John Galaor

Ok, Aaron. That is a very good story. It exudes a lot of tenderness and passion. That many readers loved this story it is shown on the full stars it has. So, I have to congratulate you. I can not give any advice, for you will develop farther your own narrative ability are you will keep writing more. Keep writing.

There is the possibility to get some immunization to disappointments. To achieve a a difficult career in science, engineering, or even in becoming a writer, we need to develop an immunization with disappointments. Life is full of disappointments, and we have continue living. John Galaor

I have said a few times, this story needs a revision of the writing, because I thought they needed. And I told that because I loved the story. If the story would had been a bore, I would not had tell anything. Then, due that I thought it was mostly a careless work, I did not enter into details. Other question is that he would had asked me, or something. Other question is that there quite a lot of stories. Too many for the time and energy I have at present. On the other hand, the most time I devote to read other people's stories the less time I have to devote to my own. This another problem. Then, I started with a lot of energy reviewing the works of other people, while at the same time, I began to realized that I am redundant here. I feel a sort of alien here. It was a wrong move on my part to come here. But in life one is constantly making wrong decisions.

Well, I thoroughly assume the rap. I accept most of what you say in your post. And well, I was really exaggerating. I really was. I had found that some stories, or styles of writing, that I dislike are most popular; while other stories that I like are mostly orphans. Of course, I had read so far only about 60 or 80 stories out of perhaps more than a thousand ten thousand stories that are here. Nevertheless I had read some three hundred stories in nifty. Well, in a time span of some years. I also understand the need of encouraging new writers and praise them, even if they are not very good at the present stage. To arrive to a point of being a good writer you have to begin by being not a good one. It is like a process of training. Nevertheless, I think I had praised so far more than 30 stories. In most cases, I did not say a word about some obvious defects of the story. In the few cases I said something critical, but my comments sent in PM were not welcomed. I understand this reaction, for I do not remember but just a case in which I accepted some critics. Then, our egos are sort of impermeable to criticisms. I am also involved in this. An hour ago, I was watching a video on the British novel and I heard some authors criticizing more or less harshly their colleagues. I had read also about disqualifications among the Spanish writers of the first part of 20 Century. So, to reject criticism is a part of being a writer and of rejecting the works of your competitors. I had become very fastidious with my perfectionism, but this is mostly a defect, I suppose. Most professional writers are not very good either, even if many of them have an with an editor or two, and also have helpers to develop some plots. In other cases, but also in books shops, I had found stories so badly written that I would not dare to say a word. Then it would not be a miracle if with some stories here I cannot read more than a few lines and get tired. I mean... if I have not reasons to tell something nice top an author, I must shut up. And to end all this, I can be rather frustrated anyway. This embitters anyone.

Ok, James. You have a truck full of reasons. I was talking from the perspective of my own experience. I do not know a a word about others. I had a experience both ways; one as a receptor of critics from my stories, and as a transmitter of critics to other writers. Well, in both cases, the experience had been a total disappointment. Well, except with just one person that made perfect critics to my stories. He was a sort of magician. I was disappointed on the receiving end of criticism. For they rarely understood well the story, or put wrong criticism to things that were right. On a few other cases, some ladies were complaining that my stories were too clear. As a lady put it, "if you said it all, what do you let for the readers to discover? They should make an effort to understand the story, coming and going back and for, to understand what the author was trying to say." She said this was one of pleasures of literature to find out why the author was saying this or that absurd thing. I could not be less in accord with this idea. To me, a story should be written with such a care that the reader would not stump on any obstacle in his pleasure of reading. About giving out criticism to others, I had found the same problem as here in GA. Very few authors have any sensibility over such a trifle as if their stories are understandable or not. They assume they are clear enough and do not not need any corrections. I remember a story a lady had started telling about someone who was walking slowly by a steep street, and the author expended like a page and a half describing the scene without stating "who was" the creature that was acting. In Spanish the verbs do not need the help of a pronoun to work properly. So, I told her, how do you write a story without telling "who is" walking on this street? I do not know if it was a dog, or human male, a female, a boy, a girl, an old man, an old woman, a hobo, or what. She did not apparently realize this was a problem for a reader. I suppose she new perfectly what she was writing about, she who the character was. But she was unable to realize that the reader have not the ability to read the mind of the writer. As a reader, how could I picture in my mind the agent that was acting in this story? I cannot read a story if I could not see it like in a sort of movie. There is not any need to explain too much in detail how people is clothed. If the author do not tell this I assume the characters are clad in a standard way for the natural setting of the story. It is like with the faces, there is not any obligation to paint a portrait of the character's faces. If the author does not explain this point I can figure any face I would fancy. But in general, the problem of the story is that it has to be readable without much effort. On a second front, the story has to be exciting or interesting or pleasant to read. Then, summing up my experience, there is like a chasm, an abyss between some authors and the readers. As a reader you can tell some author some problems you have with their stories but they do not understand, or would not accept your commentaries. He thinks are... "preposterous". i borrow your word, James. Then, it seems to me, that reviews had became some sort of social event to tell niceties to the authors. Nothing more.

