[Scotty]

Good post, would read again.

[Mongoose]

I'm glad to see someone else calling out the "classics," because I've found that my enjoyment of them as a whole is severely limited.  I still count A Separate Peace as one of the worst novels I've ever read, and you couldn't pay me enough to sit through anything by Joyce; I had to read a single short story of his once, and...ugh.  As far as Hemingway goes, his writing style is nothing short of insufferable.

[bobbtmann]

Having to experience everything in order to make any form of art would be a hindrance. The secret to writing about fictional experiences is, I believe, empathy. You don't need direct experience with death to cry in "Up!", you only need imagine what it's like to lose someone as close as his wife. Our imagination allows us to empathize with others' experiences.

Unfortunately, a good imagination isn't something you get by doing the same action over and over again. It requires new inputs to stir it around. Without actively examining events and people in the world, and critically thinking about them, imagination won't grow. However, that doesn't mean you actually need to experience something directly to get license to make art about it. Researching a topic will probably give you the same results, provided you can empathize with the subject. But empathizing and the imagination are like a muscle. The more you try to understand another person, the better you get at both of them.

It all seems tied together. The viewer and the artist both need to empathize with the subject in order for a piece of work to be considered exceptional. And being able to empathize requires imagination.

[Kosh]

The brutal fact is that people looking to go into SF or fantasy publication are taught to expect 350-400 rejections before selling a single short story. Just one. That kind of rejection rate was not as commonplace back in the gee-whiz nuclear-rockets 40s and 50s.

This seems to be following a trend that extends into the professional world. 50 years ago going into science and engineering really was cool, but now it isn't and in many cases that generation is telling their kids not to go into it. It's no accident that the average age of an EE in North America is 46, the highest in the world.

[Mika]

- "Hello NGTM-1R, haven't seen you for a while around here!"
"Good to see you too Mika, what are you up to nowadays?"
- "Well, on top of writing stuff on Internet, I'm supposed to do some science too, but you know how my schedule is!"
"Come to think of it, I think I saw one of your articles. But I do have some questions for you about it, if you may? And by the way, where are you traveling to now?"
- "You did? I think my reputation is now forever lost on the eyes of my friends! But I'm heading to North, but have to wait outside since they haven't been able to melt the ice from the train - again."
"Mind to stop for a coffee and for a chat? It's cold out here!"
- "I'd be delighted to."

- "Ah, much better here inside! Oh yes please, I would like to have a cup of coffee."
"A cup of tea for me, please."
- "So what was it when you wrote about 'must having experience to write about something'? Isn't it clear that anyone can write about topics they want to? There's plenty of books that were written that way."
"Ah, now I know what article you are talking about. In fact, it didn't say you couldn't."
- "Explain yourself better, because that's a clear contradiction of what you wrote."
"It isn't. But in order to be able to do that well, that is where you start to see the difference."
- "You wrote about the capabilities of the old masters; their skill of putting feelings and thoughts to words. I think you neglect that a lot of people find old classics boring and uninteresting. Are you sure this isn't affected by the literature lessons, or your teacher?"
"I do find a lot of classics boring. Experience tells that they are probably the ones that the other people find interesting! But I can assure you there has been never any teacher or conditioning on liking the classics, the decision is purely mine alone. I have never taken a course in literature, nor did the linguistics teachers try to tell what books we should read - they were always more interested in word conjugation. I like what I like, there is no other way of putting it. I started reading when I was eight, the first memorable book that I can recall was MacLean's 'H.M.S. Ulysseus'. I can still imagine the salty water of North Atlantic ocean splashing to my face when German grenades fell next to the ship!"
- "What? I thought you wrote 'old masters' in there, didn't you? MacLean can hardly be called old, and you probably know how pretentious even older authors like Shakespeare are! Or how Arthur Conan Doyle consequentially became worse, if he ever was good to begin with."
"Funny that you mention that, but let me first answer your first question. I do find some generally accepted classics good, while digging up those not so well recognized have usually been better. They are still old from my perspective, though. Reading through the works of Shakespeare left me wondering about the reasons of his popularity, but years later I realized that he was a playwright, and not a novelist. I can't say I would have seen his plays yet, so I can't really say much about his style. Sherlock Holmes books were somewhat interesting on intellectual level, it was as if he never became a true human being in those books. You recall when I mentioned about experience? I think you could hold this as an example case. This is one of the things that breaks the current books for me."
- "So are you saying that 'old masters' wouldn't be those that are recognized as such?"
"Sorry for the interruption, but would you mind if I went to the restroom?"
- "By all means"

