Worst Plot Hole?

[deleted]

I can also tell you know nothing about Zinsser or his classic.

Let's test your own knowledge of Zinsser.

You said:

One of Zinsser's first lessons is for the practitioner to separate his ego from his writing.

Actually, he advises the exact opposite. Pg. 24, Chapt. 4, Style:

"Leaders who bob and weave like aging boxers don't inspire confidence—or deserve it. The same thing is true of writers. Sell yourself, and your subject will exert its own appeal. Believe in your own identity and your own opinions. Writing is an act of ego, and you might as well admit it. Use its energy to keep yourself going."

I don't know who zinsser is so he can't be worthwhile. Hem and hank moody tell us you can't teach someone to write. Zinsser sounds like a made up name.

In any event I would like to have larks point out where zinsser says to steal words and phrases from others like larks steals constantly from me.

I give the words a better home. I free them from a bad writer, then turn them against him. It's pure poetic justice.

Notice how larks evaded the question. She didn't give me the quote from zinsser where he says to steal other people's work. Or in the alternative larks doesn't admit zinsser doesn't say that. What a coward and a fraud larks is.

Larks proves she knows nothing about writing. One of the most vital parts of writing is having the imagination to come up with clever words and phrases. Larks doesn't have the ability to do that so she steals them from me.

Since I wasn't the one who banged the drum for Zissner I've no obligation to answer Dmaria's question.

Dmaria places too much value on clever words and phrases. That's how amateurs think. They think writing is about being flashy. Dmaria's imagination is impoverished.

Larks calls me a bad writer and says my imagination is impoverished yet she feels compelled to steal from me. What does that say about her writing and her imagination?

Larks says I put too much value on clever words and phrases yet that is exactly what she steals from me. Larks doesn't know how hilarious she is.

I have to go to the gym now. As a hint of coming attraction I'm going to do a post on CJ's mom and moss going back with the water. Do you you think she warned CJ against him so stridently because he always went out of the way to help others and it would end badly because moss would put himself in danger protecting people?

Dmaria can get pretty snarky at my zingers. He tries for comebacks but they're crude imitations. Recently for example I said the Mouse and the Goose think as one, but unfortunately two half-wits don't make one wit of difference. That's all right. Dmaria's response was typically lame, just plunking down the word dim wit. No wit involved, so he ends up accidentally reinforcing my point.

However, he has his fans. Zzyzx1995 was impressed. Which makes perfect sense.

One of my old favourites is Dmaria swallowing Chigurh-plum philosophy whole. It co-opts Dmaria's use of Sugar for Chigurh and turns it against him, invoking childish things.

I hand out pearls on a regular basis. Dmaria's jealous, of course.

And it's interesting and suspicious why larks hasn't made the slightest attempt to refute any of Zzyzx1995's allegations.

So, you rushed out to your nearest Barnes&Noble to locate and acquire a copy and read the first 24 pages until you found something to cherry-pick to justify yourself with?

He's talking about confidence ( not an over inflated ego such as yours ) because he knows that's what the best of writers struggle with constantly.

Since you referenced 'Style,' how about page 7, Chapter 2, Simplicity:

" Clutter is the disease of American writing. We are a society strangling in unnecessary words,circular constructions,pompous frills( ahem )and meaningless jargon." This seems to describe yours.

And you're no less of a hypocrite but an egomaniac to boot!

You're so busted. Hammered, even.

You said straight out that "one of Zinsser's first lessons is for the practitioner to separate his ego from his writing." But what he actually said is it's impossible to separate them.

You got up on a high horse and referenced a writing book. You said I didn't know anything about it. Well, talk about clutter and pomposity, because you got your own reference wrong. That makes you a hypocrite and a careless reader.

If you didn't value your ego more than your integrity you would admit your error. You would admit that you don't know the book like you said you did. Instead, you're trying to save your ego by qualifying and changing the goalposts. Pathetic.

Funny, I don't feel busted.

I think I got his overall message since I read more than the first 24 pages.

You're accusing me of being on a " high horse ? " Why am I suddenly thinking of a " pot and kettle ? "

Obfuscating, " muddying the waters," obvious and even more pathetic.

I think I got his overall message

You: "One of Zinsser's first lessons is for the practitioner to separate his ego from his writing."
Zinsser: "Writing is an act of ego, and you might as well admit it."

You were wrong. Talk about obfuscating.

Obfuscating, " muddying the waters"

You just said the same thing twice. An example of clutter and pompous frills.

Boy, you're an easy one.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Larks is at it again patting herself on the back for what she calls zingers. Clunkers is the accurate description.

The only pearls from larks is what she steals from me. At that she botchs them and gets them all screwed up. It's amazing how she deludes herself.

