PDA

View Full Version : Comments on short story contest #4 - 'My eyes! My eyes!'


King_Ghidra
01-09-2003, 08:22:09
Comments here! Comments here!

King_Ghidra
01-09-2003, 10:18:56
Looking at my three stories, so far i've done:

a horror thriller set in a military research base
an anti war story set in an army training camp
a yakuza story set in a dying seaside resort

i realise i have as yet to feature a female main character or any kind of domestic 'real life' stuff, so i think this time i'm going to do just that (without implying that females can't also be in horror thrillers, anti-war stories or yakuza stories :cute: )

Scabrous Birdseed
01-09-2003, 13:15:23
I've done a gothic horror story set in a sacrifice pit, a non-gothic horror story set in some kind of gnome warren and a weird piece of pseudo-humour set in a group therapy room. None of them really had the kind of film-like atmosphere I like in stories so for the next one I shall go for an unnatural situation with cinematic qualities.

King_Ghidra
02-09-2003, 08:41:04
nice stuff qweeg

Your story could best be summed up as :eek:

:D

Funkodrom
02-09-2003, 08:59:11
I get the feeling Qweeg was imagining that they made them watch Celebrity Big Brother or something. ;)

King_Ghidra
03-09-2003, 08:01:16
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
None of them really had the kind of film-like atmosphere I like in stories so for the next one I shall go for an unnatural situation with cinematic qualities.

Sounds like your literature is forever doomed to be a pale shadow of cinema.

Perhaps you should start a short film contest ;)

Scabrous Birdseed
03-09-2003, 13:19:52
Cinema is obviously a much superior medium having both audible and visual elements to it as well as the usual emotive stuff. Nevertheless, good literature can evoke sounds and images in the human imagination, so that's what I'm trying for really by importing a film scenario into the literary area to play with it a bit.

maroule
03-09-2003, 13:28:15
"Cinema is obviously a much superior medium "
hmm, I don't really agree with that, cinema has to deal with limitations litterature doesn't have, both in the real world (impossible to adapt LoTR for example, and even if Jackson did a terrific movie, it's still far less subtle and complex than the book) and in the 'imaginary world' (I'm thinking of latin american magical realism, for example - a 100 years of solitude is plainly unadaptable). The language is a much more flexible tool than images, and IMO as powerful (in both a visceral and intellectual way).

Note : I don't talk about the superiority of one medium over the other, only of the inherent limitations they have to work with

Scabrous Birdseed
03-09-2003, 13:37:13
Oh I don't doubt many stories suitable for literature are unsuitable for film, but it's definately vice versa too. How do you write a book based on City of God?

maroule
03-09-2003, 13:41:46
Augustine's City of God, a monumental work of religious lore, philosophy, and history, was written as a kind of literary tombstone for Roman culture. After the sack of Rome, Augustine wrote this book to anatomize the corruption of Romans' pursuit of earthly pleasures: "grasping for praise, open-handed with their money; honest in the pursuit of wealth, they wanted to hoard glory." Augustine contrasts his condemnation of Rome with an exaltation of Christian culture. The glory that Rome failed to attain will only be realized by citizens of the City of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem foreseen in Revelation. Because City of God was written for men of classical learning--custodians of the culture Augustine sought to condemn--it is thick with Ciceronian circumlocutions, and makes many stark contrasts between "Your Virgil" and "Our Scriptures." Even if Augustine's prose strikes modern ears as a bit bombastic, and if his polarized Christian/pagan world is more binary than the one we live in today, his arguments against utopianism and his defense of the richness of Christian culture remain useful and strong. City of God is, as its final words proclaim itself to be, "a giant of a book." --Michael Joseph Gross

King_Ghidra
03-09-2003, 13:58:37
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Cinema is obviously a much superior medium having both audible and visual elements to it as well as the usual emotive stuff.

You've made a lot of ignorant flame-baiting posts since i've known you but that just about takes the biscuit.

Maroule it's all very well trying to argue his points with him but why bother? His dogamtism is the ultimate forum joke.

Actually it's the lack of imagination that is most terrifying. Scabby, anything is possible in literature. There are no limits. Cinema is merely the precocious youth of human expression, literature is his teacher.

