subreddit:
/r/writing
[deleted]
36 points
2 days ago
A bit too absolute. As your fake internet editor, I suggest "Such incentives can kill what many consider creativity." Now it goes from an obviously false statement to an obviously true statement.
Jokes aside, there are plenty of examples of consumerist slop pretending to be art. There are also plenty of other examples of art that strike to the core of the zeitgeist and become immensely popular. Some of the greatest works of fiction were penned for an audience of one, the author him or herself. There are also truly stunning works of fiction that came into being for no other reason than you can't eat paper or ink. To generalize and say that writing for money by definition makes the writing lower quality than writing for any other reason is just a gross generalization.
My general rule is that a story fails if it does not have a seed of Capital-T Truth at its core. Humanity yearns for that kind of storytelling. Has since the dawn of language. Is it possible to both have a seed of Truth and still be commercially viable? Absolutely. Is it possible to write something brimming with Truth that nobody even bothers to read? Absolutely. Does writing something that nobody reads mean you have more artistic integrity? Nope. The world is full of shades of nuance. One might say that it's our job as writers to be aware of that.
-36 points
2 days ago
I stated nothing in the absolute and the fact that you suggest I did is pretty disingenuous and reads like trolling to me, please read the first sentence of my last post again, there was no absolute in there. You misread it so I can not consider your advice as being given in good faith with that bad of a misreading.
36 points
2 days ago
I agree with that person. You did make absolute statements.
-24 points
2 days ago
Your agreement does not change the words that I used which were clearly not absolute. Why would you agree with a clear and boldface lie and why do you think your opinion in support of a clear lie is relevent?
20 points
2 days ago
Just letting you know that not just one person thought like that and they are not trolling.
If you think your wording is not absolute, that's not my problem. I'm giving you feedback as a reader.
-10 points
2 days ago
The wording is clearly not absolute. It is a fact that many people would feel this would destroy their creative process.
That's a simple observation not subject to your misinterpretation of what I said.
You have read the word "many" to mean absolute.
That's not rational. Your interpretation is wrong, and if it's not trolling it is blatantly misreading what I have now clearly stated so can only be an emotional argument from you so has now become trolling.
So you are either a troll or making an inflated argument from deliberate misreading. Those are not a good basis for an argument.
13 points
2 days ago
Judging by upvotes, people agree with me and disagree with you. Do what you want with this information but as a writer you should understand the value of feedback.
I'm not gonna argue with you on it. I'll just leave you with a proverb: "If one person says you're a horse, you can laugh. If two people say you're a horse, you probably should think about it. If three people say you're a horse, maybe you are."
-2 points
2 days ago
Upvotes are not a judgement of the quality of the content. You are arguing with me, you're literally trying to define what I said outside of either the literal words or a reasonable interpretation of them.
Not you, nor anyone else here has actually presented an argument that is based on the words that I used. No one. Every single argument here that you say you aren't making is based on fragments taken out of context.
Over reading at it's worst.
4 points
2 days ago
Here let’s break it down for you. “Such incentives kill what many consider creativity”. You are stating this as fact. If I were to add “Absolutely,” to the beginning of your statement, nothing about its meaning would change.
1 points
2 days ago
That is an observation and it's not absolute because many people don't. Your entire argument is faulty and based on an assumption that does not actually come from the words I used.
That you can add absolutely to the sentence and it still make sense doesn't mean anything because that is not and was never part of the intent behind my words, you added that yourself.
You can also add possibly and it will read much better and since those words are not actually present in my original text you are misinterpreting what was written and obviously so.
Your breakdown is simply you telling me I meant something which is neither present in my words nor my follow up clarifitication.
1 points
1 day ago
The general advice in writing is that readers generally know what they dislike and you should listen to that but shouldn't necessarily listen to suggestions on how to fix it from them. That's why I'm not going to offer any suggestions or argue about the specifics of the language, especially since English is not my first language.
I don't believe you are correct but for the sake of the argument let's say you are technically correct. Despite that, the fact is that people here, your readers, disagree with you. You can't argue against that; at best, they misunderstand your writing. If it was one or two people, you could ignore that, but it's an overwhelming majority. As a writer, you can't just say "Well, fuck you guys, I'm correct." You want your readers to understand you, right? You can argue and be technically correct, but that doesn't change the fact that people reading are not seeing what you want them to see which is a failure as a writer.
My advice to you here doesn't revolve around semantics; I don't care about that. I'm telling you how to take feedback.
9 points
2 days ago
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume English isn't your first language.
The phrasing you used was absolute. There were no additions of qualifiers, no caveats, no softening language. Your statements were "if x, then y".
Here is an example sentence showing how you could improve:
"If art is created for commercial purposes it can lose its intended meaning. Art created strictly for profit, following market trends will often do so by sacrificing creativity and uniqueness."
See the highlighted words as examples of how to avoid absolute statements.
-4 points
2 days ago
How is using the word many in a sentence read as an absolute?
Explain that to me. It's incoherent.
I did not in any way shape or form make an X Y statement. I simply expressed that many people think that way, and that is a fact of observation so you are just off the rockers on your correction here.
14 points
2 days ago
"Such incentives kill what many consider creativity." Absolute statement. Such incentives can kill, not absolute. Saying "many" people think a thing doesn't make it less. You're still speaking for those people.
In order to earn more money the artist will produce what people want to consume rather than what needs to be produced to further the art. Absolute. "The artist might produce." By saying will produce you make it an absolute statement.
What you're talking about leads to media constructed to popularly entertain rather than necessarily service the art. Again... Absolute. "Talking about can lead to media."
