|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 11:58:33 GMT -5
Robert, I don't think the posting screen allows tabbing. Double spacing between paragraphs would probably be fine, vsually, and if you want to indent, as well, five spaces will do it, I think.
I'll try an indent and see if it reproduces when the screen opens up.
For the record, paragraphing isn't a matter of grammar; it's a matter of style and coherence. It's just a larger unit of meaning than the sentence.
Nan
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:06:35 GMT -5
Nope, doesn't allow spaced indents, either. I had an indent while on the little screen, but "unnecessary" spaces were eliminated when the message moved onto the posting board.
So double Entering between paragraphs seems the only option.
Nan
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:07:16 GMT -5
And neither Shift+Tab, Control+Tab, Alt+Tab or Spacebar+Tab yields a tab.
I get it now, really: NO TABS ALLOWED!
I give up!
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:08:03 GMT -5
Well, he did spend that hundred years in hell... maybe they do age but rather slowly?
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:08:49 GMT -5
I would like to see Spike continue on next year. He's such a great character that I'd hate to lose him.
I'm not sure about Faith in the lead. I don't mind her but she tends to grate on me after awhile too. The same thing goes for Dawn although she hasn't bothered me as much this year (perhaps because we don't get to see too much of her ;-)
I have decided that I don't like Kennedy. The character is really annoying.
I'm trying to put this in to separate paragraphs that are simple to read :-)
Claire Sweeney
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:09:15 GMT -5
LOL. I got it, Nan. I think. Well, I'll try it now and see if I can get it to work.
YES!!! I think that worked!! If not and these sentences run together, please pardon my excitement!!
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:09:49 GMT -5
Maybe he'll get cloven hoofs like that vamp who killed Faith's first Watcher. What was that vamp called...kissing toast. I think it was kissing toast.
Rob Sorenson
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:10:36 GMT -5
Robert says about Spike aging: "Maybe he'll get cloven hoofs like that vamp who killed Faith's first Watcher."
BITE YOUR TONGUE!
(and don't you dare respond with "Do it for me.").
Our Spike with cloven hooves? Perish the thought.
Spring Summers
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:11:13 GMT -5
Seriously, though, they could work Marsters natural aging process in pretty easily. Kakistos and The Master all had a rather wizened look about them. I think it's fair to say that Marsters will never look that bad. Nick Brendon and Charisma Carpenter are both 32 years old, and we're asked to believe they're 22. If we can do that, we can handle a little aging from our favorite ensouled vamp.
Rob Sorenson
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:11:54 GMT -5
Thank you, Vlad. I'm actually proud of this story. I hope those of you who are taking the time to read it enjoy it. I'm trying really hard to make it coherent and give all the characters some quality attention, unlike my first effort. This explains why it's do damn long, and we have a ways to go yet.
I got a little confidence after the positive feedback from you guys after the first one, and if possible I'd appreciate a little more on this one, even if it's negative.
I also hope to hear more from Rusty soon. Nothing I do could hope to match the depth and complexity of her work, and I find it inspiring and challenging...even if Xander's not in it. What's that about? :-)
Rob Sorenson
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:12:35 GMT -5
Claire said, "I'm not sure about Faith in the lead. I don't mind her but she tends to grate on me after awhile too. The same thing goes for Dawn although she hasn't bothered me as much this year (perhaps because we don't get to see too much of her ;-)"
In the past both Faith and Dawn have grated on me. Faith because she talked in slang ('five by five' was incredibly annoying), and was so wounded that she lost control of her morality in favor of (sincere) pats on the head by an archvillain.
She was innately weak, no matter her background. A slayer with such large feet of clay was mostly contemptible to me, rather than pathetic. She went so bad so fast that I don't know if I can get on board with that character as reformed without a lot of convincing.
And Dawn was the true award winner for most aggravating character. She was acting like a teen, yes, but she never got yanked up by her bootstraps either. She was never told off about her selfishness that I remember. Oh, poor Dawn, she'll get over it, just needs time.
I think it was a mistake made over and over by her sister who wasn't much older than Dawn and who was not ready to take on the raising of her sibling. I'm SO glad not to hear the whining again.
I just finished watching "Gigi" on TV. Sooooo romantic! It came out in 1958 and won the Oscar for best picture and I can see why. It still stands the test of time. Personal opinion: Louis Jourdan was so hot. And the entire cast was perfect. Sigh...
