THE FIRST ARGUMENT EVER

[Nicol Armarfi]

That may be true, but it's certainly not what Jake said. He mentioned that it would be a hook because it is a different world from ours, without actually mentioning any sort of hook in the characters or events.

[Wintermoon]

So then, we agree.

Just a piece of advice: nobody here can read your mind. As such, we are all forced to respond to what you actually said, not what you think you said or what you meant to say.

[papillon]

"Sup you disagree so you are an antagonistic idiot."

No, you are an antagonistic potential-idiot and ALSO you disagree. Separate points. Try to keep track.

I mention the book as an example, and you don't even see the example and just jump on the book itself, saying it is crap.

See, this is why we repeatedly accuse you of being more interested in picking a fight than in actually having a discussion.

You mention a book in which the hook doesn't happen at the beginning, as an example.

Jake points out that he hasn't actually READ the book and therefore can't really discuss your particular example, but that he heard the book wasn't very good and therefore might not be a great example of how to use a hook that's not at the beginning.

You complain that he's 'jumping on the book' and that he '[didn't] even see the example'. How the heck was he supposed to see the example when he hasn't read the book? Would you have preferred for him to lie? Would the only way to satisfy you have been for him to go immediately buy and read the book before responding? Or would you then be equally annoyed if he DID go and read the book and said "Okay, I've read it, and it's a terrible book and would have been better with a hook at the beginning"?

And if, as you say, you never said the book was good, what was the point of bringing it up as an example? Simply to show that people could put hooks in different places in bad fiction? If we are missing your point, perhaps you should explain your point better instead of throwing accusations.

Never have I seen a post that said so much yet also said so little at the same time.

I rather had the impression he was attempting to mimic your writing style. Not totally effectively, though.

[Maybe A22 will log in next time]

>Just a piece of advice: nobody here can read your mind. As such, we are all forced to respond to what you actually said, not what you think you said or what you meant to say.

No, I was quite clear. Just a piece of advice: Maybe you should read everything so your own posts can be made with an understanding of the context, and also what was actually said, not what you think I said, or what you think I meant to say.

Let me tell you what I said:

>You guys(sulu especially) seem to think that the hook has to hit you in the face in the opening paragraphs, when it doesn't, and that is lame and stupid.

Now, let's see what Jake said, one sentence later:

>I absolutely don't think it has to hit the reader in the face, and I absolutely don't think it has to be in the opening paragraphs, for some kinds of fiction.

Yeah.

This almost makes me think that no one on LSF actually reads, they just skim posts that don't have a "hook" and then assume what was posted within.

[A22 is too lazy to log in]

"Sup you disagree so you are an antagonistic idiot."

No, you are an antagonistic potential-idiot and ALSO you disagree. Separate points. Try to keep track.

I mention the book as an example, and you don't even see the example and just jump on the book itself, saying it is crap.

See, this is why we repeatedly accuse you of being more interested in picking a fight than in actually having a discussion.

You mention a book in which the hook doesn't happen at the beginning, as an example.

Jake points out that he hasn't actually READ the book and therefore can't really discuss your particular example, but that he heard the book wasn't very good and therefore might not be a great example of how to use a hook that's not at the beginning.

You complain that he's 'jumping on the book' and that he '[didn't] even see the example'. How the heck was he supposed to see the example when he hasn't read the book? Would you have preferred for him to lie? Would the only way to satisfy you have been for him to go immediately buy and read the book before responding? Or would you then be equally annoyed if he DID go and read the book and said "Okay, I've read it, and it's a terrible book and would have been better with a hook at the beginning"?

And if, as you say, you never said the book was good, what was the point of bringing it up as an example? Simply to show that people could put hooks in different places in bad fiction? If we are missing your point, perhaps you should explain your point better instead of throwing accusations.

Never have I seen a post that said so much yet also said so little at the same time.

I rather had the impression he was attempting to mimic your writing style. Not totally effectively, though.

1) Actually, he could not be mimicking my writing style, since he has 1700 posts and I have like 10.

