hansel&gretel

[manuscript]

hansel&gretel lived with their beautiful loving mother and handsome tyrannical stepfather, who betrayed and tricked their mother and left them both in the woods to die. but hansel&gretel were no ordinary child. they had learned a great deal from their stepfather during those difficult and unhappy early years, and they chose to never find their way back home, but instead wander the wide world in search of their fortune. they forgot their past immediately, and all attachments abandoned, walked bravely onward with steps as light as the sweet breezes at their back. the pretty little forest birds were blissfully twittering Prokofiev while here and there flashed the dewy eye of a fawn or the happy chatter of neighbourly squirrels.

after a day and a night and a ride on a swan on a lake, they had become hungry, and followed their nose to a witch's gingerbread house. the witch, a hideous old hag, seemed very surprised to discover them knocking at her door. "oh! you are a very strange small person," she cried, "how did you find my house, so deep in the wood?"

"we're hungry," said hansel&gretel.

"go ahead and try some of my house," suggested the witch, "it's delicious! break off as much as you can carry. and please don't hesitate to rest in my gingerbread guesthouse over there for as long as you like before you're on your way, but if you don't mind i have some butterfly wings to mend."

"dear crone," they said, "you are already too kind, but we are embarking on a long journey fraught with all the perils of life, and wonder whether you would be so very generous as to teach us by what enchantments your house is wrought, that we might never be hungry again."

the witch paused in a moment of consideration. she was not jealous of her grimoire - it was just such an unusual question, from such an unexpected source. but she was a kindly witch, and did not hesitate for long. "alright young one, i will show you. this is how we start -


* Wheat Flour, Sugar, Glucose and Fructose Syrup (Wheat), Potato Starch, Caramel Sugar Syrup, Vegetable Shortening, Leavening (Potassium Hydrogencarbonate, Sodium Citrate, Sodium Hydrogencarbonate, Calcium Carbonate), Spice, Powdered Egg White, Citric Acid, Artificial Flavouring.

*Thickener: Agar-Agar.

and right there on that very spot was a perfect gingerbread foundation. "that's just the beginning," said the witch. "would you like to give it a try?"

"we don't have your kind of vocabulary," they said, having involuntarily twisted their nose up at the mention of certain ingredients. "but maybe we can create our own recipe:


1. Prose, Narrative Formula (Beginning, Middle, End), Current English Usage Conventions, Drama (Conflict, Resolution), Abstraction (Pseudophilosophical Metaphor),

*"resolving" the "self" in an artwork, whether by denial, futile attempts at further refining formal education, or

*[matters relating to the elimination of all extraneous stylistic trappings in favour of direct language aimed towards expressing content rather than the glorification of empty signifiers (?)

tears came to the witch's eyes as she beheld the masterpiece before her. "my childhood home!" she sobbed, "never have i witnessed such enchantment! o great and powerful sorcerer! may i - may i please see within?"

hansel&gretel nodded encouragingly. in a frenzy of excitement the witch flung open the door and threw herself into a deep furnace. when she was good and cooked, the wicked little cannibal wasted no time in eating her up. delicious.

[AuntShecky]

Is there a reason for the lack of capitalization and bypassing the rules of grammar, e.g. noun/verb agreement? I was going to call you out on this line:

hansel&gretel were no ordinary child. in that "child" should be "children. Nevertheless even if we are supposed to see "hansel&gretel" as a singular unit, the verb should be "was."

Since yours fooly is an enthusiastic proponent of postmodernism, I think the idea and general execution are quite clever; alas, the structural errors (perhaps a deliberate
stylistic quirk?) detract from the overall comic effect.

Auntie

[manuscript]

the reason for the lack of capitalisation is due to the fact that i have my own philosophies on grammar and usage, including that language is here for me, rather than me being here for it, and i can use it how i please. since this is a piece intended for a small rather than mass readership i hope its ok for me to indulge myself in sharing a few of my ideas with others who might enjoy them, rather than catering to the prescriptions of an establishment that will never take up my work in any case. however, point taken.

the verb form you mentioned is, alas, correct according to my intention.