The point with CJ's mom is she understands moss' nature and that doesn't involve playing water Boy for a drug runner in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere.

Of course!

That type of pompous, over inflated ego just can't resist exalting itself.

That's a nice example of how Dmaria can only perceive human beings as like robots, with programs restricting them to a single kind of behaviour. So for example if CJ's mom finds Moss no good in general that doesn't somehow prove the character has no good in him at all, ruling out his revisiting the dying man he'd left earlier.

Dmaria says he values the KISS principle, but he breaks it since he's compelled to disagree with me. The latter is a higher value for him. Some days ago I mentioned on this thread that the compulsion gets him into all kinds of trouble logic-wise. In this case instead of observing the KISS principle, Dmaria has latched onto an illogical and more complex theory.

Thus earlier he admitted that "of course moss is shown as influenced by his conscience," which is to also admit that Moss is shown as not all bad despite CJ's mom's comment. Logically then, the correct conclusion is that his character's nature can indeed involve returning to the CGF to help the dying man.

The Goose has no coherent sense of the story. He's constantly waddling off in all directions.

Larks just doesn't get logical arguments. CJ's mom says moss is no and good at all. It is another piece in the 1000 piece puzzle that reveals moss playing the water Boy is a naked plot device.

I use to think larks was semi intelligent but no more. I didn't admit that moss is shown to be influenced by conscience. I said the coens portray him to be influenced by conscience but by looking at the evidence it is a fraud. That is the whole concept of the naked plot device. The writers want the viewers to think the character is taking an action for a certain reason but if you look at it critically the real reason is that it's a naked plot device.

Dmaria flunked logic the first time so he's honking the same illogic in the hope it will change. Subjecting it to logic once again, if CJ's mom finds Moss no good in general it doesn't somehow prove the character has no good in him at all. That's silly to assume since human beings don't display just one quality all the time. So it's perfectly reasonable to show Moss influenced by conscience. A character who is just one thing is not modeled on a human being, and can't be related to. That reflects Dmaria's impoverished view of the world.

If the Coens show Moss "as influenced by his conscience," then CJ"s mom's comment doesn't cover all that he is, only what he is in general. There is no reason to assume that CJ's mom's comment is the whole truth about him, in every way in every context.

Larks problems start with her pronounced difficulty in evaluating characters. CJ's mom doesn't say moss has some good qualities and some bad ones. She thinks he is all bad. Her assessment pans out ending in the death of her daughter at a very young age.

But CJ's mom is only one piece of the puzzle showing the Gunga Din scene is a blatant plot device. I have listed them one by one. Larks has seen them unless she is now claiming amnesia like a soap opera character.

New reasons pop up all the time. Today a poster pointed out that moss playing water Boy was important in showing him the seriousness of his situation. In other words moving the plot along.

Dmaria thinks there's a contradiction because he doesn't understand the concept of whole context. When applied to human beings and characters he's especially lost. While Moss is a bad deal for CJ it certainly doesn't follow that he must therefore be completely bad. And we do see evidence that he isn't the single-dimensional robot Dmaria depicts him to be.

As for the rest, as mentioned Dmaria's illogic is the same when it comes to plot devices. Like characters, he is limited to perceiving only one aspect, in this case related to mechanics. In other words, story itself as robotic. But of course a good device, as this one is, does more than merely serve plot.

I've mentioned that Moss's return to the CGF, especially the way in which he arrives at this decision, not only moves the plot forward but gives us relevant information about his character, which will crop up later on. I outlined what that information is, and how it serves the story's meaning, not just its mechanics.

Larks prattles on about mechanics. Her motto is when Dmar out does you throw out jargon. Therefore we hear a lot of jargon from larks.

There is a whole slew of reasons moss' return with the water makes zero sense. As usual larks is exactly wrong when she says his water Boy act gives us relevant information about his character. It actually sticks out like a sore thumb. Moss has no hesitation placing people in the jackpot who get killed.

A good example is hijacking the truck when moss was in the middle of a shoot out with sugar. The driver gets killed immediately. That's what gives us relevant information about moss' character.

Larks always vaguely alludes to what she wrote before. It's yet another logical blunder by the Queen of logical blunders. She is falsely assuming what she said the first time makes sense. It never does.

Dmaria is bamboozled by the word mechanics, referring to the practical aspect of plotting. The poor man embarrasses himself. He just isn't fully operational, as they say.

All his verbiage was just repetitive insisting, and can be dismissed as empty. The only concrete reference was to the hijacked truck driver, a situation discussed previously. It didn't go well for Dmaria, hence the repetitive insistence. His posts aren't really about the story; they're about begrudging his points being countered.

