The Pub Discussion Board

GornBCS · 2017-12-16 19:12:47

I thought demighosts were vulnerable to the creatures that inhabit Haven. If he is tired of his un-life, couldn’t he simply go there to be consumed?

Last edited by GornBCS (2017-12-16 19:13:11)

Barbarian3165 · 2017-12-16 19:20:40

If I remember correctly, and I'm only speculating, the Mortiser (hope I spelled that right) ingests and traps a victim. It is the victims option to discorporate which is when the Mortiser gets it's food. Otherwise the ghost could theoretically stay in a kind of hell, suffering for as long as they can hold out. Since David can't discorporate, both he and the Mortiser would be stuck together through all eternity. Unless of course the thing starved to death since David can't discorporate.

Speculation: might some of the first Demighosts tried to die like this, and that may have been what drove them insane enough to go on a generational naughty boy bender? Hmmm!

Last edited by Barbarian3165 (2017-12-16 19:23:39)

HJP1993 · 2017-12-16 19:24:08

Hm, I was under the impression that David could discorporate if he truly wanted to... perhaps I need to reread WA, it has been awhile.

Eric Storm · 2017-12-16 20:14:06

HJP1993 wrote:
Not to be rude but you apparently missed the part of my post where I point out
HJP1993 wrote:
speaking for general immortal characters
Not your story in particular

I didn't miss it, but since the parenthetical didn't make much sense to me, I ignored it. The discussion was not about a generic immortal character, it was about MY immortal character, therefore I read all comments within that context. I didn't even really comprehend the point of your parenthetical as it related to the text around it. Had you wanted better clarity, the parenthetical should have been the starting clause of the next sentence.

...beyond which it's not unheard of for authors to change things when it suits their purposes.

ANY author who would change the structural format of a book series six books into the series is a piss-poor author. You do not do this kind of thing. You find some way, ANY way, to not do it while still maintaining plot integrity. What your suggesting is a big, huge, whopping no-no.

...just like you could invent some way for David to, practically, "die" even if just by trapping him in Haven with no (timely) escape some how.

Don't have to invent one: this already exists, in the being called the "mortessor". No one has ever escaped a mortessor. We don't know if David could do so or not. He also cannot take the "easy way out" and discorporate, thus being stuck inside the mortessor for... ever?

...even though practically every work provides the main character(s) with immortal level plot armor.

The reader knows that, but the character doesn't. The difference here is that the character knows he cannot die. It alters the entire plot calculation, because it strongly affects the character's actions.

Eric Storm

HJP1993 · 2017-12-16 22:33:29

Eric Storm wrote:
didn't make much sense to me, I ignored it.

Great, never have managed to have a meaningful discussion with someone who simply ignores things they don't understand and continues on acting as if they did...

Eric Storm wrote:
The discussion was not about a generic immortal character, it was about MY immortal character, therefore I read all comments within that context.

The discussion was about how we felt, that is not going to influenced purely by you or your works.

Eric Storm wrote:
the parenthetical should have been the starting clause of the next sentence.

um, I think I understand that, but the fact that I'm not sure should make it obvious that I'm not an author. Nor do I care to be, nor am I interested in analyzing how they do their jobs. I use, um, "parentheticals", I'd just say "parenthesis", most of the time to add extra information or context instead of littering everything I write with commas. Most of what I write is basic technical explanations about programming to noobs asking for help, as such I'm much more used to using ()s than I am ,s, let alone using them in some way that's supposed to maximize understanding for thousands or millions of readers.

Eric Storm wrote:
What your suggesting is a big, huge, whopping no-no.

I don't see time skips or montages as terrible things. That's what I suggested as something a reader might think about in the back of their minds when they consider what could happen in the worst case, not a "real time" play by play of someone's recovery which seems to be what you're thinking I suggested you should have done.

Eric Storm wrote:
Don't have to invent one: this already exists, in the being called the "mortessor". No one has ever escaped a mortessor. We don't know if David could do so or not. He also cannot take the "easy way out" and discorporate, thus being stuck inside the mortessor for... ever?

Ah, yes forgot about the mortessor (: I really do need to reread WA.

