Kevin's Watch

I don't care what anyone else thinks. I have loved every book by SRD that I have read so far, Runes included. Who knows, maybe he is just teasing us so he can blow us away with FR.

Personally I don't believe for a moment that SRD would make people wait two DECADES for the next book in the series and release a turkey. In fact I don't think anyone else really believes that either. No way.

One comment about the original topic of the post - Is Runes Flawed?

Well, of course it is. I don't think there's such a thing as the perfect novel. Some have come pretty darn close, but there is *always* room for improvement.

Idlewilder wrote:Novels, even serial fiction, should not be relagated to telling "fractions" of a story, however big the story. The structure of a novel requires certain things which Runes delivers poorly (IMO): terribly pacing and a nebulous climax. Runes drags on from one hike to talk to hike and then ends (it dosn't conclude, it just stops). If you had to pinpoint it, what would you say Runes is the story of? For instance, LFB is the story of the quest for the staff, TIW is, well, the war, etc. Runes is the story of...?
(I am reminded of the definition of trilogy: three connected or interrelated novels. One of the most frequent misconceptions in literature is to call the Lord of the Rings a trilogy, when in fact, Tolkien himself claimed that they were six parts of one cohesive novel--- and yet, for all that, each book still had a definable climax, a moment of crisis). If Runes is to stand as a novel, and remember, this is the medium of Hemingway, Bronte and Steinbeck, then it must be more self-contained (in structure, if not content!) than I believe it is. This does not constitute a "new direction", it constitutes sloppy writing or lazy editing.

Bzzzt! Next contestant, please.

A novel, my dear Idlewilder, is not defined by the number of book covers between which it is sandwiched. At most, Runes is a novel fragment — a very common thing, if you're at all familiar with older fiction. I have a two-volume edition of The Brothers Karamazov, a two-volume edition of Les Miserables, and various other cases of this kind. Gulliver's Travels was originally published in four volumes, and Tristram Shandy in nine. Nor is this a modern invention. After all, the Iliad is a series of 24 books!

It was the Modernist faction of the early 20th century that first propagandized for this ridiculous idea that a novel must be short enough to fit in one bound volume. Virginia Woolf's favourite insult was 'four-volume novel', which she was capable of delivering (even in writing) with a monumental sneer that made it clear that you were just too witless and philistine if you didn't understand why a four-volume novel was a Bad Thing. Needless to say, she had no substantive argument to support her case: that's why she used the killer sneer instead.

You're quite right, LOTR is not a trilogy. I would contend that you are factually mistaken when you say that each of the first five 'books' has a resolution at the end. In fact, all five end with pronounced cliffhangers. To wit:

1. Frodo falls unconscious at the Fords, hotly pursued by all nine Nazgûl, just as Elrond releases the waters to sweep them (and him?) away.

2. Frodo and Sam escape across the Anduin by boat while the rest of the Fellowship are attacked by Uruk-hai. Something terrible has happened to Boromir, Merry and Pippin, but from the POV of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, we don't yet know what.

3. Pippin has provoked the wrath of Sauron by looking into the palantír; Gondor is about to be attacked with all the strength of Mordor, and only Gandalf (taking Pippin along to protect him from himself) can possibly reach Minas Tirith in time.

4. Verbatim quote: 'Frodo was alive but taken by the Enemy.'

5. The host of the West is surrounded by an innumerable host of foes, many times their numbers, fighting without hope, for the Mouth of Sauron has shown them Frodo's captured belongings. As far as anyone can tell, the Quest has failed and the Ring is on Sauron's hand.

Now, these are cliffhangers: moments where the progress of the story is dramatically interrupted, leaving the outcome in doubt. What we have at the end of Runes is not a cliffhanger, but something quite different: a sudden revelation of new data. When the new data concern a character's own attitude or mental state, Modernist critics call it an epiphany; but that isn't precisely the appropriate term in a case like this. Linden had retrieved the Staff and learned to use it despite the numbing effect of Kevin's Dirt; Stave had declared himself, even at the cost of being cut off from his own people; Linden's accidental corruption of the Arch has manifested itself in a horde of Demondim at the gates of Revelstone. (That's a resolution, not a cliffhanger, because it is the logical outcome of her work with wild magic, both in giving Joan back her ring and in tampering with caesures. The battle is yet to come, but the stage is still being set for that. It would have been a cliffhanger if the book had ended in the midst of combat, with the outcome still in doubt but apparently hopeless. 'The Eagles are coming!')