- "So where were we?"
"We were talking about your 'old masters' earlier."
- "Oh yes, one should not forget that art is a very personal thing. What one considers as way of putting words right is downright boring for someone else. And let me answer your next question, or at least the one that I think you'll ask next. But isn't that what it has been always like? I don't think so. I haven't found good books recently unless I started to dig up the old, so I guess they must non-existent because I haven't found them yet, so that's why! But I do have a theory of that though. But I'm afraid it is not yet fully formed."
"I think I'll ask you again about this next time we meet. The next question I have is about what you said about writing, about putting writer's own experience or himself in there. Doesn't many of the books or TV shows already disprove you that alien concepts cannot be written or displayed?"
- "As I said before, there is no stopping of describing them. It is another thing to make them believable or the human reactions reasonable when confronted with such things. I have never found horror that terrifying especially for this reason - the authors contrive themselves by making aliens as anti-human as possible. But mind can pick up negatives too, and notes the desperate trying. I can only recall one work where I think it was done close to right, and that was 'The Thing'. I haven't read 'Who goes there', so can't say much about that. Yet the creature's strategy felt somehow very human, and it was made very ugly to human."
"By the way, how does that Green Tea taste like?"
- "The usual, as if somebody poured in the results of yesterday's lawn mowing in the tea pot - just the way I like it!"
"Hey hey, just recalled you mentioned rape in your article, doesn't that imply by your own logic that you have experienced that?"
- "Close enough. But please do read carefully what was being said there too."
" --- But this is against all the unwritten rules in the literature, that all has to be described accurately!"
- "Sometimes when I feel like explaining something in the forum language doesn't work, I write as clearly and honestly as my heart feels, and mind desires, in literature language. Those who understand what it actually is about will hopefully be delighted, and those who don't, lose nothing. So yes I think so, some things are better left undescribed, or forgotten."
"Don't you think that is a little bit unfair?"
- "No."
"If you don't want to talk about it, then by all means. You don't like escape literature?"
- "I'm afraid you lost me there. Are you sure that I wrote that?"
"I'm sorry? Oh yes, we would like to pay."
- "I'll pay mine separately."

- "Mika, have you heard the reason of the cracking sound of the snow when you walk on it?"
"I think I should know the explanation but can't recall that for now. It's a shame really, since I really should be able to answer that question."
- "Could I ask you a straight question?"
"Sure"
- "Do you really think a lot of people didn't see through your writing for what it was?"
"You know, I'm not really sure if they did! It is the modern education and all, being able to do meticulous research, but I get the feeling people are more blind to reality as they ever were. I'm now wondering if I was like that after finishing high school or university! It is hard to describe it, but how well can you really notice? Being able to spot if a complete stranger such as the young kid there has problems with his upper back? Being able to see that young couple isn't actually kissing, they are really arguing and pretend to be calm just because they saw us coming? Have you ever been so connected to another person that you felt what he or she felt, right on the moment despite you were on the other side of the world? I occasionally meet people who can, and note that the sweeper there, bobbtmann says his badge, might be one. For some reason, I get the feeling he sees us for what we are. But let us speak of this some other time since I now need to get to Track 4 where my train leaves."
-"See you some other time then."

[Mika]

And yes, writing dialogue in a non-native tongue is a pain.