Eric Storm wrote:
The reader knows that, but the character doesn't. The difference here is that the character knows he cannot die. It alters the entire plot calculation, because it strongly affects the character's actions.

Most works I've encountered don't seem to have the character act much differently, probably because most works base the character on someone who would never choose differently or are in a situation where doing differently would end up with no story at all. They also almost never put them in the very rare cases where it really matters, like choosing to put your head in front of a bullet. However even if David wasn't immortal and simply able to hide himself I feel like he would have made the same choice, or at the least suggested that someone who could be invisible did so since it's very likely to be possible with magic (though perhaps not without detection). Maybe not, maybe given a month or two to plan it out as the author, rather than a passive reader who simply enjoys a good story, I'd have had him come up with something else, but as a reader that's the feeling I get, that he would feel compelled to do whatever he was individually capable of doing.

Probably not much left to say here though. You know what you'd do and not do as an author and I, well, sometimes make up wild fantasies about what may or may not happen in dozens of stories.

Last edited by HJP1993 (2017-12-16 22:38:42)

Eric Storm · 2017-12-17 19:40:37

1. "Parenthesis" is ONE of these two things: ( or ). Parentheses includes both ( and ). A Parenthetical is the actual statement inside of the parentheses. If you refer to that as a parenthesis, that's your fault for using incorrect grammatical terminology. That's not about being an author, that's about using English properly.

2. Parentheticals are, as you mention, intended for extra information which will make a statement somewhat clearer, but ARE NOT intended for information that is critical to the nature of the comment being made. If you're using them in that fashion, once again, you are using the language constructs incorrectly. And again, this has nothing to do with being an author, it has to do with proper communication in the written form. As someone who spends his time trying to explain things to others, your PRIMARY GOAL should be absolute clarity in meaning. Obviously, in this case, you did not achieve that.

3.

HJP1993 wrote:
The discussion was about how we felt, that is not going to influenced purely by you or your works.

Now let me remind you of the question that started the conversation:

Eric Storm wrote:
Okay, just taken from the standpoint of, "The book is written in a month-per-chapter system": Did you really want to read 3-6 chapters of David going through mental rehab?

Seems pretty damned specific to the story, doesn't it? Not about the way you feel concerning some generic character. The discussion was, in fact, about my work, which is why I continued to read your comments in that context. That you then changed the tone of the discussion from the specific to the generic was something that YOU did, without making it abundantly clear (at least to me) that you were doing so. The thing that made your change unclear was your lack of proper punctuation in your comments. You poo-poo the use of commas, but they are in the language for a reason: clarity. Periods and commas and even semicolons should be in far greater use in your writings than parentheses. And once again, that is not about being an "author". Using the language correctly is not a skill reserved for those who write books. It should be the goal of everyone to use their language as best they can. That means learning to spell, learning proper grammar, and yes, learning to use punctuation correctly. You may find this pedantic, but some of us still see language as important. The fact that people now spend most of their time communicating with others textually, rather than verbally, should have put a greater emphasis on perfecting writing skills, especially since all of the tonal and body-language cues are removed from textual communication. For some reason, however, it seems to have been decided to make the written word as incomprehensible as the spoken one. That leads to a lack of clarity in communication. Just to be educational, here is all you had to do to fix your sentence and make it abundantly clear that you had changed the scope of what you were saying:
What you said: "No lol (speaking for general immortal characters) though with less impact on the reader it..."
What would have been much clearer: "No, lol. When it comes to a generic immortal character, though it would have less impact on the reader, it..."
About 100 times less ambiguous. I ignored your parenthetical because I could not properly place it with the comment before it (which made no sense), or the comment after it (because we weren't talking about generic characters, so still made no sense). It did not "click" in my head that you were changing the scope of the discussion with the parenthetical (since that's not what these parenthetical things are for...), so since I couldn't make heads nor tails of it, I ignored it. You are supposed to be able to do that with parentheticals. That's WHY they're parenthetical in the first place!

4.

HJP1993 wrote:
I don't see time skips or montages as terrible things. That's what I suggested as something a reader might think about in the back of their minds when they consider what could happen in the worst case, not a "real time" play by play of someone's recovery which seems to be what you're thinking I suggested you should have done.

