Jump to content

Neil's posts too long


tommyali
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is it just me(and I know it's not) but Neil's posts on his sight are just a bit too long.

I so want to know about all of his updates, but I also don't want to read a novel.

I love the guy, but lets maybe edit it down a bit?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terribly long. Maybe he's compensating?

 

:spitwater:

 

:LOL:

 

i think the problem is thinking that people are interested in his every thought and a description of everything he sees. i guess some people are.

I skim...and look at the pictures. There is the odd nugget, but in general, his prose is...well, prosaic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His books have the same problem. He would be a much better writer if he had a good editor.

Yeah, and Bon Jovi would write better songs if he had a good producer. :LOL:

 

If you don't care for Neil's style, then his books and blogs are too long. If you don't care for HYF, then that album is too long. It's not complicated. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you don't HAVE to read them. you know that any important rush news will be posted on here or power windows or riab or another site in a much more concise manner, and you also know that neil's favorite thing in the world is motorcycles, so by this point you should just know to skip his blog entries. there's no point in pressing on when you know you don't like something.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you don't HAVE to read them. you know that any important rush news will be posted on here or power windows or riab or another site in a much more concise manner, and you also know that neil's favorite thing in the world is motorcycles, so by this point you should just know to skip his blog entries. there's no point in pressing on when you know you don't like something.

 

Beat me to it. I was just about to post similar thoughts on the matter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His books have the same problem. He would be a much better writer if he had a good editor.

Yeah, and Bon Jovi would write better songs if he had a good producer. :LOL:

 

If you don't care for Neil's style, then his books and blogs are too long. If you don't care for HYF, then that album is too long. It's not complicated. :)

 

That's not true at all! All writers benefit from good editing, regardless of the style, intent or content of the writer's material. A good example of this is the career of Stephen King. He has never significantly changed his style or changed the nature of the material he writes, and yet his books were more powerful, more believable, and more entertaining back before he became too successful for his work to be routinely subjected to rigorous editing. This is demonstrated quite well by the two editions of the The Stand. While the "complete and uncut" version published in 1990 is fun for fans of that book who had already read the 1978 version eight billion times, the original version was more compelling and more tightly focussed. What was cut from the manuscript of The Stand wasn't bad writing, but it was unnecessary to the story, and altered the pacing.

 

Saying that good writers don't need editing is like saying that bands should just release recordings of their jam sessions instead of, you know, bothering to actually construct SONGS with their good musical ideas.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His books have the same problem. He would be a much better writer if he had a good editor.

Yeah, and Bon Jovi would write better songs if he had a good producer. :LOL:

 

If you don't care for Neil's style, then his books and blogs are too long. If you don't care for HYF, then that album is too long. It's not complicated. :)

 

That's not true at all! All writers benefit from good editing, regardless of the style, intent or content of the writer's material. A good example of this is the career of Stephen King. He has never significantly changed his style or changed the nature of the material he writes, and yet his books were more powerful, more believable, and more entertaining back before he became too successful for his work to be routinely subjected to rigorous editing. This is demonstrated quite well by the two editions of the The Stand. While the "complete and uncut" version published in 1990 is fun for fans of that book who had already read the 1978 version eight billion times, the original version was more compelling and more tightly focussed. What was cut from the manuscript of The Stand wasn't bad writing, but it was unnecessary to the story, and altered the pacing.

 

Saying that good writers don't need editing is like saying that bands should just release recordings of their jam sessions instead of, you know, bothering to actually construct SONGS with their good musical ideas.

Point well taken. I guess my greater point was, if you don't enjoy his writings, you probably wouldn't like them with a different editor. All his books and blogs are very personal and like travelogues. They are what they are, and unless he decides write in a completely diffetent way (i.e. fiction, etc.), he won't change any mind that doesn't enjoy the way he's been writing for forever. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complain he's too closed off. Then they complain his entries are too long.

 

Is this what this forum turns into when the band is between tours?

Into what, sane, rational, objective human beings?

 

Better that than the rabid fanboyism we usually have to suffer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peart's blogs are free. Read as little or as much as you want.

 

I understand that the attention span of modern society is far less than the proverbial goldfish, maybe Peart doesn't.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complain he's too closed off. Then they complain his entries are too long.

 

Is this what this forum turns into when the band is between tours?

Into what, sane, rational, objective human beings?

 

Better that than the rabid fanboyism we usually have to suffer.

 

Into whiny babies. They're not doing anything new, so apparently there's nothing to compliment on. All the criticism comes out over really dumb stuff. It's funny, really. Great social experiment. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His books have the same problem. He would be a much better writer if he had a good editor.

Yeah, and Bon Jovi would write better songs if he had a good producer. :LOL:

 

If you don't care for Neil's style, then his books and blogs are too long. If you don't care for HYF, then that album is too long. It's not complicated. :)

 

That's not true at all! All writers benefit from good editing, regardless of the style, intent or content of the writer's material. A good example of this is the career of Stephen King. He has never significantly changed his style or changed the nature of the material he writes, and yet his books were more powerful, more believable, and more entertaining back before he became too successful for his work to be routinely subjected to rigorous editing. This is demonstrated quite well by the two editions of the The Stand. While the "complete and uncut" version published in 1990 is fun for fans of that book who had already read the 1978 version eight billion times, the original version was more compelling and more tightly focussed. What was cut from the manuscript of The Stand wasn't bad writing, but it was unnecessary to the story, and altered the pacing.