[Eiseabhal]

I like your whimsical humour.

[AuntShecky]

the reason for the lack of capitalisation is due to the fact that i have my own philosophies on grammar and usage, including that language is here for me, rather than me being here for it, and i can use it how i please.


That may work for an audience of one, that is, when you are communicating with your own self, but as soon as you want to enlarge that audience, it is customary to use the same common language (whose rules are not all arbitrary), especially if you want to convey the intended message or create the desired effect. Otherwise, a great deal of your work will be lost in translation. Nobody says you can't write "as you please," but if that's the case, don't be surprised if few people "get" it.



the verb form you mentioned is, alas, correct according to my intention.
Then the object of the sentence should be "children," not "child."


Please don't forget that I said that the overall idea was clever.

[manuscript]

That may work for an audience of one, that is, when you are communicating with your own self, but as soon as you want to enlarge that audience, it is customary to use the same common language (whose rules are not all arbitrary), especially if you want to convey the intended message or create the desired effect. Otherwise, a great deal of your work will be lost in translation. Nobody says you can't write "as you please," but if that's the case, don't be surprised if few people "get" it.

i contest that meaning is not conveyed through a regimented system of capitals and apostrophes. i also dont think regularity is all that important. i also think it is an illusion, both in practice, and in the sense that it is historically unstable. i dont think it is an issue of etiquette, as on the other hand, i could make an argument that it would be condescending for me to cut my ideas down to a comfortable size. i accept that people feel annoyed by these sorts of ideas when they see them in practice, and if i wanted to reach a large commercial audience, i would adopt a formal register for that purpose, but what i have shared here is just for fun. i wrote it for fun and as a practice exercise, and i hope people can have fun reading it despite it being different from what they are used to.

it may not appear to be the case but i have worked hard at reading and writing. perhaps my sense of entitlement to use language how i choose is proud rather than justified, but this is a personal flaw that at least for the time being, i am comfortable with.


Then the object of the sentence should be "children," not "child."

i wrote it the way it is deliberately, i intended it to be the way it is, i knew what i was doing when i wrote it that way and i want it to stay that way, but thank you for the recommendation.



Please don't forget that I said that the overall idea was clever.

i wont forget. thank you! i am happy you liked it. :-D

[Steven Hunley]

i wrote it the way it is deliberately, i intended it to be the way it is, i knew what i was doing when i wrote it that way and i want it to stay that way, but thank you for the recommendation.

I like it too, but the problem is, what's more important to YOU, the story or the unique spelling and grammar? You see, we (the majority of us) share the same rules for spelling, punctuation, and grammar, as we've been schooled it in. Since we haven't been schooled in your unique approach, and you've neglected to school us, we look at the variances to our rules (grammar, spelling, and punctuation) as mistakes.

As such, they are distracting from the story itself. So what's more important to you? The story or the rules of your grammar? Unless we know the rules of your particular spelling or grammar, we cannot judge if you are really a clever bunny or not. We can only judge other people's word use and clever spelling variations (puns, double-entendres, etc. ) because we know what the common shared rules are, and see where the really good authors excel, where and why they break the rules and how they do it.

Like I said, the story itself is clever, but the usage and spelling and punctuation is distracting, unless we are in on the ground rules by which you formed it. It's easy enough to say it was an experiment after the fact. For instance, why leave the I uncaptialized? What is the point of that exactly? All experiments have something in mind, a point, so to speak.

What I'm asking is "What is the method to your madness?" What exactly are your rules to your grammar, spelling, and punctuation? All experiments have controls.

