Reviews for All the World's a Stage
theCoffeeEnzyme chapter 1 . 5/18/2006
This is a response to the first chapter only as that's all that I've read so far. For the record, I'm impressed with your intelligence. I'm no college student and I'm certainly no genius but I know a person with some spark of intelligence when I see one. However, I'm not sure that I agree with the standpoint you're taking here. Although I agree with your views on "right and wrong" I found your views on writing in general rather shocking. You made it sound almost as though it were some kind of competition. I've received my fair share of flames before (though, my writing is rather mediocre and not nearly as provocative as yours) but, in my experience, I haven't received those flames because the flamer feels threatened by my presence. Perhaps I'm just too dull to pick up on the flamer's underlying meaning but, it has always seemed to me that I get flamed when I say something that really pisses someone off. Not because they're afraid I'm going to steal their job. Most people probably don't think in-depth enough to realize that I might be a better writer than them (I say that with as little narcissism as possible). Again, perhaps I'm just dull but you seem to treat writing like a game and you have to beat all the other players or someone will reach the end before you and I just don't look at it that way. Maybe that's just me. Or, maybe I just completely missed what you were trying to say in this essay. Oh well, like I said, I'm no genius.
Meat-eater Puppysbane chapter 4 . 3/24/2006
Writing as painting:

fjaklsjclaneceio 823yfo23n c 8hcla n2 90 njklf nsalkc 8 jk;2jd091 djkcna890 w89 hc2oij 2lij 12098 dj j8& jlkfnac8& *H 2fncl y8dhoiajdlJ *()D D J(*) da;ljdkaslfkna c* H2o.

I want my goddamn Pulitzer now.

(It's Surrealism!)
Tiefling chapter 3 . 3/16/2006
"Once I submit a new story or chapter, my job as a writer is finished; I’ve written it and posted it."

The thing is, your work often does not seem to be finished to a high standard when you post it, and needs some revision. If it were published commercially it would have been through numerous revisions and you would have had lots of constructive criticism from an editor, so once it hit the shelves your job really would be done, but as things stand you're just churning out mediocre writing then sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalala I'm not listening" if anyone tries to help you improve. A refusal to listen to criticism makes you stagnate as a writer.

"Most do it for feedback, which is a terrible idea on an amateur site such as this."

Why, exactly?

"Will it win the Pulitzer Prize ever? I don’t know. "

Fanfiction will never win a Pulitzer Prize.

" why do you care so much if an amateur website’s users don’t like your story?"

If someone makes a good suggestion I may want to take it on board.

"No great artist or writer has ever become famous or done good at all by following the rules all the time!"

Here you go with your crap about 'the rules" again. Some famous artists have been outcasts and rebels, while others have been quite happy with the status quo.

Since you keep mentioning great writers in the past, can you come up with one who didn't ever allow their work to be edited and revised? I doubt it.

"Attention, good or bad, is still attention, and the writer who has more people’s attention will be a lot better off than the writer who tries to only be a crowd-pleaser!"

You sound like the sort of person who streaks at sporting events.

Given that you're not making any money out of this, how does being thought of as an idiot by a larger number of people make you 'better off'?

"Nobody here is an English scholar."

On the contrary, I am an English scholar. I am actually here reviewing right now because I'm putting off going and doing some of the reading I'm supposed to.
Flyne chapter 1 . 3/16/2006
*flames you so you'll write more*

Just so you know, wikipedia is about as accurate as Britanica.
No Trust chapter 4 . 3/16/2006
Your claims are empirically false. I dislike plenty of people who like themselves and hate a few of the most self-loving people in existence, and I like a few people who don't like themselves. Whether someone likes themselves or not doesn't have that much to do with whether or not I like them. Similarly I dislike a vast number of writen pieces thought of very highly by their authors. This is enough to disprove your claims, without me even pointing out that many people (probably including yourself) share share similar ranges of attitudes to people.

Your railing against 'convention' is childish nonsense. People will go against convention or not; some in either category will be good and some bad. Mostly the latter.
Tiefling chapter 4 . 3/15/2006
I haven't read any of the previous chapters. Based on this one I don't think I'll bother.

"I suppose some reviewers would then come along and say that there is no convention to painting. And that’s the truth."

On the contrary, there are *many* conventions to painting.