[The E]

- "Hello NGTM-1R, haven't seen you for a while around here!"
"Good to see you too Mika, what are you up to nowadays?"
- "Well, on top of writing stuff on Internet, I'm supposed to do some science too, but you know how my schedule is!"
"Come to think of it, I think I saw one of your articles. But I do have some questions for you about it, if you may? And by the way, where are you traveling to now?"
- "You did? I think my reputation is now forever lost on the eyes of my friends! But I'm heading to North, but have to wait outside since they haven't been able to melt the ice from the train - again."
"Mind to stop for a coffee and for a chat? It's cold out here!"
- "I'd be delighted to."

A bad start. Already, the reader is confused about who is speaking what.

On top of that, strawmanning? Not a good tactic.

"So what was it when you wrote about 'must having experience to write about something'? Isn't it clear that anyone can write about topics they want to? There's plenty of books that were written that way."
"Ah, now I know what article you are talking about. In fact, it didn't say you couldn't."
- "Explain yourself better, because that's a clear contradiction of what you wrote."
"It isn't. But in order to be able to do that well, that is where you start to see the difference."
- "You wrote about the capabilities of the old masters; their skill of putting feelings and thoughts to words. I think you neglect that a lot of people find old classics boring and uninteresting. Are you sure this isn't affected by the literature lessons, or your teacher?"
"I do find a lot of classics boring. Experience tells that they are probably the ones that the other people find interesting! But I can assure you there has been never any teacher or conditioning on liking the classics, the decision is purely mine alone. I have never taken a course in literature, nor did the linguistics teachers try to tell what books we should read - they were always more interested in word conjugation. I like what I like, there is no other way of putting it. I started reading when I was eight, the first memorable book that I can recall was MacLean's 'H.M.S. Ulysseus'. I can still imagine the salty water of North Atlantic ocean splashing to my face when German grenades fell next to the ship!"
- "What? I thought you wrote 'old masters' in there, didn't you? MacLean can hardly be called old, and you probably know how pretentious even older authors like Shakespeare are! Or how Arthur Conan Doyle consequentially became worse, if he ever was good to begin with."
"Funny that you mention that, but let me first answer your first question. I do find some generally accepted classics good, while digging up those not so well recognized have usually been better. They are still old from my perspective, though. Reading through the works of Shakespeare left me wondering about the reasons of his popularity, but years later I realized that he was a playwright, and not a novelist. I can't say I would have seen his plays yet, so I can't really say much about his style. Sherlock Holmes books were somewhat interesting on intellectual level, it was as if he never became a true human being in those books. You recall when I mentioned about experience? I think you could hold this as an example case. This is one of the things that breaks the current books for me."
- "So are you saying that 'old masters' wouldn't be those that are recognized as such?"
"Sorry for the interruption, but would you mind if I went to the restroom?"
- "By all means"

All of that? Can be summarized as "I concede some of your points". Is that so damn hard to write?

- "So where were we?"
"We were talking about your 'old masters' earlier."
- "Oh yes, one should not forget that art is a very personal thing. What one considers as way of putting words right is downright boring for someone else. And let me answer your next question, or at least the one that I think you'll ask next. But isn't that what it has been always like? I don't think so. I haven't found good books recently unless I started to dig up the old, so I guess they must non-existent because I haven't found them yet, so that's why! But I do have a theory of that though. But I'm afraid it is not yet fully formed."

Oh here we go again with the bull****. "I haven't seen a good new book, so obviously there are none." Don't you see how incredibly stupid this argumentation is?

"I think I'll ask you again about this next time we meet. The next question I have is about what you said about writing, about putting writer's own experience or himself in there. Doesn't many of the books or TV shows already disprove you that alien concepts cannot be written or displayed?"
- "As I said before, there is no stopping of describing them. It is another thing to make them believable or the human reactions reasonable when confronted with such things. I have never found horror that terrifying especially for this reason - the authors contrive themselves by making aliens as anti-human as possible. But mind can pick up negatives too, and notes the desperate trying. I can only recall one work where I think it was done close to right, and that was 'The Thing'. I haven't read 'Who goes there', so can't say much about that. Yet the creature's strategy felt somehow very human, and it was made very ugly to human."