But it's rather inappropriate to criticize these matters on points of novelistic technique. In the first place, Runes is not a novel, but an extended group of chapters, obviously designed to be read in the context of an uninterrupted longer work. In an ideal world, SRD would have had the money and leisure to write the entire Last Chronicles before publishing any part of them, and they would have been published in one great lolloping 2000-page book. But this is not an ideal world, and the publishing industry doesn't work like that.

In the second place, the Covenant books are not novels. I know it's common nowadays to use the word 'novel' to refer to any book-length work of fiction, but that's a slipshod colloquialism. If you want to talk about novels in terms of literary theory — which you have been doing, by criticizing the structure of Runes — you need to apply structural definitions. In structural terms, a novel is not simply a book of fiction. It has been defined as an extended narrative adapted to the ordinary course of events. Essentially, a novel is a long work of realistic fiction, intended to describe the lives and psychology of ordinary people.

SRD does not write novels (except, perhaps, the Axbrewder/Fistoulari books). What he writes are — structurally, not according to current slang — romances. They are the lineal descendants of the saga and the epic, and subject to different structural standards and exigencies. It is not at all unusual for romances to be enormously long, far too long for a single volume, or for them to be divided into sections separated by cliffhangers or at least dramatic caesuras. What you criticize as 'sloppy writing or lazy editing' is standard procedure in the romance form. This is not 'the medium of Hemingway, Bronte and Steinbeck', but the medium of Homer, Virgil, and the great Norse poets.

By trying to judge Runes as a complete story (which it is not) and as a novel (which also it is not), you do essential injustice to the nature of the work. It is rather like knowing that Tabasco sauce is 'hot', and therefore trying to measure its hotness with a thermometer. But you're in good company all the same; most critics don't understand these distinctions, either. Look up, if you can, some of the negative reviews that The Fellowship of the Ring received when it was first published. One of the most common criticisms was that the story was 'shapeless', without any proper resolution or ending. Well, of course it was — because it was only one-third of a story, and not the kind of story the critics were used to. Exactly the same applies here.


Now, to answer your question: Runes is the story of the Corruption of Time — caused largely, though unwittingly, by Linden Avery's misguided efforts to do good.

That was an amazing post. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

It's interesting to know that you're right about something, but not have the words, wisdom, or knowledge (in this case, an extensive understanding of literary theory) to fully elucidate your point. This is always the sense I've had about Runes, and have commented that it's part of a whole and that's OK and all, but I've never been able to back that statement up with, well, examples and literary theory. If "big words" or subtle sneering were in evidence, I might think this was SRD in disguise.

Bravo.

All naysayers: read this post and be humbled.

Yes, very well written.

burgs66 wrote:That was an amazing post. Thank you for taking the time to write it.

Thank you!

Apology and sophistry!
Vs, your evidence only strengthens my arguments. Runes is a fragment--- that's my point. You're saying that's okay because Tristram Shandy was published in nine volumes? (Irregardless, if it were published today, it would be in one volume--- or certainly not three years between fragments.)
And a novel, for publishing purposes (if not literary theory), is indeed defined as the prose fiction between two book covers. I will PM you the address of my (admitably non-fiction) agent if you wish to inquire as to the veracity of that. The publishing industry, much like any industry, chooses not to overcomplicate.

Reality is that most "novels" do fit within the covers of one bound volume--- including Virginia Woolfs (though I'm going out on a limb here as I would not consider myself remotely expert at the works of VW). With the obvious exception of LOTR, I can think of no modern multi-volume novel, and few 18/19th century ones.

I concede that the ending of the LOTR books are not classic resolutions like I was looking for in Runes, but then that's irrelevant. They don't need to be. We all agree LOTR is one cohesive novel published in three parts. It probably wasn't the best example, but the point was that Runes did not conclude, it just ended. Stopped in what might have been mid-chapter, if we were privy to the whole work (as one Tolkienesque novel).

Runes is a cliffhanger by virtue of modern usage; to say it isn't is semantical apology. If the appearance of the Demondim is some kind of resolution, it certainly isn't to the story. Nothing of consequence is resolved at the end of Runes.

I agree, once again, with your statement, that Runes is not a novel (in fact, I said it first), but I'm not sure if the author intended the same structure that JRRT used. He's never used it before.

As for it being a romance... okay, fine. But romances are defined by the story content, not the structure. If Runes is a romance, then so is every novel of RA Salvatore (shudder), etc. Kinda embarrassing to lump Achilles in with Drizzt Whatshisname, huh?
Just because you want to put a prettier name on it, dosn't change what it is.

