of that which concerns vanity

I think I should clarify that this is not an opinion piece. I am not airing my opinions in piece one. In regards to who I am refuting: A polemic can also be an an aggressive controversialist. This should help explain part 1. A polemic style was used so as to create a sense that his/her opinion is real ie. not made up by me. Part 2 is not a continuation of part 1. Part 2 is not even discussing what part 1 is discussing. It is a break away from part 1. Hence the splitting into parts. Sorry for not making that clear. Author in part one is vain, angry, impatient, niave, childlike. Author in part two is more of a young adult. he/she sees the vanity in the world and isn't fooled. But he/she also acknowledeges the human potential to overcome such weaknesses. The author in part three is also another author. His/her style of writing is one of greater reflection. This author acknowledges the weeknesses, highlights potential and provides a possible solution. I am not this author. This piece is not about me. If I am in the piece, it is in the conclusion. ----------------------------------------------- Henri Bergson: To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly. ---------------------------------------------- A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author. G. K. Chesterton ----------------------------------------------- Demosthenes: Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. ------------------------------------------------ And finally, of that which concerns vanity in the literary arts, and on a very 'buried layer'in this piece: Epictetus: It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. ================================================== thanks for comments relletyrots eht

I think I should clarify that this is not an opinion piece. I am not airing my opinions in piece one. In regards to who I am refuting: A polemic can also be an an aggressive controversialist. This should help explain part 1. A polemic style was used so as to create a sense that his/her opinion is real ie. not made up by me. Part 2 is not a continuation of part 1. Part 2 is not even discussing what part 1 is discussing. It is a break away from part 1. Hence the splitting into parts. Sorry for not making that clear. Author in part one is vain, angry, impatient, niave, childlike. Author in part two is more of a young adult. he/she sees the vanity in the world and isn't fooled. But he/she also acknowledeges the human potential to overcome such weaknesses. The author in part three is also another author. His/her style of writing is one of greater reflection. This author acknowledges the weeknesses, highlights potential and provides a possible solution. I am not this author. This piece is not about me. If I am in the piece, it is in the conclusion. ----------------------------------------------- Henri Bergson: To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly. ---------------------------------------------- A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author. G. K. Chesterton ----------------------------------------------- Demosthenes: Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. ------------------------------------------------ And finally, of that which concerns vanity in the literary arts, and on a very 'buried layer'in this piece: Epictetus: It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. ================================================== thanks for comments relletyrots eht

I think I should clarify that this is not an opinion piece. I am not airing my opinions in piece one. In regards to who I am refuting: A polemic can also be an an aggressive controversialist. This should help explain part 1. A polemic style was used so as to create a sense that his/her opinion is real ie. not made up by me. Part 2 is not a continuation of part 1. Part 2 is not even discussing what part 1 is discussing. It is a break away from part 1. Hence the splitting into parts. Sorry for not making that clear. Author in part one is vain, angry, impatient, niave, childlike. Author in part two is more of a young adult. he/she sees the vanity in the world and isn't fooled. But he/she also acknowledeges the human potential to overcome such weaknesses. The author in part three is also another author. His/her style of writing is one of greater reflection. This author acknowledges the weeknesses, highlights potential and provides a possible solution. I am not this author. This piece is not about me. If I am in the piece, it is in the conclusion. ----------------------------------------------- Henri Bergson: To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly. ---------------------------------------------- A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author. G. K. Chesterton ----------------------------------------------- Demosthenes: Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. ------------------------------------------------ And finally, of that which concerns vanity in the literary arts, and on a very 'buried layer'in this piece: Epictetus: It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. ================================================== thanks for comments relletyrots eht

sorry for posting three times. ie7 doing something funny.

updated to clarify different authors and also gave it fiction status. And also BBF your right, by its own merit its an opinion piece. I wanted to express a very realistic character who is vain in part 1. I ended up confusing people to think it was me. I didn't want it be stereotypically 'oh I'm brilliant and your not' obvious. Also I was going to remove non-fiction status later on anyway. Just wanted to see reaction first. relletyrots eht

