The Place For My Writers Notes

Original posting: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 11:30:57 JST

Hi, Ipatia

I'll keep this short.

1. Outline. Then fit bits into the outline. Repeat. Each attack on the outline may be only a few words, but in a very short time you'll have a long outline. Then expand a little bit at a time again. Just like blowing up a balloon, you don't have to do it in one big whoosh, you can do it with little puffs and when you finish, no one but you will know the difference.

2. Scribble sheet. Write the extra thoughts and side issues on another sheet of paper (I keep a clipboard by the computer). Then make yourself go back to the part you promised yourself you would work on.

3. Reward yourself AFTER doing a bit. Then set your goals a little longer/higher and don't reward yourself until you hit them. That snack is a reward for not writing - which isn't what you want to do, right?

Try those three.
tink

original posting: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:56:56 EST

Today, you have been crowned head of fools and given the great scepter of burlesque. You have three chances to excite laughter or contempt by extravagant images, to lampoon, to put someone or something into the limelight of ludicrous representation, exaggerated parody, and grotesque satire. Yes, for a short time, you can ridicule a topic of your choice, presenting a ludicrous imitation, caricature, complete and utter travesty, or even a gross perversion.

What are the three topics? People, places, events, whatever...humor comes in many colors (and melts in your mind, not in your hand:) I'll even provide the numbers for you:

1.
2.
3.

As the crowned head, of course, you may choose to wield your wand yourself and bash them, bash them, knock them on their keisters... or you can ask one of your subjects to pin the tail on the donkey. So, please, either write up the buffoonery or tell us who you would like to write--and how?

(incidentally, what kind of wood has burlesques?)

original posting: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 13:05:56 EST

[this could be addictive...tink]

Multiple Choice:

a. Do you lie online?
b. Do others lie online?
c. Do you tell the truth online?
d. Do others tell the truth online?
e. Some of the above
f. None of the above
g. I'll take the State of Confucious for $200, Eubulides
h. How can you tell?

Truth, Jaundice, and the Internet Way?

Don't forget to tell us a bit about why and wherefore thou dost unbind thy lantern when searching for honesty in all the bits and bytes, and which blindfold hangs over the beamish eyes of us all...

"If a man, sitting all alone, cannot dream strange things, and make them look like truth, he need never try to write romances." Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter [1850] The Custom-House.

tink

(oh, and if you want to send me suggestions for other poll topics, please do...)

Original posting: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 22:55:23 EDT

I think I'd call this a ramble? or maybe it's a bramble, a thicket of meaninglessness?

Since it is possible that some of you don't read the weekly FAQ, (I know that it may be hard to believe, but I'm sure there are a few who don't peruse every puerile pucker of that oft-repeated post) allow me to pull this out and post it for your pleasure.

I'm not sure quite what to make of this, but I do like it, I think.

Comments?

tink

+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=
The Springs of Writing

Sometimes, out tramping around on a mountainside, with the crack of a twig underfoot and all the other fine sensual awakening that seems to be part of celebrating the out-of-doors, you may come across a spring. A tiny ripple of water, perhaps not even that so much as a soaking, but a place where the earth lets go of the water again, and it begins.

I love to stop and think about where that little spring is going. The drops of water, seeping out, touching me, and then slowly passing on to...

Sometimes, of course, you'll find larger, clear springs, pushing up forcefully, and sweeping away obstructions.

But no matter where the springs start, after a while the tiny drips and great gushers join, form streams, laughing, chuckling along, feeding the bushes and trees, alive with insects and fish.

And rain falls, adding muddy roils and softer plink-plink-plink touches, criss-crossing, draining tastes of new growth and ancient mold into the mix, wandering here and there...

Sometimes snow melts, or ice CRACKS and shakes, spins, softens, and adds its weight to the rushing waters...

Here a pond collects the tastes of many streams, the runoff of the hills, the silt of fields growing, and provides a place for spirits to cool and calm, listening to the burp of frogs diving into the depths, the soft rustle of grass growing, the quiet of a summer evening...

Down centuries of time, across chasms of cultural division, from momentary leaves of today's crops, the waters roll. Fine streams, heavy flood waters, grinding, bursting, laving and washing the best and the worst...

When the shower touches you, you can put your head down and trudge through the mud, angry at the weather...

Or...