I take the rap gladly. The pending question is to agree about what is to write a good or a bad story. This must be the "holy grail" of literature. Underneath my words are several layers of meaning. One is the meaning of what good literature is, or what is an acceptable prose, or an excellent prose, if such a thing exists, and what is a story badly written. Unless we have some sort of accord on the meaning of these concepts, we are wasting the time with arguments. I am not an expert in literature, and I suppose no one is either an expert here. Nevertheless, I would not call either an expert into these arguments, for I had observed a discrepancy between the value given to their master works of literature and my experience as a reader. The same case happens here. I had seen many popular stories that I cannot bear to read more than a few lines. And I had seen other excellent written stories that are total orphans, with a nearly total lack of popularity. I had been reading some mainstream novels. I learned my English by reading novels. Then, the so called bestsellers had a quality of being easy to read as well as pleasant at reading. I am in favor of that; that a novel would be pleasant to read. And to be pleasant, I suppose the story has to have some quality of being easy to understand. From this perspective, I am in the same flock as many contemporary readers that cannot read Ulysses, Hamlet, or In Search of Lost Time. I don't want to make a list too long. Then, if we come back here. I am confronted with the same problem. What is a good story? What is a story well written? Why I cannot not stand reading more than five lines of some popular authors here? What is really the problem? I am naive enough to think that a good prose, as different from the whole story, has to have the quality of "being easy to read". It cannot be a sort of torture, like when you are reading the first page of Ulysses, or some nineteen century novels. Then, I am not at this moment contemplating the whole novel as good or bad in itself, as a finished unit. I am considering the problem, that a good novel has to be good, even if sampled in small parts. I open a novel at random and start to read a paragraph. Well, this paragraph has to have enough consistence to take care of itself. Just imagine a paragraph of only five lines. What can be the problem if you cannot read even five lines? You cannot complain that the story is too long, or too short. You cannot expect this small paragraph taken as a random sample would be very funny, or very sad, or otherwise extraordinary. The least that we can expected from such a small sample of three or five lines is... "not to being rebuffed and stop reading". Sadly, I have to confess that many stories I tried to read here show this problem from the very first paragraph. And this is very sad. I can understand that when a novel is too long we are tired sometimes and commit an error here and there, or a little chain of errors. It is difficult to spot these errors for some studies had proved that the eye reads by jumping. It makes about two or three jumps on each line. Then, the brain put the words that go in between those points on each jump. Then, if an error is between those two points, you cannot see it. There is another problem, the story can be very clear in the mind of the writer, but is is not so clear when put into written words. Then, the reader has to have the capacity of reconstructing the same story the writer intended to put in the story. For the eye of the reader does not stops in the same places as the eye of the writer. Then, most times, the author has many more ideas in a concrete scene that he puts into writing. Then, the reader has to have power of divination to figure it what the writer has in his mind. With these words I do not mean that an author has to put excessive detail into their stories. I do not like Proust at all, that tired readers with an unending description of irrelevant details of the innumerable decorative elements in a lounge. He could expend like two or three pages describing the elements of the damned lounge. This is an abomination to any contemporary reader. Anyway, I think I am wasting my time telling all this trash. I think all you know well this problem. I am not going to tell you that exists something huge that is called the Pacific Ocean.

You have written a sort of "critic of the pure reason" in a sort of Kantian style. I was only doing a light rant on human relations as a reflection on my own experience in life. If I had a different experience, I would be painting a different portrait. Then, my words do not pretend to paint a true image of reality, for I am not any sure of how objective reality is. I am only trying to figure it. Then, do not worry for any of the silly things I am saying. I am a lonely nerd with very little social experience. That's all.