Interesting analysis Jack... Author 1 is very opinionated, has a brainstorming approach and is rapidly firing off all the complaints he/she can think of. He/she puts himself/herself in the prose more then any of the other two. Also he\she is talking about his/her work in a vain manner. He/she thinks that more attention should be given to him/her. Author 2 is led more by facts and statistics. His/her opinion is limited; it is more analysis of the situation. Author 2 is talking about a completely different topic in very different style. He/she also trusts the reader's intelligence more. He/she may not be as explicit as author 1 but is more effective. His/her arguement is more cohesive. It is less emotional and more critical. It is shorter in length but is more succint and clear in its arguement. It's weaknesses are that it hasn't tried to involve theory and seems like a summary. Author 3 has a more philosophical approach. If he/she wanted they could talk about the subject in greater detail. He/she is evaluating the situation therefore he\she feels that he/she has to put his/her ideas across. That can be interpreted as development and orginal thinking. Author 4 is the most discrete. Of course it is poetry and not prose. Also not alluding to any discussion but can be said to be a conclusion. If you look carefully you will see deliberately marked distinctions between authors and you will also hopefully see a more deliberate structure. An obvious one is in length. Author one uses 4 paragraphs with no particular insight to grouping ideas. Author 2 takes three paragraphs with a little cohesion and devlopment. Author 3 takes 2 paragraphs. And author 4 (the secret secret author) takes what amounts to a single paragraph or something even less. There are more details which can be worked out if a reader wanted. Also there is more then meets the eye in author 1's piece... Regarding voices; that was deliberate as well. You will find differences in the voices. Some subtle and some explicit whilst others have more inherent differances. Finally, I already have a revised version with their names on it which will add gender to mix. We shall see if that has any effect. note added: I think I should talk about other peoples stories and poems and thus will do so when in the near future and beyond.

To BBF: Perhaps I should add that it is in a collection called: sense within nonsense. This collection is purely full of headbenders. For those who want to think, think and think again. note added. 03 april: There is also a link between all the stories. Wait till the end of the collection to make sense of the overal link. http://www.abctales.com/set/shine13/sense-within-nonsense -------------------------------------------------- Will makes things clearer in the near future. I still stick to the claim that there is sense and logic behind this. To Enzo: your on the right track... and some of you questions related to part 2 are already in the piece. Venuzuela won Miss International the most at five times. It was the third biggest until the current third biggest contest Miss Earth replaced it and pushed it down to fourth. What isn't mentioned is that Miss International originated in california when Miss universe moved out to miami. It, (Miss International) then moved to japan before moving to california again for two years. It then move back to Japan (with the exception of being held in bejing twice). Miss Earth is so new that six different countries have won it once since it began in 2001. Of which venezuela won 2005. Miss Earth is based in the Philippines. What I will say is that the important thing (in terms of argument) in article 2 is that Venezuela is in the mix. Question: What about Venezuelian Society as a whole makes it such a regular winner in this contests. What about the country? I believe that I have a good idea... On another point, there also is something in the piece that is highlighting something more important and gratifying. What makes it more complex is that one can delve into another layer into part 2's argument which highlights a more sinister side. On seperate point, you might as well know that I wanted to add L.A. and was almost set to do so until discussion with friends showed and persuaded me that L.A., Hollywood is not essentially vain. They are selling a profitable product. And sometimes that product includes branding and selling themselves. And also think about how I just about added India in the piece as well (which was not as easy as was hoped). Vanity and the human character is complicated, and I apoligise for deliberately adding another ambigous layer thus making it a very baffling mystery. BBF, I'm not going to ever fully explain, just point you in the right direction. Just thought I'd point out that a level of effort did go into this. Trust me, I'm very deliberate...

JC: ..getting slightly more mellowed out towards the end... Mellowed: definition 3, Having the gentleness, wisdom, or tolerance often characteristic of maturity. Good word. Was this deliberate? if so well done.

source: http://www.answers.com/mellowed&r=67

To Jc: I only asked because My first reaction is that you meant it softened out and was more relaxed towards the end. That is a more common definition of 'Mellowed' and thus would mean something else. A second look and I was pleased. Thus apologies. To Enzo: what do you think about vanity? What is the title about? And also let me remind you that this is just one piece of a larger jigsaw. http://www.abctales.com/set/shine13/sense-within-nonsense see the collection info. Try and read the other stories and perhaps you will realise that this is on another level. Its not you, its me.

