Message-ID: <3D09F92F.3050907@csi.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:09:51 -0400
From: John Colagioia <JColagioia@csi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Subject: Re: IF to PS2
References: <ffd6058.0206110706.7f2b1e9c@posting.google.com> <ae5p18$3chn4$1@hades.csu.net> <ae5sfb$207$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <ae6kfb$3cjdh$1@hades.csu.net> <ae7ct3$rd4$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> <3D07C5D3.6070004@csi.com> <ae8iq1$jaq$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk> <3D08938B.7080807@csi.com> <aeagbp$92r$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net
X-Trace: excalibur.gbmtech.net 1024063399 ool-182f30fa.dyn.optonline.net (14 Jun 2002 10:03:19 -0400)
Organization: ProNet USA Inc.
Lines: 220
X-Authenticated-User: jnc
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!dca.uu.net!excalibur.gbmtech.net
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.arts.int-fiction:105054

Kitten wrote:

>"John Colagioia" <JColagioia@csi.com> wrote in message
>
[...some places we agree, other places we repeat the same points I'm
leaving in...]

>>Now, am I saying that there isn't a common problem among Internet users
>>regarding tone-laden communication?  Of course not.  Misinterpretations
>>happen all the time.
>>
>Glad you agree. Just sorry to see that you thought (sans, dare I say it, any
>supporting evidence ;-)) that I meant to apply 'net practices more widely.
>

Actually, I didn't say anything about your intentions, and I didn't mean
to do so.  My point (and also the rationale behind my mention of
naivete--not a "flame" by any means) is that "falling back" onto
metanotational devices in basic discussion avoids the practice of what
needs to become natural (for the author) in IF.

[...]

>Thanks for the accolade. Naive at best, eh? One nice thing about this group,
>the flames are elegant!
>

No flame.  I believe that your position stems from not thinking through
the ramifications.  That's hardly a bad thing, given that you'll
probably at least consider the possibilities I follow the comment with.

>Actually, you are making several assumptions. Of those, I agree that the
>"fluent in English" one stands a better than average chance of working out.
>Rather a bigger assumption, and one which misses with a resounding clang
>when one looks back to the specific example which kicked off this particular
>sub-thread, is that well-written posts will inevitably and accurately convey
>a mood.
>

They will among the audience receptive to it.  There are people who
firmly believe that no flavor can possibly leak into text.  They'll
never get the joke, because they'll never think to look for one.

>David Griffith's clear, concise and economical post, offering
>straight, factual advice on using an IBM PS2 - and even giving a valid
>hyperlink, for heaven's sake - could not have been further in style from a
>lampoon.
>

Actually, if you look at the entire thread progression, it follows
neatly in classical comedic timing.  Someone asks a question obviously
intended to "yank everyone's chain."  A bunch of people answer with
comments that could be useful, but mainly serve as a "we've figured you
out; go away" comment.

Then Mr. Griffith wanders through with a blunt misinterpretation of the
original question (obviously misinterpreted, since anyone using the PS/2
would have little trouble figuring out [a] where the software would get
installed, and [b] how you'd type the commands).

>And yet, as he pointed out subsequently, that had been his intent.
>Since I have never met Mr Griffith, nor have I read any previous posts by
>him on the subject of IBM machines, I could not "read" his tone on this
>post. I venture to suggest, neither could you.
>

As I mention above, I thought the content and context made it pretty
obvious.

>On one of your other points, I think part of the problem was that Mr
>Griffith gave far too much (useful) thought to what he wrote: by striving to
>make his post so eminently reasonable, he eliminated any of the usual
>textual clues to a lampoon.
>

Which, interestingly, is almost indicative of humor in a text
environment.  Most text overcompensates, trying to show, "yes, I'm
absolutely serious."  Scan around, particularly this group (which, I'll
admit, is probably the only one I read with any regularity), and you'll
see what I'm getting at.

>Coming back to the *absolutely no way* bit:
>

Which I grabbed, because you emphasized it, making it the key point of
what you were discussing.  As I mentioned in my examples, you have no
way "going into" Finnegan's Wake, Zork I, or The Art of Computer
Programming that there's a particular tone to watch for.  You pick it up
pretty quickly, though.

