issy2

Today I had a life-changing conversation with me mum : I took the dog for a walk in the rain, slobbed around at home, pulled up some weeds, decided we should have a treasure hunt on Sunday, looked forward to seeing my two grandmas tomorrow, wore my dad's painting overalls, had a peanut-butter-strawberry-jam sandwich, was told an anecdote by my brother involving said peanut butter sandwiches, was scared by a spider which was crawling along my desk, changed my screensaver, threw out some stinky beetroot, thought about writing something, found a pair of earrings, spilt salad dressing, listened to the Cat Empire, watched Michael Macintyre clips on YouTube, thought about buying some new earphones, replaced the batteries in a torch, had a shower, picked the skin around my nails.

I think there's important distinctions to make between the reasons behind suicide. Many suicides/attempts are carried out by those with mental illnesses, others by those terminally ill, others who genuinely feel absolutely alone in the world and have nowhere to go, for whom perhaps a suicide attempt is a plea for help. So does the reason behind suicide alter whether it's right or wrong? If a terminally ill person with few friends and relatives kills themselves, is it 'less wrong' than a teenager with a family and wide network of friends to do the same?

No, it's pretty dumb. [cabbage], the movie was one of the most soulless and worst directed pieces of crap I've seen in years, and I realise the Twilight books are basically Stephanie Meyer's insane interpretation of a wet dream she had a few years ago. However I don't go around saying all fans should die in a fire while sporting a horribly stupid anti-Twilight signature... while never even having read the books! That right there takes a special kind of stupid. People like RobinHoodie are just like the rabid Twilight fans, except on the other side of the spectrum. So childish it's laughable. This. It's really beyond me why anybody would go to such lengths to hate something they actually (admit they) don't know. It's like the kid who's never eaten cauliflower and when he does get it on his plate, plainly refuses to eat it without tasting it, because his friends at school keep telling him cauliflower is "really really yucky". No, you know, come to think of it, it's even worse. It's the kid then going out on the streets with a sign saying "Ban the cauliflower! Hate the vegetable fans!", picketing the local grocery store. In a way it's hilarious, but in another way, it's also extremely embarassing. I'm not saying Twilight is actually any good, but for the love of god, if you want to have strong opinions about things, take the time to actually inform yourself. I'm getting on my high horse here, but you know, this is the root of hatred and discrimination: not knowing and not bothering to gain any knowledge either, but still feeling you have every right to have and express your callous opinion anyway. Well said. I've read all four books and although I enjoyed them I'd definitely agree with alot of the criticism. The first book was - I thought - pretty sexist in the sense that Edward is constantly saving Bella from cars and would-be rapists etc, and yet she never does anything for him. Their relationship is a certainly long way from perfect but whether this is influential or not is a different matter. One of the worst problems was that they didn't really talk much - not that they only interact physically, but that when they do talk it's always about Bella's safety or blood etc. They rarely have a normal, fun/interesting conversation with each other. Reading New Moon it's obvious that were it real life Bella would have a much, much healthier relationship with Jacob, simply because they talk to each other a lot more. Purple prose, I wouldn't disagree with that, but as for 'it's not written that well' I'm almost indignant lol. I loved her writing style (would have loved it even more if she didn't keep blathering on about how perfect Edward is, but nothing's perfect!) It was evocative, dreamy - you really got inside Bella's head. So many books are written in the first person without giving much of an impression of how the main character thinks and feels: Twilight definitely doesn't have this problem. The thing that I found really annoying was that the second book was (plot-wise, at least) pretty much exactly the same as the first, only with werewolves replacing vampires. So there's two species of supernatural monsters Bella has a) fallen in love with and B) needs protecting from. That was just stupid.

As in Beth Rowley? As in Brad Nowell. Lol oops thanks. And Range_This where are you?? It's 15 degrees here! :D

As in Beth Rowley? And yeah I know it's barely spring, but it's really hot atm, everybody's changing into their summer clothes, just feels like summer already :D

Heya there, Hooray, summer's coming! I've been planning on doing alot of chillin' this summer so I've got together a playlist of songs to go with it. :D Here's mine so far... I have some others but these are my favourites. Time of the Season - The Zombies Feeling Good - Michael Buble I'm Yours - Jason Mraz Better Together - Jack Johnson Constellations - Jack Johnson 5 Years Time - Noah and the Whale In the Summertime - Shaggy & Rayvon Bruises - Chairlift Put Your Records On - Corinne Bailey Rae They Can't Buy The Sunshine - Turin Brakes Wake Up - Tim Armstrong I Get The Sweetest Feeling - Jackie Wilson LDN - Lily Allen Mysterious Girl - Peter Andre Oh It Is Love - Hellogoodbye So... what would be in yours?

