July 13th, 2006
|02:58 pm - There's a fine line between eccentric and affected|I think I'm going to refer to myself only in the second person from this point forward.
You think you're going to refer to yourself only in the second person from this point forward.
Current Mood: working
Current Music: Tin Huey -- Puppet Wipes
That's a classic, if not downright iconic, ironic statement there. At least in English. It's like telling someone that you can't speak to them, or that they need to speak in such a way as so you can talk to them.
Well, you know. You like to think of yourself as pretty clever.
Your God, you're only answering the first comment, and you're already finding this excruciatingly annoying. You don't think you're going to keep this up for long, after all.
Before you give up, I wonder if you could list some of your favorite things about yourself.
You already did. You were actually about to write you a response via e-mail, but an LJ comment will do just fine. You looked it over a couple of times, and you think it sounds good as is. It's articulate and conveys genuine interest, which are both big positives. You know who'll be reading it, and you think it will appeal to him. You suggest sending it ASAP.
Thank you. You were a great help, and it is greatly appreciated. Now, how to properly thank you. Perhaps dinner? Something else?
I could get all up ons him. And then you can give him food. It will rox0r.
I'm going to be working overtime tonight. I'll call you to be sure you get the message, but I figured I'd contact you in as many ways as I can.
You guys don't have to give me any more food. I eat a lot of your food as it is.
I should rephrase that if I were thou. Until the middle of the 16th century, it would be like telling a number of persons that they should consider themselves as representatives of the entire people
...as a matter of fact, a little research into the second person perspective revealed to me that until the mid-20th century, addressing the reader as "you" was considered tactless and beligerent. I found that very interesting.
You think you are not the Jedi he is looking for.
Screw this. I quit. On the one hand, it's making me speak more carefully. On the other, it's breaking my brain.
|Date:||July 13th, 2006 08:49 pm (UTC)|| |
This comment features text written in the normal-person-tense
This is just like an annoying personal quirk my roleplaying group & I came up with as a possible character disadvantage. "You address everyone else in the first person." Feel free to contract this one as well to help keep track of to whom you are referring.
|Date:||July 14th, 2006 03:12 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: This comment features text written in the normal-person-tense
Maybe you'll start using both selectively. Let's give 'er a shot:
They call me Doctor Worm.
Good morning, how are you?
I'm Doctor Worm.
I'm interested in things.
I'm not a real doctor, but I am a real worm --
I am an actual worm.
I live like a worm.
Hey, that works pretty well!
since when wer thou more than one person, or a representative of a people?
Someone needs to read some Lorrie Moore. Or maybe you did, which is why you decided to start doing this?
I've never heard of Lorrie Moore before, so I looked her up on Amazon. She sounds worth checking out. Is this a recommendation?
Self Help is a book written entirely in the second person. I had to read excerpts from it for a class. She's apparently an English professor at Madison. CRAZY.
Recommendation? Sure. Aside from being written in the second person, each section goes into such specifics as to tell a story and not actually be of any use for "self help". I think that's the joke. I think. I hope.
I'm permanately dissatisfied with any work that an author decides to write in 2nd person. It's too damned repetitive. Redundancy is ok when we write with easily skipped structure - articles and stuff - as we can skip over all the "the's, and's, a's, an's, or's, that's and but's". However, that changes when we start using words that act as a reference, like pronouns, over and over. It's like saying your name for every action and I can't stand it. It's a self destructing form because one has to use "you" for nearly all descriptive and action phrases, but it won't make sense unless you do. Unless you use the imperitave voice, which distances you from the writing by virtue of command.
I know, I'm weird and snobbish like that.
In these cases (if my recall is accurate), she softens the blow by lengthening sentences through adjectival fragments that describe other things that are not "you", but still through the filter of what you do/think/feel about out.
Por ejemplo (totally made up): You're not sure if Angelique at the pie, but a week ago she came in wearing these mittens absolutely covered in a thick merengue -- the kind you make yourself. She said it was for all the hungry children of Africa, and that having pie stains around her face would be a dead giveaway. But, as she claims, no evidence, no crime. You still hate her.
But since hers is a "self-help" book, it's indeed riddled with imperitive verbs, allowing her do drop a "you" here or there as you describe it.
I think the situation is kind of strange, because even if you're reading something in the more traditional modes, you're still being told what to think, it's just that there's a sort of implicit agreement that you're in this world too. So does saying "you" remind the reader too much that it's a story?
Thinking about it, I'm not sure how many people had a problem with the second person being used as the primary means of communicating information in text adventure games.
(and I'm spent!)