't care.
Does it contain unnecessary words?
I do care.
Does it convey from my mind to the mind of the reader that which I wish it
to convey?
I'd bet on it.

And it took me less time to type (with my two fingers) than it took me to
read the original, with its convoluted wording.


Don't go trying to tell me about writing; I've been in the trade for far too
long, and have too many millions of words under my belt.

Don't go trying to tell me that you "understand" me, because even I have
trouble with that, so you don't have a chance in Hell.

Don't go making assumptions, then leaping off in weird directions that are
based on those assumptions. Make sure that your reader (me, in this case)
will know *EXACTLY* what you're talking about, and where you're coming from.

And most especially *DO NOT* assume that I am not willing to help young
writers. Read the archive for this group, and many others, before chewing
your size nines.


Now, if you want to start off a story that is not pap, making an attempt to
use the right number of words (in the right order and preferably spelt
correctly), then I'll join in -- but don't even /think/ of knowing where
I'll take such a story; I eat stuff like this squarely, many times a day.


Let's be perfectly clear: I have nothing to gain from such an exercise; you
could learn a lot. I do this kind of thing because I wish there had been
someone like me around to give me the same kind of help, back when I was
crap.

[FCS]

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can be
said in 25 words, then let it be so.

Fine. Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh? It's way
too silly).
It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing? Knickers?

I don't know. What generally encases your bugger bugger bum?

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?

Nope. Lapsang Souchong?

Post by Mark Wallace
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

Oh, the smug confidence that precedes a fall.

I remember your infantile bugger bugger bum thing
and there was something about a dead cat. I did
not bother with aught else.

Having looked since for the post with the URL in it
I will say that I have read shopping lists which are
far more well worth copyrighting than your stuff I've
seen. And someone has copyrighted it. And in your
name. Presumably it's as easy to copy and pass off
as any other electronic form of text.

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?

I thought actually using a question, mark, where
context was easily inferred by referring back, may
offend your minimalist sensibilities.

No point in wasting the electricity to make that wee
squiggly thing, like an upside down cedilla, render
on screen when one's dealing with a minimalist, what?

As it is, I can only conclude that far from turning
a rhetorical question into an opportunity to discuss
various approaches to writing you have instead
gone for the, and in this instance wholly indefensibly
gone for the, cheap shot.

Post by Mark Wallace
That is: What the Hell are you talking about? Come back when you're sober.

Erm, if you wish to set up a moderated group where
you can be arbiter and make sure only people you
know you like can post, then nobody's stopping you.

That is: I used to have a mental picture of you as a
kind of Nick-Park-created woollen C++ coder over
in Den Haag. Now-a-days I prefer to refer to the recent
"The Comic Strip Presents..." film about swinging
parties (I forget the name) which featured an artist
somewhat along what I take your lines to be.

I love some minimalist work. But if you want to try
rebuilding a 400/4 from a squiggle with motionblur
then go ahead.

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting. I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
material.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So you copyright what you make available to the
public but join in the infantile mockery when anyone
else does the same?

I don't suppose you're aware that a shopping list can
be entirely defensibly copyrighted. I suppose like a
list of things to steal to feed dead cats and the numbers
one covers on a roulette wheel can too.

When you come forth with some real criticism Mark
then you may find you get taken seriously. Until such
a point you're quite firmly on the list of people who
make sweeping statements about how you'll rip any
thing any body posts to so many pieces that suicide
is a preferable option to ever trying to write again.

Yet then you can't live up to it.

Have you read much literary criticism recently? There
has been quite a thing here about following up a critical
review with a digest containing not only a "condensed read"
but the "condensed condensed read". The last of these
does tend to come in at under 25 words.

Very few of them would sell for £12.99 however. And
as such tend to end up in the low-price-per-word world
of newspapers--which have circulations many would-be
writers should envy

I may be something of a traditionalist here but I hold
that being able to type is a genuine skill in any writer's
canon. I'm not ashamed of being able to type. Nor am
I particularly "proud" of it. It's something I can do like a
fork-lift truck driver can steer from the rear.

There are people with genuine disabilities who struggle
to compile texts of 1000 words length. I'm aware of this
and am certainly not unsympathetic to them. You, it
seems, are not one of these.

I may put a little more time into relocating your URL. I
suspect you've cancelled the post with it in though. It
seems a shame, firing forth your flames from your little
worldview in which you are some kind of deity.

But, please, don't go back-footing now and claiming you
only suggested 25 words as a working limit because you
didn't. You wanted it cast in iron. If everybody interested
was in a position where they could log in at morning,
lunch and afternoon breaks from work I would say you
were onto a winner. But as you haven't even lived up to
your own challenge and set the ball rolling on it I am at
somewhat of a loss as to how valuable an exercise it is
outside the confines of your poor overheated deluded
head.

What poetry of yours I've seen has been mediocre to
say the least. And I suggest that from the tenor and
calibre of your criticism you may work out better as
the resident expert on news:alt.flame.regurgitation
than anywhere you're in danger of confronting original
ideas in text form--which UCAW was supposed to be
but, for whatever reason/s, hasn't turned out to be.

I think it's a shame things have gone like that.

But at the end of the day doubt away. I saw your
little website just the other day. Some of it was
bland, some just grey; and it did you no favours
either way.

Or, in other words Mark, either pitch in or butt out eh?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[FCS]

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
It occurred to me that having seen the list of
people who seconded the original newsgroup
request there are very few of them taking any
kind of active interest in it these days.

Being one of the "earlier incarnation", from when such initiatives were,
if not commonplace, then at least not unusual: I'm in.
I'd contest your word limit, though. If what needs to be said can be
said in 25 words, then let it be so.

Fine. Start things off (but let's avoid the Sigismund thing, eh? It's way
too silly).
It's your show, so hand out either a title or a 25-word-or-less kick-off.
The trickier the better.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So what you're saying Mark is that most exam questions are too wordy
to be worth answering?

What exactly have you been sniffing? Knickers?

Post by FCS
Most of the poetry on your site contains more than 25 words per
stanza.

Any idea what the price of tea in China is?
Besides, my site is currently "hidden", because my new server screwed up the
DNS, so I very much doubt you've seen it.

The proof you're a pudding is in the eating--your words
that is. I got there from here, from a thread you posted
to news:uk.culture.language.english

http://84.243.219.114/~mwallace/

I just read your transcribed stand-up routine. Not bad
for off the cuff stuff, in many ways, but whether or not
it's any indication of your ability as a writer...

...anyway, that was here

http://84.243.219.114/~mwallace/m-pages/etiquette.htm

...but it doesn't exactly sound like a paid gig though.

Oh, and yes, I know exactly how difficult it is to pitch
into dead time as a voice artist, how tricky it is to
guage your time slot, and pace it. You should think
yourself lucky you'd an audience you could see to get
feedback from, miladdy-oh.

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
Thus none of it was worth writing.

How about the price of beef in Bolton?
That is: What the Hell are you talking about? Come back when you're sober.

As far as I was concerned, having written too much
earlier and lost even the most avid readers, just
saying, you doubt away. I saw your site. So maybe
the ISP that's charging you 3 times what your old
one was is contravening your implicit right to not
make copies of your work available to the public?

I don't take kindly to being called a liar Mark.

So you serve us up your 25 words of genius and
we can go away and come back with additions.

But until you have I've not inclined to consider you
put much thought into so low a word limit. You're
aware, making yet another vain attempt at getting
some on-topic discussion here, that the average
person can talk about 100-130 wpm easily?

So, far from overloading readers, you're actually
asking for chunks of meaningful narrative text
that represent about 12.5 seconds of "airtime".

If I could justify getting to work a little early to
wedge a bit more on and then do some in my
morning break and make two or three more
contributions at lunchtime then another in the
afternoon and maybe one more before I left for
home in the evening then maybe I'd agree it was
an idea worth trying.