The fact that Moss is willing to put people in jackpots isn't the only relevant information about him. There is another relevant quality, identified earlier. It has a significant influence.

Moss putting people in jackpots is the most relevant information about him. The most telling jackpot is the one he puts his wife in. When you think of it moss is worse than sugar. Sugar doesn't get his wife killed.

I applaud larks for not repeating her previous posts. They made no sense the first time.

There is indeed further relevant information about Moss. The thing about a flightless Goose is that even when he sticks out his long neck it doesn't improve his view enough. He just looks kind of goofy.

There is no situation in the movie that is similar to moss playing a water Boy for the drug criminal. Larks response to my reasoned arguments is Yes suh. It's her best reply.

My best replies were in a previous thread, not long ago, that made Dmaria look a little foolish. Included in them I noted the other relevant quality about the character that his return to the CGF signals, which crops up again later in the story. I can't help it that Dmaria got bent out of shape and had to start a new thread to try and save face. If you think about it a goose does have a bit of a funny face. This doesn't help, IMO.

It is interesting to note that larks puts window dressing on her vacuous responses. One can picture her in the third grade schoolyard saying yes suh and no suh and because I said so to the kids. Their response is aren't you a little old to be in the third grade lady?

Larks is such a phoney. She says this thread I started has little value. Yet larks has made dozens of responses on it. She is fun to make a fool of.

I went back and counted. Larks has made so far 49 posts on my thread.

I get a kick out of the idea of Dmaria going back and counting my posts.

I didn't say his thread has little value, although I will say now that I gave it some value out of none, despite the Goose's tendency to keep sinking to the bottom. In that sense they are courtesy calls.

That's 50 posts by larks and counting. She is such a good foil and fool. That sounds like something by the Bard.

Call me old fashioned but I like to talk about the actual subject of the thread. Since we have been at it for a while I guess I can conclude that no one thinks there is a worse plot hole in the movie than moss going back with the water.

Larks likes to call me Goose for some strange larksian reason. It reminds me of when I lived next to a lake with dmariat. We had a pet goose named Molly. It would hang out in our back yard. When I went swimming it would walk with me down to the lake and go swimming with me. To this day I keep a picture of Molly on my dresser.

Early in the thread it was pointed out that this event isn't a plot hole according to the definition, and Dmaria conceded this fact and said he was making up his own. I.e. the subject of the thread had nothing to do with the movie. Dmaria repeating the same conclusion based on the same false premise doesn't change it from being irrelevant. Although it does further advertise his ineptitude, so to that extent I approve of the outcome.

Larks never talks about no country anymore which is a good thing because she never understood it.

Larks reminds me of a Paul Simon song with her responses to my posts. Running scared laying low. She also reminds me of the Artless Dodger.

Her latest post on my thread is 51 and counting. Larks is obsessed with it.

Since Dmaria conceded making up his own definition of a plot hole, none of his posts on this thread has had relevance to the movie. I reckon our post count is roughly equal, with mine addressing the movie itself, adhering to the proper definition. In other words Dmaria has been talking about the hole in his head, not the story's plot.

Larks has reduced herself to quibbling over technicalities. Whether you call it a plot hole, a plot device or something else it will smell equally bad. Everyone except larks knows we are talking about a scene in a movie where the character does something that is phoney and artificial because the true purpose of the scene is to move the plot along.

In no country the most blatant instance of this is when in the middle of the night moss goes back to the massacre scene to play water Boy for the drug runner.

Have you ever seen a goose squirm? If not, you've come to the right place.

That's 52 posts by larks on my thread. She thinks saying a goose squirm is funny. If you notice larks posted it then agonized over what she posted. She came back 10 minutes later and edited it. Larks needed to edit a two sentence post. What a loser.

Dmaria sure resents me saying he's squirming. There is no other way to say it. As for editing, essentially I edit his posts for him. Just part of the tune-up package I offer incompetents like the Goose.

What does that even mean larks edits my posts for me. It must be fascinating to talk to larks in person. The words aren't coming out of her mouth.

[deleted]

Dmaria doesn't understand much, it is true; however, I am merciful and will kindly assume the real reason he said he didn't understand the meaning is because he didn't like it. Ain't editing grand?

Larks is always ducking the issue. She likes to call me the goose for no reason. It is much more appropriate to call larks the DUCK in honor of her constantly side stepping the issue at hand. It would be ok if she was light on her feet but in real life they are encased in concrete.

It is crystal clear to everyone except ole molasses larks that my post on editing was in reference to her editing her own posts. How she made a two sentence nonsense post then after agonizing over her two sentence post for 10 minutes felt the need to edit that two sentence post. Larks does this all the time.

Dmaria is enjoyably neurotic about edited posts.