Hatrack used to be a place where a writer seeking professional publication could hone their talent, however, with such conflicting advice flying around I find amazing newbies get published at all.
What it comes down to is you can write anyway you want--do anything you chose--you may get published or you may not. Or you can choose to pursue a route/a style that improves your chances of one day being professionally published.
I think Hatrack has to decide what it is going to back so that people who come here can get specific, clear advice.
I chose to not become involved in the discussions anymore because it is always the same old arguments with the same old people. The trouble is they seem to have more stamina for arguing and consequently thier voices will go unchallenged--thereby appearing to a newbie as the correct advice.
If Hatrack's mission statement were clearer and more defined then the two groups could seperate. The other alternative would be to split the forum (fragments+ writing advice/discussion).
It would be a shame if all the people who have achieved professional publications left. What sort of advice would newbies get then?
I chose to not become involved in the discussions anymore because it is always the same old arguments
I've tried to take the same line. In my experience elsewhere, people tend to vent on the internet when they have a captive audience and the safety of anonymity (which most unpublished members still have). My experience with pissing matches is just to stay the heck away.
What concerns me is, as you say, the lack of published writers who participate in the discussions - either because they've moved to some secret nirvana forum in a hidden nook of the internet, or because contributors who regularly and loudly exclaim but that's not how I want to do it discourage them giving advice to the people who most need it.
I'm not sure where it will all end up. On the one hand, this is a moderated forum and as such is much better than some places out there. On the other, if people who are serious about getting published are tempted to move elsewhere, then (a) who will value any critique I give based on my understanding of publishing, and (b) who will critique my work based on theirs?
Nevertheless, though browsing the archives is a little unwieldy, we see that the forum's been through this sort of thing before, and maybe this is just a way of it settling back to a norm of mostly unpublished writers with the occasional experienced hand throwing in a gem here and there.
Ultimately, I think I've benefited more from critiques than forum discussions anyway; I envisage the day when I've a few critique partners I can regularly swap work with via email without even needing a forum. At which point hanging out on a board like this can be just for fun.
Which maybe isn't such a bad thing.
Now I think the books would have been better if she had come on here, however there is a really good chance that our telling her this would make her do rewrite after rewrite, and maybe never even submit the story.
But she didn't come here, and instead jumped off the cliff that is publishing, and got herself a mighty big paycheck.
So I think the best advice is to write as yourself, and don't depend on other people's good advice. Learn from yourself. Don't be afraid of submitting, because the opinion that really matters is the opinion of editors, and NO ONE knows how they will think.
Hatrack is a place for like minded people to meet and learn and grow in a safe environment. It should not be a place where we are all stuffed into a mold and come out sprouting the same acceptable prose, and ideas.
I think people have shouting matches because they refuse to accept the fact that what is right for one person is dead wrong for another.
So if you don't agree, be polite, and say "another way to think about that is..."
It is a shame about Tchern, hopefully he comes back after a quick break.
Don't let the next one to leave be you.
~Sheena
[This message has been edited by shimiqua (edited February 23, 2010).]
quote:
It seems such a shame that yet another talented writer (tchern...)leaves Hatrack because of a constant re-hashing of basic advice---the waters are constantly muddied by people without the sales to back their authority/claims.
Skadder, I am not quite sure how to take this comment because, given the exchange that led to tchern... declaring his intention to leave, I certainly played a role, and perhaps was the straw that broke the camels back. In that exchange, I provided evidence from Silverberg's article that somewhat refuted a point that he was making and backed a point that Merlion was making. Given the way he addressed me, I even wondered if he thought that we were ganging up against him (although I do believe his issue was most likely with Merlion and not myself). However, this clearly makes me one of the "people without the sales to back their authority/claims" (which I don't yet have, unless you count non-fiction). Would you prefer that someone like myself left instead?
quote:
I think Hatrack has to decide what it is going to back so that people who come here can get specific, clear advice.
The site does give specific, clear advice, in the form of lessons from OSC, including one on showing and telling. I am not sure that the purpose of Hatrack forums, however, is to back one side or another, but to let all sides air their view. As for newbies seeking advice, part of learning discernment involves being exposed to contrary, even ill informed, advice and picking their way through until they come to a broad based understanding of the endeavor. They will get all sorts of opinions from professional writers/editors anyway. I can't remember which writer said (words to the effect) "The only advice on writing that really matters is the editors - because he is the one wanting to buy the story."
(Note, that last point in no way refutes your point about choosing to a route that improves your chances of publication - it is just an interesting opinion.)
That tchernabyelo is leaving is indeed unfortunate, but hardly unforseen. The internet exists in a state of churn (or, in this chase, tchern) that is unavoidable as people move on from one site to another, driven by utility, ennui, or yes, even drama.
The forums are separate, unless you're suggesting a completely different board/website for discussion vs. fragments. Any further division (authorized pros with verified sales vs. unwashed newbs) defeats the purpose of Hatrack, which is to learn, share, and foster the growth of ourselves and others.
I am not advocating this at all, but Kathleen's #2 piece of advice at this point is quite relevant: if you don't enjoy the way that Hatrack is run, then other forums might be more to your liking.
Her #1 piece of advice is equally relevant: if you are in an argument, please feel free to begin ignoring each other.
(On a related note, an "Ignore" button would be a fabulous addition to the forums here.... just sayin'.)
I feel that learning to write is a lot like learning to be a parent.
You read all of the books, scour the internet for more information, get solicited and unsolicited advice from people with kids and people without them.
Some of the advice is like gold, some you can’t figure out how to apply, some while good you just can’t use because it is so contrary to your personality. But mostly you are floundering, trying so hard to figure out what really works for you.
You have great triumphs, glorious failures, and real tragic heartache. But all of these strengthens you and makes you better.
You never become an expert. You are always learning. You can always be better.
But if you put your heart and soul into it and your intellect and you really truly love your children and never give up on them. You will end up with something that is very special even if not everyone agrees.
This may not be everyone’s experience learning to write, but it is mine. I don’t think that any of us will follow the same path on our journey to publication.
I have learned a tremendous amount from the folks here; most of you at some point or another have given me golden insights into writing, tchern included (and extrinsic, did he leave?). I think it is a shame that he has left.
I also think it is a shame that Skadder won’t engage in discussions on writing. I can’t speak for everyone, but I think most of us don’t believe whoever is loudest or last to speak is right, but who makes the most sense to us. So no one needs to keep arguing their point once they make it.
Personally, I like a variety of opinions and points of view. I don’t know if we want a community where only the published have the right to express their opinions, if that is what Skadder meant. What is rubbish to one person could be gold to another.
Well, that is just my personal, unpublished opinion. Take it or leave it.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited February 23, 2010).]
quote:
some secret nirvana forum in a hidden nook of the internet
They're out there but you don't learn the secret passwords until you're professionally published :-)
Seriously, though, I think a certain turn-over rate is to be expected regardless of what does or doesn't happen on the forums. It's probably good for us, the way it's good to switch critique groups every couple of years. And there are published writers who comment here; I especially see former boot campers who pop in, probably to visit their password protected sub-forum, and then comment in the Open Discussions About Writing threads.
As to re-hashing stuff... if I'm not interested in a topic, I just don't read that thread. It helps reduce the amount of time I spend procrastinating online.
I'm still looking for advice, believe it or not. And I still get advice. I do weigh what I receive---I won't necessarily follow it, but I do take it in. (Or at least I think I do...maybe I'm deluding myself.)
I've been getting the feeling that there are two camps here. If I think someone is in camp Alpha, I normally regard what s/he says carefully. If someone is in campe Omega, I tend to ignore most of what s/he says.
I've been published. Nothing big, but I get paid. I think that a writer or artist has to know how to accept, and reject, criticism.
Oh oh oh, Ohhhh shirkuru.. Oh oh oh, Ohhh shirkuru... He's the guy that had to die, Shirkuru!!
But back on point, I just ran across this:
http://mzbworks.home.att.net/why.htm
It is an article Titled "Why Did My Story Get Rejected" by Marion Zimmer Bradley. The best part is this tasty morsel: EDITORS DO NOT BUY STORIES BECAUSE THEY ARE WELL WRITTEN.
Interesting stuff.
[This message has been edited by posulliv (edited February 23, 2010).]
quote:
(On a related note, an "Ignore" button would be a fabulous addition to the forums here.... just sayin'.)
Amen!
Thing is, if there were such a button, I'd be very tempted to inflict it on people who just can't seem to get along with each other, whereas now all I can do is ask them to ignore each other.
I believe in personal choice and accountability, so I really don't want to be tempted to take people's choice to ignore or not ignore (even when I ask them to) away.
<sigh!>
"That's it Zero, enough lip-outta-you! I'll see you at the Bike Rack! After school!"
Saying we have decency standards is great and all, but since we can't always control if people abide by them.
I, for one, never try to be anything but polite and accepting here. But I'm pretty sure I've fallen short a few times. I'd hate to think that someone left, or even got offended, because of me. ESPECIALLY when I didn't even intend anything...
quote:
I know when I want to show and when I want to tell
This sums up my feelings as well.
As for writing discussions I usually only comment if no one else has said what I think, or if I just really feel like it.
One reason I don't bother much anymore with threads on craft -- be it here or elsewhere -- is that I don't necessarily believe in some of the conventional wisdom that circulates at the aspirant level. I've found that disputing this conventional wisdom just makes people angry and then nobody is helped because when people get angry, they're done learning.
I'm out in Oregon for a week at a professional writing two-fer where I get to be surrounded by other professionals at various stages -- from people like me with a couple of pro short sales, all the way to people like Kris Rusch and Dean Smith, who have hundreds of short and novel sales between them.
The conversations I am having here are VERY different from the conversations I might have on an aspirant forum, and it's got nothing to do with anything so much as the pros seem to have moved on from the whole, "I need to be right!" thing, and are instead far more interested in LISTENING to other people. They LISTEN for different experience and they LISTEN for revelatory moments of insight. Even Dean the instructor freely admits he does these so that people can come share and he feels he learns a huge amount from the sharing.
