Messages

> I have absoluteley no idea what you are saying.

Why, don't you speak English? Tell me what you're having trouble understanding and I will explain it _again_ ...

I'm saying that any writer worth their salt chooses each and every word with precision, not only to convey information necessary to advance the plot, but also to convey to the reader mood, atmosphere and character.

If you are honestly saying to me that you cannot see _any_ difference between the two hypothetical lines of dialogue I offered as illustration of this point then you're no more a writer than are the contents of my cats' litter tray.

> scojo who writes words, not analyses them....

Yes, a writer writes words. And then a _good_ writer analyses them, changes them, shows them to someone else for more analysis and then changes them some more.

I'm actually offering you some constructive criticism here. I've sold comic scripts to actual, real publishers and one of things editors seemed to have liked is my dialogue - notwithstanding a propensity to write too much of it. But, hey, that's what editors are for ... ;-)

Cheers

Jim

Precisely my point, Scojjers ...

It's the "It is true ..." bit that throws the whole line off.

No-one ... let me spell that out for you N-O-O-N-E ... who speaks English as their first language would use those words in that arrangement.

As I _keep_ telling you: read your line aloud and then read Wagner's, if you can't see the difference then you have absolutely no business claiming to know the _first thing_ about writing dialogue.

(Sighs)

Cheers

Jim

> Shame Wagner's Dredd said something similar.

Similar. Not the same. I took maybe three words out of your original line to make it sound like a line Dredd might actually deliver.

If you spent even 30 seconds studying the way in which Wagner constructs Dredd's dialogue, you'd see the difference.

All right. So you don't think I'm attacking your work, here's two completely hypothetical examples:

1 - "I will have to teach this criminal a lesson!"

2 - "Creep's asking for a beating!"

Can you not see how both lines contain the same basic meaning but example 2 is a) shorter (golden rule in comics scripting!) and b) actually _sounds_ like Dredd?

This ain't rocket science, Scojo - this is nuts 'n' bolts writing. So ... either you don't understand this most basic of principals or you're being deliberately obtuse in order to have an argument.

Which is it?

Cheers

Jim

> Oh yeah I get it now says Jim!

I got it the first time, Scojo. Which is why my alternative line has the exact same _meaning_ as your original ... what I was attempting to show you was how your choice of specific _words_ can be used to convey character and, as a general rule, ought to resemble speech patterns that people might actually _use_.

I would have thought a screenwriter, whose words are actually going to have to be read _aloud_ might have some grasp of this ...

> As for the only good one remark, John Wagner
> used that in a Meg strip. The New Labour satire
> story.
> Last panel.
> The politician is dead. Says something similar.

I was pointing out that 'It is true what they say' ... those _exact_ words ... are not a realistic representation of speech patterns and particularly don't sound anything like Dredd's speech patterns.

Dredd's a taciturn bugger not prone to over-wordage and would consequently say:

"True what they say - only good Simp's a dead one."

Jesus! What? Am I conducting Dialogue Writing 101 here ...?

Cheers

Jim

> On the subject of dialogue, reread my stooges.
> There was dialogue in that.

Yes, there was. And it sucked.

> Dredd to himself:I think we can determine they
> are Simps!

Surely:

Dredd (thinks): They're Simps all right!

See the difference? It's shorter and it actually _sounds_ like Dredd ...

Or:

>It is true what they say. The only good simp is a
> dead one.

"It is true what they say"? Come _on_, Scojo ...! Where in God's name do you live if people actually talk like that? I refer you to my previous advice - read every line aloud. If it doesn't sound right, it won't look right on paper. That simple.

A screenwriter should know that ...

Cheers

Jim

> I read it yesterday. Prog 251.
> Two pages in length. Called "All of them were
> empty"

> It was terrible. Far worse than mine.
> Go read it.

Well, since my progs are twenty miles away and in a box, that will have to wait.

Moore does, however, have a nice ear for prose and I'm prepared to bet money, sight unseen, that his #251 effort contains at least two lines which piss all over anything in either of yours ...

Also, did you miss the part where I said 'Worse stories have been published' is not a defence of a substandard piece of work ...?

Cheers

Jim

> It is meant to be ridiculous. That is the whole
> point.
> And a parody of the film Aliens too!
> Get it now?

I've given you a critique, the Spurious one has given you feedback and we've both actually been _paid_ for writing comics.

So, since there seems to be a comprehension gap here, let me spell it out for you:

Yes, there have been many duff Future Shocks, but saying 'mine is no worse than some of the others' is hardly a ringing endorsement, is it? The point of the exercise is to come up with the very best Future Shock you can, not something that's no less cack than some of the substandard ones ...

And, no, neither of the examples you offered up were as good anything Alan Moore has ever had published. Anywhere. The pacing was dubious in the first and non-existent in the second, the dialogue unconvincing and the 'twist' - in both instances - paid no attention to the requirements of internal story logic.

And, FYI, all of these skills are of equal, if not more, importance for screenwriting.

You obviously have enthusiasm for writing, which is a very good start, but if you assume that all your work springs fully formed and complete from your keyboard, beyond constructive criticism or editorial revision then you are going to sell precisely nothing.

Cheers

Jim

(For some reason, I can't reply to your message, Si, so I've had to reply to my own ...!)

> Jim - I'd leave it feller. I've managed to compile a
> template conversation that one might have with
> this scojo 'person':

So true it's scary!