2) Did you even read the example? By describing when the hook happens in the book, I make it so you do not have to need to read the book to understand the example. So yes, he did just jump on the quality of the book instead of the actual example that was being presented, which had nothing to do with the quality of the book, or whether he read it or not.

ITT no one reads.

Also, you are the one picking a fight right now.

[Wintermoon]

No, I was quite clear. Just a piece of advice: Maybe you should read everything so your own posts can be made with an understanding of the context, and also what was actually said, not what you think I said, or what you think I meant to say.

False accusation. (For the record, I read both the original thread and both side threads it spawned in their entirety.

Let me tell you what I said:

>You guys(sulu especially) seem to think that the hook has to hit you in the face in the opening paragraphs, when it doesn't, and that is lame and stupid.

Yes, I think you did make that false accusation. Qualifying it with "seems" doesn't make it any less of a misrepresentation.

(For the record, I do think the opening paragraphs should catch the reader's attention, i.e. contain a hook, for pretty much all fiction. I don't think the hook has to "hit you in the face", whatever that means.)

[Nicol Armarfi]

And if, as you say, you never said the book was good, what was the point of bringing it up as an example?

His opinion on the book doesn't make his point any less valid, so I'm not sure what that had to do with anything. He provided an explanation on the beginning of the book, what it leads into and where the hook actually is, but never tried to change the facts using his own opinion. He didn't even bring his opinion up until after Jake assumed that A22 liked the book. He merely said this in reply to Jake's comment.

Qualifying it with "seems" doesn't make it any less of a misrepresentation.

Actually, it does. Saying that it "seems" rather than it "is" means he doesn't know for sure that it actually is, and that he is only making that comment based on the information given to him.

[Guest]

No, I was quite clear. Just a piece of advice: Maybe you should read everything so your own posts can be made with an understanding of the context, and also what was actually said, not what you think I said, or what you think I meant to say.

False accusation. (For the record, I read both the original thread and both side threads it spawned in their entirety.

Let me tell you what I said:

>You guys(sulu especially) seem to think that the hook has to hit you in the face in the opening paragraphs, when it doesn't, and that is lame and stupid.

Yes, I think you did make that false accusation. Qualifying it with "seems" doesn't make it any less of a misrepresentation.

(For the record, I do think the opening paragraphs should catch the reader's attention, i.e. contain a hook, for pretty much all fiction. I don't think the hook has to "hit you in the face", whatever that means.)

I backed up my response to your false accusation with facts. I don't see you doing that.

And my own accusation may only be false because Jake said two different things in the same post, which is not only what I think, by the way, as Nicol was able to see through the veil of verbosity and penetrate it to find the contraction within.

And "hit you in the face" means a hook would be in the opening paragraphs. You think every opening paragraph in "pretty much all fiction" needs a hook in the opening paragraphs? I disagree. And that is what this is all about.

[A22]

Last post was by me, for the record.

[papillon]

And if, as you say, you never said the book was good, what was the point of bringing it up as an example?

His opinion on the book doesn't make his point any less valid, so I'm not sure what that had to do with anything. He provided an explanation on the beginning of the book, what it leads into and where the hook actually is, but never tried to change the facts using his own opinion. He didn't even bring his opinion up until after Jake assumed that A22 liked the book. He merely said this in reply to Jake's comment.

Maybe there's some huge point being missed here.

I can't speak for Jake, but to explain what the conversation appeared to be from my point of view:

Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."

Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in, [and it's still good fiction], therefore it is not required for good fiction to have a hook at the beginning of the story."

Party A: "I heard Book-X wasn't a very good book."

Party B: "I NEVER SAID IT WAS!"

Party A: *total confusion*

If his entire point was that 'someone wrote a book that didn't have its hook at the beginning' then it may not be relevant whether the book is good or bad. However, if you believe the conversation to be "Here is an example of a good book without a hook at the beginning, thus proving that it is not necessary to have a hook at the beginning in order to be a good book", the quality of the book is relevant.