Edit: nvm this is flaming. I'm sending this via PM but I hope we can all appreciate and welcome those new to the VL instead of scorning them as not good enough to receive our writing. But back to the point. Why have you posted all the Runescape playscripts? You've written some really good stuff in the past and it's obvious you can write better than this, so why all the old relatively immature dialogue? Hope you don't mind me saying that but much of your prose is better.

Hello all, some may remember The Verse Train from a loong time ago (07/08 maybe) which was a group-written poem where each poster added a verse. Last time we got to the point where few posts would fill a page, it was so long - a total of 73 verses. So I thought it would be fun if we did the same kind of thing again. Try and keep the same 'tone' or voice throughout, should make it more interesting. Sorry if I'm being a party-pooper but can we keep it free of fairies, elves, wizards, etc. Not because I have anything against any of them but that's what it was about mainly last time. I'll start (oh dear...) Look, he said. Look that way, where the land meets the sea. Look that way, where the sun greets the waves. Look that way, to the end of the earth...

I thought it was really good, very short but that's nice in a way :) I would say though if you want to improve it the dialogue could be more effective. You don't need a space between the speech marks and the next words, ie 'Are you ok, Emily?' I love the last line... it just suits the story perfectly...

Reviewers are subject to fallacies just like everyone else, and sometimes it cannot simply be written off a a difference of opinion. I cannot enjoy a book that has glaring flaws like the aforementioned Inheritance and Twilight, and people raving about them trying to tell me they are the best things to happen in the publishing world in the last ten years are quite simply wrong. They may enjoy them in an entirely different manner than I do, but that does not give the book in question any more actual merit. As a writer myself I want to read a book that is well-written in a host of areas, not one that is, as Zonorhc said on the Twilight thread, "a beneficiary of a viciously effective marketing strategy." That being said I suppose you are somewhat correct in saying that it depends on my own personal opinion, but only because I look for different things in a book than the average consumer. I hold them to an actual literary standard and couldn't care less how popular they are. In that way, I do in fact need to know which reviewers to listen to--the ones that are concerned with the same things as I am. Not the ones who harp on about the brilliance of the author or how the work will appeal to every teenager on the planet. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I am not every teenager on the planet, and I will not be duped into buying the book that easily. I read far, far more than the average person and don't need a publicity reviewer telling me to "READ THIS BECAUSE IT'S AWESOME." Some people are bandwagon readers and nothing else and will read the book because it's the hot thing. Some reviewers will give the book good reviews for the same reason. Quite simply put some reviewers are just not qualified to be giving me an accurate view of how good a book is. It is these reviewers that I do not listen to. Ok, agreed, but there are so many different ways of measuring a book's 'good' - ness. You can't dismiss something as bad because it's popular. Have you read Twilight and Eragon? I'm assuming you have, since if you hadn't you'd be getting a very much changed view of the book than if you'd actually read it yourself. But I find it hard to believe you think Twilight is badly-written... What exactly about it do you object to?

When you say " Basically what it boils down to is knowing what reviewers to listen to" I think you mean "It's good to know which reviewers tend to agree with my opinions" I'm not saying that's a bad thing but it's true. You can't accuse reviewers of lying through their teeth simply because you don't agree! What it boils down to is opinions - yours, the reviewers'. Have a little respect! Anyway sorry for the distraction, back to the point. Does reading a review of a book help me to decide whether or not to buy/borrow it? In general, I'd say no, but as Nom said it depends who is recommending it to me. Things that 'attract' me to a book are the author's name, the front cover, the blurb - the image the book is giving off, in other words, as opposed to someone else's interpretation of it. It's target audience, if you like, and whether I think it'd be good for me to read it, even if I won't enjoy it. I agree, though, about the Amazon thing. It's very useful to read the opinions of people in the same situation, and get a wide range of interpretations.