As I have less social intelligence than a sea turtle, I dare to add a few more words. This post is not meant as a reply to AnytaSunday commentary, but to the former three or four posts. 1) To criticize openly is like to show some form of superiority, either real or imaginary. Then, nobody wants to treat with superiors, except to praise them for they are rich, or are just authors that died hundred years ago or more. 2) To criticize faintly or discreetly is equivalent to portrait oneself as an equal. And most people do not want to be the equal of someone we had not been dinning and drinking with. If you had not any special friendship with him, you would not accept even a veiled criticism. This is only tolerable for friends or lovers. I mean, faint criticisms. 3) If you are fanatic enough to write very well, or have a fetish for a perfect prose, is advisable not to post it in GA, or in any other place whatever. Summing up, do not post it. Why? To write well is equivalent to brag of a superiority over the readers. This would be enough reason to hate you. Everybody has already his case full of heroes, gods of sports, movies, punk music and even gods of literature. Then the case is so full that one has barely enough room for his own ego; that since our timid adolescence has grown very big. 4) To write badly does not offend anyone. I would dare to say it is a good thing, for it sort of enhances the talent of the reader. So, he can see a badly written story as a divine revelation of his own superiority as a writer. So, I think there is not any reason to hate or despise a bad writer, for it does not belittle in the least our ago. The worse that could happen to us is boredom. And the cure for this boredom is to stop reading. In fact, is very difficult to appraise how many stories we had petitioned and had been read entirely. A five percent does not look an exaggeration to me. I would be very glad if one out of forty people who had download any of my stories would had read it till the end. That would be great, a 2.5% of people arriving to the end of one of my stories. The most probably figure would be less than 0.25%

Thank you Tet. I will have a look.

It is very difficult to criticize honestly, for even the slightest hint of criticism can wound the ego of the author. Unless an author has asked you directly for some help, I would not dare to criticize anyone, not even slightly. I had done this precisely a few times, a veiled criticism, and I have regretted. The only criticism most authors accept gladly are full praises. It is difficult for an author, myself included, to think the praises are exaggerated or undeserved. Not that I had received any praises here in GA, for I do not. But I have had a lot for my stories in NIFTY. Then, I do not remember any case in which I thought the praises were exaggerated. You can find the prove of this assertion by reading some twenty of thirty samples of praises on different stories here GA. Many popular stories here are full of visits with a lot of flattery reviews. Then, some of the most popular stories are rather shoddy written. It has been a sort of discovery for me. You never end your learning. Then, I think a rule of thumb of social intelligence is to praise everybody. To praise his stories, the clothes he wear, you should praise his intelligence when he opens his mouth, their hairdo, his new haircut, his shoes, etc. The most you praise others, the most intelligent you would look in the eyes of other people. So, the golden rule must be, praise always; do it generously, and never tell anything that you would guess other people would not understand, or ignore, or never had heard off. If you present a low profile, people would not had a serious reason to hate you. Specially if you are prone to praise often your peers, and most of all to the alpha males or females on the site you are staying. Then, forget about telling anyone any short of slight criticism whatever. Not any word about this.

we have a fetish with explanations, in the same way we had invented myths. So, we have myths for heroes, saints and gods. It is a part of human folklore. Then, we still have a need for "human sacrifices". So we have disguise human sacrifices with the concept of responsibility. In other times we would had said "we kill them to placate the wrath of the gods". Now we kill them for "they are responsible of their deeds". It is about the same thing. We kill them to instill fear in the common average soul. For they could easily become criminals if the circumstances change enough. I some circumstances any of us can become criminal if we are not killed previously by more aggressive agents. Those that kill first have a greater chance to win. That is the reason we have a police force and an army. To prevent or destroy the sudden appearance of armed thugs vandalizing the country. Those more prone to violence are always at the ready to destroy society. So, it is a work that never ends. For in some countries there more criminality than in others. In Europe by example, criminality is lower than in the US. For in Europe society is less savage, and care more for the poor classes. Then, the social circumstances play a role in the amount of violence of a country. By far, the most violence comes from people that were raises in poor circumstances, with single mothers that have to enslave themselves for long hours to survive and feed their breed. This conditions are a breeding ground of criminality. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

