Squee!

[litlover12]

So I don't post about my work here very often, but, um . . .

. . . I kind of got an article published in The Atlantic.

And I'm kind of really really excited about it.

Comments

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

You're famous!!!

I haven't read enough Dickens to feel comfortable taking the test. But you're right that it's not quite fair to take random sentences and judge a writer's ability just on that basis. There's so much more to writing than that.

I've not read any of Mr. Bulwer-Litton's work to be able to have any opinion on whether he's The Worst Writer Ever. But let's give the poor man a break. It's not his fault he was born before Stephenie Meyer. At least I somewhat understand her appeal. I read her first book and really couldn't put it down, even though I wanted to strangle every character.

But Dan Brown? HOW has that man sold so many millions of books?! (Including to me, before I knew better!)

There is no explanation for that man's success. Zero.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

People like page-turning thrillers, I guess. There's a certain category of writer that's pretty mediocre *as* a writer, but JUST good enough at telling a story that he can grab and hold on to a reader's attention. That type tends to sell very well.

[debriswoman]

Congratulations!
A fascinating article:-)

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[msantimacassar.livejournal.com]

Oh my gosh, congratulations!! That's a really great article.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Great article - congratulations! I, too, got 92 percent; I followed the link to the quiz before finishing your article, and your analysis is spot on. Dickens is just so much more concrete than Bulwer Lytton. I should think anyone with any familiarity with his style wouldn't have any trouble. And it is distressing that kids aren't being taught this level of analysis. I honestly think some readers don't even recognize a good style or clear English grammar any more. I mean - Bulwer Lyttton is not terrible, really, but Dickens is so much better!

*(If I'd followed my first instincts about one puzzling passage, I would have gotten 100 percent. The two writers really aren't much alike.)

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I wonder if we missed the same one? :-)

[aravisautarkeia.livejournal.com]

loved the article and definitely agreed with it! :D

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[tempestsarekind.livejournal.com]

Hooray - congratulations! Also, the entire concept of the original piece seems so flawed; just because I can't tell the difference between two things I don't know anything about, that doesn't mean there's no difference! It just means that I don't have the skills to define the difference.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

I kept checking Simkin's piece to make sure it wasn't a joke. It seemed so much like something that would have run in "The Onion." :-) But no, looks like he was serious.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you had ever mentioned it before, but I didn't know you worked for BreakPoint. That's pretty cool.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

I think I mentioned it a loooong time ago.

[nisie.livejournal.com]

Yeah!

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thanks! :-)

[asoulinbliss.livejournal.com]

That is AWESOME! Congratulations!

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[sylverwind.livejournal.com]

Oh my gosh, congratulations! This is fabulous news and an equally fabulous article!

My brain snorted in response to the last line, you cheeky thing. ;)

Seriously, though, you raise a wonderful point about education in regards to the "dead white guys." Even in most of my writing and lit classes, I was taught to put these men on pedestals and hold my would-be works up to theirs, often without ever studying the reasons WHY.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Always happy to make a brain snort. :-D Thanks!

[jobey-in-error.livejournal.com]

The article is so nifty. So are you.

I went around in circles a bit too. ;) CONGRATULATIONS!!

Also, as to the content: Give 'em what for! (I would have been nodding no matter who wrote it.)

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much! :-)

[digne.livejournal.com]

YEAH! Cool!

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[neemarita.livejournal.com]

I AM SO EXCITED!!! <3

Peanut does his flaily happy dance for you.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Aw, thank you both! I'm honored to be the recipient of the flaily happy dance! :-)

[rose-griffes.livejournal.com]

That was a fun read!

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thanks! :-)

[ever-maedhros.livejournal.com]

*MEGA HUGS*

I loved that article to bits. And now I'm immensely disturbed, too, wondering just how many readers fail to grasp the individual flavor of each writer's style and personality. Are they blind? If you read enough of one author's work carefully, you'll be able to tell the difference. (Seriously, how many people can out-Wodehouse P. G. Wodehouse?)

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much! Mega hugs back! :-)

[victoria-tonks.livejournal.com]

I didn't have time to read the article earlier - but I just have and it was a fascinating read! Very cleverly done.

I took the quiz - and I'm hardly a person prepared to do it; I've read little Dickens, and some of it in translation; and I've never heard of the other writer before. Yet, I still got 58% - I know it's not a good result, but I'd say that if a non-native speaker who is not as familiar with the writer can still get more than a half of the answers correct, then it means that good writing shines through after all.

I don't know if it'w true, but the rhythm of Dickens prose seems more natural; it flows. Not sure if I'm right.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

I think you are. :-) And thanks for the kind words.