[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
Barry wrote: I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others And *that* is ego. Believing that your opinion is so cool or so right or so Truth-y that sharing it will benefit others. Something Barry never does. (horselaugh) (snip) But -- unlike some here -- I neither expect people to read what I post, or throw hissy-fits when others don't. Some here actually throw tantrums when people don't *respond* to what they've written. :-) No, they don't. They're making the point that Barry can't respond to criticism or pull his weight in a debate.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
Translation: Barry's attempt to trash me got trashed, and he's pissed off. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: See Share, *this* is what I mean about the difference between simply presenting one's opinion, and getting one's ego-panties in a twist, and trying to turn it into a battle that's all going on inside the egomaniac's head. All I did is present an opinion. I even said at the end that that was *all* it was. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry wrote: (snip) This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. As if Barry didn't know who that person was. What a coward. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. Bullshit. That isn't what editing is, and it isn't what King needed. As he so often does, Barry simply made a stopid assumption that would give him a reason to take a shot at me for making a point he didn't understand in the first place. Such a phony. I dare him to read Duma Key and tell us he thought its second half didn't need to be heavily pruned and shaped. (Remember, I said the first half--where the exposition takes place--was brilliant.) I don't, frankly, know (and neither does Barry) whether in his heyday King himself had an infallible sense of how much was enough, or whether it was a savvy editor. But if it was his own sense, for sure he had lost it in some of his recent books and lacked an editor with the guts to keep him on track. If he has regained it (or has realized he needed an editor), good for him.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
LOL! And of course, everyone knows that the bibliography in a dissertation refers not to works consulted in the preparation of this dissertation but to books, the titles of which are known to me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 wrote: The rumor at the school where I did my PhD was that they weighed the dissertations rather than read them. I took that rumor seriously enough to make sure that mine was extra fat and typed on the heaviest paper I could find. That's like the old tech writer joke for those unfortunate enough to have to do guvmint work according to MIL-SPECS. How do you know when a battleship under construction is finished? Every day you weigh the battleship, and the documentation. When they weigh the same, the ship is finished. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@ wrote: ...and the most ego. I found this chart interesting, in that the longest Ph.D. dissertations seem to be in the fields most subject to opinion -- history, antrhopology, political science, communication, english, sociology, and education. It's almost as if the grad students in those fields are already preparing for an academic life characterized by the belief that the more they say about their opinions, the more they can pretend they aren't opinion. The chart reminds me of an old college professor of mine who had a big rubber stamp that he would wield mercilessly on papers he thought deserved it. It was the letters B.S. -- always stamped in red over offending paragraphs or pages. When asked what the initials stood for, he would smile and say, Bloated Syntax. http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ http://priceonomics.com/the-average-length-of-dissertations/ This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. The thing I like most about him as a writer is that he *takes his time* creating characters, so that the reader gets to feel that he *knows* them, before he does something with them in the plot. In The Stand, King lovingly spent the first third of the book creating a character who was the quintessential great guy. And then he killed him, suddenly and unexpectedly, as the result of a mindless act of terrorism. You FELT that. You FELT the loss, almost as if it had been a great guy you knew personally. I am not convinced that this would have happened if he had given the character buildup short shrift the way most writers do these days. But that's just opinion, too. At least I didn't require 500 pages to express it. :-)
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
turq, imho, ego-panties deserves an award for the FFL phrase of the year! If I use it in my dissertation about online communities, I promise to give you a footnote (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: See Share, *this* is what I mean about the difference between simply presenting one's opinion, and getting one's ego-panties in a twist, and trying to turn it into a battle that's all going on inside the egomaniac's head. All I did is present an opinion. I even said at the end that that was *all* it was. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Barry wrote: (snip) This said, I disagree with whoever suggested that Stephen King needs editing. As if Barry didn't know who that person was. What a coward. I find reading his latest work a refreshing throwback to the days in which writers didn't pander to attention spans shortened by a lifetime's exposure to sound bites and artificially shortened exposition. Bullshit. That isn't what editing is, and it isn't what King needed. As he so often does, Barry simply made a stopid assumption that would give him a reason to take a shot at me for making a point he didn't understand in the first place. Such a phony. I dare him to read Duma Key and tell us he thought its second half didn't need to be heavily pruned and shaped. (Remember, I said the first half--where the exposition takes place--was brilliant.) I don't, frankly, know (and neither does Barry) whether in his heyday King himself had an infallible sense of how much was enough, or whether it was a savvy editor. But if it was his own sense, for sure he had lost it in some of his recent books and lacked an editor with the guts to keep him on track. If he has regained it (or has realized he needed an editor), good for him.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Re: The academic fields with the least discipline...
turq, about formulaic series, I'm old enough to have seen several in the crime team genre: Blue Moon, Remington Steele come to mind. What I enjoy is seeing how the formula itself has evolved. It's as if with each new artist or group of artists, the formula itself gets transformed in some essential way. Subsequent series must at least meet the new level or get axed. Just my opinion but I like it! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Ok, turq, here's a question for you: what goes to battle with ego? There is rarely a *need* for battle if there are no egos involved. Being? Truth? Love? I don't think so. Other egos? Hmmm... I'd guess yes. But that's just my opinion. Once again I don't understand why you get so het up about people having and sharing opinions. It's what we all do. Especially after we've survived our midlife crisis! I have no issue at all with people having opinions. It's when they try to present them as something *other than* opinion -- as truth, or worse, as some kind of cosmic Truth -- that I cry bullshit. I think most people share opinions for the purpose of benefiting others. And *that* is ego. Believing that your opinion is so cool or so right or so Truth-y that sharing it will benefit others. If they're misguided in that, well, there's obviously a learning curve involved. And maybe wanting to benefit others is the last stronghold of the ego. Hmmm... Certainly believing that their opinion has the *ability* to benefit others is one of the last strongholds of ego. And really, if you added up all your writing online, I bet you'd get close to 500 pages (-: But -- unlike some here -- I neither expect people to read what I post, or throw hissy-fits when others don't. Some here actually throw tantrums when people don't *respond* to what they've written. :-) About character development, I'm making my way through the 5 previous seasons of Castle and it's so gratifying to watch the unfolding of all the different characters. But of course especially Castle and Beckett as they realize their love for each other more and more. It's a completely formulaic series, but its strength is in the actors, and the way they fill out the characters as written. Nathan is a tour de force in this regard, no matter what he's in, but Stana Katic is pretty good at being interesting, too.