"what do you think about vanity" no. the above question was just out of interest. "may I gently suggest that from where I sit, your message is not a jigsaw but a muddle" Firstly, I was referring to the collection. The stories all fit somehow. Although I know how they all fit, I'm presuming most people don't or at least don't know yet. Also, may I kindly reply that one who hasn't got all the pieces yet, nor has the larger picture yet would typically not see a puzzle there to be solved. It would look like a random assortment; in your own words: a muddle. That is of course unless the puzzle maker tells you there is a link between all the pieces. And further on you believe him. On a final note: Just so you know, I would say this is a good summing up of what I think 'basic vanity' is: Vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity more later. relletyrots eht

Your quite right JC. I my self thought about this before starting the collection. Although not as critically defined or as eloquently as you put it. Apart from this: " reader - even one who likes to think - has no idea what to expect, and thus has no reason to anticipate completing it, no motivation to solve the puzzle." Whilst the gist of what you say is true, I disagree with the above mentioned part. Think of any mystery novel,lets say Sherlock Holmes. I don't know what to expect apart from the fact that at each stage of the mystery a new clue is revealed. I'm never really motivated to solve it my self, for I know it will be explained shortly in a spectacular manner. There is no 'thus' here. The differance here is that there a great chance this author will not provide a solution... Also in the mix is that I will not make it easy. I don't want just anybody to solve it. JC, another way of achieving satisfaction is when you truly believe that there is something at the centre of all this, and when most of your peers give up, you finally work it out... They say vastly intelligent people have something in their character that allows them to self-motivate themselves to a grand degree. And perhaps that is what I am looking for. What I suppose I have to compromise on are two things. One, create stories that can stand by themselves. And two, tell the reader that or indeed when he/she has the final piece. And that I will surely do. relletyrots eht author added note: Updated 'of that which concerns vanity' to version 3. Have a look, it's more simplified now.

I am also contemplating on whether I should add an introductory story. Or perhaps the introductory story should be the penultimate story?

Through syntactic-textual metaphors, I presume.

"you;ve needed to tell us thats the intention" As I have done this before starting this collection, I would argue that the onus was on the get go on readers, if they wish, to not only see nonsense in the stories. And also be aware that there is an overall sense in what now seems like a random selection of stories. basically nonsense. "Most of us, reading these pieces, see the pieces themselves but are not forming the impression of a greater whole that they form part of." This is -at this moment of time- what I want. If someone doesn't get the basic essense of any particular story that is not a problem. Nobody can work out every possible clue that there might ever be. Not Holmes, not anybody. "If you had read a glut of Holmes stories and found that in most of them, nothing is solved and Holmes wakes up to find everything was a disconnected, silly series of dreams, you wouldn't feel any sense of there being a 'puzzle' when you started on the next one." sure, but there is a fundamental difference between Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle's style of writing and mine (apart from the obvious). In this collection, I don't tend to explain. That is to say not all my stories will have an explanation or 'tie in' at the end. In my opinion, I feel that when quite a few authors around me are dumming down, (here I include authors in all different forms, e.g. media, journalism, literature etc), I'm going the other way. I'm making it far too complex. There is of course nothing original about this. Also I want to add that I think that I would feel that I have failed if it were anything remotely like a simple dream or even something 90% of the population could look at and solve it this early. And oh yeh, what makes you think there isn't a logical sequence... ...A friend of mine has already come perilously close to guessing what the next story is going to be about although she has no clue what the bigger picture is. "Think of any mystery novel,lets say Sherlock Holmes. I don't know what to expect apart from the fact that at each stage of the mystery a new clue is revealed. That's not true..." To me the above statement is true because I was referring to Doyles narrative devices. (more on this later). It is of course different to different people. The most important reason I chose Sherlock Holmes was because there is a overall narration flowing between all his stories though the stories themselves are different. e.g Watson often refers to other mysteries Holmes has solved. It might not be exactly linear but there is a bigger picture for those who are interested in Holmes, his character devlopment, his love life etc the same could be said of Watson. Regarding any specific Holmes story, we do progress through the gears and "I" never know what to expect, it seems that it is only holmes who can 'see' every little detail. The important thing is that often enough that detail is not offered to us. We can't go back and say 'oh, so thats what that meant' instead we have to rely on holmes to solve the mystery. I for one keep going because of Sherlocks' brilliant mind and eye. Let me give you a different style of a mystery to show how holmes is different. In Harry Potter, the mystery is solved differently. There is an ongoing overall story as well but that is not so important here because the stories are in a set structure as in a trilogy. Here, Harry Potter, the lead character never 'solves' the mystery. The author solves it for us through lots of devices, usually through dialogue with a character at the heart of the piece, although not always. Anyway, the point is the author puts lots of clues in; thus giving you a false impression that you could have solved it. Of course you can't unless you second guess things... Eoin Colfer, and Dan brown are of a different elk but are similar to Doyle and Rowling respectivly. And how does this relate to me? Mine is unconventional sure but you've seen only 4 different pieces. I don't expect anyone yet to see a bigger picture. And my stories are worked out (where applicable) by readers. (readers underlined). That is of course unless I decide to write a final 'reveal all' story, to tie in all stories and also thus follow conventional story telling techniques. And perhaps bring in a wider audience. But like I said before one shouldn't patronise readers. I have faith in readers, some before the end will see the overall link. And perhap there is already some genius outhere whose smiling to himself/herself. Finally, I will tell you that in my opinon the most devious way to fool a reader in the early stages is not do what a magician does. Or to place a red herring. The best way to do it is to do it right under their noses...

