| dib8rman said: 1. As far as "casuals" and "everyone" goes he's using them hand in hand - if Shakespeare wrote for everyone then he wrote for casuals. English is rule governed but for the purposes of information something understood is priceless compared to proper grammar. We can't argue (as much as I'd love to) for the mass because this text isn't on the market for the mass to decide. However what he is saying holds enough water to be considered information. A hard example of this would be in comparing: "The Dechronization of Sam Magruder" by (out of the many authors) George Gaylord Simpson (GGS) who writes many academic books which usually sell as expected though his numbers would pale to any book out of "Lord of the Rings" collection, of course written by J.R.R. Tolken but even his numbers when you take time into consideration pale compared to any Harry Potter (I want to include the author but I don't want to come off as being full of myself.) By the by all of these books are of the same genre, the only difference is cost and release date. But all those books I believe (not including the collection just a single book of that collection) would be below $30 USD. GGS writes very well however it's clear that he is aiming for a different audience from Tolken, that audience is much more niche - the consumer reacted properly and so he sold what he sold. Tolken's wordiness and the length of his breath made his books a chore - but compared the GGS his book is almost a cake walk, as you move into his writing you can understand the world your in and the nouns don't seem as abstract. Harry Potter places you in Harry's shoes and your on a pretty linear path of adventure and suspense. The more you read a Harry Potter book the more obvious the writing similarities are with it and a Lord of the Rings the key difference is the ammount of each element that makes the story. 2. Your using words like refined and arrogant; when your talking about someones expression as not being refined then your saying that whoever appreciates his writing is unrefined as well as a person like yourself who is refined (not making a personal jot just making a point) can see right through him and point out where he needs to correct himself to appeal to that person (in this case yourself.) That is exactly what he is talking about with Hardcore versus Casual. 3. Like I said if you take into context everything this man has in his own little world - it makes total sense, he already notes that his news articles are very 'meh' as far as quality in the writing but tries to make up for it in the major articles as he spends more time on those. As far as Blue Ocean goes he's doing what he set out to do; Malstrom is about making money not teaching people who go to his site how to read or giving them the best english the internet can offer. 4. You've already addmited to being a writer who specializes in elitist texts I'm not certain if that was a disclaimer but as he's saying in all his examples and ironically in this artical that what your saying comes naturally. I don't dare claim I understand why - I'm not studied on that kind of stuff nor do I want to be - no interest you see. The whole thing is funny really when you look back at our chat. 5. I'm actually worried now about my punctuation/spelling/grammar when I'm typing here. Your responses seem to nitpick at very specific idiums and make an arguement around it. Knowing myself I'll stay here all night and argue each one. Kirby Time!!!!!! (>-.-)^ (>-.-)><(-.-<)^(-.-<)<(- . -)>(>-.-<)^(- . -)v v(- . -)^ | ^(0 . 0)^ <-- Stick em up kirby |
What exactly is the point? I read the first seven paragraghs, saw a guy talking out of his ass who hadn't made a point yet.
I'm not nitpicking yours (or my) grammar or punctuation. Just mr. Fancypants style.
I am not arguing against his maint point. I am saying he is bad writer, who mislabels himself as a casual writer. If he doesn't even know enough to realize he is not a casual writer, then what the hell is he doing talking about definition of casual games.
Refined, doesn't mean fancy, it means reworked to make better. In the case of his writing, he has not reworked it to make it better. He free wrote into the editor, used spelling and grammar check, and posted.
He is arrogant, because he assumes that readersconsumers don't want a challenge. He is arrogant because he uses unnecessarily smarter sounding words that don't do as good of a job describing the object as the simple word.
Who ever told him he is a casual writer, either doesn't know writing or is coddling.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