They are not evil, in and of themselves. They ARE evil when the structural format of the book does not allow for them. I was not thinking you had suggested I should do a play-by-play. Your comment was very clear that you were suggesting a montage would have been a way to write it. I was telling you that the format of the book series would have required that I do a play-by-play. The "big no-no" of which I spoke was not the montage or the time-skip. The "big no-no" was changing the structural format of a book in the middle, which, in the specific instance being discussed, such a time-skip or montage would have done.

Eric Storm

HJP1993 · 2017-12-17 21:16:30

3. No, what started the discussion is

Eric Storm wrote:
It's very hard to worry too much about a character who cannot die. I hope that at least some people were concerned about what would happen after he got shot...

and my reply that there are many potential things to worry about even for immortals, including, but not limited to, long recovery times. Also notice that the first sentence is not phrased specifically about David but rather "a [generic] character who cannot die", though yes the majority of that post is speaking about David the actual "question" is how we felt about a character who cannot die being shot in the head. That's the context everything I've written has been in. I never intended to have a discussion specifically about rehab or how David felt or reasoned his actions in the context of the story. You essentially asked readers if they'd felt any concern and I'd replied that I had because I didn't know what would happen but there were several worst case scenarios that ran through my head about what could happen to an immortal, especially when brain damage is a factor. Those scenarios and the feelings they evoke are not going to be influenced just based on Woodward Academy and David and they aren't going to be highly thought out and ranked based on the chances of you writing them, they're going to be influenced by every immortal character I remember and the experiences that they have had and how I reacted to those stories. If I had cared about an immortal character that had gotten harmed by being shot in the head then I'm going to have a much greater reaction to David being shot in the head than if the only experience I've had with immortal characters being shot is them laughing while they rapidly healed.

4. Eh... I'm not sure I'd agree but I can accept that you believe such. Certainly it'd be more appropriate to not have it in the middle but rather at the end of the book such that the skipped time is inbetween the end of one and the start of the next, but I also don't see it as a particularly terrible thing. Perhaps I simply have not encountered it being done much and so I can't really appreciate how bad it would be.

1+2.

Eric Storm wrote:
That's not about being an author, that's about using English properly.

Eric Storm wrote:
As someone who spends his time trying to explain things to others, your PRIMARY GOAL should be absolute clarity in meaning. Obviously, in this case, you did not achieve that.

In my experience only authors and English teachers actually care about using English "properly", and not most authors anymore... Certainly many works have far more punctuation, misspellings, and grammar errors than I remember seeing previously, even when editors have supposedly gone through them. But yes, a period after "no lol" would have made it unambiguous that the "speaking for general immortal characters" applied to the next sentence. However, the fact that it makes no sense to clarify "no lol" with "speaking for no immortal characters" should be enough for most people to figure out that it belongs with the rest of the the words not the first two, if you can consider "lol" a single "word", even if a period is missing. And yes, not using parentheticals in the manner that I've become accustomed might make it easier for other people to understand, but that's somewhat similar to not using certain phrases that only my region of the world uses. If I'm concerned about people understanding it I'd figure out how to rephrase it or will take the time to explain, but most of the time I'm not going to bother unless there is an issue.

Explaining things is just something I try to do when I see a question that I can answer because I'd have liked someone to do so when I was learning and it can often take a fair amount of time before someone does respond, or I'll see someone respond with something that isn't quite accurate or is misleading. But programming is just a hobby for me. So, I don't care about being great, let alone perfect, just good enough and 98% of the time it is. In the cases that there is a misunderstanding it's easy enough to correct without any major consequences. Having half a dozen plus commas in a sentence feels wrong to me and it'd take significantly more time to rephrase things than change a few to parenthesis, so I generally do what takes less time, especially when I'm rewriting something I've answered a couple dozen times or that could easily be found with a google search. And yeah, for me it might seem like "just a google search" because I have enough knowledge and experience to know what to search for and how to look through the results and find the key information, kind of like your "here is all you had to do to fix your sentence", for you it's just using the knowledge and experience you already have and are used to, for me it's changing how I _think_ such that the result of those thoughts come out in a different way. Most of my text-based communication are more like conversations where if you stumble over your words you just laugh it off or say "bah, can't talk today" and move on with what you were saying, rather than books where you need to be perfect because things can't be easily corrected later.