to mark brown: 'You've avoided conventional story telling techniques by not telling a story.' Can I kindly ask if you have read any of the other stories? can catcident not be defined as a story? Can I also add that a collection of literature doesn't mean that every piece of material in that collection has to be a typical story. Some pieces in this collection are not meant to be stories. An easy example is the poem 'trouble belongs to me'. You don't have to be a genius to work out that its a poem and you don't have to be unbelivebly clever to know what it is talking about. Of course some pieces are very difficult to decipher. Do you not see differences between the pieces in terms of clarity at the very least? You can be weary of "someone who believes that people must be geniuses to understand their work", that's totally fine. for example if you see an author consistently coming up with 'crap' and he says that his work was simply misunderstood. There are many many examples of this through history, which I think your refering to. I on the other hand am deliberately trying to do this another way. Some pieces in the collection are easy, obvious and typical. lots of authors have used this style. In others, the pieces are harder to define, see sense in and work out. This is also not original, lots of authors use this style. e.g. david lynch etc. In fact, in my opinion, your criticism seems to tell me more about you then my work. JC on the other hand usually provides a more objective and thus better critique to my approach. To JC: 'You want people to carry on reading. You don't want to send them away feeling there's nothing going on.' Yes of course, that is what I want. And thus I am trying to achieve a balance between those that are way out of the box and those that are 'yes, theres something in this'. The rest of your argument I can't speak more about and perhaps the following may go to explain, why? From the messages, I see that you keep on insisting that the puzzle isn't there. I think I reffered to L as a friend before and she puts this argument in a different way. She says the puzzle 'has not shown it self to me yet, though I have deduced significantly what it can be'. I must state L is exceptionally clever and also it was not my intention to provide the first four pieces so one can 'deduce significantly'. She has already come perilously close to working out what the next piece will be about and in what form... As to what will make the reader read on, we shall see. For you know that they do say, as L put it nicely 'curiosity killed the cat'.

To Mark: thanks for the lesson... this helps me more then you last comment. And you have not addressed any of the questions asked of you. First of all I'm not a genius. I never set out to prove this or wanted that. Secondly, you've turned my words against me not by their interpretation or how they were presented, instead you've used it to for your own intent. "People who produce genuinely challenging work don't, as a rule, present that work by saying 'Ah, but it is a puzzle, it is there for the audience to decipher'.' That's usually people who produce pretentious claptrap." What about paintings? Art installations, photographs. They are always so obvious arn't they? TO Enzo: I suppose I can't disaggree or agree with Enzo so the best I can do is this. Before I even started the collection, my aim was to create a collection of stories that would make readers go 'what?, hang on, what's he talking about again?'. So when I get that reaction, you think I am surprised? All I do is think, pause for a moment and then try to reply as best as I can. Secondly, in the very first story 'catcident'I stuck to a simple narrative. The aim here was to baffle, create conflict and then to resolve. In that piece, I tied up as many loose ends as possible, I tried to create a prose that was genuinely engaging. Some people got it, others didn't. But that's okay. Thirdly, I have a plan. I've had that plan since the beginning. And I see no real reason why I should change it, yet. In that plan, came next 'trouble belongs to me'. A poem. This is a different style, form and genre. Again as poems go, it's not that complex or challanging. But becuase of so many differences between the first and second piece, 'catcident' and 'trouble belongs to me' I thought a lot of people who might get each piece individually might not see the link. I still however didn't think to open a discussion about it. That I decided I would do after the forth piece. The 'controversial so out of the box' piece. 'Nail in the coffin' the third piece was more different, more challanging and had more ideas inside it. On some level however it was fairly conventional as it too included narrative to some degree. The style, form and function was also different. Thus the following sequence happened: A story, followed by a poem, followed by a biographical piece. Does anybody see the logic in this? is this a random assortment or 'prentencious' crap. The fourth piece took it to another level. The narrative was almost all gone. There was no story. There were three parts plus an additional poem. They were forming an argument. Regardless of whether it is right or not, a polemic is supposed to be that way. This forth piece is more challenging, less conventional, more original. I still think Mark's criticism tells me more about him then it does about my work. Simply because I knew it was a puzzle before I discussed this collection. And not created an 'imaginery puzzle' as a sort of denial when I was challenged. Nor have I backed down. Your comments are still welcome. You should note that I only started discussing online with the first controversial piece. And discussed this when a part of the piece took a dig at ABC authors. A piece that has little or no story as such. There is reason, (and I would say intellect) behind this. And I sincerely hope that those who want to find it see that. I must say that I am not for the most part surprised by any of this apart from JC. You (Mark) criticising the piece is no different then you criticising the author. Where as he (JC) critises the pieces, the puzzle and the approach and then questions the author. That is not just a subtle differance. There is another, here, BFF who deals directly with content. And intially seemed to offer solutions. And I have no real criticism of that approach. The writen word often surprises me in how much it reveals and how much it conceals. About the content, the author, and the reveiwer. Finally I have to ask to anyone but the commenters, following the above comments, are your eyes opened more to lightness or darkness. In fact, a second question counting all these comments by JC, Mark, BFF, Enzo to whom I am grateful to take time to discuss a specific story, a specific collection and the author, is this all nonsense? --------------------------------------------------- Henri Bergson: To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly. ---------------------------------------------- A good novel tells us the truth about its hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author. G. K. Chesterton ----------------------------------------------- Demosthenes: Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. ------------------------------------------------ And finally, of that which concerns vanity in the literary arts: Epictetus: It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. ================================================== thanks for comments relletyrots eht