B*ll*cks to it. I'm back off to a.c.2k where I can say c*nt, f*ck and sc*rvy *rs*g*k* without some C.L.T. (1) taking offence ...

Cheers

Jim

(1) Diggle-approved Usenet putdown ...

> I am genuinely unaware of the troll usenet term.
> But I do not regard myself as a troll of the
> imaginary or internet variety.

But you cannot see, given the definitions I provided, why some people might have thought you were?

> What other points?

I asked you who - precisely - you would consider fit to criticize your work? Given that you believe your writing skills so infinitely superior to everyone employed by 2000AD ...

I also directed your attention to a reasonably constructive response to one of your Future Shocks which - like my reasonable and carefully worded responses to your assertions on a.c.2000ad - you have chosen to ignore.

Cheers

Jim

> Tim Deniz called me a c u n t just because I
> expressed my opinion about 2k.

Tim calls everyone a c*nt. Honestly. Try not to take it personally. And, in case you didn't notice, I (along with several other people) said that they thought the more abusive responses to you were out of line.

> I was not rude to anyone there. I promise.

Well, you were bloody rude about Andy, who is a regular poster, after all.

> But I find the c word unacceptable.

Which no-one was aware of. If you'd lurked around the NG for a couple of days or more, you'd have noticed that we're a foul-mouthed bunch of f*ckers over there and spend entire threads abusing each other with inventive obscenities.

Some of us were ruder to you than we should have been, but it's a fairly obscenity-heavy forum, as you'd have realized if you'd made any effort to understand us before wading in with your first post.

FWIW, I _never_ make a first post to _any_ Usenet forum without lurking for at least two weeks and reading the FAQ (although that's not appropriate for the 2000AD group, 'cos we don't have one ...)

> Regarding your troll remark - as trolls don't exist,
> I find it rather hard to behave like one.

Are you trying to be clever, or are you genuinely unaware of the Usenet usage of the word 'troll' ...?

In case it's the latter, in Usenent usage, a 'troll' is someone who basically tries to incite flamewars by off-topic posts (in fora where such things are considered bad form), abusive posts, or most commonly on the groups I frequent, simply stating a view guaranteed to stir up controversy and then further aggravating the situation with every post by refusing to acknowledge any counter point of view, no matter how reasonably it is put to them.

I explained this to you in my previous message, which you have chosen to snip, and play dumb instead. Along with completely ignoring my other points.

Which is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about.

Cheers

Jim

> I can take criticism Matt.

From whom? You appear to consider yourself a better writer than Alan Moore ... who on earth would possibly be sufficiently qualified to pass judgement on your work?

FWIW, I've posted what I think _is_ a constructive criticism of one of your Future Shocks in one of the threads below.

> Having visited the alt.2000AD board, I have never > seen a more childish bunch of rude ignorant
> people.

Ahem. Actually, you came into the newsgroup and behaved exactly like a troll - asserted an unpopular viewpoint and then refused acknowledge any of us who attempted to engage in a reasoned argument with you. And then complained about the quality of debate when you'd made it quite clear both in words and actions that debate was not what you were interested in.

At the same time, a chap called Will Spearing made his first post, giving almost an identical view to yours but in a less trollish way and has been getting on just fine.

If you act like a troll, you're going to get flamed - that's the way it is, bub.

> It would insult my intelligence even to put my pen
> to paper for them.

There you go again with the superiority complex. What it looks like from our side is that you found the a.c.2000ad waters a bit too stormy for you and came back here where it's nice and safe.

Cheers

Jim

> As for the dialogue, is is a monologue.
> By one person.
> Not many.

Are we talking about the 'Aliens' Future Shock script?

Y'see ... dialogue is also used to describe the writing of what people say, whether to themselves or to others, and yours needs work, mate.

Try reading the words aloud and imagine someone actually _saying_ them ... if a line sounds daft or unnatural then it will almost certainly come across that way on the page, too.

Good dialogue is the key to conveying your characters' personalities. Get the audience to emapthize with your characters and you've won half the battle.

The other half being a good plot, which you also don't have. Several pages of fighting does not a story make, unless you've reached a point where the reader cares who lives or dies. Since you've made no effort to make us care about the character, what's the point?

> And the ending is IRONIC!

It is? As has been explained to you, the ending comes so entirely out of the blue as to be meaningless. If the alien queen had left a note saying she'd gone to some charity work feeding starving humans, _then_ there would be a point - a nice inversion turning the humans into the evil bastards in the readers' eyes. _That_ would be ironic.

> And it needs no rewrites Fraston. It is fine as it is.

No, it's not. If you want an example of how a Future Shock should be written, look no further than Si Spurrier's 'Given to Fly' (Prog 1257).

There, we have character motivation (jealousy, desire), some sympathy for the human main character (his dad's a bastard) even though his actions are morally dubious and not one but two (count 'em) _two_ plot twists that make perfect sense _within_ the story's established logical confines. And a satisfactory revenge motif rounding the whole package off.

Everybody has to re-write. Even John Wagner has to re-write (as I recall, it took a mighty effort by Andy Diggle to persuade John Wagner not to completely junk all previous Strontium Dog history in the new version).

Re-writing is not an admission of failure, it's an acknowledgement that something can always be _better_ ...

Cheers

Jim