Hazards of being the Mris

[mrissa]

Usually I have more patience than timprov for those days when my friendslist has contentless squeeing about something I don't care about. But I am currently scoring Grumpy Mushroom right along with him. Quote whatever you like -- Shakespeare, Joss Whedon, whatever -- but remember that I didn't friend your livejournal for their words but for yours. Say something of your own along with it. Please.

harumphharumphharumph

I've said before and will say again: my non-sequential method of writing novels has some drawbacks. Yesterday's was: "'[character] said nothing'? Of course he said nothing! He's been dead for ten chapters now!" Sigh. This is why I am the only one who reads my first drafts, people.

Tired. Going to read, maybe work on Sampo, maybe doze on the couch with the dog. This is, after all, why I have a dog: to make me sit down for awhile.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Too often the people who do writing professionally say everything so much better than I can do.

Then again, lately I hate my poor memory as I would like to talk 100% in quotes to keep away from the constant misunderstanding that happen due to my poor language skills.

The journal can be a safe harbor where one can feel out of the danger of ones own stupidity.

And quotes are great way to seek common ground. I have done the mistake of showing off with my own words and I have lost all my friends due to that; I would have been better off with Wheldon probably.

Aet

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I think talking in quotes would not eliminate misunderstandings because the good kind of quotes are allusive in more than one direction, so I might think I was telling you to persevere and you might think I was telling you that death comes to us all, or vice versa. It's the human condition, I'm afraid.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but the pain would not be so personal then. Or the failure 1000 % mine.

Aet

[deannahoak.livejournal.com]

If it makes you feel better, Mris, the accidental revival of a dead character isn't an uncommon mistake. Copyeditors see it fairly often. You're definitely not the first. :-)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I was amused that he was revived to do nothing. Somewhere my brain knew that he couldn't do anything vital in that scene, but at the time I wrote it, I couldn't figure out why he wasn't in it, so there he was, saying nothing. Snip!

[alecaustin.livejournal.com]

Much as I like some of the work of Joss Wheedon and his writing team, I have to admit the whole "communicate through quotes" thing has begun to seem progressively more creepy the older I get. I mean, sure, Firefly was good fun, but I'm not going to idolize or fetishize the language which the writers created for it. I'm perfectly capable of coming up with that sort of thing on my own (and did for years, often without knowing that the lines I was responding to weren't being made up on the spot but regurgitated from my conversation partner's memory). Quotes do have value when you have a common frame of reference or are seeking common ground, but it's useful to go beyond them once in a while.

There's a fair chance that expressing my feelings on this matter will just serve to expose my vast and bloated arrogance, but hell, I wasn't fooling anyone with feigned modesty anyway.

[dancingwriter.livejournal.com]

I, too, am a Grumpy Mushroom. I just don't get the intensity of the Firefly/Serenity hoopla--of course, I've never even seen Firefly, so I have no basis at all for "getting it." The movie *I'm* jazzing for is _Beowulf and Grendel_. (Longships! Icelandic scenery! Scruffy-handsome men with swords!)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Those are all very good reasons to go see a movie.

[dancingwriter.livejournal.com]

Indeed. :-)

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with people sharing quotes. Sure, I'm not always interested, but that's due to the topic, not the posting style. I wouldn't want to read what someone has to say on those topics without resorting to quotes. :)

One thing I love about blogs in general is the sharing of things that catch our interest, be it a favorite poem or one's own thoughts.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I feel differently about poems -- if it's the whole poem, that is -- or if the person has something to say about their enthusiasms. But a friendslist filled with people taking 1-4 lines out of context with no further comment -- "And it was a baby cygnet!" "With a ham on rye?" or that level of total lack of context -- feels quite different to me. Even single line "go read this" link posts usually link to things in context.

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

I picked poem off the top of my head because I'm less likely to read that than a few random quotes. I am not a poetry fan. :)

Sure, I'd prefer folks to comment on what they're quoting, but if they don't, then there's less for me to read. Between my FL and my Bloglines subs, I read/skim 300 blogs a day, but not every one of those has something that interests me every day. And I guess since a lot of blogs out there just post random links without comment or even a description of what the link is (the unhelpful, you've gotta read this, where "this" is the link), I'm so used to it, I hardly notice anymore. And I don't like when links are posted without the context because I want to know upfront if the link interests me. I don't want to waste my time clicking to find out.

If there's enough in a blog that interests me, I keep it on my reading list. If not, I drop it. But I take it as a given that sometimes/often there will be posts that annoy or don't interest me.

We each have a bugging point, I guess. :)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

People have to earn their "you have to read this!" with me. If the person doesn't have a good track record already with things that come with more context, I often won't click.

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

This is making me think of that Friends survey. It really points out the wide variety in ways we all view blogging, reading blogs, the Friends list on LJ, etc.

People often weed their blogrolls of blogs that no longer interest them or that aren't updated frequently, for ex, and I've thought of doing that, but I'm too lazy. I'll add new ones, but I just skim past the ones that no longer interest me, and ones not updated, don't show new entries anyway in Bloglines. I think I leave them there on the off chance they'll one day have something I want to read again. :)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

For awhile I friended people either if they specifically interested me or if they had friended me and I didn't see any reason not to. Now my friendslist is long enough that I look for strong reasons to add to it (like knowing the person or really having an immediate strong "click" reaction to their top few posts) rather than doing it automatically, so there are people on my list who wouldn't be there if they'd shown up now. I suppose I could set up a reading filter so that latecomers can read friendslocked stuff, but I'm more comfortable keeping the friendslocked stuff to people I sort of have a feel for, and I can't have a feel for all that many more people.

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

I do know what you mean.

And sometimes, my friends list can get quite tedious when everyone's done the same meme at the same time. :)

[missista.livejournal.com]

Yes, sit. sit, sit, sit. If you do, I'll give you a treat.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

What treat?

[missista.livejournal.com]

An ice cube.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

ohboyohboyohboyohboy

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

My usual reaction to Josh Whedon quotes is something like "Josh Who? Oh, yeah, that Firefly guy. Umm.... is Firefly a TV show or what?"

I'm a little behind on pop culture these days. (Not claiming it's better to be, just that I am; my last foray into it was watching an episode of So You Think You Can Dance whihc i did enjoy but not enough to remember what day and time it's on.)