"You don't appear to take in what is said - you seem to think that a post on this thread is somehow (by virtue of its very existence) a validation of your work, which, for me at least, it isn't." In the simplest words I will say: yes, I accept what your saying, but you should know that I see comments as criticisms of my work. By this virtue I don't see how any post can validate my work by by its very existence. In my opinion you are wrong. 2, I'm not surprised. It was not unexpected. I didn't think 'gee, I'm so clever. People are going to applaud me, hee hee.' so when people offer this as a reflection of me, i try to correct them. 3, And then when they reiterate this false character, and then make fun of this character, I'm nearly offended. 4, I have tried to clarify my position and explain my methods, my approach. only JC is debating me on this. 5, "Mark's right. Look here: If your prose was well-written, challenging and engaging, everyone would be saying so. Rather, we have a thread in which almost all respondents are suggesting - quite patiently, I think - that this piece / these pieces are not quite delivering in the way you intend them to." I took in that in your opinion, the piece, 'of that which contains vanity' was not well writen, challenging and engaging. I carried that argument and devleoped it by asking whether the others in the collection were? At least in the way they were intended. To develop the debate you would either comment on the other pieces, good or bad. but here's the thing. You never answered. you just kept on repeatedly saying this doesn't make any sense and that nobody gets it. 6, your comments are important to me. But I will say again that Jc is the only one who I am actually debating with. He takes what I say, in, and develops the argument. And gives me an insight that I can work with. 7, whilst some are more interested in defaming it. Finally, I will say that you don't say with which part of my argument you are disagreeing with, why your disagreeing with it etc. You keep generalising and its difficult for me to understand what exactly is wrong with it. And if this was a waste of you time, I apologize. thanks for comments relletyrots eht

Thanks you'all, I got what I wanted and perhaps more then I deserved. By friday this collection will have its final piece. Each day this week, I will upload, the final copy of each piece in the collection. Thank you again for your role in this discussion. With this collection, I seem to have committed the biggest of 'literary sins' and for that, the collection will pay the severest price:'literary death'. Literary: adjective Characterized by a narrow concern for book learning and formal rules, without knowledge or experience of practical matters: academic, bookish, donnish, formalistic, inkhorn, pedantic, pedantical, scholastic. See attitude/good attitude/bad attitude/neutral attitude, flexible/rigid, teach/learn. source: Houghton Mifflin Company *************************************************** Literary lit·er·ar·y (lĭt'ə-rĕr'ē) adj. 1, Of, relating to, or dealing with literature: literary criticism. 2, Of or relating to writers or the profession of literature: literary circles. 3,Versed in or fond of literature or learning. 4, a, Appropriate to literature rather than everyday speech or writing. b, Bookish; pedantic. source: The American Heritiage dictionary ************************************************** The End

I should say something but I'll resist the urge. Just thought I'd...forget it...two gone, a couple left to go...

oh I get you know now, thanks Jack. (took me long enough). added note: L's figured it all out. I guess the final edition title and piece of catcident was a dead giveaway.