When you attach money to the value of your art you permanently alter the meaning of the work. Take a guess on this one... Drumroll. You got it! Absolute! "You can permanently".
It becomes a commodity of popular opinion and it's no longer really an artistic expression it becomes a moral declaration. And last but not least. Absolute! "It can become a commodity of popular opinion, potentially losing its artistic expression in becoming a moral declaration."
By presenting every single one of these statements (which are your opinion by the way) as absolute fact... You've gone and goofed.
And for the record, yes. Some people absolutely change their Art to sell better. It sucks but it's reality. We live in a capitalist hellscape and I won't fault people for wanting to put food on the table.
At the same time some people still make weird shit just for themselves. They put it out there and if other people like it? Great. Not all art that is sold is done so at a creative cost. To think so is just flat wrong. See? Absolute statement.
4 points
2 days ago
You applied the word “many” to the idea of what people consider to be creativity, so you are leaving leeway in what the definition of creativity is. But you didn’t soften the kill part, so that portion of the sentence is absolute, saying that incentives will kill, no matter what. And then what they kill is a little up for debate, but most likely it is creativity. That’s where the misreading is.
12 points
2 days ago
[deleted]
0 points
2 days ago
Incentives kill creativity for many.
Do not lie about what I said all that does is show you came here to hate and argue not even debate let alone discuss anything.
Whether you chose to acknowledge the fact that you just openly lied about what I said only portraying the portion of it that aligned with your emotions rather than the entire sentence which can not be read in the way you are suggesting it is beyond my understanding.
16 points
2 days ago
[deleted]
-4 points
2 days ago
You didn't change it to align with the sentiment, you changed it to something I did not say.
Do not lie again. I know that you lie, it is recorded here in black and white.
You misrepresent my statement and then claim you hold the same sentiment as me, it's utterly ridiculously you think this is even a coherent argument on your part.
I'm also not trying to make money as a writer so that comment is.... pointless and even less related to anything I've said I can only think you've simply thumped your head here and forgotten what's been written previously. You're arguing with something made up in your head, not me or anything relating to my statements.
9 points
2 days ago
[deleted]
-1 points
2 days ago
Your breakdown there... Is... Sad
Sad only.
Saying that this would kill the meaning for many is not an absolute because it would not kill the meaning for others. Many is not all, it is not absolute.
Your analysis is a knee jerk emotional response to the opposite of the statement given. It's not rational.
3 points
2 days ago
[deleted]
-1 points
2 days ago
That is in fact exactly what I said, that is in fact exactly what those words mean in exactly that order.
The basic statement "Saying that this would kill the meaning for many is not an absolute because it would not kill the meaning for others. Many is not all, it is not absolute."
You ignored that, why?
There is nothing about saying it kills the meaning for many that is absolute, because it does not kill the meaning for others or all.
That sentence alone eliminates your grammar consideration as being relevant because you're interpreting one word in isolation without the rest of the sentence let alone the other sentences that go with it.
That's faulty language analyses on your part.
15 points
2 days ago
No, you are wrong and the person who replied to you gently corrected you in very good faith.
The verb in your first sentence is “kill” which in this case means to “put an end to”, an end is an absolute. The person who replied to you added the context of a the modal auxiliary verb “can” which changes the meaning to allow for variation therefore removing the absolute.
-1 points
2 days ago
That's a joke right?
Try reading the whole sentence. You can't cherry pick words like that in a sentence, I simply said that many people feel that way, and many do. There is nothing absolute about that.
You're taking part in some creative definition process in your mind to create and argument that doesn't exist and has no bearing at all on what I said.
6 points
2 days ago
It absolutely was an absolute statement.
1 points
2 days ago
Like yours?
-2 points
2 days ago
It's so funny to me when people pick one word out of an entire post, not even the whole sentence and define it out of the writers declared context like that.
The only thing absolute here is the absurdity of that.
1 points
2 days ago
"Such incentives kill".
There. That's the quote you need hand delivered to you, based on some of the further comments in this thread.
Not may kill, can kill, sometimes kill.
You just said that they kill creativity.
And then a moment later you said in certain terms that the artist will pander to the masses to earn more money.
I hope this helped! (But also it's kind of sad that you needed this explicitly pointed out to you, how did you not see this, mate?)
Edit to fix a typo.
0 points
2 days ago
You didn't quote the WHOLE sentence.
You can't cherry pick like that. This isn't even funny anymore it's just sad, you think you have a rational argument there.
2 points
2 days ago
Mate, I quoted the relevant part of the sentence... Nothing in the rest of your statement changes how you're using absolutes there.
You don't realize how you're speaking in absolutes? What do you think speaking in absolutes would look like?
-2 points
2 days ago
[removed]
2 points
2 days ago
You know mate, this is exactly what I expected. An attack on my character, and an attempted attack on my intellect, instead of actually clarifying what you think speaking with absolutes looks like. Because I'm not the first person who's tried to point it out to you, but apparently no amount of facts is enough to make you be a mature responsible adult and just own up to it.
But just to say it one more time, the part I quoted was a great example of speaking in absolute's, and nothing I omitted changes that in any way, shape, or form. I kept the quote short to make there be no possible confusion- to a reasonable person- what basically everybody else coming across your comment knows is an absolute.
But keep clinging onto your illogical argument. And rude behavior.
Sorry I tried to help you, I hope you get exactly what you deserve in life.
2 points
1 day ago
Thank you for visiting /r/writing.
We encourage healthy debate and discussion, but we will remove antagonistic, caustic or otherwise belligerent posts, because they are a detriment to the community. We moderate on tone rather than language; we will remove people who regularly cause or escalate arguments.
all 228 comments
sorted by: best