So if Runes is the story of the corruption of Time (though I rather think that is the larger story of the Last Chronicles entire), and Linden's efforts to do good, then, again I ask: what is the resolution (and the Demondim are more of a consequence than a resolution)?

Good post, Vs (perhaps a bit smug), but I'm still not buying in.

Idlewilder wrote:Apology and sophistry!

You're doing a good job of making an enemy, just with that one line. Them's fightin' words.

Vs,

Where does the 's' come from? Farseer begins with an F. If you can't be trusted with such small points of fact, that does not bode well for your ability to handle large ones.

your evidence only strengthens my arguments.

Your arguments are flawed at the source, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate.

Runes is a fragment--- that's my point.

No, your point is that Runes is a bad book because it's a fragment. Which is ridiculous.

You're saying that's okay because Tristram Shandy was published in nine volumes? (Irregardless, if it were published today, it would be in one volume--- or certainly not three years between fragments.)

Nonsense. How many fragments has The Wheel of Time been published in? The fiction publishing industry loves series and serial stories, and doesn't much mind how many volumes or how man years it takes them to finish — as long as each book is profitable. I am at present dealing with an editor at Tor, who is interested in buying my three-volume fantasy tale, but not my one-volume one, Lord Talon's Revenge — though he cheerfully concedes that Lord Talon is of publishable quality. The agent with whom I am also dealing believes that this is a sound strategic decision, because series sell better, are easier to market, and do a better job of building an author into a recognizable brand name.

And a novel, for publishing purposes (if not literary theory), is indeed defined as the prose fiction between two book covers.

That's nice. Your criticism, however, was on the grounds of literary quality, not marketability. You are obviously wrong about marketability, as the hundreds of fantasy series on bookshop shelves attest. If you wish to address matters of literary quality, you must accept criticism of your position from the standpoint of literary theory, because that is the kind of argument that is relevant to the case.

I will PM you the address of my (admitably non-fiction) agent if you wish to inquire as to the veracity of that. The publishing industry, much like any industry, chooses not to overcomplicate.

There are so many debatable and unqualified statements, not to mention half-truths and sheer wind, implicit in the terms of that passage, that I shall not attempt to disentangle them all. Suffice it to say that you are appealing to an irrelevant authority. I'll tell you what: I'll accept your nonfiction agent as an authority in this matter if you'll accept my dentist as an authority on the inflationary model of the universe.

Reality is that most "novels" do fit within the covers of one bound volume---

A 'reality' that you have established by circular definition. If you define each volume of a fantasy series as a novel (as you do with Runes), then of course most novels fit within one set of covers. But I'm not accepting your definitions, for reasons I think I've made adequately clear. My definition of a novel, as I have plainly stated (and I can quote literary authorities in my defence until I am blue in the face), permits of no such interpretation.

Remember, you chose your battleground: you maintained that Runes was a novel so that you could drag in the reputations of 'Hemingway, Bronte and Steinbeck'. It is patently obvious to any perceptive reader that Donaldson and Tolkien are not working in the same tradition or the same form as those three novelists: hence the need to be aware of the formal distinction between Romance and Novel.

including Virginia Woolfs (though I'm going out on a limb here as I would not consider myself remotely expert at the works of VW). With the obvious exception of LOTR, I can think of no modern multi-volume novel, and few 18/19th century ones.

You know better. I shall be charitable and assume that you've heard of the single most famous novel written in the French language in the 20th century — published, I need hardly remind you, in seven volumes. I've never read Proust myself, but I've never known anyone to dispute that À la recherche du temps perdu holds a place of pride in the canon of the modern novel.

I concede that the ending of the LOTR books are not classic resolutions like I was looking for in Runes, but then that's irrelevant. They don't need to be.

Exactly, because LOTR is one continuous work of fiction, and furthermore because it is NOT a novel. Neither is The Last Chronicles of Thomas Covenant: QED.

We all agree LOTR is one cohesive novel published in three parts.

No, we all agree LOTR is one cohesive work of fiction published in three parts. It is not a novel. J.R.R. Tolkien would have leapt at the opportunity to disabuse you of this misconception. For instance, from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien:

In Letter #329 (to Peter Szabó Szentmihályi, 1971), J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:My work is not a 'novel', but an 'heroic romance', a much older and quite different variety of literature.

I am prepared to back this up with as many sources as you wish. A word to the wise: Don't go there, unless you conceive yourself to be a better authority than (a) the author of the work in question, and (b) a Professor of English Language and Literature at Oxford.