Last of all, punctuation and spelling are the slowest to change, and therefore historically stable. Spoken language is the most volatile. And we never want you to ever cut down your ideas, only the BS, por favor.



i wont forget. thank you! i am happy you liked it. :-D[/QUOTE]

[manuscript]

I like it too, but the problem is, what's more important to YOU, the story or the unique spelling and grammar? You see, we (the majority of us) share the same rules for spelling, punctuation, and grammar, as we've been schooled it in. Since we haven't been schooled in your unique approach, and you've neglected to school us, we look at the variances to our rules (grammar, spelling, and punctuation) as mistakes.

it is all important to me. the idea that i should pick and choose between one thing being more important than another makes no sense to me. as i have written, if it were important for me to distribute my ideas to a mass audience, perhaps things would have been different. in this case, that is not a consideration. i believe i have written appropriately for an audience that is not commercial. i have tried to give something that is authentic and i am staggered by the way it has been treated.

i cannot understand how anyone could interpret the way i have written as error when it is so blatantly deliberate. i think this would require a willful misinterpretation, a studied refusal to approach a piece of writing on its own terms.

the state of your education has nothing to do with neglect on my part. your education, or that of any other reader of my poor efforts, simply is not my responsibility.


As such, they are distracting from the story itself. So what's more important to you? The story or the rules of your grammar? Unless we know the rules of your particular spelling or grammar, we cannot judge if you are really a clever bunny or not. We can only judge other people's word use and clever spelling variations (puns, double-entendres, etc. ) because we know what the common shared rules are, and see where the really good authors excel, where and why they break the rules and how they do it.

i do not care whether or not you think i am a clever bunny. i disagree with this approach to evaluating writing, which attempts to get at qualities of a writer through the text they have created, rather than evaluating the text for what it is. it would appear to generate an endless cycle: is the writer clever enough to break the rules, and are the rules broken cleverly enough to show us that the writer is clever, but then how can we know the writer is clever, etc.


Like I said, the story itself is clever, but the usage and spelling and punctuation is distracting, unless we are in on the ground rules by which you formed it. It's easy enough to say it was an experiment after the fact. For instance, why leave the I uncaptialized? What is the point of that exactly? All experiments have something in mind, a point, so to speak.

What I'm asking is "What is the method to your madness?" What exactly are your rules to your grammar, spelling, and punctuation? All experiments have controls.

i perceive deep and unyielding attachment to grammatical convention as sufficient cause for writing the way i choose to. the obsessive concern with such trivial matters that has been generated in responses to my writing, rather than with the (in my humble opinion) much more interesting content of what i have written, provides me with all the validation i could ever personally require, and since it is my writing, i will do what i like. take it or leave it.

now that we have fully established that i am aware of what i am doing, and i choose to do it anyway, i hope we can leave this pointless discussion behind.


Last of all, punctuation and spelling are the slowest to change, and therefore historically stable. Spoken language is the most volatile. And we never want you to ever cut down your ideas, only the BS, por favor.

how dare you.

[Steven Hunley]

I should have made this simpler.

Style is important, and I agree there are many many ways to tell a story effectively. But when a story is compromised by style the author has made a choice, one over the other.

Story should always remain paramount. That's all. Content is more important than style. If the style gets in the way, for whatever reason, changes must be made. It's like a sculpture of say, a man. If it's too bright, or too dim to be seen, or if the tools marks of the sculpture draw too much attention to themselves, the work is obscured.

Good stories stand the test of time, and are passed down many many ways. I not suggesting you change a word. You do what you like. The content, I agree, was interesting. However, be advised, clarity of writing is what we are talking about, and should never be viewed as a trivial matter.

[Delta40]

I agree with Steve's comments wholeheartedly here.

If you want to feel as if you reign supreme over grammar and punctuation rather than having to obey its laws then that's fine - you say you know why you're doing but respect that your audience, mass or otherwise will not subscribe to the rules you have dictated and it will impact on the quality of anything you write.

