"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2007091121070211272-jerelull@maccom...
On 2007-09-11 20:16:57 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

It appalls me that any so-called writer would admit he can't type.
This is beyond pathetic.

(answered a few seconds ago)

I, Wilbur Hubbard, can type 150 wpm. I can transcribe faster than you
can dictate.

Nice mechanical skill, but who has paid you for your output?

I can type as fast as I can think.

You only think that fast?

The point is when a person talks his speech lags behind his thought
process. This makes for inefficient speech which when transcribed makes
for inefficient writing.

Look at it this way. If you mouth the words that you read it slows down
your reading. This is fact and cannot be argued with. You are engaging
in an extra process and that's inneficient. Same thing goes with
writing. It's more efficient to have the thought delivered through the
fingertips than throught the mouth. Advanced writers have been taught
these facts. That's why Gogarty is an unsuccessful writer for the most
part. He has limited his potential. He has crippled himself. He's like a
400 pound ballerina.


[Sorry, couldn't resist so easy a shot]

Make it funnier next time . . .


The problem with transcribing is you don't write well when you simply
transcribe your talk. Writing is not talking. Writing is a different
type of an art form. When I read somebody's writing I certainly don't
want to read his blabbermouthing. And, believe me, I can tell the
difference. Writing and word processing always ends up telling a
better tale than a simple-minded narration.

I can "hear" a good writer as I read. In fact, when I read a writer I
know and *don't* hear his voice, I know the editor is ham-handed and
should be replaced.

Then you are mentally and probably physically mouthing the words.
Printed words have no sound and should have no sound. They should only
bring forth a mental process. The whole idea of verbal speech in
anathema to written speech. Humans have progressed as far as they have
primaryily due to the written word because it is so much more efficient
and accurate. Writers should realize that fact and use the art of
writing to go where speech cannot go.


A writer is using the printed page to tell a story, whether it be a
good yarn or an instruction manual.

Only if his intent is to do so. As a writer, I would rather leave good
yarn-spinning to my voice where it belongs. I use writing to stimulate
thought - not paint a picture. A canvas and paint brush paints a better
picture that somebody talking about a painting. A good writer bypasses
the physical senses and goes right to the source - the mind. After all,
without the mind there are no physical senses. The mind is the
wellspring. Any writer who doesn't know this fact is no writer - just a
hack.

Why do you think I'm such a successful troll. It's not because I put my
verbal blatherings on the screen. It's because I push mind buttons that
writing can push while transcribed verbal gushings cannot.


A common writing technique is to read what you wrote aloud. If it
sounds awkward or doesn't paint the picture you wanted to transmit,
it's time to revise.

Even you have a voice that I hear. I don't know it's pitch or speed,
but I hear it clearly.

Oh, on a different subject: your "@ddress". Most people would spell it
"invalid", not "invallid".


Makes it all the more invalid. . . But, isn't it amazing how there is
no such word and, as such, it is never spoken yet your mind can deal
with it and look at the thoughts it produced without ever having been
mouthed. Look what has happened "behind the scenes." Sort of makes my
point, doesn't it?

Wilbur Hubbard