It probably wasn't the best example, but the point was that Runes did not conclude, it just ended. Stopped in what might have been mid-chapter, if we were privy to the whole work (as one Tolkienesque novel).

I have written a good deal of fiction myself and studied a great deal more, and I would consider any author a fool not to put a chapter break at that point in a story.

Runes is a cliffhanger by virtue of modern usage; to say it isn't is semantical apology.

I gave my reasons for not considering it one. You have given no reasons, only declared your definition correct by fiat. I submit that I have at least as much right to define the term as you have: more, because I explain my reasoning, and do not hide behind argumenta ad hominem like 'semantical apology'. Semantics matter; they matter greatly. In books, they count for everything.

If the appearance of the Demondim is some kind of resolution, it certainly isn't to the story. Nothing of consequence is resolved at the end of Runes.

Do yourself a favour. Find any good dictionary of literary terminology and look up the term 'epiphany'. It does not apply precisely to the ending of Runes, because 'epiphany' is largely a Modernist term pertaining to a sudden discovery within the protagonist's psyche. But if you remember that SRD thinks of his settings as the symbolic reification of various elements of his characters' psyches — as one long exercise in the pathetic fallacy, if you will — you may see that the word is appropriate in the terms of his theory of fantasy.

A hint, meanwhile: In the Modernist school of fiction as propounded by Woolf, Dreiser, Dos Passos, Hemingway, et al., the 'epiphany' frequently IS the resolution. It's all we get. The story ends, not with the success or failure of the character, but with his sudden realization that the circumstances call for a marked change of mental attitude if any external resolution is to be achieved at all.

I agree, once again, with your statement, that Runes is not a novel (in fact, I said it first), but I'm not sure if the author intended the same structure that JRRT used. He's never used it before.

The Gap is one continuous story in five volumes; and as it happens, several of the volumes do end in cliffhangers, even by my strict and technical definition.

As for it being a romance... okay, fine. But romances are defined by the story content, not the structure. If Runes is a romance, then so is every novel of RA Salvatore (shudder), etc. Kinda embarrassing to lump Achilles in with Drizzt Whatshisname, huh?

This is often done by perfectly serious and legitimate critics, who describe both Salvatore and Homer as authors of fantasy. (Though, mind you, the Odyssey is much more easily categorizable as fantasy than the Iliad.) It is no more embarrassing than to lump filet mignon in with Big Macs; yet they are both valid members of the category of 'cookery'. Membership in a category is no guarantee of quality.

And while the form of Romance is defined by content and not structure, the fact remains that the content dictates differences of form between Romance and the proper Novel.

Just because you want to put a prettier name on it, dosn't change what it is.

Of course not. My point was that it is not a novel; it is not written in novelistic form, though like all modern fiction, it borrows heavily from the body of narrative technique developed in the evolution of the novel.

So if Runes is the story of the corruption of Time (though I rather think that is the larger story of the Last Chronicles entire),

Not having read the Last Chronicles entire, how can you judge? My personal guess, based on various public statements made by SRD in the past, is that it is the story of the last days of the Land, the victory of Lord Foul, and the dissolution of the Earth. But I do not know, and unlike you, I do not pretend to know. Yet we both have the same evidence to work with. One of us, I think, is jumping to conclusions.

and Linden's efforts to do good, then, again I ask: what is the resolution (and the Demondim are more of a consequence than a resolution)?

And again I say: Stave has declared himself, as have the Masters. Linden has recognized the harm her efforts have accomplished. She is now staring at three patent impossibilities, one of which is known to result from her tampering with Time, the other two of which must be suspected of such an origin: (1) an army of Demondim, attacking Revelstone millennia after the Demondim were destroyed; (2) Jeremiah, communicative, responsive, and apparently psychologically normal; (3) Thomas Covenant, returned from the dead. The 'bridging conflict' (to use a technical term you may not be familiar with) is over, and we stand at the moment of discovery, when the complications of the plot begin to reveal themselves in force. Any screenwriters' school will teach you that this is the classic place at which to end Act I.

Good post, Vs (perhaps a bit smug), but I'm still not buying in.

You appear to be an expert on smugness. If you get to know me better — which I hope you do not, for you seem to me to be a thoroughly annoying person — you will discover that I am anything but smug. My position in this matter is based upon 25 years' close study of the fantasy form and of literary technique, and I have barely touched upon most of the research and reasoning that led me to these conclusions. I have said none of these things lightly. My position may be incorrect, but it does not deserve to be dismissed with derision and accusations of sophistry.