That happened to me, a bit differently... Me and my brother were in Wales somewhere and we were having a singing/dancing competition with some of our friends (this was a very very long time ago) and because I was rubbish my brother thought it would be a good idea to chuck a rock at my head. It hit me just about the left eye, no scar though. And as payback I tried to put a 5p coin up his nose. : Then another time I picked up my dad's razor for some reason, ended up with a really long cut all down one finger. I was at my grandmas house once, with her and my dad, and I decided to have my own little game of hide-and-seek and hid under a table for a few hours. My dad got really scared, cos her house was right next to this big main road and a forest, nearly called the police I think...

I really admire your enthusiam/adventurous-ness/ determination. It should be alot of fun, trying out styles, find which ones you enjoy, which ones you're best at. 2. Well firstly there's two separate things - genre, and style. As far as I see it (I might be wrong, not sure about this) genre is the content - the themes and topics which are explored throughout the story, and style is the way in which it's written. So for genres, you could try romance, sci-fi, nonfiction (like newspaper articles, letters etc), war stories, mysteries, suspense, and of course horror. Of these the most interesting is probably horror... maybe because it combines elements of all other genres? About style I'd really, really recommend the book(s) The Seeing Stone by Kevin Crossley-Holland. They're amazing, it's like a diary but more like a normal story. I can't put my finger on it but something about how it's written makes it incredibly real... Sorry I'm not describing it particularly well! You could try and read different authors' works, and then write your own story mimicking their style? Anyway... I really like the story, I like how it's sad but not wishy-washy and over the top. It kind of has some humour in it as well and that and the plot make it interesting. Just this sentence - "She walked out from underneath the small shelter my old umbrella was providing for her, into the night" I was thinking, if Cassie's walking away from the shelter the author's providing, that could be kind of symbolic for their relationship in some way? In the same way she's walking out from under his umbrella she could be walking out on the 'protection' he's providing? Also if the story's actually called 'into the rain' it makes sense that that phrase should be used somewhere in the story, maybe more than once. So it could be 'into the rain' instead of 'into the night'? I dunno.

So... anyone got anything they'd like to suggest? Activity ideas, for instance? Writing guides? (I'd be happy to do one, if that's ok with everyone). Are we trying to advertise to people, and if so who, where and how?

I haven't actually finished reading it because I have to do my homework soon, but Wow I think its really really good! It has a very mature writing style and the description is brilliant in my view. There's quite a lot of it but that's not a bad thing. It's nice that the paragraphs are kept quite short but plentiful... makes it a lot easier to read! I'm not sure if a beard of 'heroic proportions' is the right way of saying it? One last thing - when Barthol disagrees with Dr Malkin about the stone I think his shock and hesitation could be better cultivated/pronounced. I'll read the rest another time I promise! But so far it's amazing! Keep going :)

What in the flaming [bLEEP] was that!?!?! It's David Firth, and I did warn you. Turning your computer into a mirror seems plausible when you don't know how it works. Actually it is possible. It works on some mobile phones as well. :mrgreen:

I didn't read the second part but the first is great! Nice work. I think you could edit the couple of sentences where the boy steps and starts floating to make Grover's surprise a bit more powerful... but other than that it's great. I love the idea of a boy doing such 'innocent' magic... he's not killing people or turning things into gold, he's just blowing bubbles. Anyway congratulations! 50k words is a heck of a lot. Can we read the whole thing?

Wow that is so cool!! It's so imaginative and original, nice one. Also how did you get it in that magaziney-type format? It looks great as well :D

People should just stop complaining that its not perfect and acknowledge the fact it's one of the most useful search tools we'll ever have. Sure it can be edited by anyone, but isnt that the point? You don't have to pay to use it, you can read articles in like 250+ languages, it's incredibly detailed and mainly accurate. You simply have to bear in mind you might be reading opinion, not fact. For what it is, it's amazing.

