/lit/ - Literature

>>1536124

Bump because I'm a shitpiece and people are more likely to notice a thread that has a post underneath it.

less adjectives

>>1536137

Really? But what would Hawthorne say?

>>1536153
chaining adjectives only obscures your writing, the opposite of what you want to do by personifying it

>>1536164

Understandable. So in those two sentences, what words are better left out, dilapidated I'm sure. I regret that one.

>>1536153
Who the zog is Hawthorne and why do you care what he thinks?

Also: if you want to personify the machine, don't say things like "A few of the many arms composing the impressive machine..."; instead, say "a few of the machine's many arms." After all-- are people COMPOSED of arms? Or do they simply have arms?

>>1536174

>?

fix'd. Question now.

>>1536153
Fuck Hawthorne. He's right.
>different, obscure and dilapidated

>in another dilapidated

You don't need all that shit, it bogs it down.

Also,

>surgically assembled
Not getting a very good image of this. You call it partially dismembered literally one word later, then go from there, wasting the potential connotations associated with surgically.

Your writing's not horrible, but I wouldn't publish it.

>>1536183

Thank you very much, and I know it's no where near good yet, I'm young and this was my first attempt at writing anything creatively and personally. I'm just trying to develop a style and voice and all that, and I figured input would help me identify the problems in my writing before they had a chance to take hold, you know?

>>1536199
You'll get better, but only if you practice. Don't let your skills decay or it'll be an uphill fight if you want to start again.

That's what happened to me. Started writing one summer, acquired a following, then stopped when school started up. Never could finish my work.

>>1536283

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure you'll get back into the flow of it one day, inspiration is sort of a funny thing, I see that even in my very limited experience.

I also think my writing is better when I'm depressed, clichely enough.

>>1536183

Quick question, would referring to a pool of black blood around the machine to mean ink aid in personification or just be cliche and boring.

I say it only slightly more artistically than the above sadly.

>>1536362
>?

I. always. forget. question marks.

>>1536368
>>1536362
Turn it into a pataphor.

>>1536371

So just an extended metaphor? Alright I can do that.

Thank you kindly.

>>1536377
It's more like an overextended metaphor, but without the actual metaphor.

>>1536384
So it's just long-winded. Roger.

>>1536377

Actually, I just realized a serious error in my thinking.

I don't even know if it would be possible for a lithography press to spill ink!

Didn't someone once say write what you know? I've slapped the author of that quote right in the face with this one..

>>1536390
...no.

Look it up, it's not quite so simple.

>Ideas on how to..well..actually succeed in personifying the "press?"

think of it as a person with a personality. give it human like characteristics.

a durr

>>1536394

That wasn't OP by the way. I was too busy typing the post right above yours and looking up diagrams of lithography presses. Is there another type of printing machine I should consider? It's very important to my work, and I don't want to sound like an ignorant fool.

>>1536398

Well I know that much, but execution is not always as simple you know? That's why I provided an example of me attempting a little personification, so that people could judge my attempt.

>>1536391
Ink could be spilled, though not in the way you seem to mean.

>>1536417

Damn.

If an oppressed organization wanted to print simple, physical documents for communication with a large number of people, what type of printing press would they use? The machine can't be too complex because that would conflict with the apparent means of the organization..

Is ink soaked into rollers or on sheets on lithography presses? Would it be able to pool around the machine if suddenly abandoned with key parts removed?

bump for knowledge.

Can lithography machines have ink fountains? Or is that basically the opposite of what the technology composes..

I THINK U SHUD PUT MOAR ADJECTIVES AND MULTISYLLABIC DESCRIPTORS IN, THIS WILL MAEK YOU SOUND MORE INTERLECKCHUL AN LIKE A POSTMODERN AN THAT. KTHXBAI

>>1536539

Not everyone has to be a Hemingway.

I sat. We drank. She cried. We departed.

>>1536545
yeah but I hope you see the difference between being Hemingway, and looking up words on the thesaurus for words to jam into your writing

>>1536456

errrm, I dunno, maybe a photocopier? They might not print things of course, they might use this new interweb technology that gives you a "paperless office" and "desktop publishing", but I sususpect that's just a myth the young use to frighten the old.

Protip: Lithography presses are effectively like a big roller with stone and cloth in it - they don't have "arms". They're a press, innit.