I consider that I have defended my intellectual honour against the strident accusations of an argumentative lout. That is all I wish to say to you. I might conceivably learn something by further discussion with you, but the severe unpleasantness of your attitude suggests strongly that I would not find it worth the trouble. If wit is the salt of conversation, your style of aggressive and sneering disputation is surely the saltpeter.

I think I'm going to stay away from this thread. At first I found it quite interesting to read but I must confess that its deterioration into a personal slinging match is EMBARASSING!

Take a chill-pill everyone!

Yeah, guys...I think you went overboard here. Let's cut back the excessive name calling, ok? It does nothing but denigrate your positions.

That said - I enjoy both of your posts, so am not attacking either one of you. Just please, clean it up so that we can enjoy your intellectual discourse. If neither had reduced to insults or name calling, this would have been a rather interesting thread.

Thanks.

Irradia wrote:I think I'm going to stay away from this thread. At first I found it quite interesting to read but I must confess that its deterioration into a personal slinging match is EMBARASSING!

Take a chill-pill everyone!

burgs66 wrote:Yeah, guys...I think you went overboard here. Let's cut back the excessive name calling, ok? It does nothing but denigrate your positions.

That said - I enjoy both of your posts, so am not attacking either one of you. Just please, clean it up so that we can enjoy your intellectual discourse. If neither had reduced to insults or name calling, this would have been a rather interesting thread.

Thanks.

Awww, come on guys - we've seen a LOT worse name calling at the Watch than:

Variol Farseer wrote:

....... If wit is the salt of conversation, your style of aggressive and sneering disputation is surely the saltpeter.

Just look at any argument Revan gets in!!

Whats wrong with a bit of intellectual jousting. As a Phd student in the social sciences it seems all that they do most of the time.
Look I feel that the novel was almost too exceptionally easy to read.

Anele's pathetic plight annoyed the hell out of me but so did covenant in LFB but of course he resolved some of that by books end.

The whole structure debate appears rather pedantic.

But hey when I write I have to put in a reference evey fourth line to cover myself from plagiarism even if they are my own ideas.

The SDR vocab style is undoubtedy now almost an embarrasing cliche.
On this site at least we have become so aware of those words after all these years that the curiosity aspect and bemusement at his erudition is well something that needs to be dealt out in smaller doses.

Or get some new words SDR. So we can scramble to our dictionaries.

I believe there are some new ones there I noticed in passing. A re-read and a notebook at hand for next time.

I enjoyed the book-Novel-quasi work of collected words contained within a technical artifice and printed in legible text that can be held and read and requires articulation of hand eye co-ordination to be understood by our synapses, thingy- or whatever you want to call it. At least you must agree its a book!!!!!!!!

Hey keep jousting I say. Be as abusive as you like, Bring it own.

Well, I certainly agree with you regarding the expression of his erudition. And I believe he does too, from either an answer in the GI or an interview he conducted.

Wow.
I have to admit to being taken aback at Variol Farseer's post (whom, btw, being new to the Watch, and writing my rebuttal after 1 a.m., confused him with another poster with a similar name, Variol-son, who goes by Vs I think). Not by his intellectual argument (foreign words and undergrad English theory don't necessarily equal impressive thought), but by his vitriolic personal attack.

I may have debated vigorously in this thread, and assaulted critiques and opinions (thus a debate), and have enjoyed very much my workouts of mental acuity with the likes of Edge and burgs66, but I have never resorted to outright insults of another poster.

Variol Farseer called me:
* "a thoroughly annoying person."
* "an argumentative lout."
* accussed me of having a severely unpleasant attitude
* not worth the trouble of speaking to
* and then said something about wit and saltpeter which sounded like he lifted from Oscar Wilde.

I wish this had been a forum for all fans to express their thoughts, even ones who take a radically different stance. This does not seem to be entirely the case. I'm not pouting, mind you, I just wish VF had not come after me as a person--- that is extremely hurtful, for which I think he should face some kind of consequence. Being new to message boards, I don't know how this sort of thing is handled, or if there is any recourse to this kind of uncivil behavior.

But blast away VF, because in the end, of course, the best revenge is living well. Unlike yourself, I have an established and successful career in publishing (one screenplay for a movie you probably saw, so thanks for the donation, consulting credit on one film, 4 books of non-fiction published over the last eight years and all still in print, and a forthcoming novel you probably won't have the good taste to read); but I'll be look for Lord Talon's Revenge on the shelves. Good luck with that one.