Less waffling, more explaining please. All you are saying is, "I haven't seen this specific example done right", which does nothing at all regarding your general line of argumentation, which is still "People should only write what they know, else the writing becomes unbelievable".

"Hey hey, just recalled you mentioned rape in your article, doesn't that imply by your own logic that you have experienced that?"
- "Close enough. But please do read carefully what was being said there too."
" --- But this is against all the unwritten rules in the literature, that all has to be described accurately!"
- "Sometimes when I feel like explaining something in the forum language doesn't work, I write as clearly and honestly as my heart feels, and mind desires, in literature language. Those who understand what it actually is about will hopefully be delighted, and those who don't, lose nothing. So yes I think so, some things are better left undescribed, or forgotten."
"Don't you think that is a little bit unfair?"

**** that. Explain yourself plainly, or don't post. Don't force us to read mountains of prose that needs to be interpreted to get at your points.

- "No."
"If you don't want to talk about it, then by all means. You don't like escape literature?"
- "I'm afraid you lost me there. Are you sure that I wrote that?"
"I'm sorry? Oh yes, we would like to pay."
- "I'll pay mine separately."

An interesting question, posed by yourself, and you dodge it? What the hell are you doing?

- "Do you really think a lot of people didn't see through your writing for what it was?"
"You know, I'm not really sure if they did! It is the modern education and all, being able to do meticulous research, but I get the feeling people are more blind to reality as they ever were.

Are you High Max? No, seriously, are you? Cos that's one of his "arguments".

I'm now wondering if I was like that after finishing high school or university! It is hard to describe it, but how well can you really notice? Being able to spot if a complete stranger such as the young kid there has problems with his upper back? Being able to see that young couple isn't actually kissing, they are really arguing and pretend to be calm just because they saw us coming? Have you ever been so connected to another person that you felt what he or she felt, right on the moment despite you were on the other side of the world? I occasionally meet people who can, and note that the sweeper there, bobbtmann says his badge, might be one. For some reason, I get the feeling he sees us for what we are. But let us speak of this some other time since I now need to get to Track 4 where my train leaves."
-"See you some other time then."

And there it ends on an opaque note that seems to indicate that bobbtman made some point you agree with.

What the hell.

[General Battuta]

Didactic Heinleinesque (or, heck, Jostein Gaarder-esque) dialogue without tags or islands.   Not poorly written for a non-native speaker (and some non-native speakers are amongst the greatest craftsmen because they can look at the language from outside and really take it apart) but you don't put enough voice into the characters to make the lack of tags forgivable.

And your argument still boils down to your inability to distinguish the noise of the unfilitered now from the carefully distilled and packaged presentations that come down to you from the past. As far as I'm concerned your argument crashed and burned the moment you ignored the post about penny dreadfuls.

If you live in year N you would complain that the literature and media of year N-(25 to 500) was superior.

[The E]

"Hey hey, just recalled you mentioned rape in your article, doesn't that imply by your own logic that you have experienced that?"
- "Close enough. But please do read carefully what was being said there too."
" --- But this is against all the unwritten rules in the literature, that all has to be described accurately!"
- "Sometimes when I feel like explaining something in the forum language doesn't work, I write as clearly and honestly as my heart feels, and mind desires, in literature language. Those who understand what it actually is about will hopefully be delighted, and those who don't, lose nothing. So yes I think so, some things are better left undescribed, or forgotten."
"Don't you think that is a little bit unfair?"
- "No."

Let me single this piece of bull**** out. Because it's the single wrongest statement you made in this piece.

