(no subject)

[toujours_nigel]

Addendum to the previous post

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were new, merely that I'm not sure how many folks who wrote stories before are still keeping up. I'm "new" to the fandom, so to speak, so catching up on stories posted years ago. And I understand your point, it's just that at times, I wasn't entirely sure what you were saying/implying, and got confused. Hence my suggestion to be a bit clearer. I really *enjoy* layered meanings in texts, but if it's too vague, it seems to undermine the intention.

(Then again, I'm a journalist by training, and my own writing style is very frank and blunt and graphic.)

Not sure if you're still writing, but I will certainly read further stories. Cheers.

So, to reiterate, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But also, is the fic that confusing?

Comments

[greerwatson]

frank and blunt and graphic

Yes, definitely they need a dictionary.

[toujours_nigel]

Clearly they have a thesaurus handy. *g*

[moetushie]

What a dude.

[toujours_nigel]

The mansplaining just pops out.

[delphi]

1) The fic really isn't confusing, and 2) this guy's self-assessment is correct and his writing style does seem to be very straightforward and heavy on explicit exposition. Which is undeniably the way to go in journalism and a lot of non-fiction writing, but which in fiction falls under "if you like that sort of thing, go nuts" for me rather than "this is a superior style that other people should adopt."

It's funny, because I usually associate that writing style with a lack of confidence in storytelling ability and working with language. But, uh, lack of confidence doesn't seem to be the problem here. I'd be tempted to file it under "trying to be Hemingway" instead.

[toujours_nigel]

I am extremely tempted to teacher-zone him, like, okay what did you find confusing? I see, these are the cues that would have alerted you to what's going on, etc. Buuut (a) I haven't the time and (b) I have a feeling he just means that the sex isn't explicit/graphic.