Subject
Fwd: Re: [Tomasz] ping-pong theme in "Pale fire"
From
Date
Body
>Tomasz,
>
>Your technique of marking the exchanges in conversational dialogue is very
>interesting. I am involved now in the problems of creating dialogue between
>more than two participants, and I think I see ways of using your technique
>as a guide. Many thanks for this.
>
Tomasz relies
All right :P Im happy because of that :) <sorry for my wrong english
- sometimes maybe I cant exactly say what I want to say, so
my talk my be a bittle weird: but I am here not because
my english but because I am a very big Nabokov freak>
(Personally I wanna also to thank, thank to Carolyn for
her text about glass mataphor (glas houses - combination
of reflections and transparency))
But this is not my technique
this is Nabokov technique; this ping-pong quote from "pale fire"
[I call for my own need fragments like those cited as a "knowledge
window" (from Nabokov to me)] I find as I say as a little tractat
about _some_form_ of talking. So if I wanna teach myself about this
I should look in this knowledge window - knowledge about
Kinbote and about Shade (differences of two human types)
or formal knowledge about talk (maybe not book dialogue,
but exploration about our everyday talking with ppl). Mean "formal "
I wanna say consciousnes that for example (1) speak to (2) then (2)
my speak not to (1) but to (3) and why etc, so this really looks
like a 'game' especially in my 6th point below (tormentor-> kinbote
and kinbote -> tormentor (all)) where talk is a bit "agressive"
(at least in comparsion to my criteria of talking)
As to your text below: I do not think that "ping-pong talking"
I should understand like this (like you wrote) - I understand
ping pong as form of talking when one, say, "throw" a _quick_
question/phrase/"joke" (like tormantor has) [PING]
and I _must_/should quick answer on this [like shade to hurley,
or like kinbote to tormentor] [PONG] I do not like this form of
talking, but I wanna be aware of this - this can be part
of some kind of knowledge.
Tomasz
>It may interest you to know that in my town, a conversation between only two
>people, when three people are present, is known as a ping-pong conversation.
>For example, if someone finds himself seated with two people who are dating,
>or are otherwise interested only in talking with each other, the third
>person may say, "Well, I see this is a ping pong conversation, so I guess
>I\'ll be going. Give me a call next week -- if you happen to have any free
>time."
>
>AB
>
>> 1. Shade -> Kinbote (proposal of pork), Kinbote -> Other
>> 2. Other -> Kinbote, (eggnogs and milkshakes), Shade -> All or Kinbote
>> 3. this not came into being practically:
>> Kinbote -> Shade, (admiration)
>> :)
>> 4. Kinbote -> Shade, (moody boy) Shade -> Kinbote (All)
>> 5. Hurley -> Shade, (blonde) Shade -> Hurley
>> 6. Tormentor -> Kinbote, (ping-pong table) Kinbote -> Tormentor (All)
>>
>>
>> Tomasz Kaminski
----- End forwarded message -----
>
>Your technique of marking the exchanges in conversational dialogue is very
>interesting. I am involved now in the problems of creating dialogue between
>more than two participants, and I think I see ways of using your technique
>as a guide. Many thanks for this.
>
Tomasz relies
All right :P Im happy because of that :) <sorry for my wrong english
- sometimes maybe I cant exactly say what I want to say, so
my talk my be a bittle weird: but I am here not because
my english but because I am a very big Nabokov freak>
(Personally I wanna also to thank, thank to Carolyn for
her text about glass mataphor (glas houses - combination
of reflections and transparency))
But this is not my technique
this is Nabokov technique; this ping-pong quote from "pale fire"
[I call for my own need fragments like those cited as a "knowledge
window" (from Nabokov to me)] I find as I say as a little tractat
about _some_form_ of talking. So if I wanna teach myself about this
I should look in this knowledge window - knowledge about
Kinbote and about Shade (differences of two human types)
or formal knowledge about talk (maybe not book dialogue,
but exploration about our everyday talking with ppl). Mean "formal "
I wanna say consciousnes that for example (1) speak to (2) then (2)
my speak not to (1) but to (3) and why etc, so this really looks
like a 'game' especially in my 6th point below (tormentor-> kinbote
and kinbote -> tormentor (all)) where talk is a bit "agressive"
(at least in comparsion to my criteria of talking)
As to your text below: I do not think that "ping-pong talking"
I should understand like this (like you wrote) - I understand
ping pong as form of talking when one, say, "throw" a _quick_
question/phrase/"joke" (like tormantor has) [PING]
and I _must_/should quick answer on this [like shade to hurley,
or like kinbote to tormentor] [PONG] I do not like this form of
talking, but I wanna be aware of this - this can be part
of some kind of knowledge.
Tomasz
>It may interest you to know that in my town, a conversation between only two
>people, when three people are present, is known as a ping-pong conversation.
>For example, if someone finds himself seated with two people who are dating,
>or are otherwise interested only in talking with each other, the third
>person may say, "Well, I see this is a ping pong conversation, so I guess
>I\'ll be going. Give me a call next week -- if you happen to have any free
>time."
>
>AB
>
>> 1. Shade -> Kinbote (proposal of pork), Kinbote -> Other
>> 2. Other -> Kinbote, (eggnogs and milkshakes), Shade -> All or Kinbote
>> 3. this not came into being practically:
>> Kinbote -> Shade, (admiration)
>> :)
>> 4. Kinbote -> Shade, (moody boy) Shade -> Kinbote (All)
>> 5. Hurley -> Shade, (blonde) Shade -> Hurley
>> 6. Tormentor -> Kinbote, (ping-pong table) Kinbote -> Tormentor (All)
>>
>>
>> Tomasz Kaminski
----- End forwarded message -----