What on earth are you thinking when saying that "some things should be left undescribed or forgotten"? Creating taboo zones around topics has never, and will never work. You may not like that people write about $TOPIC, you may in fact find it utterly horrifying and distasteful, but NOTHING gives you the right to even ask people to stop it.

[Flipside]

Homer wrote about chopping up babies and throwing them into the ocean, I don't think he ever did it, any more than I suspect Shakespeare ever died of a wound that wasn't as wide as a barn door.

[mxlm]

What on earth are you thinking when saying that "some things should be left undescribed or forgotten"? Creating taboo zones around topics has never, and will never work. You may not like that people write about $TOPIC, you may in fact find it utterly horrifying and distasteful, but NOTHING gives you the right to even ask people to stop it.

I don't think he was. I believe he's saying that he's not interested in, um, trying to communicate clearly on forums, or more charitably that he's not prepared to abandon his writing style. He thinks he's being as explicit as he can.

[The E]

There are a few interpretations possible for that passage. I chose one.
If mika wanted to say something else, he should have been more clear.

[mxlm]

Well, that's one way to illustrate the pitfalls of his chosen approach

[NGTM-1R]

Words

You simply repeat the same tired assertions, without attempt to comprehend the arguments against you. I will, however, single out an incredible wrongness for further review.

However, loosely copying a Hemmingway short story in an effort to provoke me, that gets you no points at all.

"Hey hey, just recalled you mentioned rape in your article, doesn't that imply by your own logic that you have experienced that?"
- "Close enough. But please do read carefully what was being said there too."
" --- But this is against all the unwritten rules in the literature, that all has to be described accurately!"
- "Sometimes when I feel like explaining something in the forum language doesn't work, I write as clearly and honestly as my heart feels, and mind desires, in literature language. Those who understand what it actually is about will hopefully be delighted, and those who don't, lose nothing. So yes I think so, some things are better left undescribed, or forgotten."
"Don't you think that is a little bit unfair?"
- "No."

Like The E over there, I regard this as a higher plane of wrong. In fact, not only is this not correct, it's not even wrong.

I made no such statements about "unwritten rules of literature". I said that if you prohibit the accurate depiction of reality, you are now engaged in censorship. Literature's stance on censorship has been clear since the Ancient Greeks. They detest each other. The E has already explained the reasons better than I.

Furthermore, I did say that prohibiting the accurate depiction of reality, you are in effect robbing the author of the ability to evoke reality. And that's what you've been demanding until now! You must accurately evoke reality, by having experienced it! It doesn't appear to occur to you that people would write about horrific things to horrify.

Just because you already know that monsters exist doesn't mean I can simply point and say "he's a monster lol" and the audience will believe me. He has to be monstrous first. And if you want big monsters, they have to be really monstrous. Destroy-the-world melodrama is all well and good, but it's impersonal. Torture and rape are very personal. If you want me to believe someone is a dangerous sociopath, then they'd damn well better act like they're a dangerous sociopath on every level, not just the grand scheme of things.

[Mika]

However, loosely copying a Hemmingway short story in an effort to provoke me, that gets you no points at all.

Do not insult me.

I have read only one book of Hemingway during my life, and that's the "Old man and sea". Secondly, under no circumstances would the thought of copying somebody's work even come to my mind.

[The E]

Okay, if you take a critique of your chosen mode of addressing the points raised here to be an insult to you, you should maybe consider not arguing on the Internet.

Also, address the points raised against your arguments, or be branded a troll.

[Mika]

Sigh,

You know, I still think writing this in prosaic form would have been far more nicer (and funnier for me), but perhaps we all learn something. At least I could have upheld my standards and figured how to use some other writing style than this bland scientific-related one. I do write enough there.

First point about my personality: I'm not High Max, but since you, The E, are not going to believe me in any case, please ask terranemperor. He has seen me in real life. Though for you that only proves that I exist, but it doesn't prove that I'm not him, now does it?

Second: I tried to make the dialogue readable. Adding name tags to it makes it look like a play (I tested it), and that I didn't want. I can't change the background colors of each talker in this forum, and I can't write English dialects - that would have been the way I would have done it in my native tongue.