"argumentative lout"? Kinda sounds like something the comic-book-guy on the Simpsons would say.

This is pretty good as far as arguments go.
"intellectual jousting" is a very good description.
Now if Variol had flamed Idlewilder on his use of "Irregardless" I would have said "hang on there, buddy."
But as it is, I say you guys should continue until someone mentions the other's Mother.

Sorry guys and gals, I'm off the playground--- taking my bat and ball and going home. Mean people suck.

(HLT, though "irrregardless" is a word of "non-standard usage", it is held to be appropriate in certain context, such as my example.)

Idlewilder wrote:Sorry guys and gals, I'm off the playground--- taking my bat and ball and going home. Mean people suck.

(HLT, though "irrregardless" is a word of "non-standard usage", it is held to be appropriate in certain context, such as my example.)

I know, I looked it up too.
I'm just trying to be light hearted jerk

Maybe mean people suck (though I can think of worse categories), but VF does not, impo. Sure, his response was a bit heated, but considering a couple points in the message he was responding to and the terse nature of written communication, it's forgivable. And if you think that's bad, you haven't been around other forums much (check out Chuck Palahniuk's if you doubt me).

But irregardless , is that alone really worth stomping off over? If you can look around this site and dismiss it so easily, I'd say it's telling of your dismissal of Runes.

Idlewilder wrote:Wow.
I have to admit to being taken aback at Variol Farseer's post (whom, btw, being new to the Watch, and writing my rebuttal after 1 a.m., confused him with another poster with a similar name, Variol-son, who goes by Vs I think). Not by his intellectual argument (foreign words and undergrad English theory don't necessarily equal impressive thought), but by his vitriolic personal attack.

I was responding to accusations of sophistry and stupidity. I consider that a vitriolic personal attack.

I may have debated vigorously in this thread, and assaulted critiques and opinions (thus a debate), and have enjoyed very much my workouts of mental acuity with the likes of Edge and burgs66, but I have never resorted to outright insults of another poster.

The hell you haven't.

Variol Farseer called me:
* "a thoroughly annoying person."
* "an argumentative lout."
* accussed me of having a severely unpleasant attitude
* not worth the trouble of speaking to
* and then said something about wit and saltpeter which sounded like he lifted from Oscar Wilde.

'Wit is the salt of conversation' is Bellamy. I was making an allusion. No doubt you know what that is.

Meanwhile, if we're going to whine about insults:

* 'Apology and sophistry!' — I am neither an apologist nor a sophist, and deeply resent being accused of either of those sins — which, as intellectual faults, I rank only below plagiarism and outright falsification of evidence.
* 'undergrad English theory' (how's that for a sneer?)
* 'Good post, Vs (perhaps a bit smug)' — the condescension of faint praise, followed by a direct personal put-down

You also dished out a fair number of insults at other participants in this thread, of which you seem blissfully unaware.

I wish this had been a forum for all fans to express their thoughts, even ones who take a radically different stance.

'You're an ignorant sophist, and all your arguments are stupid and only prove that I'm 100% right about everything' is not a stance, it's just rude. And that is approximately what you said to me, when stripped of surplus verbiage.

This does not seem to be entirely the case. I'm not pouting, mind you, I just wish VF had not come after me as a person--- that is extremely hurtful, for which I think he should face some kind of consequence. Being new to message boards, I don't know how this sort of thing is handled, or if there is any recourse to this kind of uncivil behavior.

If there were, you would surely have suffered it yourself. But you appear entirely, pathetically unaware of the effect your own inflammatory rhetoric has on other people.

But blast away VF, because in the end, of course, the best revenge is living well. Unlike yourself, I have an established and successful career in publishing (one screenplay for a movie you probably saw, so thanks for the donation, consulting credit on one film, 4 books of non-fiction published over the last eight years and all still in print, and a forthcoming novel you probably won't have the good taste to read); but I'll be look for Lord Talon's Revenge on the shelves. Good luck with that one.

I believe you're mistaking me for someone who cares. You can live as well as you like; that doesn't make your arguments right.

"argumentative lout"? Kinda sounds like something the comic-book-guy on the Simpsons would say.

Which invalidates it how? Again you resort to innuendo and sneers instead of substantive debate. What wonderful manners.


Folks, I am perfectly willing to be kicked off the Watch for this. I don't take back a single word I wrote in this thread; I am in fact unspeakably angry at the sneers and snipes of this person, who strikes me as an arrogant and condescending snob. If you want to ban me, do so. I await your pleasure.

Variol and Idlewilder - break it off. Last warning.