Alexandra K.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:13:17 GMT -5
Rob, on the paragraph matter:
Don't try to use the tabs at all. Just make two returns. Failing that, use the <"BR"> symbol twice (minus the quotes, of course) to force the breaks. You can insert them as you edit.
Diane U
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:14:58 GMT -5
: ...Sooooo romantic! It came out in 1958 and won the Oscar for best picture and I can see why. It still stands the test of time. Personal opinion: Louis Jourdan was so hot. And the entire cast was perfect. Sigh... :
Hooo I couldn't agree less about Gigi. After all these years, I still find myself offended by it. I could never figure out why the film disturbed me so, but I believe I know why now.
I remember when it came out (I'm 55 next month, in case anyone was curious.) It was considered SO romantic with its happy songs and pretty costumes and sweet sets and all...set in Paris, the most romantic city in the world *sarcastic sigh inserted here*
Give me a break! Louis Jordan and Maurice Chevalier look like a pair of perverts, out to BUY girlfriends, the younger the better. Jourdan strutting like a tomcat and whining about how bored he is. No wonder, useless b@stard. And Chevalier? I cringe every time he leers at the children playing in the park and singing about "Thank Heaven for Little Girls?" Today he'd be plying the Internet for them.
The two of them belong in jail.
The whole movie's a sweet, sentimental look at ... prostitution!
The wives are sneered at, for what? For growing older? For being worn out by the bearing and raising of children? For being angry that their unfaithful husbands who are wasting time and money on the beautiful whores? Silly wives. How selfish of them to want their husbands home.
And Leslie Caron, playing Gigi, a child barely into her teens who is being packaged and propagandized by a street pimp? NO! She's being schooled in the whore's art by her grandmother and great-aunt! Gigi is expected to debut as the plaything of a man who is at least as old as her mother, a man who's been like an uncle to her. No wonder she doesn't want to.
So we come to the happy ending, wherein teenaged Gigi marries her 40-something would-be john and what do you suppose will happen in the next couple of years when she, too, has a couple of children and is beginning to grow older and where is he? He's back in the market for another expensive girlfriend!
Ok, everyone, please spare me the outraged cries of "It's only a movie! It's a classic" I know that. But it's a bad movie dressed up in pretty clothes and it leaves a sour taste. And it's bothered me for 44 years.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:16:07 GMT -5
Diane, you're entirely correct about the subject matter of Gigi. And inasmuch as this is off topic, I'll keep my comment short.
It's hard to know how far it's justified to judge a film (or play, or book) in terms of standards and a mind-set it had utterly no conception of, nor did its original viewers (at least most of them). I developed that problem with the more facistic John Wayne roles, though I loved Westerns and John Wayne at the time and never would have originally imagined categorizing them as facistic. Gigi is expertly tinsel-covered fluff about...well, not exactly prostitutes, but mistresses--liaisons approved by the girl's family (obviously) and apt to put her a couple of steps up in the social world. An arranged marriage wouldn't have been much different to any of the participants. And what else is a girl's purpose except to hook up with Mr. Right and have glorious sex and nice things and be supported in the manner in which she's like to become accustomed (or at least her family thinks in those terms: and so did the audience).
Like Mammy in Gone with the Wind or Fagin in Oliver Twist--a genuinely horrible man who keeps, and teaches, a stable of young street thieves--Gigi is almost impossible not to like, in the story's own terms. I think we have to at least acknowledge the "different times, different moral standards" implicit in the film even if we can't utterly ignore how repulsive it is to present perspectives.
Not that you asked me, but I believe both you and Alexandra are right in your wildly differing responses to the movie Gigi. I gather she was able to accept the movie's equating contracted sex with love, and taking it on the latter terms. You were not, but demanded of the movie a realism it never intended or aspired to.
I didn't succeed at short, did I?
Nan
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 3, 2003 12:16:46 GMT -5
You did indeed succeed admirably, Nan, as you usually do. I don't know how far off-topic we are (this being Miscellaneous/S3 where pretty much anything goes) since we're talking about moral centers or lack thereof, and those topics arise time and again in the Buffyverse.
It also felt good to raise my objection to something that's bothered me for a very long time, and know that someone is reading and understanding.
Anybody want to debate "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" (also released in 1959)?
|
|