"Babies are living humans from the start, therefore abortion is murder and is wrong." Hypothetical situation - Let's say you have an elderly grandparent. Their quality of life has been deteriorating for a while now. They are incapable of looking after themselves and a massive emotional and financial strain on their family and friends. Their life has gone past the stage of being able to enjoy it, and yet they are physically still alive, although unable to understand much of what is going on around them. Would you really keep them alive? They are probably in great pain and their life now doesn't mean much. If you would - think about it. Isn't it best to just let them go? If a horse breaks its neck would you really force it to stay alive, no matter the quality of life they'll be able to have? It's the same kind of thing really - quality of life must always come before the life itself. You should never sacrifice an unwanted life for the sake of a 'life' - how do you know that life is going to be worth living? How can you call it morally right and justifiable to keep someone alive, no matter how this will ruin the life of a intelligent, sensitive and feeling woman? That woman is worth so, so much more than a little bundle of cells. It disgusts me that some people would choose to ruin a womans life for the sake of something that is at the time so worthless. You know I would still support abortion even if there was solid proof that a few-weeks-old babies can feel pain. Another hypothetical situation - if you witnessed a car crash, and there were two people in the car, and you only the opportunity to save one, what would you do? Let them both suffer? I hope not.

It's not a bad idea, and it's hard to play something that doesn't exist. ;) No, we don't "know enough about science". The search for truth is one of the noblest ideals, and science, as far as we know, is the best way to pursue truth about our universe. Who is going to benefit? Who knows? The ramifications in terms of technology for the average person probably won't be felt for a very long time, but even if it never brings anything useful, who cares? Like I said, it will give us a better understanding of the universe, and that knowledge alone is worth the money. Ok I know that you're in the right. I've been arguing with my dad about this for a few days and I know I'm in the wrong, and yet I still think it's just a bad idea... Couldn't we have spent 4 billion on something that would benefit the world for certain, rather than hanging hopes on this?

OK, so the mother has to go through the pain (and I mean intense physical pain; men seem to think giving birth is a walk in the park - my mother almost died having me) so that you can have 'your' child. That's life, Sure it may not fair but that's just how it is with our species, women are the ones who give birth. But just because life isn't fair that doesn't mean we have to make it even more unfair by denying someone their child. Raising a child is a huge commitment its not like a father would choose to keep the child "just for the hell of it (well I wouldn't)", it is their right to have the child and if they are willing to take sole custody so the mother doesn't have to deal with the child once its born, that's even more reason to allow them to keep their child. Sorry I realise you said this a while ago and I'm sure that others have already replied, but... I really don't think you understand how powerful the mother-child relationship is. You think a woman could just have a baby, hand it over to the father, and then never think about it again? You really think they could just get on with their life, go about their daily business as if they'd never had a child, knowing their baby was growing up without her? No. That's just ridiculous... Having a child will always have a lifelong impact on the mother, whether she gives them up for adoption, hands them over to the father, or brings them up herself or as part of a family. Once the baby is born, you can give them up for adoption, but things will have changed. Maybe she'll look back on every birthday and regret giving them up, or think about them everyday. Maybe she'll be glad she gave them up, but she'll never be able to kid herself that she doesn't have a child out there somewhere. So no, a father should have pretty much no say. It would be so wrong to force a woman into having a child and giving it to the father. It will affect her for the rest of her life, whatever you say. Ok. Hypothetical situation - let's say you got a woman pregnant and she wasn't ready to bring up the baby. She wanted an abortion, you want the child. Despite her wishes you make her keep the baby. For your sake she has to carry the baby for nine months, and the physical pain of giving birth, which may even kill her. Then the emotional torture of her holding your baby and knowing she'll have to give it up, a situation she'd never have been in if she had done as she wished. Chances are she wouldn't be able to forget about what she had done, however much you say "I'll take all responsibility." I doubt she'll ever be able to forget about her child...

I really think this is such a bad idea... People playing God, something is going to go wrong at some time. Nuclear bombs, mustard gas, tanks, space ships, medicine... Don't we already know enough about science? As far I'm concerned this is a total waste of money which should be spent on humankind, not the games of a few scientists. I know this could be seen as narrow-minded, but really, who is this going to benefit? Sure it is incredibly interesting and such, but what else could we have done with that 4 billion? We need to sort out our own problems beyond trying to unravel the world.

And this isn't really a quote, but...

What I really hate is the way people are saying that foetuses can survive from much early on than 40 weeks, and therefore the abortion limit should be reduced. Wtf? Whether or not the baby has any chance of survival, it is totally irrelevant... Science has no right to make decisions for a woman. A woman's choice should always come first.