I'm still up for giving it a shot - as was Blue Sow -
just as soon as you put your lexicon where your
dental orifice is, but I do have other things to do
and can't guarantee to participate in any genuine
turn-taking manner in an exercise such as you
idealise.

Post by Mark Wallace

Post by FCS
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON

Well worth copyrighting. I imagine people are queuing up to steal such
material.- Hide quoted text -

I've not seen any of yours being aired and passed
off as anything original either Mark. I know if I ran
an open mic. or similar night I'd be taking a line off
the desk for posterity. No, not to nick ideas, just
for posterity.

I'd love to see how your routine went down in a CIU
club rather than a roomful of your mates.

But honestly, check it out, a system for covering
numbers at roulette is as viable for copyright as
a shopping list--or as viable as any text I may
generate.

Post by Mark Wallace
- Show quoted text -

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Mark Wallace]

Good God.
You've replied three times to the same posting, with God-only knows how many
words.

Make the effort: Do it once, with the right number of words.

[FCS]

Post by Mark Wallace
Good God.
You've replied three times to the same posting, with God-only knows how many
words.

Using your mouse, why not select the text in question, copy it, and
paste it into a fairly well-featured word processing application from
which you can satisfy your curiosity by running an automated word-
count.

Post by Mark Wallace
Make the effort: Do it once, with the right number of words.

Y'see I can't help reading your posts and concluding the reason you
can stick to a 25 word specification so easily is that you've little
to say.

I replied twice, one in which I referred to what works of yours
available on-line that you'd posted a recent pointer to; and one by
which time I'd realised that, never having lived further South than
Bromsgrove myself, I shouldn't be so naive when it comes to assuming
people can probably be believed and thus I realised I should probably
be better demonstrating that, no, actually, your doubt is unfounded,
and the resources I mention can be located at <link to mark's numeric
URL>.

I prefer to use the number of words it requires to get a concept
across. All forms of communication contain some amount of redundancy.

If you want to read concatenated one-liners masquerading as wit, why,
there's the rest of USENET there at your fingertips. A lot of it gets
recycled though, which isn't exactly "writing" as I conceive it.

If you're wanting to tactfully engineer an on-line collaborative
exercise to which James Follett can contribute then by all means do
set the ball rolling. I'm sure you're far more masterful with the
search terms than I ever could be so you should be able to apprise
yourself of his current circumstances without any help from me.

The 25 words thing is your baby. Pretty much everyone else who's
active here at the moment has acquiesced to the proposal. My only
reservation is that it's the kind of exercise that would benefit from
multiple contributions from all participants on a daily basis, if only
to keep it pacy and - more to the point - fun, and I cannot commit to
that kind of CPU time right now.

Talking of Mr Follett a moment I do recall catching one of the
episodes of the Sci-Fi series he was tirading against the BBC for
having ripped him off over. I heard enough to recall it was somewhat
"plummy" in a way Blake's7, for example, wasn't but perhaps The
Avengers was and heard his name mentioned in the credits at the end.

I boycotted it from then on as he was so vehemently opposed to them
broadcasting it all.

My suggestion would be that he may like to consider making it
available via MP4 (MP3 with DRM, or so I gather, and presumably
incorporating some kind of file-completion checkbit such as one finds
in JPGs but which for obvious reasons would be unneccessary in a
format originally designed to be chopped up and resequenced using
SMPTE conventions) and see what he can make on the pay-per-download
market. He was quite clear about the fact it was the BBC who had
breached the terms of their contract with him and this was the kind of
programme where the voice artists are paid for their time per episode,
like session musicians, rather than incurring any 50-year residual
mechanicals.

I don't know if you know him, but he is original UCAW material is he
not? I wouldn't know how to approach him either. But it's entirely
likely here is somewhere he may be keeping an eye on.

I also think you should keep in mind that you are not the only person
likely to be reading posts I make here and, to put it bluntly, you
ain't paying the piper but you're trying to call the tune.