Eric Storm · 2017-12-18 02:18:19

We will obviously have to agree to disagree on the importance of clear communication style.

Such is life.

Eric Storm

Crusader · 2017-12-22 04:27:42

Ok so conversatiin has happened, and appears to have ended, so i'll sign off with

"It's very hard to worry too much about a character who cannot die. I hope that at least some people were concerned about what would happen after he got shot"

Was the start of the conversation dor me as well.

Also i completly unserstood the comments in () with no second guessing
But im also a programmer by training so perhaps the way we are both using and reading them are related to that, so a subsect of English grammar directly related to tech speak? (rhetorical)

Sdragon · 2017-12-22 10:30:41

Eric, your stories are great, i enjoy them and that is all that should really be said in any of the matters. sure there are plot holes, but that happens in every story regardless of author or genre. im looking forward to the next installment of which tale you wish to post, be it "agent of change", "woodward", "CASS", or even maybe a new adventure that will help me forget about the bs that goes on in my hum-drum boring life. keep up the good work, and see you inside of your own imagination when you wish to open the door for us.

Eric Storm · 2017-12-22 17:59:54

Crusader:

Yes, the conversation had ended... FIVE DAYS AGO. Why, exactly, did you feel the need to bring it up again at all?

Eric Storm

ozygonzo · 2017-12-25 18:34:58

Eric, Merry Christmas And a Happy New Year

And for what is worth I enjoy all your stories as they are posted
Paul

Crusader · 2017-12-26 02:18:50

Eric Storm wrote:
Crusader:

Yes, the conversation had ended... FIVE DAYS AGO. Why, exactly, did you feel the need to bring it up again at all?

Eric Storm

Because that was the first visit back to the forum from my previous post. I visit every few days, if i didnt respond every time a discussion ended, i would likely never end up posting.

Usually i end up doing exactly that as others have said most of what i would have. I do come to the forms to lurk. Well i don't expect the conversation to pause without me, as long as it has been less then a month then it is fair game in my opinion.

Also i didn't look at the date...

Eric Storm · 2017-12-26 07:57:54

*sigh*

Merry Christmas, Crusader.

You, too, ozygonzo.

And everyone else, as well.

Eric Storm

Crusader · 2017-12-27 20:54:05

3dsmile

shadowlord · 2017-12-30 19:18:37

Sorry I'm coming so late to the party...

Barbarian3165 wrote:
Since David can't discorporate, both he and the Mortiser would be stuck together through all eternity. Unless of course the thing starved to death since David can't discorporate.

Eric Storm wrote:
Don't have to invent one: this already exists, in the being called the "mortessor". No one has ever escaped a mortessor. We don't know if David could do so or not. He also cannot take the "easy way out" and discorporate, thus being stuck inside the mortessor for... ever?
Eric Storm

but I couldn't understand these statements... Eric seems to be suggesting an "emotional" inability to "give up." Perhaps I'm simply mis-reading the implication, but I took Barbarian's comment as more of a "physical" limitation on the nature of being a demighost. But, I can't recall any references within the story to support such a limitation.

So, could I get an official ruling? Demighosts CAN discorporate, if they so choose, but David "cannot" because his personality/character would never allow him to consider such a thing... Have I got that right? or have I completely misread the entire context?

Thanks!!
sl

Eric Storm · 2017-12-30 19:34:46

Demighosts CANNOT discorporate.

Demighosts are truly immortal: there is NO WAY to destroy them, through their own actions or the actions of others. (With one exception, but we won't get into that, as it isn't relevant to the story, or the question.)

Discorporating requires one to be a full ghost: no actual attachment to the physical world. David has a body, thus cannot discorporate. (Even at the point his body has been destroyed through accident, he still "has" one... it's just not available to him at that moment.)

This has been made clear in the story somewhere, but don't ask me to point to it, as I don't even know in which book I mentioned it.