[manuscript]

i have viewed nothing as a trivial matter! i honestly believe that my writing is clear!

i think style is inescapable and there is no such thing as transparent style. i am nauseated by cookie cutter stylebook stories published in supposed literary mags with no meaningful content by people who have been instructed in their creative writing MA to compose invisible style by a person who thinks that the quality of creativity can be controlled by a formula of readability. the only person who possibly reached something close to invisible style is Shakespeare, and no one can ever replicate that achievement. not even Chaucer is invisible in his texts, and he is one of the greatest masters. so i dont see the harm in shaking things up.

my perspective on a piece of writing also differs from yours, in that i do not regard additional forms of meaning as distracting, and i do not believe that narrative is necessarily the most important thing. i understand that one philosopher even went so far as to claim that the medium is the message. i believe that the form in which content is presented is an inescapable part of meaning, and can very reasonably be exploited to any potential. i am attracted to all forms of meaning, multiple forms of meaning. i am interested in thinking about what style means in the context of a particular piece of writing, whether it is divergent from the aims of that piece of writing, and what it means if it is, or whether it can be reconciled with those aims. for me, these sorts of conflicts constitute enrichment of meaning, and not distraction from it.

more than anything else, i would say that i am interested in writing about tyranny, and the abuse of power for its own sake. i regard establishments as necessary and useful, but at the same time, i think it is important to make fun of them, because they get obsessed with themselves, and believe they have the right to tell people what to do. i think that all of my writing engages with these ideas and i dont think that it is incompatible with the general goals of what i write about to interfere in a prescriptive establishment of grammar and regularity of usage. sometimes when i am playing around with this i make it more directly relevant than other times. but i see it as fun, and good.

i can only say again. lets try and keep things in perspective. this is an internet place where people share some writing, not a publishing house. i wrote this fun little story and hoped people would enjoy reading it. it does not presume to be a contender for the canon, and in the case that it were good enough to contend for the canon, surely criticism of its style would be close to irrelevant. i am sorry if people who read it do not take the delight in exploring the possibilities of style that i do but i can only say that this is my prerogative as a writer and i hope that some other people will read it who do take the pleasure in these things that i take in them. some people will like it and others will not; not everyone can enjoy the same things. if i were writing to posterity, if i were trying to make my story accessible to a very large audience, then considerations would be different. but this is just a personal piece of writing, for my own pure enjoyment and that of others who might read it for pleasure, just a little piece of fun with some interesting ideas i was playing with.

i hope this provides a more reasonable explanation than i gave previously.

[manuscript]

I agree with Steve's comments wholeheartedly here.

If you want to feel as if you reign supreme over grammar and punctuation rather than having to obey its laws then that's fine but just admit it and respect that your audience, mass or small will not subscribe to the rules you have dictated and it will impact on the quality of anything you write.

i freely shout to the universe that i do not reign supreme over grammar and punctuation. i have written repeatedly, so many times here that i have lost count now, that i understand some people may not be interested in what i have written. i am not dictating to anyone, i am on the contrary offering a piece of writing that disagrees with what is being dictated. what more can i say?

[manuscript]

i have seen other writers who contributed to this forum get ganged up on the way i have been for no good reason. i saw another writer once get ripped to shreds personally, by inferences that were made about that persons personality, drawn from their fictional writing. this is totally inappropriate!

you are ganging up on me. for no good reason! what i contributed is just a piece of fun! i have been informed that my dearly held and carefully considered ideas, informed by tertiary education, which i have attempted to explain reasonably, are BS. it has been implied that i am so stupid that i need things broken down into a very simple form for me. now it is being insinuated that i believe i am above everyone. you are attacking me personally! why are you doing this to me?

please understand, there is a problem with the culture of this forum. it is very negative. i have seen this happen before here.

[manuscript]

i am never coming back here. this is a toxic environment for art.

[Delta40]

the reason for the lack of capitalisation is due to the fact that i have my own philosophies on grammar and usage, including that language is here for me, rather than me being here for it, and i can use it how i please.

I don't think we misunderstood you at all. Good luck.

[hillwalker]

i am never coming back here. this is a toxic environment for art.

For such a colossal ego, I'm amazed you can bring yourself to write the word 'i' without capitalising it.

H