You all raised the censorship in literature as the worst wrong that could be. Personally, I think that's just garbage and you haven't thought through it. There will always be stuff you don't write down there because of the norms of the society, whether this is called self-censorship or censorship, it doesn't matter to me. It is censorship nevertheless. Let me list a couple of examples, since you are not going to think about this otherwise. Example 1. Write a love scene realistically. I know there is sex industry for that, but that's besides the point: you don't really find them in normal books, do you? Now why is that? Is it because publisher didn't want it there, or because writer himself didn't want to write it there? Considered it tasteless or what? I say censorship. Example 2. Sit down in the corner of the street and write down all your thoughts, honestly. I think sooner or later you are likely going to end up with something you are not going to write down. Why is that? Isn't that censorship or no? Example 3. There is a war book that was published in 1950s, that had lots of relevant critique towards leading the war. It also contained portions that actively portrayed all women serving in the front lines as whores. The parts about women were censored out. Was that for better or the worse? Example 4. Worst of all, the Germany example earlier that I wrote down there for you to see, but yet everybody is as if it didn't exist there! Simplified version: incitement of several writers caused peasant riots that killed thousands of them. Good or bad? There are other examples of this in several other countries, likewise in mine. Example 5. Try to talk or write anything of WWII time with Germans. Go on, just try it. Yes, what you'll note is a form of self-censorship. Though this I find ridiculous myself, but the point is, that really happens now. Perhaps they are not yet ready to go through it fully, but as it is said, time will heal.

So holding on to ideals is all well and good - as a side note, it sounds very American to me ("I want my freedoms!") - but can you really carry the responsibility it takes? Seriously? How do you define when you can blame the writer or the artist for the damage he has caused with his art? I'm willing to bet you leave that for legislation, which means some of the stuff will not be accepted. But you were against censorship, weren't you? So, I think there will always be censorship in any case, whether it is self-imposed or not, but you are just lying to yourselves about it. Yes, I say that sometimes the censorship has made stuff better. For The E's sake here I still need to emphasize that it isn't always for the better either, since I think if I don't explicitly say that, he really doesn't - there was a specific verb for it, grok? - it from the context.

Is this clear enough for ya?

For the impatient people, the three following parts will happen either tomorrow or in the end of next week since I'll be in Germany and will not be connected to the internet.
- Replies to the argument points, and introduction of predictions on where next books that I consider good are written and why.
- Ten penny novels - this one absolutely requires a prosaic form. You gave me an idea that I simply have to put in there in specific style.
- Internet language and text perception as a function of viewer's age and location

[The E]

Sigh,

You know, I still think writing this in prosaic form would have been far more nicer (and funnier for me), but perhaps we all learn something. At least I could have upheld my standards and figured how to use some other writing style than this bland scientific-related one. I do write enough there.

First point about my personality: I'm not High Max, but since you, The E, are not going to believe me in any case, please ask terranemperor. He has seen me in real life. Though for you that only proves that I exist, but it doesn't prove that I'm not him, now does it?

I don't actually care. Still, using the same arguments as a noted moron and troll doesn't give you points. At all. Especially not when those arguments are complete bull****.

Second: I tried to make the dialogue readable.

Was it readable? Yes
Was it a good idea to use that form, in this case? No. Because you traded clearness of expression for artistic stuff that only made you look pretentious.

Adding name tags to it makes it look like a play (I tested it), and that I didn't want. I can't change the background colors of each talker in this forum,

Yes you can, see?

and I can't write English dialects - that would have been the way I would have done it in my native tongue.

You all raised the censorship in literature as the worst wrong that could be. Personally, I think that's just garbage and you haven't thought through it.

But we did. We thought long, and hard, and concluded that freedom of speech is a good too important to be compromised for any reason.

There will always be stuff you don't write down there because of the norms of the society, whether this is called self-censorship or censorship, it doesn't matter to me. It is censorship nevertheless.

