DragonMaci

Yeah, I am pretty sure it was him.

In that casse the author himself is based on his comments. But to some extent I agree with this:

This is not true. "Putting oneself in the mind of the reader" is not even what I said. I said looking at the writing from the perspective of a readern without the foresight of being the writer. The point of it is purely to see if it could be understood by such a person. This is simply a technique to help you edit your story to make it better. Rather than stiffle creativity it boosts creativity as improved editing means improved creativity. Writing and caring do not guarantee success in regards to readers understanding and caring. Looking at your work from the perspective of a reader with no foreknowledge does help in that regard though. [Edited to remove an irrelevant part of the quote.]

That is a part of the reason we are having trouble with it. One cannot objectively pick up a story, any story, from the middle without a lot more to go on that what you included. We cannot read into what is not there because you decided to start from the middle not the start. Try starting from the start and it will be a lot easier to understand your points. [Edit to fix quote]

Well, we have seen a lot of stories without further parts end that prematurely so were unsure. What is there that makes it worth such? I don't see anything that does that. All I see is a very disturbing peice. Well, if so nothing in it makes that clear. I think that is really pure conjecture. Now, that I agree with totally. [Edit was to include my first sentence, which I forgot to include initially.]

Indeed. I may not like Eddings' stories anymore but he makes damn good points about that in his section on writing advice in The Rivan Codex (along with a lot of other good advice). We don't get it because you have not made things anywhere near as clear as you think it is. You seemed to fallen into what I call the Writer's View Fallacy, which is when the writer sees things as obvious only due to the knowledge he has of his intent due to being the writer and thinks it should be obvious to the reader when in fact it is not. As I said you need to look through the eyes of readers too not just the view of the writer. What is obvious to the writer is not necessarily obvious to the reader. As for it popularity on Twitter and the adult fan fic site, so what? Numbers do not equal accuracy, which you seem not to understand even though Rand said so many times. And if you think we are deliberately obtuse why have you ever bothered to talk to us in the forum or chat? Seems pointless. [Edit was to include the last sentence as I accidentally posted without typing it.]

Everything? Obvious? Hardly. What in it makes it obvious that more chapters are to come? Nothing as far as I can tell. What in it suggests anything other than a sick so-called happy person having sex with a depressed person in a grave? Nothing at all. You are seeing things through the eye of the author alone, not the reader. Addition: You need to be able to look through the eyes of a reader not just an author to write good stories.

1. It was never clear it was a novel til after he replied to comments made here (hence the edits me and Dwaynhe made to our posts to accomodate that and thus make our comments make more sense). 2. How were they "strong"? And what is "fine" about a plot with a depressed characte,r and a happy one maturburbating herself then tasking the depressed one when really they are totally incompatible? Especially when it is in a grave of all places, which is disturbing.

Then why would we want to read this? What value is it supposed to be to us if you were not trying to be clear?DO latter chapters clear things up? If so you should of said in the OP or in a reply to it that more chapters are to come so people wouldn't make such comments.

Yeah, I am thinking that too, Dwayne.It has a totally negative vibe and the whole sex and masturbation in a graveyard thing is distrubing.

The synopsis on the back of the book or on the inside of the dust sleeve. Or skimming it. Or reading reviews. Or being told by someone whom has similar book interests and whom you trust. The same as they are in life.

I didn't mean it like that. I mean a story where at least the main characters act on Objectivist values - or even most of society. I don't. I was just trying to get a curiosity answered.

In case no one guessed... I ask because of an ulterior motive related to my own writing.

Ok, this poll was stuffed up as Dwayne revealed. What a waste of a poll and of a few votes.

I was wondering about it and decided to post it here.

That is not very useful to people like myself that don't know HTML, Javascript, CSS, etc.

Firefox does the same thing. It even uses a list supplied and maintained by Google. I actually use Chrome sometimes now though as now that it has a full extension system many of the features that Firefox has that Chrome does not and that I use are available in Chrome extensions. There is even Chrome versions of many of the main Firefox extensions.

In fact many were debunked in an episode in season 2 of Mythbusters. Yes, well, remember the so-called "teleportation" of an atom or sub-atomic particle done in IBM labs was actually such rather than teleportation despite many people saying it was? I wonder why they thought that since IBM immediately said it wasn't teleportation because they anticipated such comments and wanted to cut them off. They said all that happened was they copied the state of a proton or something and copied it, creating an identical proton elsewhere. Shame there attempts to discourage such comments didn't work. Anyway, to me that article seems to be about much the same thing.

I already have read it. However, unlike Paolini, Pratchett gets points for making fun of gods and religion.

Well, even before 1.0 final was released Google promised to do exactly that at some stage. Not that they gave any idea when that is. It might not be till version 6 Mind you at this rate version 6 will be out by next year.

Well, if books 1 and 2 are anything to go by then gods are such in the Inheritence Trilogy. Mind you, that is what the people of that world believe gods are, not necessarily what gods actually are. As for dragons, they are a not anywhere near as bad as a god in that regard. The beliefs of his elves suggest such may be the case.

Well, they mean "money" in the way most people today do, which includes paper "money". Actually, a lot of today's "money" is purely digital, as I am sure you know. "Federation Credits" are no less (or more) "money" than today's "money" is.

That is covered in a TNG episode. It is "Federation credits," which apparently are not money, which is a load of BS of course.

Shouldn't this thread be in the Economics sub-forum? I know your were asking softwareNerd, but that is the way I see it.

The two are not comparable. Dragons are much less powerful and not as unrealistic, so are much harder to suspend disbelief for. But more importantly, it is the myticism of having a god in the book. Not to mention it contradicts the view point of the elves, which would be rational at least in our world. Plus there is this: That isn't why I am not sure why I want to read it, but I didn't make that clear and I apologise for that. My reluctance springs from the inherihent mysticism involved in having a god or gods in the books. I question whether a book with inherihent mysticism can have any greatness in it. I mainly like the interaction between human and dragon that Eragon and Saphira have and the battle of good against evil, but I can get a better version of both from the books I am planning to write. Well, I also like most of the Elven philosophy, but the existence of this god contradicts much of it. Therein lies a part of the problem; I cannot suspend my disbelief over something as highly mystical as a god. [Edited wording.]