Sadly, I think I'm going to have to be that one person who doesn't 100% agree.
Firstly, I'd like to point out- language changes. New terms, slang, etc. appear every day. We grow to attach these meanings to these words, be them incorrect or not, if it's a modified dictionary word. One prominent example is the word "literally"; we've all used it in a way aside from its actual, dictionary meaning before, don't deny it. The terms literate, semi-lit(erate), and illiterate fit this language evolution, at least in the RPing community (or maybe even more specifically in the FH community).
We grow to accept these as meanings for the level of detail in a post. When a lot of us think "literate", we think detailed, when we think "semi-literate" we think detailed but not as to the level of lit, and when we think "illiterate", we think of bad grammar and spelling. There's nothing wrong with the evolution of language, and nitpicking on this point is completely irrelevant, and frankly unnecessary. Terms evolve all the time to fit what's necessary, and this is an example of it.
Which leads onto my next point; what ARE the definitions of literate, semi-lit and illiterate, in the FH context? As I briefly explained earlier, literate mostly means people who type in 3-4 paragraphs (or more!), using lots of detail, descriptions, and such. Semi-lit is about the same, but not up to that level- maybe about 2-3 paragraphs, possibly less detail, basically a miniature version of literate. And illiterate, as I am CERTAIN we've all seen before, is bad grammar, spelling, etc.
Now one thing I'd like to state here, while somewhat off topic, is that some people who type "illiterately"- abbreviations, slang, capital letters, etc. are some of the best RPers I've seen. In fact, I'm one of them. I only RARELY ever type in proper grammar and capitalization like this. I've grown accustomed to typing like this as it's faster, easier, and manages to communicate my point well, as well as expresses my personal typing style better. Basically, if you see someone typing like this, but don't want anyone illiterate in your RP group, request an RP sample before inviting them first. Give 'em a chance first- I hate having to act like this just cause people won't take me seriously otherwise.
Anyways, with that out of the way, I'd like to bring up something in your post.
Examples of roleplay below;
*Sits on the rock watching the forest around him and the wind blows through her black fur*
People think this is illiterate. Okay? I don't get how it is. They put description of the character,the action and setting. 3 main things for good roleplay.
'The ebony furred she-cat leapt up onto the dusty boulder, ears quivering as the strong wind pushed against her thin frame. Her hazel eyes scanned the area, each detail of the dense forest standing out in front of her wide cat eyes. She flicked her lengnthy tail and groomed her paw, licking it gently with her rough tongue and rubbing it over her forehead.'
OKAY. That's great, but it doesn't mean you're some sort of god writer, you're as good as the person in the first example.
Now, this part is mostly what isn't sitting right with me. YES, they provided description of the character, the action, and the setting. But you seriously cannot deny that the second one
provides more detail. It plays out more like a novel. It gives you a more vivid description of the scene in your head. You can visualize it better than the first one. And I hate to say it, but the first one is not as good as the second one.
"But why? Everybody's RPing skills are equal, no matter how much detail there is!" Sadly, I have to say something here. Not everybody is equal. Someone who can write so well that they paint a picture in your mind is not on the same level as someone who simply says "The cat leaped up onto the rock, and licked her fur as the wind blew". As I stated earlier, it is literally (in the actual sense of the word) undeniable that the second one provides a more vivid description of the setting, character, and scenario. And not everybody is capable of that. We set people up in these "groups" of sorts to tell how much detail and thought that people put into their replies. If somebody wants to RP with someone who's "literate"- someone who can use a lot of detail- that's fine. If someone wants to RP with someone who doesn't, that's fine too. It's a matter of personal preference and taste to find a good RPing buddy, and if you don't fit what they want, there's always going to be someone out there you'll be a perfect match with.
Like I said, not everybody is equal on this, no matter how badly you wish that they were. But
that isn't a bad thing. If somebody's "illiterate" and having fun, by all means, let them have fun. If someone's "literate", and enjoys having that descriptor on them, and they're not waving it everywhere and saying "Hey! I use more detail than you!", that's okay too. When they start rubbing it in that they're better, then it becomes an issue that should be taken care of.
Also, on the "asterisk debate"- if someone uses asterisks to define their actions, typically that IS a common mark of illiteracy/semi-literacy, just as using a lot of detail typically is a factor in making someone literate. I say "typically" because as you said in your post, some very good writers use the asterisks, and some bad do, too. Also, some people use a load of detail, but that does NOT make them literate, either. It's about how you use that detail that makes the difference between actually literate and someone who's just trying too hard. (See: the wolf-speak posts)
Sorry for the really,
really long post, but to quote what you said, "someone's got to rant about it." I'm sure I missed some of my points I had in my head while typing this, and I might come back and edit this later.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do respect your opinion.
I just hope that you can understand and respect mine, too.
Show Posts