Now, A22 may eyeroll and complain that we are all complete idiots and not reading correctly if we think that he means something other than what he meant, but I can point out that at least I am *trying* to work out what the heck he's talking about as opposed to just calling names.

[Wintermoon]

His opinion on the book doesn't make his point any less valid, so I'm not sure what that had to do with anything. He provided an explanation on the beginning of the book, what it leads into and where the hook actually is, but never tried to change the facts using his own opinion. He didn't even bring his opinion up until after Jake assumed that A22 liked the book. He merely said this in reply to Jake's comment.

A22 wants to demonstrate that it starting with a hook is not necessary for good writing. In other words, A22 wants to demonstrate that it is possible to write a good book without starting with a hook.
To do this, A22 would need to provide an example of a book that:

• Does not start with a hook.
• Is good.
• Would not be improved by starting with hook.

A22 provided an example of a book that supposedly does not start with a hook. This would advance A22's argument only if the following conditions hold true:

• The book actually does not start with a hook.
• The book is good.
• The book would not be improved by starting with hook.

Since A22 provided the book as an example, it is natural to think that A22 believes all three conditions hold true, even if this was not explicitly stated. If A22 does not believe all three conditions are true then bringing up the book is a complete non sequitur.

Actually, it does. Saying that it "seems" rather than it "is" means he doesn't know for sure that it actually is, and that he is only making that comment based on the information given to him.

Only if it actually seems like that to A22. It seems to me that A22 is lying.

[A22]

And if, as you say, you never said the book was good, what was the point of bringing it up as an example?

His opinion on the book doesn't make his point any less valid, so I'm not sure what that had to do with anything. He provided an explanation on the beginning of the book, what it leads into and where the hook actually is, but never tried to change the facts using his own opinion. He didn't even bring his opinion up until after Jake assumed that A22 liked the book. He merely said this in reply to Jake's comment.

Maybe there's some huge point being missed here.

I can't speak for Jake, but to explain what the conversation appeared to be from my point of view:

Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."

Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in, [and it's still good fiction], therefore it is not required for good fiction to have a hook at the beginning of the story."

Party A: "I heard Book-X wasn't a very good book."

Party B: "I NEVER SAID IT WAS!"

Party A: *total confusion*

If his entire point was that 'someone wrote a book that didn't have its hook at the beginning' then it may not be relevant whether the book is good or bad. However, if you believe the conversation to be "Here is an example of a good book without a hook at the beginning, thus proving that it is not necessary to have a hook at the beginning in order to be a good book", the quality of the book is relevant.

1) Yes, there is a huge point being missed here. A point that was reiterated many times and made quite clear. And it is being missed by you.

2) I think you have it totally wrong. Maybe you didn't see how there was no indication of my opinion about American Psycho, I just used the structure of the book and only that as my example, and then Jake talked about the quality of the writing of the book that he did not even read as his rebuttal. I'm bolding this, so that you may understand.

Perhaps you also do not understand that Jake said two different things in one post. So, it is actually more like:

Party A: Yeah, a book needs a hook, in the opening paragraphs, unless it doesn't and not always. Not all books need a hook, because the concept can be a hook too, but Mikan's short demo which is not indicative of the game needs a hook in the opening paragraphs, even though it is not a short story, the concept is the hook, and as many people agreed it doesn't need a hook as agreed it does need one, and I said that a hook doesn't have to be in the opening paragraphs.

Party B: In American Psycho, the hook doesn't come until many pages after the start of the book, it is not necessary to put a hook in the opening paragraphs, that is lame.

Party A: I HERD AMERICAN PSYCHO IS CRAP BUT I NEVER READ IT ALSO IGNORAN UR EXAMPLE

Party B: I never said the book was good.

Party A: WHY YOU BE BRINGING UP A CRAPPY BOOK THEN?

[Nicol Armarfi]

Quote:
Party A: "It's good for there to be a hook at the beginning of the story. Good fiction will almost always do this."