Is Hatrack a place to share, or is Hatrack a place for people peddle conventional wisdom?
quote:
The conversations I am having here are VERY different from the conversations I might have on an aspirant forum, and it's got nothing to do with anything so much as the pros seem to have moved on from the whole, "I need to be right!" thing, and are instead far more interested in LISTENING to other people. They LISTEN for different experience and they LISTEN for revelatory moments of insight. Even Dean the instructor freely admits he does these so that people can come share and he feels he learns a huge amount from the sharing.Is Hatrack a place to share, or is Hatrack a place for people peddle conventional wisdom?
Thanks for this Brad.
As writers, I would think we would be more open to ideas and perspectives of others that vary greatly from our own in all aspects of life. How else can we make believable, sympathetic characters that are completely different from us?
Babooher, Thanks for the link that was excellent advise, but Alpha and Omega, seriously? Nice stereotyping.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited February 24, 2010).]
quote:
They LISTEN for different experience and they LISTEN for revelatory moments of insight
Maybe it's worth remembering that for every person that posts in a thread, there are five or ten others who are just reading it quietly. So perhaps there *are* a lot of people here listening, forming their own opinions, and growing.
quote:
The conversations I am having here (at professional writing meetings) are VERY different from the conversations I might have on an aspirant forum, and it's got nothing to do with anything so much as the pros seem to have moved on from the whole, "I need to be right!" thing, and are instead far more interested in LISTENING to other people...Is Hatrack a place to share, or is Hatrack a place for people peddle conventional wisdom?
This quote encompasses three different points that I think need to be understood separately: face to face meetings versus online forums, need to be right versus listening, and professional writer versus aspirant writer conversations. Without making these distinctions, a simple comparison between the two groups runs the risk of missing "revelatory moments of insight".
Online forums are very different to face to face meetings. In comparison to other online forums, this one is very tame and respecting of others, partly due to the people it attracts and partly due to how well it is run. However, it still is an online forum, which comes with a few weaknesses. BenM has already pointed out one, that you cannot see who is actively listening on an online forum. Compounding this is the lack of body language expressed online, which a huge part of understanding the activity of listening and often the lack can be interpreted as a threat. Additionally, online forums tend towards argument simply because people are more motivated to say something if they disagree than if they agree.
Need to be right versus listening: Now this was such a great point by Brad that I don't want to diminish it. I come from a background in science, where both are important and it is always a difficult line to walk. I will say, however, that I would be very surprised if it is something that professional writers as a group have moved on from - it has more to do with personality type and culture than professional sales, and I have heard enough interviews with different writers to know that some still have an "I am right" view of the world.
Professional writer versus aspirant writer conversations: Professional mathematicians don't usually discuss basic arithmetic or algebra amongst themselves, either. That doesn't mean that they disagree with them, the opposite is true, rather they don't discuss it because there is little perceived benefit in going over old ground when they have other, more interesting things to discuss. But if they were to discuss mathematics with an intelligent alien or child, for example, one of the first things they would likely discuss are the basic concepts. Many of these "myths" and "conventional wisdom" of writing were actually developed and actively pushed by professional writers, in the form of "How to Write" books, articles, and these days, blogs. (How to Win the Writers of the Future Contest comes to mind.) Furthermore, they use them, to write, to edit, to make assessments about theirs or others writing. But, unlike mathematics, even the basics of writing fiction have a significant element of disagreement and variability among professional writers, so you can expect that to filter down to aspirants as well.
So, in answer to your question, Hatrack is a place for both sharing and expressing (peddling if you must) conventional wisdom, and it is also a place for debating the merits of such conventional wisdom and listening for the potential nuggets of insight that can come through such debates.
[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited February 24, 2010).]
[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited February 24, 2010).]
I hope it's a place to receive by giving.
We can learn Accepted Manuscript Formatting; Grammar; Outlining Techniques; Plot Tools; Types of PoV; Types of Penetration; Prose Rules-of-Thumb/Guidelines (such as limiting authorial intrusion, adverbs and adjectives); Control of Sensory Perceptions; Building and Sustaining Tension and Conflict--but how they are applied is Voice and that can't be taught.
Writing, by its very nature, has to be solitudinous: Eventually, you've got to do it alone.
I loved this quote from Neil Gaiman:
quote:
Remember: when people tell you something's wrong or doesn't work for them, they are almost always right. When they tell you exactly what they think is wrong and how to fix it, they are almost always wrong.
Skadder's concern with giving "fruitful" vs. "controversial" advice is in concern for those who don't know the common expectations editors, slush readers and agents have. While it's TRUE that it is POSSIBLE to sell a story that goes--in every way--against convention, it is also a much harder row to hoe. Those conventions are there because writing is a form of communication, and the conventions are the distillations of hundreds (if not thousands and tens of thousands) of years and authors' trial-and-errors. So, why would you want to ignore all of that?
Robert Louis Stevenson:
quote:
The difficulty of literature is not to write, but to write what you mean.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited February 25, 2010).]
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited February 25, 2010).]
quote:
"That's it Zero, enough lip-outta-you! I'll see you at the Bike Rack! After school!"
"Meet me at the flagpole after school, wuss!"
@rich - got a good laugh at of your comment.
The reason the editors gave was that just about everything else can be taught, and they can work with writers who are still rough at the edges on those things. But voice can't be taught, and if the voice isn't "there" nothing an editor does is going to make a difference.
Kind of frustrating to know that we can spend all kinds of time on things that editors are willing to work with writers on, but the one, most important thing, voice, can't be taught and can't be argued over or discussed, because it's something that is either "there" or it isn't.
There is the possibility, however, that if a writer works hard enough on the other things, and writes and Writes and WRITES and !WRITES!, the voice will become stronger and grow more "there" as well.
But it truly isn't something that can be taught.
It's probably worth noting that I'm referring to the aspect of voice that is the fundamental voice of the writer rather than a narrative tone affected for a particular story/character (which also is a difficult thing to master and I'd venture to say can't be simply "taught" like grammer).
I have found that in my story, The Capiam Universe, people have told me to start in a different place. It seems like bad advice. Based on what you said here, it seems my hunch is correct.
Based on my experience, advice on writing shouldn't be set in stone. If you are a good writer, you should be able to judge for yourself how useful, or useless, any advice is.
quote:
will be more likely to acquire fiction that has a voice that works than they are to acquire fiction that has everything else right.
I wonder if this is more a reflection of the tastes of the specific editors on the panel than it is editors in general. I look at John Grisham's THE FIRM, Stephenie Meyer, David Baldacci--they don't seem to have much "voice" but somebody loved them enough to buy. Maybe I don't understand voice. But these folks aren't anywhere near TC Boyle, for instance. They read to me like window pane prosers.
FWIW, here's my two cents on learning the craft and business.
#1 Stop looking for rules: http://johndbrown.com/writers/rules-vs-objectives/
#2 Focus on objectives. Dean Smith had a long brouhaha about agents because he felt so many folks thought there was only one method to break in. In the end it almost sounded like Smith himself was setting up his own sacred cow. But he himself would say: Forget all the cows! Look at the business or story objective first. Then use any method that looks like it might get you there. There are a LOT of ways to do almost anything.
#3 When someone proposes a principle or guideline, ask how it relates to the objectives. What's it good for? Then verify it with your experience. If you can't really see a difference, then who cares? Toss it.
#4 If you don't know what your reader response objective is with the first two pages of a story, with your character, with a scene, with the story as a whole, etcetra, etcetera, etcetera, then my suggestion is to take a step back. What kind of an experience are you trying to provide the reader?
If you were designing an airline service, a restaurant service, a comedy routine (another entertainment type service), vacation getaway service, clothes buying service--any service--it's always best to define the experience you want to generate and then focus on those things that will deliver.
McDonalds wants to provide one type of experience. Hamilton's $100/plate another. It would be ridiculous for McDonalds to start seating people and turn the lights low and offer plates and silver cutlery thinking that would help them deliver their fast, cheap service better.
Know what it is you're trying to do . . . to the reader. Then figure out what will get you there.
(Of course, I say all that knowing that a lot comes by feel and you sometimes only figure out what you want AFTER you're well into it, nevertheless...)
#5 None of it matters if you don't write 
Whew. Anyone like some toast? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BILAFuSi-i0
[This message has been edited by johnbrown (edited February 27, 2010).]
It's funny, this was the same thing my flute professor liked to say, though he said "You can teach a pig to finger." He meant you can teach anyone the technicalities of music but not how to bring the emotion across. It also reminds me of Simon Cowell when he tells contestants that they have to have "it."
I understand now this way of mixed critiques has a way of confusing new writers - and frustrating established writers - But I have a solution.
If it's just newbies critiquing that's screwing up serious advice - why not have a tag beneath all our Hatrack names that says [Newbie], or an [Established Writer]? I know I wouldn't mind.
That way the aspiring writer can look at newbie critiques as "reader input" (not to be taken as good advice), while accepting an established writers' critiques as "advice from an actual published writer" - to be taken as good advice.
That should work right?
Arguing on the Internet is a pastime of mine, but a writer who has never been published can give just as good advice as one who has.
I like the parenting analogy 'cause I think it fits well. A great parent may not be able to tell you how to raise YOUR kids because that great parent's kids may be angels compared to your hellions.
I think Cormac McCarthy is a great writer, but I don't think he'd necessarily give good writing advice.
However, I also don't see the use of arguing over a person's comments concerning one's writing as productive. It's a criticism. Take what you can from the criticism, accept it or not, and move on.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The best writing workshop is the one where you submit your story/novel to be published. The editors will let you know if you're a "good" writer or not.
I think on Hatrack, as with pretty much anything in life, it's buyer beware. A bunch of us have websites or blogs (though I'm guessing the new blogging craze will not be a temporary phenomena here) linked in to our profiles so anyone who cares can do a bit of research on the people offering you advice and decide whether their "credentials" are satisfactory or not.
Me, I figured out who to listen to the old-fashioned way: I've been around for a while and gotten to know whose advice I can take and whose I can leave.
What if there was an area in our profiles that allowed Hatrackers to include various levels of sales (pro and on down). I'm sure some wouldn't want to go back and type everything in anew, but some probably would. I think it would be a nice way of seeing how everyone is doing as well.
quote:
Skadder, I had no idea established writers on Hatrack felt this way - when I first came here over a year ago I thought newbie input was welcome...after all they are the potential reader market for the aspiring author.
Hrm... I don't think this is where Skadder was going.
Here's how I see it (Hopefully I stay on topic). So in any genre of art you have three circles of groups:
The Hard: We feel that form and function is all that matters. The more technically complicated the work the better the work is.
The Real: We feel that a blend of experience, hard work and imagination is what makes true art.
The Soft: We feel that anything we create is art and any "rule" is simply a roadblock that must be forcibly dismantled.
Just about everyone in the art community falls somewhere between those three areas.
The problem is a true "Hard" artist (someone who only grades on technical complexity without looking at the 'full picture') will always butt heads with a true "Soft" artist (someone who feels that raw energy and emotion are the only prerequisites to true art).
And to make matters worse, the 90% of people somewhere in the middle usually get annoyed by both parties. Here's an example:
quote:
ARTIST: <Posts a charcoal still to be critiqued>HARD_CRITTER: The shading really needs work, doesn't reflect the lighting, especially around the vase, the shadows are practically in the opposite direction as the rest of the set.
SOFT_CRITTER: I disagree I feel the change in shadow adds a certain "abstract something" that takes it beyond the traditional still life. Proper shading is just another "rule" that can be broken.
HARD_CRITTER: Yeah, that "abstract something" is lousy shading
SOFT_CRITTER: Coming from a corporate shill pan-handling hotel room art?
HARD_CRITTER: Hippy!
Every artist needs that explosive creativity that comes from the Soft section, but in order to produce real art they need the training and patience of the Hard section. Over time they learn how to channel that imagination through fundamentals and produce truly inspiring work.
So that's the problem. You have people in different stages and that will always cause conflict.
[This message has been edited by halogen (edited February 28, 2010).]
Professional publcation may or may not correlate to excellent insight into the principles and concepts of story. There are excellent editors (and sometimes agents) who have never written a novel, much less published one, yet they can see exactly where a story isn't performing.
Would you, for example, minimize the input of David Hartwell, the editor from Tor who won the Hugo award a year or so ago, because he has never written a novel of any length?
There are 2 different areas of expertise--the concepts and principles of story AND the process of developing a story. Some folks who have never written a story have the first set in spades.
Many pros who are published advocate their particular method. Steven King advocates one way. Elizabeth George advocates one that's completely opposite. Some pros aren't analytical at all (Steven Brust) and so are hesitant to offer any insights at all.
Finally, getting a story or five, or a novel or two published doesn't guarantee that person has any more insight than someone who hasn't broken in. Think about this. It means we should have NOT considered anything JK Rowling had to say while she was collecting her rejections. NOT given any credence to Stephenie Meyer as she toiled away writing her dream-induced tale.
Expertise does provide insight. But are we really at that level here where Bob with 2 short sales is now the expert whereas Bill with 1 short sale is something less?
What I've learned is that ANYONE can have good insights or ask questions that lead to them.
The key is in testing everything against the objectives. Does X produce Y?
During Card's 2-workshop a couple of years ago, he mentioned that one of his stories was critiqued as being "too long" (I think it was an editor). Card realized the pace was too slow, so he upped the tempo and ultimately INCREASED the word length. The critiquer loved it.
As for this message board, group dynamics change here just as they do any human group across the world. Some people won't like it. When I get bored or irritated, I just leave for a while and come back when I'm more refreshed. Some of you should try it; it's what the hunter-gatherers did. : )
"...I'm not a fiction writer myself, have never written a short story in my life, not ever even for a moment presumed to think I could."
This quote is from Rust Hills, in the introduction to "Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular." Hills is the longtime fiction editor for Esquire.
I'm happy to listen to anyone, and frankly, I'd prefer not to know anything about their background, other than that they are a frequent reader, or better yet, frequent buyer, of they types of stories I write.
Update: It has occurred to me that my comment could be taken to mean the opposite of my intention. So to clarify, there are scores of people who have good advice and who are not authors. Some of them are respected pros who earned their stripes as readers and lovers of fiction. Writers do not have a monopoly on quality advice.
In regard to Hatrack, I'd like to remain ignorant of the publishing history of posters because then I'm forced to consider their arguments on their merits, free of any bias based on their perceived experience, or lack thereof.
I value feedback from people who read and pay for they type of work I write, since that work is what I'm trying to improve, and those are the 'experts' I'm trying to please.
I hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings by being unclear.
[This message has been edited by posulliv (edited March 01, 2010).]
quote:
Professional publcation may or may not correlate to excellent insight into the principles and concepts of story. There are excellent editors (and sometimes agents) who have never written a novel, much less published one, yet they can see exactly where a story isn't performing.
This is a very relevant point. I would like to expand upon this idea. I find the opinions of those who read alot more valuable than most others and it is often apparent in their comments. Afterall those that are reading alot of material which is currently being published in our genre have a much better foundation by which to make comparison than say, someone that read a dozen SF novels in their life and now want to write SF.
I am also very surprised just how little many aspiring writers in our field actually read. Although they would probably never admit it, I have read the stories, critique, and opinions of many that I could almost absolutely say have read no more than a handful of novels, or short stories available in our current markets. To me, above all else, this is highly noticeable ,not only in their writing, but also in their limited scope given in critiques.
I have often speculated on how much of the readership of SF publications actually consists of aspiring writers. I bet it is a very high percentage--more than fifty percent. I truly will never understand though how one might expect to get their work published without understanding the current markets in which they are trying to get published.
This among many other experiences has instilled in me the need to come to my own conclusions about the advice I accept. I have put in thousands of hours into researching trends in current markets that has negated a few generally accepted advice, such as writing in the first person among a few others.
I learned long ago to seriously filter all the advice I recieve and to look at things from a 'big picture' approach. You can also learn what to screen by getting a wide scope of what posters have to say in their crtis. If you notice that the certain critter has the same thing or things to say about everything the comment on, you can easily come to the conclusion to evaluate the worth of those particular comments.
quote:
...but a writer who has never been published can give just as good advice as one who has.
Kiti:
quote:
I would feel very uncomfortable with the idea of having "newbie" or "established writer" tags. Yeah, I've made a sale, but does that mean I suddenly know more than all y'all or that my opinions are somehow more important? I sure hope not! (I'll tell you right now - I certainly don't know everything.)
I agree with both of you - good advice can come from anywhere, and even published writer may give bad advice.
But that's not the point here.
The point is some published writers, who have gone through the editorial process, who take the time to give serious advice, feel their advice is getting "muddied" and going to waste when non-established writers are throwing in their two cents.
I am paraphrasing exactly what skadder wrote:
quote:
...yet another talented writer (tchern...)leaves Hatrack because...the waters are constantly muddied by people without the sales to back their authority/claims.
If all it takes is distinguishing published versus unpublshed writers' posts to make them feel like their advice isn't going to waste - I think that's a small price to pay.
I'm not saying that their advice is always good or bad - just that I would rather have any advice from them than no advice at all.
So I would try to appease tchernboyl and find some simple way to give credit where credit is due.
quote:
If all it takes is distinguishing published versus unpublshed writers' posts to make them feel like their advice isn't going to waste - I think that's a small price to pay.
This is a slippery slope when you start giving up measures that offer equality within a group.
I say let everyone make their comments and let the comments stand on their merits. If a published author truly believes that his/her comments are more valuable than those of others then they should believe that said comments will stand above the rest based purely on their quality.
That said, I interpret what skadder is saying to be the general problem with opionions and advice - everyone has them, and some are "better-equipped" than others. It seems that the advice has been all over the place of late. What has become most difficult is finding consensus.
Now, I feel that I greatly benefitted from this site when I first came here almost two years ago, but I feel less so today. I think some of it has to do with rehashing of old topics, but much of it has to do with old arguments that don't seem to go away. Instead, these arguments are driving away some of the best talent. There's a "write whatever way that makes you feel good" mentality that appears to be prevailing. That is fine if the goal is simply expression, but maybe not so beneficial if the goal is publication. Hard candy usually comes in clear packaging and sometimes you just have to suck on it.
I recently wrote something in one of the challenges that in retrospect was less than enticing. All of the problems with it are easily identifiable with the so-called "rules" or recommendations or whatever we are supposed to call them now. So why didn't I just follow the "rules"? Simply said - we are a society of rule-breakers and of "fairness". We often feel we can get away with it or compare ourselves to others. "Cormac McCarthy does this. Stephanie Meyers does that." I thought I was clever enough to get away with it, and my inner-editor didn't say anything. However, it would do me no good to deny the validity of the critiques, because ultimately it comes down to what readers like.
I think it's a real shame that people with various talents like Talespinner, Reagansgame, tchernabyelo, Sara Genge, extrinsic, and many more whom I cannot think of at the moment have left this site due to either conflict or not feeling able to get anything more from it. I suppose it is the nature of such sites, but I can empathize with skadder's sadness regarding their loss. I think much of it has more to do with people's conduct and other people's sensitivity than anything else. But it also is largely due to overall frustration.
Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether he/she stays or goes, argues or agrees, paticipates or watches. There are pearls of wisdom in many things that skadder states as well as what Merlion states (just to name two of our more avid debaters). It is up to each individual to find his/her best path. All the same, I do not see how having accomplishments able to be listed in our profiles would hurt this site or create a bourgeoisie/prolitarian environment. I can only think of benefits to such an availability. And maybe in some way it could help keep a few accomplished individuals from wanting to bail and help "newbies" to choose who best represents the approach they should take. And just because an "accomplished" writer suggests one way, I doubt that it will change the mind of someone who is determined to go another way. After all, we are a society of rule-breakers.
quote:
This is a slippery slope when you start giving up measures that offer equality within a group.I say let everyone make their comments and let the comments stand on their merits. If a published author truly believes that his/her comments are more valuable than those of others then they should believe that said comments will stand above the rest based purely on their quality.
I don't think there will be a "giving up of equality". Nor should equality be given indiscriminately. All those choices should reside with the newbie-writer getting the advice. Not us advice-posters.
Once again, this not about separating good advice from bad as a reflection on our ability as writers and critiquers - although people seem to be taking it as such. It's about getting to know from whom the advice is coming from. It's simply extra data. Yes, it's creating categories - but not good vs bad. Let's not simply assume that.
If the advice-reader chooses to treat one category as better than the other - that's their choice. This whole thing is for the newbie writer's benefit anyway, not ours as a critiquer.
Furthermore, this avoids restrictions that will deny some of us from posting critiques - which private forums would do. I want to avoid this issue being resolved that way.
I think what I propose is a healthy compromise - everyone gets to post, but we get to know a little about you to qualify your critique - which is only fair. We don't have to know every little detail, just a vague idea. For example, knowing that a poster has published 5 sci-fi short stories helps distinguish advice from a poster who has 10 published fantasy stories. Details like this will help new writers judge the advice better.
Also if it makes advice-posters be more cautious and more thoughtful about the critiques they post - that's a good thing.
[This message has been edited by billawaboy (edited February 28, 2010).]
quote:
Nor should there be equality given indiscriminately.
Doesn't equality mean freedom from discrimination?
If someone is posting a critique and wants to tell of their publishing experience to put some perspective on their comments then they are free to do so. No one is stopping them.
He responded by saying that I'm a reader, and that I know what I like and what I don't. I know what works when I'm reading a story and what sings. He told me not to be afraid, and that my opinion was just as good as anyone else's.
I couldn't believe the confidence this gave me, and I try to take everything anyone says on Hatrack with an open mind. I'd say 90% of the advice I've received has been right on the money. I follow my gut when others voice their opinions. If it sounds right, I follow it and see how it works. If it sounds fishy, I leave it lay, but still thank the person who said it and move on.
My advice has been way off base sometimes,too, and someone usually will point this out to me in a tactful way. I don't get upset by it, and re-read this advice several times before I understand what is being said. Most of the time, the person is right.
We may not all be professionals. After all, that's why we're here--to reach that golden ring and earn the right to be call a professional writer. That's what I feel Hatrack is all about.
So follow your gut and say what you think works when you critique someone's work. If you're wrong, someone will surely steer you in the right direction. Hatrack has been a gold mine to me. Everyone has been wonderful in helping to make my writing bloom. I am so close to making my first submission it scares me, but it will happen, very very soon, and I owe it all to Hatrack's Writers Workshop.
It's sad that some may leave with bruised egos or hard feelings, but Hatrack isn't for everyone. New members join everyday, and we'll be here to help prop them up, give suggestions, critique their work, and help them make that first submission and that first sale. It can happen.
quote:
...the waters are constantly muddied by people without the sales to back their authority/claims.
In this method of learning what you do is rank authorities, collect authoritative statements, and then prove points with citations. Discussions turn into dueling quotes. This often influences the learner to compile long lists of rules (some which contradict) that are NOT required to actually demonstrate any validity. The authority is the authority and so you don't question. Or test. They're presumed to have knowledge you don't based on their bona fides. The goal here is not to become a master practiconer but an authority on authorities.
So Fred who has 5 books out must know much know more than Jean who has 2, who certainly knows more than Pedro who hasn't even gotten a personal rejection slip. Mary was a NY Times best seller so she trumps them all. But Rick was actually a USA Today best seller so we must listen to him more carefully because that reflects actual success better, unless he's actually lower ranked that week than Mary, although he lost his book contract, so. . .
Is that really the best way to learn this craft?
Let me suggest that debating and learning craft using authorities, backing yourself up with quotes, misses the whole point precisely because it ignores dealing with the MOST important question: Does it work, does it produce the intended effect, and does it do so for this particular situation I'm dealing with?
Can you imagine what would happen if we were to use the authority approach to medicine? Well, we did. That's when they made poultices with crow crap in it. That's when (in New Guinea) the authorities required a woman to let them slice off a knuckle to appease the spirits. Snake oil anyone?
I'm not saying that nobody knows more than anyone else. That's stupid. If I'm trying to build a car I'm going to get more out of Henry Ford than the guy who can't even nail together a scooter. But I don't want to become an authority on Henry Ford. Nor do I want to limit myself to his blindspots. I'm a practiconer. I want to find things to make my car better. I want to come up with my own designs. So I'll listen and then go back to my workshop to see if his ideas make MY car better.
We're trying to become expert practiconers of the craft, not reporters of what others say. We're trying to DO something, find principles and techniques that actually make a difference, not those that are reported to do so.
I'm not advocating double-blind tests and huge scientific studies, although many in the communications area have done just that with interesting results (see Dolf Zilmann's and Peter Voeder's works). We usually don't have the time and money to set such things up. But we can seek to always understand what any rule or technique is supposed to do AND verify the claims with our personal experience and that of those around us. Not rigorous, but better than nothing.
I've found it's helpful to listen to pros. Listen to Card and King and whoever. Consider their ideas carefully. Then test their principles, guidelines, and rules. Take them back to my workshop and see if they actually work. The test being in the reader response.
If someone says you shouldn't start with dialogue (Card said this in his boot camp I attended), then I would want to ask why. Understand the principle behind it. But then I don't want to stop there. I want to go verify. And after seeing a lot of dialogue openings that might not work so well at pulling me in [reader effect], I might run across something like _The witches of wenschar_ by Hambly that starts:
"You may be a wizard, my lady," Sun Wolf said, tucking his big hands behind the buckle of his battered sword belt. "But you're also the biggest damn fool I've ever met in my life."
And realize that this dialogue opening drew me right in just as effectively as some of the best non-dialogue ones do. Now, it might not pull anyone else in, but it pulled me. That's a data point. And I can then say, well, a blanket ban on dialogue openings doesn't seem warranted. Not in my experience. What's the difference between those that worked for me and those that didn't? What's the thing at work? Why did it pull me?
And because I'm focused on the objective, on reader response, on actually TESTING it, replicating results, I can start to get some insight. Start to see cause and effect.
I got some of my best insights in Orson Card's boot camp when he asked each of us to read the 19 other stories and gauge how clear, believable, and interesting they were on our personal scale. No rules. No authorities. No red pencils in hand. No critique hats. Nothing but cause and effect. The work, the reader, and the experience produced by the text.
And that's what I want. I don't know about you, but I want to master the principles of story cause and effect. I don't care about lists of what other people say. I want to know what works. And what works has nothing to do with authority. It has only to do with the writing and the reader's response. Cause and effect.
The only conversations that muddy the waters are those that muddy or completely ignore the relationship between cause and effect. The ones where people say you should and you shouldn't and fail to tie it to actual reader response. Or when they assume their response is the majority or only valid one.
Even a newbie can tell if a certain passage of text did or didn't pull them in, did or didn't make sense. They don't need publications to know that this thing bumped them out of the text and that thing did not. And so if they talk about reader response, cause and effect, their input is just as valuable as anyone else's. It's another data point. Now, there are certainly reasons for excluding people as data points (and I do exclude the responses reported by some depending on my objectives, the person's fit, and their approach), but it has nothing to do with authority.
It's worked for me. It continues to work for me. It's what I ask of my test readers and what I provide to those I read for. Let me suggest it to you. Give it a try. Forget this business of authorities and rules. Look instead for cause and effect. Focus on individual reader response. See if it doesn't produce more insight and have a greater impact on your current project than any number of unverified rules and pontifications tossed out by "those who know."
[This message has been edited by johnbrown (edited February 28, 2010).]
Cause and effect as the primary focus...hmm...you've given me something to think about.
Let established writers have the option of having their creds as part of their signature or description under their name, and those who choose to remain anonymous can do so.
The idea, of course, is to just help get published writer's like tchern (I assuming tchern is published...) to stay - I don't want their reason for leaving to be because they feel unappreciated. Let it be for other reasons.
But it's pressure on the published writer as well. If you want people to appreciate your advice, you've got to show what you've accomplished. Otherwise be content to provide your critique anonymously, and leave it at that.
Also a word about trying to avoid rehashing old topics - it's absolutely unavoidable. We all assume the role of both teachers and students. Teachers have to teach the same thing over and over and over. They will always argue their points over and over with new students. It's unavoidable - until you quit teaching. There will always be new writers that will need to discuss and find their way. If that's what got tchern tired of Hatrack (after postings that go back to 2005, mind you, so it's understandable) - then perhaps he just needs a break. Hopefully he doesn't quit Hatrack completely.
And I'll be blunt about how I look at critiques:
As a newbie-writer I appreciate advice from all, but let's get serious: I ultimately want writing as my career - not as a hobby or some sort of life as a 'Bohemian struggling artist.' That means getting published, which means paying extra attention to those who already are published. And if they have talent, even better.
These are rare people we have on Hatrack - those who have actually been through the gauntlet of editors out there and got to the other side - and I want to learn from their experience. And I definitely want them to stay on Hatrack. If that requires discriminating a little against my fellow newbies, or making them feel a little less appreciated - well, that's a very small price to pay. Get over it.
quote:
If you want people to appreciate your advice, you've got to show what you've accomplished.
I'll agree to disagree here. I don't believe good advice needs qualifications, only that it is communicated and reasoned clearly. If some very sensible advice is offered in a way that is clear and (maybe even) irrefutable, I don't care who said it.
And the corollary is true, for me - I can read Dean Wesley Smith's website, in which he offers some great insights, but having published ninety some books doesn't - for me - authorise all his opinions. I'm not sure his is the writing future I see for myself.
Furthermore, something a longtime author advises may not be communicated to me in a way I can best understand as an unpublished author; it may be that someone who is or was recently unpublished will explain the same point in a way I can better comprehend.
Thus I see no problem at all with the approach of a site like Hatrack - it's a melding of minds, and if it takes that longtime-published author to make a point to the just-published author who then reinterprets for a recalcitrant unpublished author like me, then the system's working.
Number of sales does not indicate the quality of feedback received. It is incumbent on the author to weed out those critiques that are useful and those that aren't. Only experience on these boards as both a critiqued and as an author can truly guide you to that place. An unaudited number beneath an anonymous internet handle can not confer ability to critique accuratly.
TLDR: know who to listen to, and who to ignore.
And they were all published and famous, so the swirling contradictory opinions are pretty much guaranteed, as long as you are talking to multiple people.
quote:
These are rare people we have on Hatrack - those who have actually been through the gauntlet of editors out there and got to the other side - and I want to learn from their experience. And I definitely want them to stay on Hatrack. If that requires discriminating a little against my fellow newbies, or making them feel a little less appreciated - well, that's a very small price to pay. Get over it.
Well, John Brown just published a novel with Tor, so if someone has to have publishing credits to win your confidence, I think John Brown counts. Maybe you should reread his posts.
Although I have had several stories published (Even thought token and semi-pro) I still consider the value of my comments more pertinate to my experience as a reader as opposed to my experience as a writer. I have read hundreds of novels and approaching a thousand short stories. I read everyday diligently. I feel comfortable with the fact that I do have a fundamental grasp of our craft, but I do not claim or have any notion to be an authority.
What I can say is that Every day, I complete at least one short story. Even if I do not become immersed in the story or find it very enjoyable, I always complete it, if for no other reason than to study it and why it didn't work for me. Surprisingly, it happens less than ten percent of the time that I have to force myself to finish a story. (Take into consideration that we are talking about semi-pro to pro publications which I read from)More often than not this stems from a dislike in the theme of the story as opposed to prose, but a close second is plot problems, then horrible characterization, style issues, or other maladies. That being said, If I am doing a critique and I am pulling out my hair, wanting to smash my monitor, then I feel it is really safe to say the story is in trouble.
The scientific method is much a part of me. I consider it a tool with which I can assist me in my observations and opinions of the world and events around me. I have done some experiments of my own. I have run some statistics on posters and comments, I have looked at the 'big picture' analytically, and yes, I have seen some major discrepancies in comments posted in F&F. Take the first comment of a thread. Boil it down to the thesis of its message. Then do the stats on the following comments. It is interesting to see how many simply 'agree'. Another important aspect to consider is studying the comments of a particular poster. How often do they repeat the same comment? How many pieces of advice do they actually have in their repetoire? If it is less than three, worse yet if it is but one or two, find a way to rate the relevance of their comment/s.
I honestly make a point not to read any comments before I post my own. Someetimes I will go back and review after the fact to expand upon or offer my disagreement, but for the integrity of your opinion, you should never read the others comments before you post.
I have made another half-dozen or so valid observations that I cannot elaborate on for fear of being accusitory, but I guess the point is as with everything in life. You have to make your own choices, especially in regard to what advice you follow, but at the same time you have to be receptive enough to take a hard look at yourself and you should self analyze as much as you investigate outwardly. For the most part those that offer you comments are sincere. They are truly trying to help and they are offeing thier candid opinion. Definately do not dismiss the advice of others because it is a critique directed at you. I am my own worse critique. I am harder on myself than the harshes critique I have ever recieved compounded by tenfold.
I have to admit that I am finding this forum less and less helpful. As much from the rabble-rousers and chronic critters that couldn't possibly read everyday because of the amount of pointless argueing they participate in here. Mostly though, it is the ratio of my giving versus recieving. I have done over one hundred critiques for members here in the past eighteen months and in the last six months, I haven't had many offers to crit my stuff. Those I have recieved were hot and cold. There are a few tha consistently give good sound feedback, but others, as I mentioned really seem to not have a clue what this genre even encompasses, let alone current market trends and styles. Not that I do not applaud their effort. Many of them do commit whole-heartedly and do offer alot of good advice. Even if it is simple as basic grammar suggestions, just that it takes at least three crits to get a halfway accurate portrayal of any serious problems, and It has been at least a year since I have had enough readers of a story to get a broad picture. Keep in mind that I do not disquantify those that have helped me. I have let you all know how much I appreciated your time and effort. I even try to respond to their critique and point out exactly how they have helped me. They often recipricate also offering an even more detailed response. So for that and those I am thankful.
So recently, I have been cooling stories for several months so I could go back to them with acritical eye, then I am paying a friend who is a copy editor to make line edits( for important submissions any way, WOTF top3 submissions, and contests) This is quite costly though an I hope in the end it pays off.
I guess I better end this rant, but I guess it just felt like the right spot to 'get it off your chest' thread.
So ultimately, I can understand those whom have been moving on as of late. I feel the same at times, but I still drop in and offer my opinions from time to time, because I still feel like I should contribute to this place. It really really helped me in the beginning.
quote:
Mostly though, it is the ratio of my giving versus recieving.
In my opinion, this is the more damning problem. I'll give newcomers one critique, offer the advice that they should perhaps spend some time critiquing others, and then wait to see what happens.
A recent example (XD3V0NX) is pretty par for the course. Posts 6 stories for critique in very short order. Give absolutely zero back to the community. Is probably either happy with himself (I got the crits and it didn't cost me a thing!) or upset at us because he received pretty much across the board poor critiques.
Again, there's little to be done about this (other than setting up Hatrack as a for-pay site, which would be a pretty bad idea IMO) but it is frustrating.
quote:
A recent example (XD3V0NX) is pretty par for the course. Posts 6 stories for critique in very short order. Give absolutely zero back to the community. Is probably either happy with himself (I got the crits and it didn't cost me a thing!) or upset at us because he received pretty much across the board poor critiques.
My concern is that I end up coming across as (or outright turning into) someone who has no intention of giving back an acceptable equivalent to what I receive from this community. I'm hoping that my offering of the Challenge with Character(s) contest will make up some of the deficit I perceive I've built up.
S!
S!
quote:
Good Lord, how did this thread get so bloody long?
LOL.
I think the poinst has been confused. With respect to John Brown and his approach to getting feedback, I don't think that's the issue adressed. I think most everybody is missing the core:
How would you like your every response broken down--by paragraph or sentence--and refuted everytime you commented? The claim of talent and authority, I believe (and I could be wrong) are expression of the frustration caused by such actions. Some critiquers take the time to do a line-by-line for grammar, point out everything that stopped them and note what he/she has learned about the marketplace, editors and the commonly accepted techniques during his/her post. That is a lot of effort for someone to donate. In itself, that deserves a bit of thanks. When the next critiquer then spends more time derailing the preceding poster than adding (subjectively or otherwise) or assisting the critiquee(?) in acomplishing his/her goal, it will eventually drive those "time-donators" away. (In effect it's like saying, they took all that time to just meaninglessly babble. 
) I think alluding to the skill/authority of the critiquer is just to show who is getting "bullied" out--and inform those who have not been around long enough to have decided for themmselves, that this is happening, and make them stop and look at what the "advisors" are saying.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited March 01, 2010).]
quote:
Also a word about trying to avoid rehashing old topics - it's absolutely unavoidable. We all assume the role of both teachers and students.
Yes, as long as there are "Waking from a Dream" intros, there will be a frenzy of those(myself included)struggling to be the first to say "Oh no, not another 'waking from a dream' cliche"
[This message has been edited by Bent Tree (edited March 01, 2010).]
quote:
It seems such a shame that yet another talented writer (tchern...)leaves Hatrack because of a constant re-hashing of basic advice---the waters are constantly muddied by people without the sales to back their authority/claims.
There also seems to be a very disapointing aspect to this mentality which, I myself, have even been guilty of even within the discussion of this thread. Those of us whom consider ourselves 'seniors' of this group are obligated to some degree to make this amore beneficial environment.
Scanning back through 'Open Discussions' topics, I didn't see any post created by Tchern that would spark some interest or conversation within this group. As those of us whom have benefitted by this forum and have aqcuired a few publications is it not our responsibility to reach down and grab those on the bottom wrung of the very ladder we just climbed?
I have heard it said openly, an admission that a particular member doesn't take on too many crits for fear of being adversely influenced by bad prose, style, etc... It isn't fair for me to point any fingers, for I myself have been guilty of such indulgences, but rather than throwing yourself into conflict(After all it takes two to argue) why not create a topic that has merit? use your experience to offer something new and not rehashed to the group. Take time wasted by arguing and do twenty minutes to research a topic that others will benefit from?
This "Conflict" seems to be directed at one particular person, veiled in a holier than thou cape, in my opinion. This is just a continuance of the original conflict, but in a passive agressive tone. If you have to be right and have the last word in every situation then maybe those people should leave. Perhaps that is how your debt to Hatrack could be repaid. The absence of those who rabble-rouse will ultimately leave room for wider and more open discussions.
1--some of them are no better at it than a wise reader, if that, because many do not know all that much about how to write--they just do it--so they can't really help anyone else other than to say how they would write someone else's story.
2--some of them don't "suffer fools gladly" nor do they remember how "fool"-ish they were when they were starting out as writers, so they can offer pretty devastating and crushing feedback without caring about its effect on the author of the work.
3--some of them don't have time or are concerned that if they write anything even close to being similar to something someone has asked for feedback on they will be sued for idea stealing.
4--those who are willing to be helpful, and can actually give useful advice, usually do it in workshops where they are paid for their expertise, or at science fiction conventions (as John Brown did a couple of weeks ago at the BYU SF Symposium).
5--writing is one of the things that people can learn by teaching, and as a developing writer gains insights and shares them, that writer's skills increase. You don't grow nearly as much by getting good feedback from a published writer as you do by giving feedback to someone else.
When it comes right down to it, as has already been said, credentials only mean that someone knows how to write their own kinds of stories and sell them. It may not be true in other fields, but in writing, "those who can" are not always able to teach, and in fact, writing skills and editing skills and teaching writing skills can be very different from each other.
That said, I want to assure you all that people move on for various reasons. As long as I have been here, I have seen some great teachers and some great writers come for a while and then leave. I miss them, but others have come in their stead, and I am confident that as those move on, there will be others to take their places.
I know of no way the software for this forum can be arranged to allow people to distinguish themselves except in their profiles or in their posts. And I think if people's words as they participate in the forum discussions aren't enough to tell (or show) others their worth, no amount of information elsewhere is going to make a bit of difference.
The professionally published writers forum wouldn't be full of perfect people who gave perfect advice all the time, but the range of their knowledge I would expect to be greater.
It appears that I am in the minority here of valuing the advice of people who have consistently achieved a success that I aspire to.
@Benttree--on your post which starts by quoting me and ends by quoting my 'indulgence'. Yes, I don't volunteer to do crits for people online, but then I have probably only accepted three or four full crits from people on Hatrack--I always reciprocate. I have one person who I swap stories with because I like the way they write and also the way they crit--works for me.
I do crits on 13 lines when I can.
After running loads of competitions on Hatrack I feel my 'debt' is paid, but then I don't think I have ever had anyone suggest I leave Hatrack before--I'll take your suggested course...
[This message has been edited by skadder (edited March 02, 2010).]
I certainly never meant to imply that you don't contribute. I consider you one of the most helpful on this forum. Not only your contests, but your propelling stimulating conversation in 'Discussions' Sorry if I came across that way.
I suppose, I was chastising my self indirectly. I started feeling bad about my ranting and recalled not too long ago when I was very new to this and people such as yourself endured my ignorance. So, I guess I was trying to balance the equation more than anything.
This feels like, for the most part trying to rally suport to lynch one or a few particular people. I really just think that to much effort has been made in that already. It is pretty widely known that there is often conflicting advice and those that often go against the grain of conformation. But, their opinions can often have value if you are only so patient as to filter them.
Again my apologies for coming off as accusatory.
I guess by using your quote, you percieved it as an affront, but my intent was to use it as an example of an idea that many in this thread have expanded upon, myself included. I have been very frustrated as of late(As I rambled on in one of my prior posts)Please don't take it as my suggestion that you leave.
It, this situation, reminded me of a stance I take in my kitchen(Work Kitchen) those with bad attitudes, be gone. As a chef I and myy crew work hard. Fourteen hour days are more common than eight hor shifts. We are close nit and I keep the mood and moral high by eliminating people that don't want to be there. The minute their attitude becomes an issue with moral, they are sent packing. This group is far less tyranical than my kitchen and my rational might not have the same weight here, but I think it is fair. If one has more negative to offer then positive, they should want to leave. If for no other reason than for their sanity.
(1) I'm not sure being a published writer, even a successful published writer (by whatever definition) is a matter of significance in what we discuss here.
(2) On people coming and going...I got into this on a lark, and on an off-hand reference by Kathleen (who I've known and corresponded with for a long time before). I've enjoyed it, and learned a lot. If I find it boring, or get too irritated, I figure I'd just stop posting, not make a flamobyant goodbye statement.
(3) As per the above, other people are going to come and go as it suits them. There are a lot of online communities, and how and why you get involved with them, or get uninvolved with them, is your buisness. We can lament their loss, but it hardly makes anybody a lesser person for leaving.
(4) I am less involved in some aspects of these boards than in others.
(5) But if I can come with some half-way good advice to somebody along the way, I think I've accomplished something.
Aside from the obvious benefits of critiquing and getting critiqued that Hatrack offers, I, in my short time here, have discovered this is only part of what happens here.
When I saw all of the different groups (other than the F&Fs), like: Open Discussions, Markets for our Writing, Character Interviews, Grist, I realized there is a wealth of information available to me beyond being just a better writer.
I mean, obviously we write, or we couldn't be here. Admittedly, I'm not the best listener, but I don't make apologies for who I am. Also, I take the different groups, and the contributions to them, seriously, but in different ways.
In F&F (novels for me, mostly, 'cause I'm just not a short story person) I don't wait for feedback from my works (though immensely appreciated), I gather a whole lot just by seeing what others are critiquing and how they're doing it. I've found instances of "Now why didn't I think of that?" and "I think I'll give that a try, myself" as well as "Won't touch that one with a ten foot pole."
However, since we are mostly about writing here, I have to say that some of the best advice I receive (and use) is observed. Not commented on. Not propagated. Just observed. Our stories are full of diverse character types, the users of this forum diverse far beyond any you can experience at work, or church, or on the street. Use this to your benefit. Next time you struggle to develop two characters in your story who can't stand each other fall back here and see how arguments played out in some of the groups. Likewise, if you're struggling to develop the relationships between characters who do get along. We may perfect our character building in more ways than just one.
The beauty of the net, and the forum's like this one that have popped up as a result, is the unique opportunity to communicate with people from everywhere, and at anytime (day or night).
It's a beautiful thing!
Yet, I cannot help but be bothered, when a member's departure (albeit unfortunate) is suggested to be someone else's fault. The only person to blame for the departure is the person who chose to leave. No one joined this forum for me, or on my behalf. I did that. Same would apply if I depart. But, aside from getting banned, does anyone every really leave?
quote:
But, aside from getting banned, does anyone every really leave?
Welcome to Hotel California.
I usually avoid these types of discussions. I prefer that we would all agree to disagree but we can't even seem to agree on that.
quote:
I don't know what happened to the writer who left. But this quote seems to suggest some might be trying to learn the craft in a very ineffective way.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the waters are constantly muddied by people without the sales to back their authority/claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In this method of learning what you do is rank authorities, collect authoritative statements, and then prove points with citations. Discussions turn into dueling quotes. This often influences the learner to compile long lists of rules (some which contradict) that are NOT required to actually demonstrate any validity. The authority is the authority and so you don't question. Or test. They're presumed to have knowledge you don't based on their bona fides. The goal here is not to become a master practiconer but an authority on authorities.
I believe you are misinterperting Mr Skadders post. He isn't chastising a group of writers (newbies as many people are assuming) but one member.
Merlion-Emrys has become Lord Valdemort to many here, consider a lot of people won't even say his name anymore. Now I do admire his princibles, he is after all sticking to one important rule...
'Rule # 1 is there are no rules'
...but to constantly hammer away with the argument that other people do it (cliche openings, switching POV's, etc...,etc...) and then complaining that well intentioned and experienced writers do not have the right to point out that such things are frowned upon today.
Merlion's crusade has drove away three talented people that I am aware of (well two, the third was rather verbose which didn't necessarily make him talented), and has occasionally managed to recruit a couple to his cause. He has so rubbed people the wrong way that even the cool, calm, and collective KDW even suggested he should peddle his kettle of fish elsewhere once.
I probably shouldn't speak for adam, but his quote was aimed at Merlion's lack of success failing to back his impetitious argument, while the people that he drove away had their success to back theirs up. Not a nice fact to bring up but nice left the building a very long time ago in this disagreement.
The bigger argument is less about who has more experience but rather what should and what shouldn't allowed to be pointed out. If you put your work out to critisized you should be willing to except any and all comments. It is this rule that Merlion has had issues with, an issue he hasn't been willing to give up. Kinda runs contrary to your lesson, wouldn't you say?
quote:
If someone says you shouldn't start with dialogue (Card said this in his boot camp I attended), then I would want to ask why.
Ironic considering that Ender's Game opens with dialog.
quote:
I've found it's helpful to listen to pros. Listen to Card and King and whoever. Consider their ideas carefully. Then test their principles, guidelines, and rules. Take them back to my workshop and see if they actually work. The test being in the reader response.
And that is what most of us do here. I listen to the people who have done better than I as well as the rest who I consider my equals. I chose to ignore much of the advice but only after considering it.
Let me ask you this, John. What if in one of your workshops one writer kept showing up and brought the same argument, constantly disrupting your class, interrupting what you were trying to teach, to the point where some of your students left? I know you would ask them to leave but doing so here isn't so easy in this forum.
[This message has been edited by snapper (edited March 03, 2010).]
quote:
Welcome to Hotel California.
haha...see, I knew you were an Eagles fan (commented in the crit of your last story 
)
And while some are willing to call out others for rabble rousing, no one seems willing to call out others for arrogance.
It takes two to tango.
[This message has been edited by tnwilz (edited March 03, 2010).]
quote:
Let me ask you this, John. What if in one of your workshops one writer kept showing up and brought the same argument, constantly disrupting your class, interrupting what you were trying to teach, to the point where some of your students left?
I'd shove him out with a stick.
Actually, I wouldn't do that. I'd tell him that I'd be happy to discuss (and I would be), but that his issue needed to be dealt with outside of class. The thing is, forums, as you note, aren't classes.
Again, I don't know what precipitated the whole issue. But the comments made seemed to suggest that some people are not discussing and focusing on cause and reader response effect. And it may be that it was just a single individual who liked to argue.
But the responses to the stated issue suggested somehow that the way to respond to all this haggling had to do with authority. But how can anyone's authority trump the response of an individual reader to a text or a technique? All that can be said in response is, well, okay, that's your response. Mine is different. You might be able to make an argument that yours is more representative of the target audience, but then you'd have to have numbers--only two out of ten readers reacted like you, but the rest seemed okay with it, like me. How do you argue a reader's response? It is what it is.
Of course, some may like to argue. I wasn't addressing troublemaking of any sort.
So the only questions at that point are if the reader is in the appropriate audience, is approaching the text as a reader (versus a critiquer, rule compliance checker, for payback, etc.), and is accurate in the report of their response.
I think we get into the most arguments about feedback and craft when we (1) start pontificating without tying our ideas back to verified response, (2) insist our response is the only or best one, or (3) begin to make prescriptions for fixing the issues we see.
The second and third are often closely related because what might turn one person on is the very thing that might turn another person off (See http://www.amazon.com/Fiction-Editor-Novel-Novelist-Publishers/dp/1589880307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267645489&sr=8-1 McCormack's insights). I've found it best to only offer suggestions if somone asks or couch them in such a way that it's clear they are designed to spark ideas and fix an issue that may only be an issue to me.
[This message has been edited by johnbrown (edited March 03, 2010).]
One of my primary goals in my current writing is to establish an emotional connection to the reader and have that be the primary source of the reader's interest in the story. So for me it is important to provide a strong character link right away. I will want the reader to get to know the character at a deep level from the start, so I will transcribe a lot of thoughts, and put the character in a position that forces them to explore themselves deeply in order to wade through a conflict. I will try to show the reader this so the reader engages their own mind and heart as they put themselves in the character's position while things unfold. The rest of the story will be tuned to supporting that dramatic situation.
If my primary goal were to build a fascinating world and engage a reader's interest through intellect and ideas, with the character being an important secondary consideration, I might be inclined to let description, history, and summary weigh more heavily on my pages, maybe go so far as to make the character's role primarily to reveal the story world.
Thanks, johnbrown! Clearly the means should be selected to support the ends.
quote:
I'd shove him out with a stick.
Edited to add a comma and googly eyes - it is always very important to use proper punctuation when preceding googly eyes.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited March 03, 2010).]
quote:
Don't taze me, bro!
For some reason I'm getting images of tazer-powered electric boogaloo.
[Edited to add a comma and googly eyes - I had no idea how important it was to use proper punctuation when preceding googly eyes and to edit quotes to match a subsequently edited quoted topic. Er, or something...]
[This message has been edited by BenM (edited March 03, 2010).]
"Are you talkin' to me?"
We approach what is written from an egocentric viewpoint - we personalize every criticism and attack and often take sides. Generalizations occur. "Skadder, billawaboy, philocinemas, and snapper are all saying we should censor newbies! Everyone grab your pitchforks!"
First of all, to provide argument for one person's point of view in specifically defined areas does not necessarily mean the person agrees with everything that person has said or the numerous comments that come after it.
My original suggestion was reconcillatory in nature, and I do not recall ever espousing that we should create labels or tiers. I honestly thought that posting sales was something that could benefit this site. I think in any other conversation it could have been looked upon favorably. However, everyone was so enraged by this blight upon the nature of writing, it was as though someone yelled, "Grab the torches and pitchforks."
There are no monsters here - just some people that are very frustrated. So, maybe everyone could just calm down and listen to one another. And yes, I'm talking to you.
With KDW's post i think my solution becomes nonimplementable, lol.
Time to move on.
[This message has been edited by billawaboy (edited March 03, 2010).]
quote:
I honestly thought that posting sales was something that could benefit this site.
This is only the latest mention of this idea, and I respond in this way:
Isn't that what the Hatrack Writers - Publications & Reviews area is for?
If there are writers who would like to create their own topics in that area (and call them something like "My Sales") in which they can list all their past sales and any more as they come along, that is perfectly fine with me.
Who is stopping anyone from doing that?
[This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited March 03, 2010).]
shiney
By the way, philo, I wasn't for your idea, but I wasn't enraged about it, either so if someone/anyone wants to call out their sales in someplace other than the section KDW has mentioned, more power to 'em.
But your point is understood. I think writers tend to be a bit self-righteous so we get our backs up when we see a "wrong" committed. Unfortunately, we can't agree on what a "wrong" is sometimes.
I like to argue, but I don't like beating my head up against the wall. I'll drive my point home a couple times, and then let it go. (Unless we want to discuss Avatar some more.)
Ultimately, it is up to everyone here to make the environment as welcoming and as useful for as many people as possible...
...unless the community here feels it needs to be more exclusive and keep only the nuggets of gold in the slosh of member debris that comes through (can you tell I'm working on my metaphors lately?)
My tag went from "new member" to "member" in less than a few weeks. But I've been here less than a year and yet I still feel pretty much like a new member. Hatrack has been immensely useful for me. I can tell I've grown as a writer even since my recent registration - and I don't even feel I've dived in as much as I want! I have tons of stuff to get to in my virtual to-do box, and am eagerly awaiting the end of this semester so I can waste even more time here. The benefits to me have been immense, but one of the most important for me has been to keep me encouraged that I could actually publish if I keep working on my craft. Hatrack is wonderful at perspective, but more than that I get feedbacks and see growth that lead me to believe I'm really getting there! So when I see someone leave who has really influenced me, and whose posts were always enlightening, I am more than a little disappointed. Sure, I'm sad they felt they could no longer benefit, but even on a selfish level: now they aren't around to help me! Curses!
At the risk of hijacking this thread, I wonder if it would be useful to establish some community standards? (Yes, I know we already have some, but bear with me here...) We could bounce some ideas around, and hopefully create a list of ideas that would help create an evironment where old folks still get usefulness out of Hatrack, and new members still find it inviting.
For instance, we could implement "rules" that say that for every submission of 13 lines or whatever which you post for reviews, you need to critique at least 2 others. Or whatever. I put the word rules in quotes, because it wouldn't be a hard and fast rule, just an unofficial community agreement that we could remind people of if we see someone... er... posting their own work alot without giving back, as it were. For those of us who want feedback, it may even help more good feedback to be given. Plus, when we bounce ideas back and forth off of other writers in a good way, we get an affinity for their work. A sort of quasi-friendship develops - as if it were an unofficial writing group.
For some of standards we already have, maybe some of the older timers could remind of infarctions of the rules? (wait. I meant infractions... but its funnier the first way...) For instance, I critted a bunch of first 13 lines when I first joined, and then one day whilst wandering around the links I came across KDW's "ways to critique" thread in the main area (which needs to have its posts bumped into being again...) I realized I had broken many of those "rules." If some of the older timers had been more active in alerting me to my faux pas, I would have been grateful. I would have seen it as them taking me under their wing.
I remember in one of OSC's writing books he says that the wise reader is someone the author trains: the author has to ask them the right questions, lead them by the hand, so to speak. Maybe we could do something like that here? Instead of every-poster-for-themselves, we could try to make it more of a coaching environment. A place where everyone is both the student and the master. Its already intended to be like that now, I know... but maybe we need to be reminded of it a bit more often?
Anyone have thoughts on this? Any other ideas on how to improve the community here?
I'd be interested in what they think may be useful for improving the site. Heck, I'd even like to see what they have to say about this thread! But at the end of the day, I'd like to believe that those who left are at least reading this thread without posting, so they can see that there are those who regret when any writer departs...
quote:
I believe you are misinterperting Mr Skadders post. He isn't chastising a group of writers (newbies as many people are assuming) but one member....but to constantly hammer away with the argument that other people do it (cliche openings, switching POV's, etc...,etc...) and then complaining that well intentioned and experienced writers do not have the right to point out that such things are frowned upon today.
Merlion's crusade has drove away three talented people that I am aware of (well two, the third was rather verbose which didn't necessarily make him talented), and has occasionally managed to recruit a couple to his cause.
Snapper, I think that you have gone a bit too far to lay the blame for three writers leaving solely on Merlion, or even on Merlion's "recruits". Take extrinsic for example, I remember one topic that he started that generated more heat than this one, resulting in one poster making personal attacks against him. Merlion defended extrinsic in this topic.
As for tchern, it may pay to read the topic that led to his departure. The topic was discussing an article by Robert Silverberg about showing and telling. In the subsequent discussion, it was all very cordial and tchern and Merlion were actually in agreement.
And then I asked a question. Tchern's reply took me by surprise. Firstly it viewed my motive for asking the question with suspicion (probably of, as you put it, being "recruited" by Merlion). It then both indirectly and directly suggested that Merlion's belief about what other writers thought was so extreme that "I've never seen that suggested in any critique thread or discussion" (excepting, of course, by Merlion).
There were two replies to this, one by Merlion, and one by me. Merlion, fairly, essentially said "Please don't put words in my mouth, and please don't pick a fight." (I could feel a "just when we were starting to agree about something" in his plea.) My reply was more pointed, showing evidence from the original Robert Silverberg article that some people did believe the view that Merlion said they believed, and also clarifying what my question was really about (which I still think is an interesting topic). Tchern then spat the dummy, quitting hatrack. (Note - a dummy is the Australian word for what I believe is termed a "pacifier" in the US). I felt like a pitcher in backyard baseball who has the batter on strike one after a good pitch, and then the batter says "I'm not going to play anymore" because of some niggle with the catcher that occurred in a previous game. Worse, older sister comes out and includes me in a scolding as "people without the sales" or "recruits", particularly as I seem to have been left holding the ball.
So, even though there may have been significant niggle between the two, tchern is responsible for his own actions. And I don't think you can really put the the entire blame for his departure on Merlion given the posts that were made.
[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited March 04, 2010).]
Regarding tchernabyelo, whether warranted or not, I believe he perceived it as another "the sky is purple" argument. Though you have no control over the weather (or the whether), it has been a long cold winter in this part of the world and many of us are a bit more on edge than usual. This doesn't excuse anyone's actions or words, but perhaps it provides some perspective.
I actually am one who does not mind Merlion's arguments, though his methods are not always the most civil (specifically the line-by-line rebuttals). Many here become very frustrated with them, and even more so when they believe he is winning over "converts". You just happened to step off the bus into a big pile of... (well, you get the picture). And to clarify, Merlion, I do not see your arguments as pointless or as excrement even though I do not always agree with them.
I feel this frustration is what initiated skadder's post. Skadder has just recently won second place in WOTF (cheers!) and I would expect he feels vindicated in that the methods he has suggested, along with many who have exited due to arguments like this, are the more successful means of becoming published "professionally".
"The sky is purple" has been a repeated argument in almost every post regarding style, POV, cliches, etc. since I have been here. It doesn't really bother me; I can make my own decisions as to whose advice I want to follow - as can everyone else. In truth, sometimes I look up at dusk and say to myself "the sky is purple", but not every day and usually only for a few minutes.
My point is that the frustration is genuine. The people responding on both "sides" of this argument are feeling attacked. There have been rushes to judgement by many. I do not see this thread as being helpful to any of us as writers, but as of no fault of skadder's (I share his regret for tchernabyelo's departure). I suggest we all move on.
I see these conflicts between posters as something like this:
I am 10 years old riding in the back seat of the car. My sister pokes me. I ignore her. My sister pokes me again and I tell her to stop it. She pokes me again and I off and slap her one.
Now she is crying and mom is yelling. I try to explain that she started it, but mom isn't having any of that.
Here is the kicker: I am the oldest. I should know better.
I was very disappointed by a couple of threads in F&F by "newbie" posters in the past couple of months in which the original discussion of the first 13 got derailed on tangents. I found it sad that a couple of people that have the credentials to be considered professional did not act that way and continued on in such a manner. I have not seen those new people post again.
On the flip side, these experienced writers have contributed greatly to this forum and it isn't my place to judge them.
My 10 year-old self may be older and wiser than my sister, but I am not always right in the way I handle things.
I came to a sudden realisation today. As I was on the train this morning reading Terry Pratchett's Small Gods I encountered the scene where a philosopher in Pratchett's satirical version of Greece is thrown out of a bar by his colleagues.
quote:
'I'm telling you, listen, a finite intellect, right, cannot by means of comparison reach the absolute truth of things, because being by nature indivisible, truth excludes the concepts of "more" or "less" so that nothing by truth itself can be the exact measure of truth. You b*st*rds,' he said.
Someone from inside the building said, 'Oh yeah? Sez you.'
Our timid and foreign never-having-seen-a-philosopher MC then enters the bar and interrupts the brawl:
quote:
'Have you been fighting?' said Brutha.
The assembled philosophers assumed various expressions of shock and horror.
'Fighting? Us? We're philosophers,' said Ibid, shocked.
Which is to say that they're just in their natural state.
And I got to thinking about this thread, and some other heated debates on this forum, and I thought: You know, at some level it's actually perfectly fine. Because writing, and being a writer, is arguing. It's taking a theme and learning to use rhetoric to argue that point so that our reader is completely, incontrovertibly convinced of its truth. And in learning to argue well, it seems only natural that some of us will occasionally argue poorly.
And maybe my present contribution to this argument is going to leave some people scratching their heads due to my own ineptitude at communication. And if that's the case then here's the TLDR version: I've just decided not to be bothered by this, have put my feet up, and am enjoying the show - how about you?
quote:
snapper, I'm disappointed that you've moved into the realm of personal attack.
Of all the posts that I have read on hatrack this one has affected me the most.
Let me explain my actions, my colleagues.
Over the last couple of years here I have witnessed more than a few upstanding, helpful, and qualified writers come and go. Most just fade away, a small portions were kind enough to let me know that they were no longer going to participate hatrack. The reason is always the same -- fed up with the contentious attitude of a few. I always try to talk them out of it, I even managed to change a mind or two.
So when one of my oldest and dearest writing friends sent me an email that ended...
quote:
I feel like I am getting into conflict with people to much now. I am going to leave Hatrack and find another home...
...the contentious nature of hatrack finally reached my tipping point.
This thread started with Skadders frustration of losing tchernabyelo, a 32 timed published writer (according to his journal). The advice that tchern gave in F & F was invaluable. His opinions were genuine and he was inclusive with his advice. He gave it freely to everyone, regardless of their experience. A person like that could charge for that service.
Now skadders comments were reactionary, as were mine, but his points had merit. JohnBrown used this thread to forward his own opinions on critiquing (which is fine) but used a statement that skadder made to further his point...
quote:
Is that really the best way to learn this craft?
Now John stated that he wasn't aware of what happened, he called it as he saw it. Where getting called onto the carpet like that didn't make Mr skadder feel great, what really hurt was the resounding of applause Mr Browns post received.
In my opinion, skadder overreacted but was thoughtful enough to not point fingers. What that got him was an assumption that his comments were aimed at anyone that didn't fit a level of success, as if a lack of publications exempted some writers the right to an opinion. I happened to know that was not what he was saying and wanted to set the record straight. Unfortunetly, for me to do so effectively I pointed fingers. Distasteful and probably uncalled for.
I write because it is fun for me to do so. I believe most, if not all, of you are motivated to write for the same reasons. Why hatrack is so successful at recruiting new members is because it looks like a fun place to join. It is interactive, there is tons of fun stuff to do, useful advice, and immediate feedback. I rarely visit my first critique site because I spend most of my time in this one. Ms Woodbury has done a wonderful job doing her best to keep it this way.
The reason why so many of outstanding members leave hatrack is because it quits being fun for them. Why participate if your advice is unappreciated and your well meaning comments are challenged and chastized? Why keep at it when it isn't enough for a colleague to simply disagree with your opinion and instead bring up the same point over and over, taking up the cause over several threads and constant posts, in a campaign that is more to wear you out than change anyones mind. It has worked.
I miss so many hatrack members. Talespinner, annepin, JeanneT, Kathyton, AnthonySullivan...to name a few...are no longer seen here anymore. TobyWestern, InarticulateBabbler, steffenwolf...are some of teh writers that used to share their insights in F & F and can no longer be found there.
There absence makes hatrack less fun.
I apoligise to you JohnBrown. You are only trying to be a team player and offer your own free advice. It is appreciated.
I apologise to the rest of you. I do find these divisive threads counterproductive, but I felt skadder was unjustly getting piled on and reacted because of it.
And Merlion deserves an apology as well. You don't deserve to be used as a whipping boy. Your perserveance is second to none. I have seen you absorb many insults, and witnessed the most egregious misjustice leveled at you when you were posting personal good news once. I just wish you would consider your point made and move on.
Hopefully my explaination will suffice. Now onto the rest of my life.
[This message has been edited by snapper (edited March 05, 2010).]
I have been suffering lately (no excuse) as I have been totally focused on completing an academic piece of work--part of a course I have been on since October. The university course, which I have to complete as it is job-related and puts bread on the table, has taken up all my time.
I have written no prose (apart from recent 13 lines comp only) since before Christmas (possibly late November) as we had a work re-shuffle and all had apply for our jobs again (so I had to revise for the interview). Lack of writing is very frustrating as I feel I should be capitalising on my one success--write a novel or something--before going to LA.
I see other winners getting pro-pubished elsewhere and I don't really have the time to even sub. If I am not at work, I am at home either working on my coursework (previously fiction writing time) or relaxing, or I would go insane.
'Course, I have time to blame Merlion...sorry about that. Tchern left of his own accord--it was nothing to do with you--his choice. Personal responsibility.
My problem is I want to write and can't, and seeing people arguing over the basics just makes me feel more frustrated.
Thanks to snapper for backing me up...
[This message has been edited by skadder (edited March 05, 2010).]
I've said it before though, I wish you would share more, skadder. I can accept and deal with almost anything when I know why, but when all I see is (at least in my perception) you (or anyone) being...unpleasant...to people that just want to express themselves, well thats one thing I have a lot of trouble dealing with.
You have my sympathy for your current suckage. Frustration makes us all do insane things, most definitely.
C:\Writing\Education\Hatrackrenew.exe
Love mode: Reinitialized.
Membership: Defragmented.
Drama: At manageable levels.
Thank you for using Windows™ Renew!
[This message has been edited by Wolfe_boy (edited March 05, 2010).]
The drama quotient on my mac was much less...Windows sucks.
quote:
I wish you would share more, skadder.
What do you mean? Emotionally?
What I mean is the same thing I've often told my partner...don't let things sit and stew till they explode or linger so they color and damage your approach to everything else. This is a community, and for the most part a pretty decent one, so instead of letting it make you grumpy, tell us about it. Chances are most of us have been there to some extent in some way and will be more than willing to offer sympathy, suggestions all that.
Now of course I don't know you personally and I'm not trying to overstep. But, maybe starting a thread and venting, rather than letting the frustration carry over into other topics might be something to try. Likewise, if your holding things in and need to let them out, I probably let out to much and need to learn more of how to pick what and when to release or at least perfect the techniques of doing so.
Edit: I wonder what it is about this forum that causes my typing to suck...
[This message has been edited by Merlion-Emrys (edited March 05, 2010).]
quote:
Current thread word count: 21,748
Drama quotient: High
Keep going, folks! I'm sure we can squeeze at least a novella out of this...
Precious! Where are you?
[This message has been edited by skadder (edited March 05, 2010).]
One of the reasons for the Grist for the Mill area is venting (as long as it doesn't violate the registration agreement, of course). Please, help yourselves.
Hello.
I might be back, though I'm not sure.
In answer to a couple of points:
1). I do not start threads on Hatrack for a simple reason. As I am at wearisome pains to state, I don't believe in a "one true way". I have always maintained that any and every rule can be broken, indeed arguably SHOULD be broken, but only when someone has learned why the rule exists and in what circumstances breaking it is the correct choice. I will respond where I feel I have something helpful to say but I do feel a touch of resentment at being characterised as someone who didn't have anything helpful to offer simply because I didn't start threads.
2). I can't argue with being accused of "throwing my toys out of the pram" but I can and will argue with the characterisation of the debate that Brendan offers, presenting certain parties as conciliatory. I posted my summary of events in the original thread and don't intend to expand on it.
3). I have made 32 sales, but only four of those have been at professional rates, and to date I don't even qualify for SFWA membership, so I am not the "multiple pro-seling writer" that has been stated here. All of those sales, though, are paid sales (well, they would have been if a couple of markets had actually paid me - one of which was my fault, one of which was not).
I intend to go back to broadly what I was doing before: commenting on first 13s with an editorial perspective, explaining why (in general) I would or would not read on, and concentrating, however unpleasant it may be, more on what does NOT work than what does, and chipping in on threads in this forum where I feel I have something helpful to add. And always with the perspective that I am not arguing directly with any other person I happen to contradict - I am arguing as in a debating forum, trying to persuade the audience, not my "opponent".
I'll do so until and unless I just get too tired, or find I am repeating myself over and over again. We'll see.
That makes me happy.
Seriously, though. I'm glad to hear you will be sticking around for a while, even if it is only post-it note adhesive and not crazy glue.
quote:
I will respond where I feel I have something helpful to say but I do feel a touch of resentment at being characterised as someone who didn't have anything helpful to offer simply because I didn't start threads.
In all my ranting, I forgot to apologize to you. I believe I came across more accusatory than I intended. I have noticed many of your contributions in the form of critting thirteens and other valid conversation. I, above all else was trying to make a point that rather than paying heed to rabble-rousers and the conflicts they stir up, to divert our attention to the more postive approaches.
I really do apologize for my statement, I wasn't trying to characterise you as a non-beneficial member, especially simply for the fact that thread headlines do not feature your name in the author box. I was just trying to sum up the general attitude that seems to be the core of this melodrama. By making examples, I came across as pointing the finger, but I was also pointing the finger at myself, you may have noticed.Perhaps my stance wasn't the best approach I could have taken in that situation.
I am very glad that you have decided to stay. I do have the greatest respects for you as a published author and contributor to our community here, but most importantly a fellow human being.
Perhaps?
[This message has been edited by skadder (edited March 10, 2010).]