I'm thinking of a guy I studied with with SMA, who's now dead, who
insisted on doing all his own writing. And a friend from when I was
living elsewhere in the country worked as a personal assistant for who
experienced similar difficulties and labouriously entered each letter
one by one despite that people had told him they'd be happy to type if
he told them what to write. He insisted on doing it himself because it
was coursework. Then some gits broke into the school and stole his
computer. There may not have seemed much on there but it really did
represent months out of his life.

All I know is that one and, I suppose, the other would have no real
respect for me at all if I jumped up and down crowing about an output
of 25 words a week because, ahem, I really do know how to write.

If you want a title why not try "The Accelerating Universe"?

I'm happy with verse if you prefer. I love the way that Iron Maiden's
"Aces High" has the same underlying stress pattern as Sir John
Betjeman's "Myfanwy".

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[JF]

X-No-Archive: yes

Post by FCS
Talking of Mr Follett a moment I do recall catching one of the
episodes of the Sci-Fi series he was tirading against the BBC for
having ripped him off over. I heard enough to recall it was somewhat
"plummy" in a way Blake's7, for example, wasn't but perhaps The
Avengers was and heard his name mentioned in the credits at the end.
I boycotted it from then on as he was so vehemently opposed to them
broadcasting it all.

That was Christmas 2002 when BBC7 celebrated its launch by broadcasting
all twenty episodes of my 'Earthsearch' science-fiction radio serial. My
agent and I were somewhat incandescent because the BBC's broadcast
rights had lapsed some years before and they hadn't renewed them
although BBC Worldwide Ltd had purchased CD and audio cassette English
language distribution rights. Several other writers were also caught. It
was the biggest copyright infringement kerfuffle in the BBC's history.

Worse, the BBC had appointed a private company, ALCS Ltd (Authors'
Licensing and Collection Services) to act as my agent without my
knowledge and with my real agent's knowledge. This fake agency agreed
repeat fees that were a fraction of those agreed when the series was
contracted back in the early 1980s.

My agent and several other agents were on the point of seeing a judge in
chambers and getting an injunction to stop further broadcasts on BBC7.
There was a panic and the BBC's head of copyright visited all affected
authors to apologise.

The Society of Authors and the Writers' Guild, joint owners of ALCS,
were mortified -- they were there to protect writers interests, not
shaft writers. They promptly required the resignation of ALCS's chief
executive.

The shambles had come about largely as a result of John Birt's
destruction of the BBC's copyright department. Many copyright experts
who had kept the BBC out of the courts were tossed on the scrap heap.
The accountants had argued that they were no longer needed because the
BBC was changing from a production outfit to a publishing house and
therefore a copyright department was unnecessary. If things did go
disastrously wrong, then it was cheaper to apologise than keep copyright
staff on the payroll.

This policy worked up to a point but went badly awry when BBC TV
dramatised excerpts from 'Catcher in the Rye' for their 'The Big Read'
series. J D Salinger never licenced his books for TV dramatisation and
his US agent started a damages suit for several million dollars. The BBC
settled the matter out of court and we never learned how much it cost
them.

For their next grand cockup the BBC made a TV movie of 'Amal and the
Night Visitors' and had to shelf it for a long time when they discovered
that they hadn't bothered to obtain the necessary copyright clearances.

[JF]

Post by JF
knowledge and with my real agent's knowledge. This fake agency agreed

^^^^

rect:

Damn. Should be 'without'. I alweys proofreed carefully, too!

[Mark Wallace]

Post by JF
X-No-Archive: yes
The shambles had come about largely as a result of John Birt's destruction
of the BBC's copyright department.

Least said, fewest murdered in their beds.

[FCS]

Post by JF
X-No-Archive: yes

<snip>

Post by JF

Post by FCS
I boycotted it from then on as he was so vehemently opposed to them
broadcasting it all.

That was Christmas 2002 when BBC7 celebrated its launch by broadcasting
all twenty episodes of my 'Earthsearch' science-fiction radio serial.

Yes, that would be consistent with a point in time
at which I had reasonably on-demand 'net access
a few times a week.