Party B: "Book-X doesn't have its hook until a few chapters in, [and it's still good fiction], therefore it is not required for good fiction to have a hook at the beginning of the story."

Party A: "I heard Book-X wasn't a very good book."

Party B: "I NEVER SAID IT WAS!"

Party A: *total confusion*

You say you've read A22's post, but no where in there did he actually say it was good fiction. He didn't mention his opinion on it at all until after Jake assumed he liked it. Here, I will quote it for you:

Go read American Psycho. The book starts off with two guys getting into a cab and they talk about their day. Is that a hook? No, because nothing of note happened, nothing of interest at all. You COULD think "oh hey maybe that'll come into play later" but it could not as much as it could. Why read so deep into it?

Now, A22 may eyeroll and complain that we are all complete idiots and not reading correctly if we think that he means something other than what he meant, but I can point out that at least I am *trying* to work out what the heck he's talking about as opposed to just calling names.

Are you? Because to me it looks like you are just reading Jake's posts and assuming everything Jake says in reply to A22 is correct and drawing all knowledge from his posts, without actually reading A22's. Also, you have been calling him names. I can specifically remember you calling him an arrogant-idiot in one of your posts without even having to look up.

Wintermoon wrote:
Actually, it does. Saying that it "seems" rather than it "is" means he doesn't know for sure that it actually is, and that he is only making that comment based on the information given to him.


Only if it actually seems like that to A22. It seems to me that A22 is lying.

I believe I wrote that .

[A22]

His opinion on the book doesn't make his point any less valid, so I'm not sure what that had to do with anything. He provided an explanation on the beginning of the book, what it leads into and where the hook actually is, but never tried to change the facts using his own opinion. He didn't even bring his opinion up until after Jake assumed that A22 liked the book. He merely said this in reply to Jake's comment.

A22 wants to demonstrate that it starting with a hook is not necessary for good writing. In other words, A22 wants to demonstrate that it is possible to write a good book without starting with a hook.
To do this, A22 would need to provide an example of a book that:

• Does not start with a hook.
• Is good.
• Would not be improved by starting with hook.

A22 provided an example of a book that supposedly does not start with a hook. This would advance A22's argument only if the following conditions hold true:

• The book actually does not start with a hook.
• The book is good.
• The book would not be improved by starting with hook.

Since A22 provided the book as an example, it is natural to think that A22 believes all three conditions hold true, even if this was not explicitly stated. If A22 does not believe all three conditions are true then bringing up the book is a complete non sequitur.

Actually, it does. Saying that it "seems" rather than it "is" means he doesn't know for sure that it actually is, and that he is only making that comment based on the information given to him.

Only if it actually seems like that to A22. It seems to me that A22 is lying.

Yes, I am lying because you made a massive and reckless, blundering assumption, which was also rooted in fallacy, and then chose to ignore words that made you appear to have done so. Which you did.

[Wintermoon]

I backed up my response to your false accusation with facts.

No. For one thing, I had not actually made any accusations against you in the post to which you were replying. Pay attention.

And my own accusation may only be false because Jake said two different things in the same post, which is not only what I think, by the way, as Nicol was able to see through the veil of verbosity and penetrate it to find the contraction within.

You misrepresented Jake's position. Jake clarified his position. You twisted Jake's clarification.

MrSulu: Starting with a hook is good.
A22: Starting with a hook is bad.
Jake: Starting with a a hook is good, but in some long fiction, is is permissible to delay the hook past the opening paragraphs.
A22's first misrepresentation of Jake: So you think all fiction absolutely has to start with a hook.
A22's second misrepresentation of Jake: So you think that starting with a hook is not necessary. We are in agreement.

And "hit you in the face" means a hook would be in the opening paragraphs. You think every opening paragraph in "pretty much all fiction" needs a hook in the opening paragraphs? I disagree. And that is what this is all about.

I that case, I do think pretty much all fiction should "hit you in the face" with a hook. It should also "hit you in the face" with good grammar, correct spelling, and good writing style.