Ok. Good grades are quite elastic. Then, to be the son of a wealthy family, not only opens you the doors to Universities of five stars in the US. If you are a star in any sport you can also enter. That elemental facts of life can award you good grades. In general, I have never read about outstanding lawyers, engineers or scientists that were athletic stars, or were of rich families. Perhaps I am quite wrong, but I never read about this fact. I have some reasons to believe this. Our brain does not perform miracles. Either you are a good athlete or you are a good student. You can be a very good chess player, or you can be a good pianist, or a great swimmer, or a student with great capacity to learn sciences, but you cannot be the whole lot. The main reason is probably that to learn something very difficult you need a lot of time, a lot of training. Then, the time is limited, as it is also limited our brain capacity. We have a proverb for this in my language, "we cannot be doing the mass and tolling the bells at the same time". Then, we can run or swim a little well, we can play some easy pieces on a piano, we play a chess and win the children playing chess, we can make some studies on this or that, but you would not be outstanding in the whole lot of these abilities. So, if you are poor, you have to be a real great star in sports or in sciences, soaring up higher than the highest flayers, for a good university to open their doors to you. For minor universities you have not to be as good, except in sports. Then, there are some options to enter a high class university, either you are of a very wealthy family, you are a great in sports, or you are great in sciences or laws. In general you have to pay, except in the case of great sport stars. For universities use their sport teams to make publicity. Then, the best athletes are often filthy poor, often are black guys, and the university has to buy them to play in their team. If you need them, you can buy them, for they are poor.

Hi! I am very glad to tell you that this chapter has been a very pleasant read also. I cannot believe yet how nice it is to read something so fluid and so... so crisp and so... pretty understandable. Besides, as I was reading this story I felt like an adolescent again or something. I am feeling as I read all the insecurities I would have had in the unknown environment a this high school. Well, it can seem a little weird that I had said "pretty understandable". Well, it is not so weird. There is a common language for all people... for most people, that post stories here, but it is not that easy to write in a plain understandable and clear way. That it why to write is said to be "an art". If were not, everybody would be doing it nicely. In my condition of alien to this language, I am very sensible on this precise topic. I most than others need to read a clear text to feel good. When, I do not understand a story I feel like... you know one says in a phrase like this. I personally feel like of malodorous trash as I read a story that I do not understand. Have you ever tried to read Ulysses of Joyce? If you are one of those lucky one that can read this novel, you are one a few. If don't you can perhaps understand how bad I feel sometimes reading. Some people write stories in a way that it seems I am reading Shakespeare or Chaucer, not a piece of contemporary literature. Well, you are not Shakespeare, don't be sad, man. Not any publisher would print you any story if were writing like Shakespeare. If you were that big, I would not be so enthusiastically praising this second chapter of this story. So, far only a girl from Perth has written as well as you here. Then it amazes me at how alone seems your story here. That I do not see any enthusiastic review.

So you meant "a pair" of balls. Perhaps it was not such a bad thing after all to shut up for a time. You cannot imagine how difficult is to fend off by himself when you are under 18. To have a work and to earn enough to pay the rent for a small flat or trailer room, and all that. Even going to live under the roof of someone older than you could be also a risky business. Then it was not such bad thing you did, considering how many things could go wrong. To leave home early in life, a thing I did, could be comparable to buying an old car and hoping you could go very far on it. In the end, all your social status depends much on the money you have, or you can earn. The rest in life is mostly secondary. We are slaves to feed our bodies, for they need food almost daily. That means money. Then, to feed yourself you had to sell yourself to others. That could be a job, or that could be "other services" you have to perform to please others. Then to live with the parents means to be enslaved to their rules. Then, one never is a true master of himself. Not even as an adult. We are never free. We have to be slaves to others as a mean to take care of your own body. Even if we are living as hunter gatherers, we depend much on the help of others to survive. For sometimes you can pass four or five days in a row without hunting any thing at all. I put myself again in a philosophical pose. Well, I beg your pardon.

Oh! I was amazed reading this story! I know this phrase is a little wore, for I had used not less than six times before. Then, to give more credibility to my words, I had to confessed that I had never been fan of this sort of fantasies. I never had read any novel about mutants, vampires, magicians, lord of the rings, and so on. I never read any of them, for I suppose it was childish stuff. I remember of being bored watching Superman movies in the TV. Even, if Harry Potter looked a lot better than Superman, and the Lord of the Rings, I never watched entirely any of those movies. In my defense for not liking these fantasies, I have to confess that I am too old to read this stories. Then, when I was very young this were stories printed in comics for children. Then, as I grew up I was becoming more and more of a boring intellectual. So, that I liked your story is a sort of miracle, boy. I loved specially for it gave way to the psychological problems of a mutant when he realizes that he is not normal as everybody else. This first chapter promises that the following parts would be even much better. Thanks a lot, boy. You had done a great job.