I don't know what the beginning of your story is trying to tell me, or make me feel, but if I'm honest, it's failing. Unless you wanted to make me feel "yawn".

Pic related: it's a lithography press

>>1536564

Oh I do. I know my mistake and I've corrected it. It sounds quite a bit better now I think.

>>1536137

FEWER adjectives. LEARN TO FUCKING SPEAK ENGLISH.

FEWER relates to countable nouns, like adjectives, men, fucktards like you: things you can delineate from one another.

LESS relates to uncountable nouns like milk, water, or the come that spatters your mum's face every night down by the canal. It is for nouns that are agglomerated and uncountable.

Adjectives are countable, so you say fewer.

You repugnant, tripfagging, waste of skin. The best bit of you ran down your mum's leg, and without you there would be one less cunt in the world (LESS = COUNTABLE).

Fuckers

>>1536570
>>1536570

http://www.technologystudent.com/designpro/prtpro5.htm

That's what I based my image on, oh and that's not the beginning of my story. That's just the part I attempted personification.

>>1536595

>>1536600

Then you based your image on shit. Now you've seen the actual machine, start again. And incidentally (and I know I'll regret asking this, but I'm going for it anyway), why the fuck do you want to personify a litho printer anyway? And why are you writing about printing machines when you've clearly not even done the basic research (google) that a modern writer can be expected to do.

Oh, and why are you bugging me with this? And why am I spending so much effort to respond?

>>1536595

>LESS relates to uncountable
>(LESS = COUNTABLE)

If you are going to be the worst kind of nitpicking douche, you should at least proof your posts.

>>1536625

A second image.

I did use google, and I found these images and constructed an image in my mind that lithography machines must have rollers similar to those in these pictures. I can't answer your other questions because I don't know the answer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Offset.png

Is offset lithography different?

>>1536617

I'm not just mad, I'm absolutely livid. If you can't master this basic difference, then get out of my language, please.

>>1536649

You are an complete idiot.

>>1536630

you do not undersand what you are talking about.

Less does relate to uncountable nouns. i.e. Hey, Anon, there was less come in your mom's hair last night than usual when she comes back from work at night. UNCOUNTABLE.

or,

Hey, anon, your mom fucked fewer men (MEN ARE COUNTABLE) last night down at the truckstop tittybar than she usually does, are you still going to be able to borrow money from her for cheap porn and sizzurp, or will we have to make do with less? (MONEY IS UNCOUNTABLE, SEE, FUCKHOLE?)

>>1536663
>an

>>1536630
hah, i thought the same thing

>>1536674
>>1536663
>>1536649
>>1536630

http://www.gcse.com/english/less.htm

Now shut up - even chavs understand this shit well enough to get their hook-a-duck qualifications.

Oh look..another tripfag getting his way by derailing another thread from its topic.

I give up on you /lit/

>>1536674
anon's bringing up parenthetical inconsistency of douchie one's post - you are now douchie two

>>1536682
>>1536674
>>1536667
>>1536663
>>1536649
>>1536630
>>1536617
>>1536595
>>1536137

As the OP, I feel it's my duty to wish death upon you all.

>>1536674

My point remains that you did not proof read your post and that you in fact said, and I quote:

>LESS relates to uncountable nouns
and
>LESS = COUNTABLE

Which one is it, tard?

>>1536697

Which tripfag? As far as I can see, this has descended into another pointless argument about grammar. I mean, yeah, still depsair of /lit/ but in for the right reasons.

There was a nice discussion about Irish poetry going on earlier - what do you think the chances are that's still going on? Maybe we could check that out...

>>1536719

So what you're saying is that there would be one FEWER cunt in the world?

I guess you both have a point.

>>1536722

The argument came about because of

>>1536137

^ Someone pointed out he used less instead of fewer. Then it turned into the usual trolling trolls who..fuck it you get the picture.

>>1536728

No, I couldn't care about the proper usage of less and fewer, I was pointing out that, in being a giant raging douche about a minuscule point of grammar, >>1536595 was himself making a mistake.

Matthew 7:1

Any of you know if offset lithography is different than normal lithography?

Also.. is there such a thing as an offset lithography machine..or press..or printer..or..anything?

>>1536747

Sorry, bro. We're, like, arguing grammar here.