Unless my memory really is bad on this one though
I thought I remembered hearing the end of an episode
whilst driving late one night. This would put it firmly
in R4/World Service territory. Otherwise I had no way
to receive Digital Radio until about 2005-06-ish. And
even then the car I thought I was in when I heard it is
one I didn't acquire until mid 2005 anyway.

I seem to recall there being a martiarch of austere
demeanour and the narrative concerning a time of
petty domestic squabbling in the face of futility.

I can't say with any honesty whether I would've come
back for more if I'd not recognised your name and
brought your original complaints to mind as I haven't
really bothered with BBC6 or BBC7 at all to be honest.

This may be different if I had ICE with a DAB tuner;
and it's just a matter of time before these are ubiquitous.

My

Post by JF
agent and I were somewhat incandescent because the BBC's broadcast
rights had lapsed some years before and they hadn't renewed them
although BBC Worldwide Ltd had purchased CD and audio cassette English
language distribution rights. Several other writers were also caught. It
was the biggest copyright infringement kerfuffle in the BBC's history.
Worse, the BBC had appointed a private company, ALCS Ltd (Authors'
Licensing and Collection Services) to act as my agent without my
knowledge and with my real agent's knowledge.

Your clarification was appreciated but I did read it
as "without my real agent's knowledge" anyway.

This fake agency agreed

Post by JF
repeat fees that were a fraction of those agreed when the series was
contracted back in the early 1980s.

So is it fair to say they were originally envisaged as
an "agency" in the sense that the BPI acts in by
collecting and distributing mechanicals to musicians?

Like for a while there was a loophole in the law which
allowed me to buy duty free goods on the mainland by
appointing a company to act as my buying agent, a
sense which is clearly distinct from the services that
a literary, PR, or specialist resourcing agency would
undertake to provide?

Post by JF
My agent and several other agents were on the point of seeing a judge in
chambers and getting an injunction to stop further broadcasts on BBC7.
There was a panic and the BBC's head of copyright visited all affected
authors to apologise.
The Society of Authors and the Writers' Guild, joint owners of ALCS,
were mortified -- they were there to protect writers interests, not
shaft writers. They promptly required the resignation of ALCS's chief
executive.

Maybe it's because a lot of the "broadsheets" here
tend to run their arts and literary supplements on
Fridays that I missed the reporting and discussion
of this in the press. Unlike some people I'm not in
the slightest afraid of reading extensively yet seem
to recall absolutely no media coverage of this at all.

Would you perhaps be able to refer me to anything
which made publications I don't tend to bother buying
such as the TLS? Just an approximate window with
month/s and year?

I find it odd the BBC's head of copyright would take
it on themself to visit all affected authors personally
yet not issue a press release. And surely it would've
been good publicity for the Society of Authors and/or
the Writers Guild to anyway--if only to reassure the
general public they bear very little resemblance to
such bodies as the Press Complaints Comission,
with their outstanding reputation for doing next to
nothing by way of invigilating effective self-regulation?

Post by JF
The shambles had come about largely as a result of John Birt's
destruction of the BBC's copyright department. Many copyright experts
who had kept the BBC out of the courts were tossed on the scrap heap.
The accountants had argued that they were no longer needed because the
BBC was changing from a production outfit to a publishing house and
therefore a copyright department was unnecessary. If things did go
disastrously wrong, then it was cheaper to apologise than keep copyright
staff on the payroll.
This policy worked up to a point but went badly awry when BBC TV
dramatised excerpts from 'Catcher in the Rye' for their 'The Big Read'
series. J D Salinger never licenced his books for TV dramatisation and
his US agent started a damages suit for several million dollars. The BBC
settled the matter out of court and we never learned how much it cost
them.
For their next grand cockup the BBC made a TV movie of 'Amal and the
Night Visitors' and had to shelf it for a long time when they discovered
that they hadn't bothered to obtain the necessary copyright clearances.
--
James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.ukandhttp://www.marjacq.com

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Mark Wallace]

You really are a bore, do you know that?

And it takes a lot of effort to understand what you are trying to say,
because you ramble off in so many different (and unreferenced) directions
that there never seems to be a coherent objective to your mutterings.

