Quoted from bert Hey Dustin, just perusing threads this morning I came across the exchange above. I felt compelled to add that haphazard is an adjective, used to describe a noun -- while you have used it as a noun in the above context -- hence the confusion.

No I haven't. It is used correctly as an adjective to describe the MARKET.

Ahh...I see.  It is a formatting choice.  I get it now.

Then you are not wrong, technically -- so instead, you are advised that two experienced readers were confused by the choice you made.

That is feedback you can choose to ignore -- or you may choose to consider, when trying to look at your work objectively through the eyes of others.

Well after analysing the situation... it appears to me that courhaw had no idea what haphazard meant. His review is a revenge review for a review I gave on one of his scripts. I know, that's a lot of reviews for one sentence.

You're a moderator. You moderate. You see a situation and look for the wrong in both parties. I think you deliberately chose to ignore my style for favour of finding an angle whereby you could encourage better relations between two members.

I've also had reads of this elsewhere, one (albeit informal) from a professional reader that said he liked my style. Quite a lot of people have read it and this is the first time I've seen people not pick up on what is so obviously a style choice.

Actually, I've also had two professional reads on this script. One for a website I set up and another at Blcklst that I paid for... and neither said anything about the style. I just remembered about those two. I think the one at blcklst was a female as she called the script misogynistic. It didn't get a pass.

I paid for those reads because this script is a headache and I was hoping for some clarity on where to take this script next. It's a huge budget, one of them said over 100 million, which is also a part of the problem.

Here is the review it got from a reader on Blcklst:

SCRIPT EVALUATIONS

Era:
Ice Age (63001 BC)

Locations:
California

Budgets:
Blockbuster

Genre:
Sci-Fi Thriller, Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Logline:

When a divine alien species becomes marooned on Earth, their interaction with the indigenous Neanderthals creates an epic conflict that will go on to become the basis for the bible.

Strengths:

This script’s greatest strength is its ambition and imagination. The way the story creates a new mythological explanation for everything from heaven and hell (and many other biblical tales) is imaginative and intriguing. The writing itself is also very strong and easy to read and, the Ice Age setting, replete with animals long extinct, is a lot of fun.

Weaknesses:

Though rich with ideas, there is a lack of a central narrative focus in which to emotionally invest. ADM has great potential to be a fascinating protagonist, but his story seems secondary to AZAZEL’S domination of the Neanderthal species. As a result, the script’s increasingly pushing and brutal violence begins to take its toll on the audience. There is also a disconcerting amount of gratuitous sexual violence, especially directed against women. Though rape can be used effectively in film to inform character or illustrate a grander thematic point, here it feels like an overly used device, meant only to advance the plot. There is so much of it (and so little of it informs character), that it becomes gratuitous and borderline misogynistic. In the end, the love story between Adm and Eiv seems hasty and could use a stronger, more clearly defined arc, in order to really show that through their love, they will go on to become the future of the human race.

Prospects:

The extreme, graphic violence in this movie would likely earn it an R rating, which may be hard to justify for a film with a high, effects-driven budget. Without rewrites to strengthen Adm’s character arc (and hero’s journey) and to build his love story with Eiv, this project’s path to production would likely be difficult.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I think you deliberately chose to ignore my style...

Sheesh...no Dustin.  I read your brief exerpt (post 12) and (scout's honor) thought (at first glance) that it was an inadvertent, incomplete sentence.  A typo, perhaps.  Yes, I do admit that I read it fast, at a glance -- as will most readers.

Your eplanation clarified things, but that point is, I needed the explanation -- and I thought it might be considered helpful to let you know.  A spot where you clearly knew what you were doing, but a reader trips over it nevertheless.

No ulterior motives, but I'll stop now.  Cheers.

Quoted from bert Sheesh...no Dustin.  I read your brief exerpt (post 12) and (scout's honor) thought (at first glance) that it was an inadvertent, incomplete sentence.  A typo, perhaps.  Yes, I do admit that I read it fast, at a glance -- as will most readers. Your eplanation clarified things, but that point is, I needed the explanation -- and I thought it might be considered helpful to let you know.  A spot where you clearly knew what you were doing, but a reader trips over it nevertheless. No ulterior motives, but I'll stop now.  Cheers.

OK, I'm willing to concede that perhaps taking the passage out of context and reading it quickly would do that.

However, it is still an obvious style choice that I use in every script I write and this is the first time I've ever had it pointed out to me where people have not actually realised it is a style choice.

So, I'm going to take all of those scripts.. around 9, if you count the two I'm writing for other people, and all of those reviews of those scripts... then add them against this one situation where one guy didn't know what haphazard actually meant in the first place and the other guy admits he read it quickly... and do a quick calculation.