[...]

>>It's not *impossible* to insert signs of intent in text; they're just
>>different signs.  Choice of diction and grammatical constructs are the
>>biggies.
>>
>Another huge assumption. When writing creatively, the medium does indeed
>permit effective choice of diction and grammar, which can certainly provide
>clear indicators of authorial intent. The average length of a Usenet post
>will not always (I would be tempted to go further and say will seldom)
>permit this luxury.
>

You mean like I can tell that you're getting a little frustrated with in
noticing that the number of "empty" adjectives and adverbs is slightly
on the rise?

Actually, I noticed the tone shift, first.  It took me a few hours to
find the specific indicator, though.

>Exercise for the creative writing class: take David Griffith's post of 11
>June, and redraft using appropriate grammar and vocabulary to convey that
>the author's intention was to satirise, whilst still communicating the same
>base information. Limit 100 words.
>

As I said, in the context of the surrounding thread (and the fact that
there can't be much question as to how to make the IBM PS/2 run IF from
anyone capable of playing IF), Griffith already did it.

If that was the first message of the thread, or if there weren't
"appropriate" responses that preceded it, then perhaps I'd have filed
Griffith under the naive category (but still would have found the
misinterpretation amusing).  That, however, wasn't the case.

>Incidentally, was it not Jonathan Swift (no mean user of the satirical tone
>himself) who lamented the lack of a typeface "ironice"....? He recognised
>that the whole point of deadpan is that the words themselves *cannot* be
>used to convey the underlying irony, and that therefore on certain occasions
>only external cues will suffice. JS would have adored smilies!
>

I...never really got into Swift, perhaps for that very reason.  He
misses his mark, occasionally, by going the "long way 'round" a topic he
can't get at directly.

Could I do better?  Probably not without a lot of practice.  That
doesn't fix the problem, though, or mean that the problem should be
ignored (by adding a new font or ideographic set).

[...]

>You really haven't got much grasp of the idea of appropriate context, have
>you? <vbg> (No apologies for the <vbg>).
>

Appropriateness of context can only be judged in context.

>First of all, kindly do not
>misquote me.
>

I didn't quote you.  I explicitly paraphrased you and extended the
vision of applying what you proposed.  That you didn't handle the
extension is what I referred to as naivete.

I take full responsibility for the misinterpretation.

>I have never advocated discouraging proper creative writing,
>using the full range of diction and syntax to support the meaning.
>

I didn't say otherwise.  What I did say (or, at least intended to say,
whether or not my intent came through) was that insisting on a
"wimpmode" in one environment will lead to authors becoming less versed
in the very thing they most need in their production.

We'll both, after this little discussion, likely choose our terms and
structures more carefully.  If and when either of produces a full work
of IF, it'll be that much better for the automatic process that's been
instilled.  That's a good thing.

[...]

>If I am writing to my bank manager, I do
>not use it as an opportunity to brush up on my creative writing skills - it
>may be desirable for me but it would show no courtesy to him.
>

That's not entirely accurate.  If you wish to persuade him to do
something (like give you a loan, for example), you're going to want to
paint the appropriate picture in his mind to show him that (a) the loan
is something that would be beneficial to the bank, and (b) is something
of which you are deserving.

Now, you don't want to overdo it, because the manager would be insulted
by gushing sentimentality, but, then, so would the reader of your fiction.

The style is different, but the concept is the same across the board.

[...]

>I note, by the way, that you excised my final comments. This is a pity,
>since they were important to the points I was making.
>

They were a conclusion--a restating of what you already said.  Important
to tie your thoughts together, but hardly worth the trouble to respond
to a second time.

If you really want, append your final comments to my previous message
(quoted) and below that, copy the following sentence:  Obviously, I
disagree.

[...]

>On Usenet, by contrast,
>smilies etc are an inexpensive and appropriate courtesy.
>

I find them rude.  I see them and read something like, "I'm making a
joke, but I don't have time to make it obvious, nor do I think you're
quick enough to figure it out.  I also think you're too lazy to ask, if
it's ambiguous."

>And courtesy to the reader is what every writer owes.
>

This is true.

