True. It definately felt rushed, a little compressed to me. I think also maybe we got used to the more expansive stories, whereas now the author is really trying to edit things down to a mimimum of words. Not sure which works better for him.
True. I liked the stories better when they are long and drawn out. I kinda feel that midpoint through (oops, put this year first) 2006, things got shorter and less descriptive. Does a shorter story work better for the author's style? I'm not really sure either, probably leaning to a no also. I still like reading, but I do miss the longer posts. Although the bribery one today is not too short; but even it felt a little clipped to me, as if there was something more there. Just my two cents...
(Sighs in a frustrated manner, takes a deep breath)
Alright. So I'm going to do something I rarely do, and have never done before: post a comment.
(Writer pauses to grimace/pause sardonically)
I am, probably other than raptorlicious-whatever-claw, one of the oldest continous readers on this blog. No, I don't know the LA (I think). Why did I start reading it back in August of 2005? Well, the name caught my eye first - which is a good thing, because like a movie title, if it interests you, you'll probably see it, even if its bad. Second, I liked the writing: it was very different in my opinion, than oh, 99% of all blogs out there.
For the readers out there, let me now suggest that you go to the archive, or whatever he calls it, and read some of the early posts. I'm not saying all, but by all means, read all if it strikes your fancy. These first posts were once, maybe, twice a week, invariably 1000-1500 words.
That is a lot of words to read at once. Most newspaper columns average around 500 words, which is high in many cases. Moreover, it is a lot of words to read on a computer, which is not the best medium to read on. Now, I know someone is going to say something about the number of blogs with posts exceeding that number of words that are popular or in the mainstream. I have two things to say about that: good for those authors, but in most cases, those posts are at least 3000 words too long, and I, along with other people, find them very pedantic.
Anyhow. 1000-1500 words is a lot to read for most people. Plus, no offense intended, some of the early posts in my opinion, not the greatest stuff. But you know what? They told the whole story. Every bit was chronicled in loving detail.
Somewhere, in mid-range, the posts went to a two to three a week format, all within the 500-750 word range. I liked this change. I think that its been proven that more posts equals more readers, and less words also attract and keep more readers initially. Even better, I liked the quality of writing. I would say that more practice or whatnot has made the overall quality of writing rise by a high level, as documented and already debated in many of these threads. Plus, in some cases, being shorter helps - which goes back to editing.
Lately, we have the Firering. I also like this. It allows the writer to be more expansive, while not interrupting his story arc. Good call, I say. My point is, you want more story, go to the Firering and read about the Milford Track. Plenty of detail there. You want less story? Keep reading the main arc. I think the editing now does a good job at keeping superfluous details out. A little imagination in the readers when the story is done is a good thing.
But in the end, its personal preference. Don't like the style, as has been discussed, then don't read it. Don't like the details (too many/too few), deal with it. Frankly, read what you like, and if you don't like it, post incisive comments. After all, I think what the author is getting at with this site more than anything else is to a) get published and b) create an open forum for good discussion (not a place for "i like it/i don't like it" comments).
Wow. I guess I can see where the Phantom is coming from in some things; they are right when they talk about if we don't like it try something else, but I guess I also feel that part of this is trying to suggest things to help, and by letting people know what people don't like is in the end a help, at least to me.
Hmm. I wonder whether "The Phantom" was deliberately vague as to get us talking...
But what I got was that the posts have gotten shorter to be successful in the medium (blogging) and that such shorter posts are actually, in the opinion of "The Phantom" is that the writing has actually improved as well.
Additionally, there are other options, so that if people prefer somethign else, it is now present on this site to read.
Argh! This is why I never post: my well-meaning, well-rationed thoughts end up coming out like gibberish. My apologies!
I guess what I was getting at was similar to the above post, and also more to the point of if you've got a comment to make, I know I as a writer like the particulars: how was it bad, why was it bad, what could have been different. This helps me more than a "It's bad/I don't like it" type of comment that I see a lot here.