Scabrous Birdseed
03-09-2003, 14:10:17
If Cinema is in a near-nascent state it's because it has yet to realise its full potential as the ultimate combination of the three prevalent artforms of modern civilization, visual arts, literature and sonic arts of various kinds. A picture tells a thousands words, can express ideas, feelings, subtlety in the way a pages and pages of text cannot approach. How many words cannot 2 hours of pictures at 17 a second express? Especially when combined with, well, words themselves as well as all the things that you well know can be done with the human sense of hearing.

The limited imagination is wholly on your part, if you see something as wholly one-dimensional as mere textual description as the ultimate form of human description.

And I've never flamed in my entire life. Well, okay, a couple of times.

Funkodrom
03-09-2003, 14:26:14
Books allow you to use your own imagination to create the world about which you are reading, films show you what it's like.

Scabrous Birdseed
03-09-2003, 14:28:53
ie. Books are an incomplete medium that have to resort to petty psychological manipulation to get their point accross.

Scabrous Birdseed
03-09-2003, 14:30:06
Not that I dislike books, but still.

maroule
03-09-2003, 14:31:48
still doesn't cut it for me scabby

images are somebody else's vision imposed on you, so it's easy to ingest, and possibly striking, but it's also directive and very limitative. I have yet to see ONE movie that I deemed superior to the novel it was taken from.

written words are reinterpreted by yourself, without any other limit than your own imagination. And our brains are pretty powerful tools.

think of poetry : there can be poetic images, or even poetic movie sequences, but nothing fimed (even with music on top) can come close to the sheer subtlety and raw power of (insert your favorite poet here / but let's say Shakespeare, Baudelaire, Goethe, etc.)

Funkodrom
03-09-2003, 14:41:42
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
ie. Books are an incomplete medium that have to resort to petty psychological manipulation to get their point accross.

:lol:

You twat. Use of imagination is a good thing.

King_Ghidra
03-09-2003, 15:36:29
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
that have to resort to petty psychological manipulation to get their point accross.

:rolleyes:

Darkstar
04-09-2003, 03:32:04
Scabs... you are WAY off base. The common cinema time format means that you only have a short story, not a true length epic or whatnot.

And you don't get 92+ minutes of "One pictures". You get only a few new pictures. Most scenes are just "a blur" of one picture, until the next scene.

What you seem to be saying, is that your mind does not like books. You prefer the visual and auditory stimulation you get from movies. There is certainly a snobbery against that... a natural prejudice of those that like to let their minds exercise their own imagination. Different strokes for different folks...

Cinema is not superior to books. Cinema is just a mild, 10 minute to 30 minute verbal plot with some visual noise scattered about most of the time.

So why isn't cinema better? We've had it for 100 years. Answer... mainstream. People don't want big, complex cinema tales. They want something to stare at for an hour or two with a simple story. It's visually improved theatre at best, and screen savers for the mind at its worst.

Now, if you want to see cinema fully utilized for big tales, rather then simple bedtime stories, you'd need to be able to sit down for a day, watching the whole story. Or see each little "chapter" of plot and development, one day at a time.

So people that want complex tales, they are stuck with books. Now, broadband and on demand streaming MAY change that. That lets viewers get around time constraints. Watch the next episode when you want, instead of only when it's playing at the big screen. With a decent home big screen of your own, or virtual equivalent (cinema-scope glasses like I-Visor or some such), then we might finally see a marketable niche for something other then the simple tales that fit will into the standard movie time formating demands.

Time constraints, time constraints.

Something for you to consider...

Scabrous Birdseed
04-09-2003, 10:51:01
Look, I don't doubt that books have their place, they're superior as a narrative medium and indeed in getting long, complex ideas accross. They're also second only to poetry in exploring the nature of written and spoken language. Many, many things are best expressed as literature, psychological changes and inner life being the most obvious one. I just think they're less good as art. But then I think painting, sculpture, installations, music, modern dance and not least poetry are also all superior purely as art than literature is.

Now for the obvious "what is art" followup question. Bring it on!

Qweeg
04-09-2003, 10:56:58
I like photographs.

King_Ghidra
04-09-2003, 10:59:49
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed

Now for the obvious "what is art" followup question. Bring it on!

How about a new thread? There is still a short story contest going on here...