"Let me put it this way(suspend any disbelief you may have for a minute here). Let’s say a person that you deeply loved went on a journey for a long time; if they sent you a letter, would you read it or would you throw it away because you decided you didn’t like the stamp he/she used to postmark it?"

That's a non sequitur.

"Writing is like painting-there is no “convention.” "

As with painting there are many conventions in writing. For example there is the convention that a novel should have a plot with a beginning, middle and an end. Whether you like that convention or not, it's still there.

"...and if the writers were truthful in their writing, then I also guarantee you that I would enjoy reading both,"

I doubt that very much. That writing is truthful doesn't mean it will be good (there is a saying that all bad poetry stems from genuine feeling), and that writing is good doesn't mean you will like it. I have read books which I can appreciate are well written, but which I did not enjoy reading.

"If one is truthful to their writing, as in they write on the page what they feel, then the result will always be good."


"If you like you’re writing, other people will like your writing. too."

That should be 'your' not 'you're' and you're wrong. Some of the stuff that gets posted in this essay section is utter tripe, and the problem with it is not that the authors didn't like what they were writing. In fact, the authors are often so full of themselves and convinced of their own genius that they can't take even the slightest constructive criticism. Their essays are bad because they haven't bothered to spell check them, use correct grammar or have a point.

Most people who send their unsolicited manuscripts off to publishers think that it's good, or they wouldn't bother with the price of postage. Does that mean the publishers will? Obviously not, as only about one in a hundred such manuscripts are ever published (according to a lecturer of mine who works in publishing). Your beliefs about your own work have nothing to do with its quality or lack thereof.
Formerly chapter 4 . 3/15/2006
AVDA is hit-or-miss-his last chapter was awful, but the one before it was pretty good. You're not hit-or-miss-you never make any sense. Painting can be compared to sculpture, architecture, pottery, and a number of other things. Writing is NOT one of those things, because it's as different from them as swimming is from playing a video game. Loose comparisons can be made, yes, but unlike painting, there IS convention in writing. It's true that one can go against the grain in writing, but it's unsuccessful unless you're damn good. Look, for instance, at James Joyce. His writing was unconventional as fuck, but he knew damn well how to write conventionally (and did it quite a bit), and definitely applied convention to his unconventional writing. Saying that your writing is just as good as any other because "there is no convention to writing" is like saying that the spray of paint from the blindfolded flick of a paintbrush is as much a work of art as the Mona Lisa. People like you and AVDA would, based on what you've said before, argue that it's all in the perception of the beholder, which is absolute BULLSHIT.

Also, as far as I can tell, you're still talking about fanfiction. Because of that I'm afraid I can't take you seriously no matter what you write, and I happen to LIKE fanfiction. Yes, that's right.

-Max Krugman
Meat-eater Puppysbane chapter 2 . 3/7/2006
I found "Rent" pretentious and preachy... like most theater majors.

(If you're not a theater major, sorry, I only actually skim your essays.)
Meat-eater Puppysbane chapter 3 . 3/7/2006
I... kill people... for my own personal amusement. That, or because the government tells me to.

Tee hee!

Hey, the herpes, yes little ole me, herpes...
Meat-eater Puppysbane chapter 1 . 3/7/2006
I make love to myself to the sound of my own voice... we should start a club.

PS - A joke's not funny if you have to explain it. Although Wikipedia does suck accuracy balls... hmm, perhaps that explains your understanding of copyright law...
le Poulet de la Piscine chapter 3 . 2/20/2006
Oh, your writing is always entertaining at least. But who joins a writing site designed to receive reviews and doesn't read the reviews? That's lame. You could remember the stories just as well by saving them to a disk or printing them out. Don't even pretend that the reason that you post here isn't beacause you want attention.
Formerly chapter 3 . 2/7/2006
Oh, Raptor, you're such a card.
No Trust chapter 3 . 2/7/2006
This chapter is all one big non sequitur.
dark88poet chapter 3 . 2/7/2006
Although you say that you will not read any further reviews I just felt the need to thank you for such an enjoyable read. If you are the author that I've heard so many people say things about then it was interesting seeing things from your point of view.
Voronwe chapter 1 . 2/7/2006
Can you read what you type? Or are you far-sighted.

23 | Page 1 2 Next »