As for my post above: I know how it was bad now that I re-read it. Thanks for not flaming me too bad.
That is EXACTLY what I was trying to get at. Thanks for being in my head perceptive commenter! With more posts comes less time to discuss. I mean, when there was one post a week, we could talk about it until the cows came home. But now - its quick and fast. So, I think for myself, and a lot of people, if you don't post right away, its like there's no point because its already old.
I didn't realize by being a long-time reader I was now being accorded senior status around here! I guess since its a Tuesday, I'll take what plaudits I can get. I'd have to disagree a little. I can see how people might not want to post on an old thread, but at the same time, if it's something that really interests them, there's no reason not to. Just because progress is occurring, that doesn't mean we have to abandon the past.
Alright. So I'm going to do something I rarely do, and have never done before: post a comment.
(Writer pauses to grimace/pause sardonically)
I am, probably other than raptorlicious-whatever-claw, one of the oldest continous readers on this blog. No, I don't know the LA (I think). Why did I start reading it back in August of 2005? Well, the name caught my eye first - which is a good thing, because like a movie title, if it interests you, you'll probably see it, even if its bad. Second, I liked the writing: it was very different in my opinion, than oh, 99% of all blogs out there.
For the readers out there, let me now suggest that you go to the archive, or whatever he calls it, and read some of the early posts. I'm not saying all, but by all means, read all if it strikes your fancy. These first posts were once, maybe, twice a week, invariably 1000-1500 words.
That is a lot of words to read at once. Most newspaper columns average around 500 words, which is high in many cases. Moreover, it is a lot of words to read on a computer, which is not the best medium to read on. Now, I know someone is going to say something about the number of blogs with posts exceeding that number of words that are popular or in the mainstream. I have two things to say about that: good for those authors, but in most cases, those posts are at least 3000 words too long, and I, along with other people, find them very pedantic.
Anyhow. 1000-1500 words is a lot to read for most people. Plus, no offense intended, some of the early posts in my opinion, not the greatest stuff. But you know what? They told the whole story. Every bit was chronicled in loving detail.
Somewhere, in mid-range, the posts went to a two to three a week format, all within the 500-750 word range. I liked this change. I think that its been proven that more posts equals more readers, and less words also attract and keep more readers initially. Even better, I liked the quality of writing. I would say that more practice or whatnot has made the overall quality of writing rise by a high level, as documented and already debated in many of these threads. Plus, in some cases, being shorter helps - which goes back to editing.
Lately, we have the Firering. I also like this. It allows the writer to be more expansive, while not interrupting his story arc. Good call, I say. My point is, you want more story, go to the Firering and read about the Milford Track. Plenty of detail there. You want less story? Keep reading the main arc. I think the editing now does a good job at keeping superfluous details out. A little imagination in the readers when the story is done is a good thing.
But in the end, its personal preference. Don't like the style, as has been discussed, then don't read it. Don't like the details (too many/too few), deal with it. Frankly, read what you like, and if you don't like it, post incisive comments. After all, I think what the author is getting at with this site more than anything else is to a) get published and b) create an open forum for good discussion (not a place for "i like it/i don't like it" comments).
That, as the above poster says, is "my 2 cents".
But what I got was that the posts have gotten shorter to be successful in the medium (blogging) and that such shorter posts are actually, in the opinion of "The Phantom" is that the writing has actually improved as well.
Additionally, there are other options, so that if people prefer somethign else, it is now present on this site to read.
I guess what I was getting at was similar to the above post, and also more to the point of if you've got a comment to make, I know I as a writer like the particulars: how was it bad, why was it bad, what could have been different. This helps me more than a "It's bad/I don't like it" type of comment that I see a lot here.
As for my post above: I know how it was bad now that I re-read it. Thanks for not flaming me too bad.
But at the same time, I guess you have to realize that some people comment on how they feel, rather than on any greater imperative to be helpful.
--Carpe Carp!