Scabrous Birdseed
04-09-2003, 11:08:22
That would be a good idea. I'm just too lazy to start one. Maybe we can just let it drop and get back to the petty psychological manipulation. :D

Although I might want to explain that my story (when it appears) will involve a comical juxtaposition of an underlying meaning spectacularly unsuitable for its intended medium, thus proving my thesis that art carries meaning in both thought and execution but great art takes the medium of execution as its starting point.

maroule
04-09-2003, 11:11:12
bah, that's pants!


I really felt like saying that

Darkstar
04-09-2003, 23:53:44
Scabs, that's fine. It just sounds like your preferred medium, for expressing yourself and appreciating others, is not the written word.

Personally, I think cinema is the lowest form of expression possible. The reason is simple... it requires nothing other then you turn your brain off for the duration of the picture. Of course, as I said, that's what most who made them are after...

Art does not require execution. In fact, the original forms of art are all of non-execution form. Paintings, scupltures. Dance, singing, playing has become art, but they didn't start that way.

Art is whatever you connect with, whatever moves you. If you connect more with movies over books, that's fine. Of course, that just might be you have been reading garbage. ;) A book is just an extended song, after all. And you seem to connect to songs... I think that might be why you think higher of poetry. That's just songs without the music score. :)

A picture is a single instance. Everything else is in motion, one way or the other, isn't it? Books just move slower... maybe its the pacing you don't care for? Movies have to move along, or the audience gets bored, after all.

Now, is it me, or is Qweeg just another sick soul like Poe? :D

Darkstar
04-09-2003, 23:55:57
Oh yeah...

KG, you should put a link to the story threads in your starting post of each of these comments threads. To make it easy to find the short story thread it belongs to.

King_Ghidra@home
05-09-2003, 11:20:32
that's a good suggestion - will do

Debaser
05-09-2003, 12:19:56
I wrote and posted my story late last night. I was a little tipsy. I haven't had the nerve to read it back yet for fear of it being utterly shit.

King_Ghidra
10-09-2003, 16:02:06
I meant to say that IW's story was very fucked up and very enjoyable

and i'm not sure i even understood your story debaser :clueless:

Venom
11-09-2003, 11:57:42
Is this one still open?

King_Ghidra
11-09-2003, 12:51:48
absolutely, i will be submitting my entry soon

Venom
11-09-2003, 13:54:41
I feel like a bad Stand-Up comic in front of the mic....Is this thing on?

King_Ghidra
11-09-2003, 15:06:58
i often picture a bad stand up comic when i read your posts

Immortal Wombat
11-09-2003, 16:48:22
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
I meant to say that IW's story was very fucked up and very enjoyable

:beer: thanks

Darkstar
12-09-2003, 03:43:47
I might not make an entry to this one. Just a few vague things kicking around in my head for this.

When's this "officially" closed? That would be another nice thing to have in the top post of the thread. Link to the story thread, and when the submissions "close", officially.

King_Ghidra@home
12-09-2003, 07:09:07
well it does say c. the 14th. I specifically wanted to avoid a 'deadline' because i thought it might be off-putting. Perhaps the opposite is true.

Venom
12-09-2003, 13:36:54
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
i often picture a bad stand up comic when i read your posts

The effect is complete then. I am in your mind, destroying the very fiber of your being.

Tizzy
12-09-2003, 15:09:49
Originally posted by Funkodrom
Books allow you to use your own imagination to create the world about which you are reading, films show you what it's like.

Films show you what someone else thinks it's like
I very rarely like films about books I've read, and vice versa for that matter, I don't often like the book if I've already seen the film.
I prefer to read a book and imagine the scenes and usually find it a disappointment to see those scenes on screen looking very different to how they do in my head.

paiktis22
12-09-2003, 17:43:55
I'm afraid I'll have to give it up. It's too frustrating trying to find the right words in english, because I don't know them, to describe feelings, even landscapes. The best I can do is to most of the time give approximate words or use descriptive phrases to say a single thing. Writing is supposed to be liberating and I just end up hitting my head against a literrary wall because I don't know the english catharctic words that would fit more or less perfectly to what I want to say. Needless to say I don't feel flattered by the result because of this. I feel like I am back in first grade :)

The idea of short stories is excellent though and I'll keep reading and enjoying. Keep it up :beer:

King_Ghidra@home
12-09-2003, 18:51:24
Sorry to hear that paikitis, but i certainly understand what you're saying . Being unable to articulate your thoughts and feelings is the very definition of frustration, especially in this context.

Anyway glad to hear you're sticking around, hope you enjoy reading the future contests