I get the feeling that you really do only post to Usenet when you're
runk -- and I really do have no interest in taking the time to read the
huge and convoluted postings that you write (I only suffered the first few
paragraphs of this last, so how well do you think you are doing at
communicating your thoughts and ideas to me?)

Therefore, if you have something to say to me, I really am invoking the
25-word-or-less rule. I won't read any more of your time-wasting massive
missives.

[FCS]

Post by Mark Wallace
You really are a bore, do you know that?

He means me James.

Post by Mark Wallace
And it takes a lot of effort to understand what you are trying to say,
because you ramble off in so many different (and unreferenced) directions
that there never seems to be a coherent objective to your mutterings.

<shrug> I don't like Clive Barker. Thousands do. Your opinion of me
reflects my opinion of him. He is famous for, after having got bored
of being asked "how do I become a writer?", counselling that "writers
write--so get writing"

Advice you might do well to consider following.

Post by Mark Wallace
I get the feeling that you really do only post to Usenet when you're
runk --

Don't trust your feelings Mark--they are misleading you.

and I really do have no interest in taking the time to read the

Post by Mark Wallace
huge and convoluted postings that you write (I only suffered the first few
paragraphs of this last, so how well do you think you are doing at
communicating your thoughts and ideas to me?)

It matters not. I gave you a title and you've copped out.

I set it there nice and clearly at the end of my last post because,
unless there's been a revolution in newsclient design solutions, it
stood the best of chance you reading it there.

I had a feeling you were going to go trying to pull some sad tedious
little wriggle-out from actually participating based on anachronistic
book and paper metaphors whilst forgetting that screen text scrolls
rather than mimics a codex.

You called my integrity into question without having so far displayed
a sniff off any.

Here's a thought: why frequent a group on writing when your
participation seems geared-up to dissuading anyone from actually doing
any? Would you not be better off on one the fetish forums?

Post by Mark Wallace
Therefore, if you have something to say to me, I really am invoking the
25-word-or-less rule. I won't read any more of your time-wasting massive
missives.

You mean your own new personal rule that you tried to impose here all
of a fortnight ago but is otherwise about as weighty as your
culturally hidebound speculations on Sino-tibetan market forces?

Otherwise, should it not really be "If you have something to say to
me, therefore, I insist you respect my petulant demands for extreme
concision."?

This being one of the fora where grammar can be said to matter I have
no difficulty believing you can't follow me as you don't even agree
with yourself...

But I think the conclusion speaks for itself--you are butting out, as
reluctantly suggested as a closing, rather than pitching in as
invited.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[FCS]

Post by Mark Wallace
You really are a bore, do you know that?

I get enough feedback round here to know
that I get read. It did occur to me I hadn't
made this clear.

Some of them genuinely are tedious, creepy
twats who're only out to take the piss. Others,
actually, aren't.

If you think about it, this means that you, too,
have an audience. And boy do you look far
more of a twat than I.

Best of luck with your adolescent Lambton
Worm fetish and cheap attempts at passive-
agression.

Is this the kind of response you can feel
comfortable about not pretending you've
not read?

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--

[Mark Wallace]

I really can't be bothered to read your lengthy replies (the small fact that
you show a penchant to replying to things that I have not said has largely
contributed to this), so kindly stop posting multiple replies to what I
post.

If you want to talk sense, I'll be happy to read it. If you continue to
make weird assumptions, and comment lengthily on them, I'll stop reading
within a few sentences. I have other things to do with my time.

Post by FCS

Post by Mark Wallace
You really are a bore, do you know that?

I get enough feedback round here to know
that I get read. It did occur to me I hadn't
made this clear.
Some of them genuinely are tedious, creepy
twats who're only out to take the piss. Others,
actually, aren't.
If you think about it, this means that you, too,
have an audience. And boy do you look far
more of a twat than I.
Best of luck with your adolescent Lambton
Worm fetish and cheap attempts at passive-
agression.
Is this the kind of response you can feel
comfortable about not pretending you've
not read?
G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--