 

Saying that good writers don't need editing is like saying that bands should just release recordings of their jam sessions instead of, you know, bothering to actually construct SONGS with their good musical ideas.

Point well taken. I guess my greater point was, if you don't enjoy his writings, you probably wouldn't like them with a different editor. All his books and blogs are very personal and like travelogues. They are what they are, and unless he decides write in a completely diffetent way (i.e. fiction, etc.), he won't change any mind that doesn't enjoy the way he's been writing for forever. :)

 

See, this is the thing! I DO somewhat enjoy his writings, but I would enjoy them more if there was some quality control applied to them. He's got a keen observational eye, a good vocabulary, and some interesting things to say, but these positive writerly attributes are overshadowed by a lack of pacing and lack of regard for the audience. His writing suggests that he believes that whoever reads it will regard as precious gold every single word he utters. While that may be satisfying to people who do indeed regard as precious gold every single word he uses, and those people do make up the majority of his audience, it's frustrating for someone who sees good writing subsumed by a lack of discernment.

 

 

I think most would agree that Neil has mastered prose; however, most also aren't interested in such mastery when it's densely drawn out.... ;)

 

I do not agree at all that Neil has mastered prose. As I said above, he has some valuable qualities for a writer, but his prose is little more than brain-spew. Excellent rough material, but very far from masterful prose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complain he's too closed off. Then they complain his entries are too long.

 

Is this what this forum turns into when the band is between tours?

Into what, sane, rational, objective human beings?

 

Better that than the rabid fanboyism we usually have to suffer.

 

Into whiny babies. They're not doing anything new, so apparently there's nothing to compliment on. All the criticism comes out over really dumb stuff. It's funny, really. Great social experiment. ;)

 

We're all whiny babies when we complain. It's a weird American phenomenon.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're too long, too boring and too self important. And think about this: who is he writing it for? Certainly not the fans who he thinks are a bunch of unwashed fools. So is it for his wife, his kids, his gay biker buddy? No it's for his ego!

 

He's mad I say! Mad as a pack of soft bunny rabbits addicted to carotene that have been deprived of carrots for days! :goodone:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His books have the same problem. He would be a much better writer if he had a good editor.

Yeah, and Bon Jovi would write better songs if he had a good producer. :LOL:

 

If you don't care for Neil's style, then his books and blogs are too long. If you don't care for HYF, then that album is too long. It's not complicated. :)

 

That's not true at all! All writers benefit from good editing, regardless of the style, intent or content of the writer's material. A good example of this is the career of Stephen King. He has never significantly changed his style or changed the nature of the material he writes, and yet his books were more powerful, more believable, and more entertaining back before he became too successful for his work to be routinely subjected to rigorous editing. This is demonstrated quite well by the two editions of the The Stand. While the "complete and uncut" version published in 1990 is fun for fans of that book who had already read the 1978 version eight billion times, the original version was more compelling and more tightly focussed. What was cut from the manuscript of The Stand wasn't bad writing, but it was unnecessary to the story, and altered the pacing.

 

Saying that good writers don't need editing is like saying that bands should just release recordings of their jam sessions instead of, you know, bothering to actually construct SONGS with their good musical ideas.

Point well taken. I guess my greater point was, if you don't enjoy his writings, you probably wouldn't like them with a different editor. All his books and blogs are very personal and like travelogues. They are what they are, and unless he decides write in a completely diffetent way (i.e. fiction, etc.), he won't change any mind that doesn't enjoy the way he's been writing for forever. :)

 

See, this is the thing! I DO somewhat enjoy his writings, but I would enjoy them more if there was some quality control applied to them. He's got a keen observational eye, a good vocabulary, and some interesting things to say, but these positive writerly attributes are overshadowed by a lack of pacing and lack of regard for the audience. His writing suggests that he believes that whoever reads it will regard as precious gold every single word he utters. While that may be satisfying to people who do indeed regard as precious gold every single word he uses, and those people do make up the majority of his audience, it's frustrating for someone who sees good writing subsumed by a lack of discernment.

Well again, point taken, however! At what point would an editor say, you're writing too much like you- spice it up! :LOL: Individual writing isn't a democracy like Rush. With respect to the blogs, as Tony astutely pointed out, they're free. Perhaps the only editor on those blogs is Neil. Neil will do it his way, much like Rush did it their way giving Mercury 2112 and not Bad Company II. I really doubt Neil thinks his readers think his every word is precious gold. It's probably akin to Rush's latest album, in that he really likes how his latest blog turned out and he only hopes the reader likes it too.

 

We could go on all day about this, so let's not :LOL: I don't see every word as precious gold. There are moments when I get a little fatigued reading his stuff, but I've also been fatigued reading Tolkien. He could have used a better editor :LOL: It all comes down to what we like as individuals, and overall I very much like Neils blogs and books. I've noticed me smiling every time I come to the end of his latest blog. Until Neil tries a different writing style, we all know what kind of read we'll have when the next blog arrives. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People complain he's too closed off. Then they complain his entries are too long.

 

Is this what this forum turns into when the band is between tours?

Into what, sane, rational, objective human beings?

 

Better that than the rabid fanboyism we usually have to suffer.

 

Into whiny babies. They're not doing anything new, so apparently there's nothing to compliment on. All the criticism comes out over really dumb stuff. It's funny, really. Great social experiment. ;)

 

We're all whiny babies when we complain. It's a weird American phenomenon.

 

Didn't Al Gore invent the internet for people to complain about stuff because no one writes letters anymore? :huh:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...