Rating Stories on another site

[donteatpoop]

So everyonce in a while when I am doing something other than working on uploading a story on CYA, I read and rate a story. Many of their stories are lame-ass, putting our lame-ass stories to shame for the simple fact that they delete the really bad ones (meaning the lame-ass stories on there are representations of quality)

What are some of your favorite biting comments from stories on here, so that I post them in their comments and annihilate them with the pain that we deal out so harshly to the filth on this site?

[End Master]

Furries.

But I’d say most of your comments about bad stories over here would work. Always found the one about Fruit Loops amusing, but that’s more for a story that’s average rather than outright bad.

I haven’t read a lot of the comments on there. Most of the comments I’ve seen though have been praising a story. I’ve only rated one story over there and I didn’t bother commenting on it since I mentioned in their forums that I thought it was alright.

[Usoki]

Aren't there whole threads in the old forum with funny insulting comments?

[End Master]

Yeah there was like 4 of those threads, but after Sev put in a link to view someone's various comments on every story they ever commented on, there was little point to do them anymore.

DEP's best bet to find what he's looking for, would be to go to the "view comments" of the people here that usually give insulting comments.

[JJJ-thebanisher]

So everyonce in a while when I am doing something other than working on uploading a story on CYA, I read and rate a story. Many of their stories are lame-ass, putting our lame-ass stories to shame for the simple fact that they delete the really bad ones (meaning the lame-ass stories on there are representations of quality)

What are some of your favorite biting comments from stories on here, so that I post them in their comments and annihilate them with the pain that we deal out so harshly to the filth on this site?

OMG! WHICH ONES?

[End Master]

Speaking of CYS, where are some of them getting the idea that 5th and 6th person POVs exist?

Didn't we have a conversation about that not too long ago and agree that it didn't?

[JJJ-thebanisher]

Speaking of CYS, where are some of them getting the idea that 5th and 6th person POVs exist?

Didn't we have a conversation about that not too long ago and agree that it didn't?

Alot of them, are REAL dumbasses........ There are few who arent.. Like madglee for instance -- he rocks.

[Usoki]

I don't even understand where they'd get 4th person... You have first, second, third limited and third omniscient. There aren't any other viewpoints, because there aren't any other ways to manipulate verb tense.

[Locke]

I hope I'm not opening a can of worms here (or beating a dead horse, or rousing a sleeping dog, if you're fond of proverbs and want to look at it that way) but there are more points of view than first, second and third person; other languages do have them. Everything is relative; it really depends on how the language is structured and how you want to define points of view. If you look at things a certain way, there are really only two points of view in English: "first person" in which the speaker typically has a presence in the story and "third person" in which he does not. "Second person" seems pretty much the same as first person except that the speaker has not established a presence in the story - which would make it third person, except the behavior of the verb (he walks, they walk) (I walk, we walk) (you walk, y'all walk) agrees with first person.

Second person more than the other two really seems like an arbitrary distinction, in the same way that Pluto is or isn't a planet, or even declaring that a glass is half full or half empty. I guess either a group of people got together and agreed on those definitions (like Pluto) or they didn't, but in any case they're just terms or models like "420" or Id, Ego and Superego that in one way or another evolved from a thought in someone's head to widespread use. In any case, even if you do want to go by only those widely held, arbitrary and subjective definitions, and limit yourself to the English language, the term "fourth person" IS used, though far less often, to describe a point of view.

First: I walk to the closet to get my coat.
Second: You doze off in class.
Third: They discuss politics.
Fourth: One should wash up before dinner.

Grammatically, anyway, in English those are the points of view. And if you want to hold your own opinion (Pluto is still most certainly a planet for me, and the glass is neither half full nor half empty; half holds water and the other air, and the glass is refillable in any case) consider first that using a word like "one" is different from the others in that it can be indefinite or generic. It's actually sort of the converse of "you". The speaker does not have a presence in the sentence, and is not involving the reader - nor is he/she really describing events in the classic third-person sense.

That's grammatically speaking. If you want to talk philosophy, that's an entirely different kettle of kittens. Philosophically speaking, the points of view seem to depend on degrees of seperation of the speaker or reader from the experience, so theoretically there are an infinite number of "persons". First person has the speaker physically present in some form in the work, relating events personally. Second person directly addresses the reader. Third person relates events, but neither the speaker nor the reader are directly involved or addressed. First person can be considered closer to the experience as the speaker is presumably addressing SOMEONE when he/she tells the story, and while the method of address is less direct than second person the involvement of the speaker in the actual work puts it slightly above second person in terms of "closeness".

If you accept the above as established "facts" then an increasing or decreasing "person" (point of view) only requires that either the speaker or reader, not both, move closer to or further from the experience. The next point of view inward (call it 0th person) must bring either the reader or the speaker closer to the experience, which would involve a profound shift in the media or an author more clever than I am. Television could be considered a sort of 0th person, as events are "experienced" more by the viewer; he/she sees and hears them take place, but the speaker is typically absent from television programs, which moves it back in the hierarchy to be equivalent to third or at most second person. In a strictly literary sense, 0th person would have to involve something like the reader or the speaker actually BEING the experience.