Uhm... yeah, I think I'll stick with my style choice. Thanks.

Dustin, while this script is at the top of the portal I figured I'd take the opportunity to suggest that you might want to consider using different screenwriting software.  I don't know what program you've got but the font is light and hard on the eyes.

I use Celtix and love it.  Just a suggestion.  Looks are everyrthing.

As for the story itself, not really my cup of tea, but you've got some writing skills.

Good luck.

Quoted from NickSedario Dustin, while this script is at the top of the portal I figured I'd take the opportunity to suggest that you might want to consider using different screenwriting software.  I don't know what program you've got but the font is light and hard on the eyes. I use Celtix and love it.  Just a suggestion.  Looks are everyrthing. As for the story itself, not really my cup of tea, but you've got some writing skills. Good luck.

This was written in Office... although I do use Celtx now. Thanks for the encouragement.

why so wry, dustinbowcott? you still have not answered the central question here which is: what makes the market haphazard? that it's there merely by chance? wouldn't that appearance then speak to a perplexing schism between your construction of the neanderthal haven as a place where seemingly civilized pre-humans exist and thrive and the sort of disorganized thought processes that slap-dashing an important aspect of neanderthal life in california would suggest? where does the randomness come into play there in any way that makes any sense to logical folks. maybe american english and british english are just that finely divided in terms of semantic nuance that haphazard -- which can be employed as either a noun, adverb or adjective, carries different meanings in certain instances involving uncommon usages. search me.

but here's the problem, you can't mix tenses the way that you have done and expect to pass it off as standard english usage, dustinbowcott. my point, just beyond the market, lies a farm area which contains haphazard areas -- first off, has no one told you to never use a word in your descriptions which was just appeared in your slug...? what makes this area haphazard, dustinbowcott? what's askew? what's out of place? it's your job to identify and explain your world to others, dustinbowcott. it seems to me that these pre-human beings have sort of carefully and thoughtfully planned out their culture and society -- they, obviously, have learned to use sharpened tools for hunting. so, if they're that intelligent, then it begs, why would they not be able to organize a market, or make rows for crops and dedicated areas for their animals? in this instance, haphazard seems to have been chosen b/c it sounded good to you, versus it having any relation to the world which you're attempting to describe. its use is non sequitur when taken in totality with the other elements of your burgeoning world.

you see where people who have read your work might legitimately be confused, yet? it has nothing to with your stylistic preference, dustin, although, personally, i'd call that a common formatting choice rather than "style" choice. millions of people do it.

there's also a litany of gerunds embedded in your work, dustinbowcott. those are passive, and many of them, when appearing in such close proximity, are just destructive. perhaps you didn't plan them to appear so closely together, in which case they'd be sort of...haphazardly placed...call me stupid...but i've never seen haphazard used to modify a market or farm area.

look, how many people have told you by now that big chunks of stuff on page are bad? as i read just over the first few pages -- actually, i just scrolled them, i counted three, four, mostly four and six line blocks of descriptions. your pages are a black hole of telling. this, to me, appears to a sort of legend story where the world needs to be built before the story can be told coherently. that's fine, but it's not up to the reader to define that world for you, dustinbowcott. that's something that must be done by you in a way that allows the reader to engage the story.

as it stands, your writing is unsettling and unorthodox.
revenge review? nope, just paying you back for your favor, dustinbowcott. it's called reciprocating. you did for me -- i did for you.

in the past, i would have gotten really upset and tried to tear you to shreds, dustinbowcott. now i know that it's just worthless doing so. so here's my advice to you.

listen to what others have to share with you. sure, you really believe in your work. who doesn't believe in their own work? and, sure, you've spent six months or more working on it. that's a big commitment, dustinbowcott. but it's not there yet. and, if i'm the one who's speaking, it's a very great distance from there. but that's just me.

as far as the childish name-slinging goes, hey, i was there at one point, too, dustinbowcott. no hard feelings.

i noticed that you took the extraordinary measure of posting your pro review. though i'm not sure why, since you did, let's look at proportions, quantifications, if you will. strengths -- three lines. weaknesses -- eight lines. prospects -- three lines closed with rewrites necessary, minimal chance of production, r-rating, hard to justify, path...difficult.

dustinbowcott, don't blame me for your failure to clearly express your thoughts and ideas on page. from all appearances, you got everything that i wrote without any problems.

well, look at how far the rosetta stone has gotten us.
best of luck to you, dustinbowcott. and try to simmer down some, eh?

dustinbowcott, you would make a great analysand. best of luck moving fwd.

honestly, i wish you luck, dustinbowcott.

You two lovebirds need to get a room.

Silverback beat me to it.