There's a difference between a writer not writing about a subject, and a writer being forbidden to write about a subject. If you can't see it, you're pretty much a lost cause.

Let me list a couple of examples, since you are not going to think about this otherwise. Example 1. Write a love scene realistically. I know there is sex industry for that, but that's besides the point: you don't really find them in normal books, do you? Now why is that? Is it because publisher didn't want it there, or because writer himself didn't want to write it there? Considered it tasteless or what? I say censorship.

That would be self-censorship. Also, as someone (don't remember who) said, "Sex is only interesting if you're doing it". Writing good love scenes without falling into IKEA Erotica is hard, and most writers may choose not to go there out of a desire not to disappoint their audiences.

Example 2. Sit down in the corner of the street and write down all your thoughts, honestly. I think sooner or later you are likely going to end up with something you are not going to write down. Why is that? Isn't that censorship or no?

Self-censorship again. Also, immaterial. A writer choosing not to write about a given subject is exercising his right of free speech, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Example 3. There is a war book that was published in 1950s, that had lots of relevant critique towards leading the war. It also contained portions that actively portrayed all women serving in the front lines as whores. The parts about women were censored out. Was that for better or the worse?

That sounds like external censorship. Which is bad. Please read up on some history. Get this through your head. NO form of external censorship should ever be acceptable.

Example 4. Worst of all, the Germany example earlier that I wrote down there for you to see, but yet everybody is as if it didn't exist there! Simplified version: incitement of several writers caused peasant riots that killed thousands of them. Good or bad? There are other examples of this in several other countries, likewise in mine.

Please repeat your statement, with more links. Because, as a german, I am quite unaware of this happening.
Also? Not a good argument for censorship. Not. At. ALL. There is NEVER only one reason for something like this, and while there may be a single flashpoint that ignites the tension, it usually is not the cause.

Example 5. Try to talk or write anything of WWII time with Germans. Go on, just try it. Yes, what you'll note is a form of self-censorship. Though this I find ridiculous myself, but the point is, that really happens now. Perhaps they are not yet ready to go through it fully, but as it is said, time will heal.

Please cite more specific examples. WW2 isn't the same kind of "don't touch" topic it was in Germany, soooo.....

So holding on to ideals is all well and good - as a side note, it sounds very American to me ("I want my freedoms!") - but can you really carry the responsibility it takes? Seriously? How do you define when you can blame the writer or the artist for the damage he has caused with his art?

Show examples where a single work of art was directly, and solely, responsible for "damage".

I'm willing to bet you leave that for legislation, which means some of the stuff will not be accepted. But you were against censorship, weren't you?

You are trying to drag me into a trap here.
Not falling for it. Censorship, if it is motivated by an external source, and especially if it is enforced by law, is undesirable, and not actually working. Again, IF you can prove that a given artists' work is directly responsible for some damaging act, you can drag the artist into a court of law.
Good luck with that though.

So, I think there will always be censorship in any case, whether it is self-imposed or not, but you are just lying to yourselves about it. Yes, I say that sometimes the censorship has made stuff better. For The E's sake here I still need to emphasize that it isn't always for the better either, since I think if I don't explicitly say that, he really doesn't - there was a specific verb for it, grok? - it from the context.

If you can't see the difference between self-censorship and external censorship and why the latter is evil and the former a normal part of the writing process, you should leave this thread. You apparently don't understand writing, but we've established THAT already.

Is this clear enough for ya?

Yeah. Of course, it's still bull****, but whatever.

[General Battuta]

Second: I tried to make the dialogue readable. Adding name tags to it makes it look like a play (I tested it), and that I didn't want. I can't change the background colors of each talker in this forum, and I can't write English dialects - that would have been the way I would have done it in my native tongue.

That is not what a dialogue tag is.

This conversation is so dumb.

[Thaeris]

This topic has moved quite far from gaming today, has it not?