4th person, on the other hand, necessitates a further absenting of the speaker or reader from the experience, which would involve, media-wise, something like hearing about a book from a friend (as related to the original story it would be 4th person philosophically, though the story as told from his/her lips it would be first, second or third) or literarily, a book with parts missing (though again grammatically that would make no difference) or a speaker who simply was not present, as in a story consisting entirely of dialogue. In that sense most stories have 4th person moments, while some occasionally bring about pseudo philosophical 0th person moments by skipping around in time (the story presumably, philosophically, is still taking place during "lost time"; the speaker simply does not speak of it and the reader does not hear about it except possibly secondhand from the characters talking of it later) or revealing another dimension to the story, or "breaking the fourth wall" as when people in the story discover they are only characters in a novel - seeming to bring them out one dimension into "our world" while in reality they've been subjectively "further" from us all along.

Awful 4th person short story:

"Garbanzo beans!" "What?" "One should eat them whenever posssible." "Why?" "One's mental acuity is improved by the consumption of garbanzo beans." "Not true; it's been telling lies again." "It?" "That thing that transmits every afternoon; one learns not to trust anything it says." "It has been known to mislead people in the past." "Ouch!" "What?" "One should learn not to play with matches, I suppose." "One has worse problems. One's house is on fire." "Oh no."

[Usoki]

Nah, reopening Pandora's box is fun in moderation! Besides, I don't remember a convo like this, so it must be a geezer member thing.

Now, to me, this 'fourth person' just seems like a very vague third person limited. Grammatically, that is. But it would explain a few things, so, grammatically, I have no problem acccepting it. However, it's only good for technical essays- you shouldn't have a point of view at all, but if you need to throw one in, don't you dare throw in 1st or 2nd.

Philosophically, that's one of the dumbest things I've heard of. Heck, I'd even accept 0th person as possible, but a philo 4th is just stupid. Though, I'm biased by the way you're trying to make "breaking the 4th wall" a reference to 4th POV. It's breaking the fourth wall because it's a play interacting with the audience. When you're watching a play, it's as though there are four invisible walls separating the characters from everything else. Three of these walls are also real ( the back and sides of the stage) but the front is not. If there was not a fourth wall, the characters would know they're being watched. There is, they don't, and they go on their happy little lives. So, when they acknowledge our existance with a quip, it means they know we're there- they've broken the separation between the real world and the 'world' of the play. Hence breaking the fourth wall. None of this 'removal' crap. There's only so many ways you can remove yourself from an experience before you're NOT HAVING IT ANYMORE. I also note with interest how you're not explaining 1st, 2nd, and 3rd this way. It seems to me that 2nd and 3rd have the same degree of removal. It's the speaker talking about a person. Whether the speaker is talking about this person in the 2nd or 3rd degree, it's still one degree of removal.

[End Master]

I think it was Apoth or Xnull that mentioned on the old forums that they had a friend that was insisting that things like "37th person" existed or something.

I’ve heard of 4th person before, but yeah it does seem like a variation of 3rd. Writing a "real story" with 4th would sound pretty silly though. (Much like the Garbanzo bean story which for some reason made me laugh)

[Usoki]

Oh, yeah! But those weren't points of view, those were points of removal. He said she said you said. Which, quite frankly, is absolutely idiotic. And that's also why I disagree with the "philosophical" points of view.

[Vesnic]

I can think of a foreign-language example in which a sort of fourth person is created through a third person's relating the point of view of another person. Interestingly, the subjunctive mood is used in this sort of situation. The subjunctive is also utilized to convey uncertainty or subjectivity, so it semantically implies a sense of distance and indirect experience. It conjugates differently than the simple third person, which makes it syntactically distinct as well.

[Nappi]

holy shit for brains:eek:...Usoki,Vesnic and Locke all need to start hanging out with Apoth,get really drunk and give the ole over worked brains a fookkin rest before you slip up and start making some kinda goddamn sense...sheezus krispy crinkle ,my eyes hurt just reading this existencialkrapola

[End Master]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c50/Phototyrant/InfiniteParty.jpg

[Locke]

Oh man, I actually really like that lock. That's clever. I want it. It's a lock, get it?

Why have we poisoned Nappi, though? Or is that just a badly drawn Apoth having a good time? And I notice we're missing a few members, conspicuously this hulking robed figure I seem to know from somewhere...

[Vesnic]

As much as I am loathe to admit it, that really cracked me up, Nappi. Thanks, old chap!

Oh, and you too, End!

[End Master]

Oh man, I actually really like that lock. That's clever. I want it. It's a lock, get it?

Why have we poisoned Nappi, though? Or is that just a badly drawn Apoth having a good time? And I notice we're missing a few members, conspicuously this hulking robed figure I seem to know from somewhere...


Yeah, that's Apoth, I probably should've drawn the back of his head a little longer. I didn't include anyone else since Nappi's suggestion just mentioned you, Apoth, Ves, and Usoki.