Reply
Wed 23 Mar, 2005 12:28 am
Prolly oughtta keep your day job a while longer, partner.
timberlandko wrote:Prolly oughtta keep your day job a while longer, partner.
Ummm...do you have anything constructive to ad? Or are you just going to insist that it isn't any good without any helpful rationale.
Is it just the subject matter/underlying views that bother you?
No, the subject matter is irelevant to my criticism. the sentence structure, the timing and delivery, the allegory, and the grammar all leave me with the impression the effort is forced - there's little flow and less humor. You need to work on irony, contrast-and-comparison, and general style. Its a good idea for a humor piece, it just doesn't quite make the grade as far as I'm concerned. Others no doubt will opine differently.
Note please that I make no claim that I might do any better, merely that that particular piece just doesn't do it for me.
timberlandko wrote:No, the subject matter is irelevant to my criticism. the sentence structure, the timing and delivery, the allegory, and the grammar all leave me with the impression the effort is forced - there's little flow and less humor. You need to work on irony, contrast-and-comparison, and general style. Its a good idea for a humor piece, it just doesn't quite make the grade as far as I'm concerned. Others no doubt will opine differently.
Note please that I make no claim that I might do any better, merely that that particular piece just doesn't do it for me.
Ah ok.
That's more what I was hoping for here.
After all, I can get a quick and smarmy off the cuff remark from anybody on the street. I'm just hoping for some constructive feedback.
Hi Smash and welcome to a2k. Lighten up. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that sermon was delivered with tongue firmly in cheek. This is not an analysis of some sticky concept in jurisprudence. It's an off the cuff remark. If the media in it's neverending search for items to make the collective public swivel their heads puts statements like this in the forefront for our perusal, the editors aren't doing their jobs. This in my estimation is a throwaway and the sooner it hits the wastebasket the better.
bobsmythhawk wrote:Hi Smash and welcome to a2k. Lighten up. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that sermon was delivered with tongue firmly in cheek. This is not an analysis of some sticky concept in jurisprudence. It's an off the cuff remark. If the media in it's neverending search for items to make the collective public swivel their heads puts statements like this in the forefront for our perusal, the editors aren't doing their jobs. This in my estimation is a throwaway and the sooner it hits the wastebasket the better.
Oh fore sure it was. I was just riffing on it for humour.
I guess I should be more careful in terms of the tone of the article when I am doing this kind of acticle.
I meantion in the first paragraph something along the lines of "of course he wouldn't be joking about this" and I guess that the sarcasm didn't show through.
Any thoughts on how I could have maybe worded that better? I've received similar criticism before.
No offense taken Smash. Fear not. I have one of the thickest skins ever. Just as on television or in films you can too subtle. Don't worry too much about pleasing others or you'll beat yourself to death. One of the axioms I've had for life is and I quote--If all around you people are beating you up, don't join them.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace