The Place For My Writers Notes

[Webster's New World] a fixed or conventional expression, notion, mental pattern, etc.

[OAD] an idea or character etc. that is standardized in a conventional form without individuality

1. Don't confuse weak characters with strong characterization
2. Remember that human beings are not the center of the universe, or even the only interesting thing in it.
3. Dare to be fun!

- probably somewhere in the middle. I think this way of
- thinking probably helps prevent overreliance on stereotypes
- by acknowledging that people often appear "contradictory"
- merely because we tend not to accept their complexity, their
- changeability, and , like Whitman, contain, if not multitudes,
- at least small crowds. Thanks!

Often directed at humor, exchanges of human interest, or other postings that do not contain in large letters words such as "WRITING IS" or "CHARACTERS ARE" or "PLOTS" or other direct revelations of writing relevance. Somewhat self-contradictory, since such postings rarely have a good connection to writing.

Responses normally indicate understanding of the connection between any posting on this list and the activity of writing (i.e. putting words in order is what writing is about - specific forms differ in their acceptance as "Real Writing"). Poseurs of the initial question often adamently refuse to give up their porcelain thrones and insist that such trivial exercise is not suited to "Real Writers."

Preferred method of expressing this opinion - start with your own writing, and make sure it is the best you can do. focus your responses on those postings which are "suitable," providing them with positive feedback to increase the frequency of such "good" postings. Keep your bloody trap shut about the attempts of those not up to your exalted state of glory, misspostings, and similar rustlings in the bushes, because you could start a stampede!

If you think someone is really off-track, discuss it with them VIA PRIVATE EMAIL!

Many of us have suffered under criticisms involving these terms, to the point where our hackles go up whenever they are used. Consider, briefly, the common practice of exclusion by referring to "REAL" anything - writers, programmers, etc. Real men don't eat quiche. So, if you eat quiche, you aren't a real man. Real writers don't use adjectives. You used an adjective, therefore... Real writing is published in The New Yorker. Other claptrap need not apply.

Perhaps you intend these terms in another way, without excluding people, without dividing the world into the have's and the have-not's, the anointed and those gentiles out there. However, the usage as a phrase designed to exclude and divide is so common that any time you think of using these words you should think twice, checking to be very, very sure that you are not pushing part of your readership away.

Preferred - writing. writers.

Perhaps I should say that real writers prefer writers and writing, without modification?

(actually, I think I'm a fake writer - or maybe an artificial writer?)

This comes in various flavors, but it usually boils down to THE ONLY WAY to do things is the way I do them.

Writing, like most arts, seems wide enough to accommodate more than one way of doing things. Even worse, often we simply don't know the way you do things...

Two variations of this are the appeal for literary quality or commercial sales orientation. These particular religions are persistent and widespread, but they are not the only answers. Really.

Preferred - I have found the following way (provide discussion) works for me. What do you think? (makes an excellent TECH piece!)

This is often a disguised variation of "What does this have to do with writing." It does have a certain truth in it, though.

This list can generate up to 150 messages per day, and is fairly prolific (that's why they are called writers - they write!). Some of these messages are fairly long (guilty, your honor!). So, if you have a small quota in terms of number or size for mail, it may be difficult to handle the traffic on this list.

If you are concerned about not reading every message, or somehow not being able to "keep up" with the list, please relax. While many of our members try to at least scan every message, it is inevitable that you must skip some messages and not reply in detail to some. Consider this as part of your training as a writer - picking out and selecting those parts of the flood which are important to you, and taking the time to respond clearly.

An interesting variant of this complaint points to extremely short messages as a glut on the list, or gripes about long messages as being unreadable.

This is probably one of the most self-contradictory messages that is posted to this board - adding one more message to the flood does not reduce it.

Preferred: Keep paddling or get out of the flood, but don't try to turn off the floodgates, you'll just get hurt.

This often is the response to a humorous posting, or a posting that takes a different view of the subject than the reader prefers.

The basic answer, of course, is that we are writers, and each of us has some ways that we approach the wide range of subjects that affect human life. Freedom of speech is one approach to ensuring that we do not simply cut off the heads of someone who says something differently than we might.

Beyond that, I think every writer needs to stop and look inward sharply when they feel this kind of question pop up. This is, in essence, not a question for the original writer, but a question for the reader - why does this presentation make you jump? What is it about a humorous piece on necrophilia (for example) that makes you feel somehow dirty and disgusted with the human race? Admittedly, a joke about death may seem shocking and irreverent to some - why?
 
For it is that stirring in your soul that is likely to develop into your own "great writings" - whether in response, desperation, or simple avoidance, and you had best pay attention when it comes up.

Preferred response - as with the first question, don't attack. Put your best writing in, encourage those who are doing well with the reward of your attention, and let us work together to build the group up. I do think it can be very helpful to indicate to the writer that this particular approach and subject matter were difficult for you, and suggest an alternative approach if you can think of one.

When you are looking at the stars, it is hard to pay attention to the muck underfoot...

Some people feel impelled to post their final message in a deliberately antagonistic, angry vein. In many cases, this is also their first posting, which makes the derision of being informed that we haven't done what they wanted even more ridiculous than it was intended to be.

As has been noted, often such people post, but then lurk on the list for some time waiting to see what kind of response they get.

There seem to be two major useful responses to such flaming exits. One is to post a humorous commentary, basically intended to cheer up the remaining members of the list, dispersing the pall that such an exit tends to produce. The other is to refuse response, to hold back and go on.

There is, of course, the counter-flame. If the poster happens to be lurking around, this can result in a running battle, which usually ends up with the person leaving and the list disturbed and perturbed. If the poster is not lurking, such counter-flames do little except for sometimes stirring up those remaining on the list.

Frankly, I see little benefit in responding to flaming exits in any way on the list, except possibly by private email asking for reasonable comments and wishing good luck in finding whatever they are looking for.

Flames, and especially long-term battles involving name-calling and other aggressive/abusive strategies, often call forth further flames, in an expanding spiral of mutual flaming that can leave a burned wasteland behind.

Preferred response - think before you post. wait a day, read it again, and decide if you really need to post this. Consider sending it as private email.

Consider what impression people will receive of you. Don't forget, your next boss, future friend, or next door neighbor may be reading this. Think how they will laugh at you!

Sadly, most of us have a few other involvements in our life. No matter how it may appear, we are NOT simply plugged into writers, waiting to read your piece and respond instantly.

Preferred - be patient. take someone else's piece and respond to it! do a critique, a tech piece, something else, and wait.

Due to the magic of technology, some of us won't even see the piece you are responding to for some length of time after seeing your piece, and there may be any number of intervening pieces, even from the same author. Of course, some of us can't remember from one piece to the next, even if they are sitting in the mailbox together.

Preferred - copy enough material from the piece you are responding to or commenting on to give the reader the context of your remarks. Note that a similar rationale should be used for comments on books, T.V. shows, etc. outside the list - some of us won't be watching The World Mud Wrestling Championship for Mixed Cow and Human Tagteams, honest! So make sure your comment gives us enough background to understand what you are talking about.

Now, in some cases, the confusing comments result from references to private email. Obviously, one way to handle this is to include some of the original email - however, you should ask the originator for permission before doing that.

It is always permissible to respond to private email with private email. Responding in public is a bit like pulling the covers off during private intercourse - check with your partner before revealing yourself to the public!

Preferred:

In general, post when you think more than one person can benefit from seeing your work. if it is really just for one person, send it private email.

Respond to postings by posting to the list when you think more than one person can benefit from the response. Respond by private email in other cases.

Respond to private email in private email. If you think it is important enough to post, discuss it with your correspondent beforehand.