Eric Storm

Barbarian3165 · 2017-12-31 03:14:53

It's either in book 6 or 7 when David get's his head blown off and ends up with Gabriel in that special place where the Banshee can go and take Demighosts. I believe you mentioned that David is the first Demighost to actually enter that place either freely or forced by a Banshee. He may be the only Demighost that actually knows about that place, now.

Last edited by Barbarian3165 (2017-12-31 03:16:11)

Eric Storm · 2017-12-31 17:09:22

That wasn't what I was referring to, Barbarian. There is some point within the books where I make it clear that demighosts cannot discorporate under any circumstances, but I do not remember where it is.

Eric Storm

Barbarian3165 · 2018-01-01 00:02:52

You may have mentioned it another place in the story but I believe it was also mentioned there when Gabriel told David that he was a truly immortal spirit like the Banshee. At least that is the way I remember that going.

Eric Storm · 2018-01-01 05:12:59

"Merry New Year! ... I am Nanga Eboko, exchange student from Cameroon!"

3dsmile

(Twenty points if you have any idea what that's from. hehehe)

I hope everyone has had a safe New Year's Eve. Let's hope 2018 is better for all of us than 2017 was.

Since this is a writing status thread, I'll point out that, in 2017, I wrote 124,560 words. Just under half of what I was supposed to.

3dsad

Eric Storm

Timberwolf92 · 2018-01-01 05:27:48

Happy New Year Eric and everybody.

Jefferson · 2018-01-01 08:03:11

"Merry New Year! ... I am Nanga Eboko, exchange student from Cameroon!"

"Trading Places"
1983

advancewar · 2018-01-01 18:12:45

Eric Storm wrote:
"Merry New Year! ... I am Nanga Eboko, exchange student from Cameroon!"

(Twenty points if you have any idea what that's from. hehehe)

I hope everyone has had a safe New Year's Eve. Let's hope 2018 is better for all of us than 2017 was.

Since this is a writing status thread, I'll point out that, in 2017, I wrote 124,560 words. Just under half of what I was supposed to.

Eric Storm

I literaly just watched that last night lol

advancewar · 2018-01-01 18:14:01

Also happy new year peeps. Stay safe and healthy in the comming year

The Pub Discussion Board

#726 2017-12-16 19:12:47

Re: Writing Status

#727 2017-12-16 19:20:40

Re: Writing Status

#728 2017-12-16 19:24:08

Re: Writing Status

#729 2017-12-16 20:14:06

Re: Writing Status

HJP1993 wrote:

HJP1993 wrote:

#730 2017-12-16 22:33:29

Re: Writing Status

Eric Storm wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

#731 2017-12-17 19:40:37

Re: Writing Status

HJP1993 wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

HJP1993 wrote:

#732 2017-12-17 21:16:30

Re: Writing Status

Eric Storm wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

#733 2017-12-18 02:18:19

Re: Writing Status

#734 2017-12-22 04:27:42

Re: Writing Status

#735 2017-12-22 10:30:41

Re: Writing Status

#736 2017-12-22 17:59:54

Re: Writing Status

#737 2017-12-25 18:34:58

Re: Writing Status

#738 2017-12-26 02:18:50

Re: Writing Status

Eric Storm wrote:

#739 2017-12-26 07:57:54

Re: Writing Status

#740 2017-12-27 20:54:05

Re: Writing Status

#741 2017-12-30 19:18:37

Re: Writing Status

Barbarian3165 wrote:

Eric Storm wrote:

#742 2017-12-30 19:34:46

Re: Writing Status

#743 2017-12-31 03:14:53

Re: Writing Status

#744 2017-12-31 17:09:22

Re: Writing Status

#745 2018-01-01 00:02:52

Re: Writing Status

#746 2018-01-01 05:12:59

Re: Writing Status

#747 2018-01-01 05:27:48

Re: Writing Status

#748 2018-01-01 08:03:11

Re: Writing Status

#749 2018-01-01 18:12:45

Re: Writing Status

Eric Storm wrote:

#750 2018-01-01 18:14:01

Re: Writing Status

Board footer