You can lift your face to the wonder, search for the promise of the rainbow, and laugh into the rain, into the thunder, into the lightning

as the waters mix again, meeting, parting, on their way to the ocean of life through the rivers and streams, the dams and meanders, the wandering and late-night tears...

all in the waters of writing.

Whether you want to just wash your hands, or maybe dip your head in and refresh yourself, or even dive in and be baptised into the depths of that life, feel free. And let your own springs gurgle forth, adding that fine clear flavor of yourself to the mix.

The waters will return, in time.

The gentle rains, the fierce riptides of the ocean, the hidden aquafers that wet the footing of all lands...the ebb and flow of waters, the ebb and flow of writing...

and the moon holding sway over all.

A muse of rain, perhaps...
+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=-+=

original postings: Tue, 13 May 1997 11:17:50 EDT

just for a little zing in the thinking...

(p. 115) "...we might begin with the proposition that mystery arises at that point where different kinds of beings are in communication. In mystery there must be strangeness; but the estranged must also be thought of as in some way capable of communion. There is mystery in an animal's eyes at those moments when a man feels that he and the animal understand each other in some inexpressible fashion."

"While the mystery of sex relations, which leads to the rhetoric of courtship, is grounded in the communication of beings biologically estranged, it is greatly accentuated by the purely social differentiation which, under the division of human labor, can come to distinguish the 'typically masculine' from the "typically feminine."

"Similarly, the conditions for 'mystery' are set by any pronounced social distinctions..."

"And all such 'mystery' calls for a corresponding rhetoric, in form quite analogous to sexual expression: for the relations between classes are like the ways of courtship, rape, seduction, jilting, prostitution, promiscuity, with variants of sadistic torture or masochistic invitation to mistreatment. Similarly, there are strong homosexual analogies in 'courtly' relations between persons of the same sex but of contrasting social status...."

From A Rhetoric of Motives
Kenneth Burke
University of California Press 1969

Original Posting: Sat, 16 May 1998 00:07:01 EDT

[during an attempt to break the WRITERS list]

Ah, me oh my...

I've been given to understand that there may be some confusion about just who's running things around here, and what the difference is between tink removing privileges to post or read and jester (or others) deciding not to read things, and what is this list for, anyway, and why don't people just delete stuff if they don't want to read it, and so on...

Let me try to clear up some of the confusion. What else would a listowner be doing at midnight on a Friday night, right?

1. Who's the listowner?

First of all, in case it isn't clear, Mike Barker (aka tink) is the listowner. If you'd like to verify that, you can send mail to writers-request@[old address] (the listowners' address for EVERY listserv list--take the name of the list, add -request to it, send mail to it, and you are in touch with the owners). I'll try to answer you fairly soon (don't forget, I'm a volunteer who does this in my "spare" time).

If by any chance you kept the original documents that were sent to you when you joined, you'll find the information about writers-request in there, I believe.

You can also ask the members of the list who have been around a while. Heck, you could even watch to see who spends their time cleaning up, posting FAQs and so forth, and who takes care of disruption and other problems on the list. I think in a short time you'll be able to figure out what I do.

Or you can check out [collection of writers postings] and look at the pages and pages of writers postings that I have archived there. Even the most prolific might find it difficult to throw together such a collection overnight (although they might organize their's better, I will grant you).

Oh, and there are some parts which you really should just take on faith...for example, if you insist on personal attacks, harassment, or other disruption, I'll be the one who removes your privileges.

In short, I'm the listowner.

2. tink said he was removing privileges, then jester said he was going to kill all the newbies--so we've all been kicked off the list, right?

Well, no...some people refuse to play by the fairly lenient rules that we have developed for this workshop of writers. I remove their privileges to participate and let the list know what has happened. That's one level.

On the other hand, someone like Jester cannot remove your membership.

What he can do (as can any of you--and as several recent posters have strongly urged that we all do) is to choose not to read postings from some addresses, certain types of postings, etc. He (or anyone else) can use the topic filtering of listserv to pick between (properly labelled) SUB:, CRIT:, TECH:, EXER:, WOW:, FILL:, or INT: postings. In most modern mailers, he (and you) also has various kinds of filtering abilities. For example, you can choose to put all postings from mbarker into a separate folder, into the trashcan, or whatever. You can also choose to route postings with [WRITERS] in the subject line to a specific folder.

(I believe jester has chosen to have "known" and "unknown" folders, with authors that he knows going into the "known" stack while all others go into the slushpile...er, ah, "unknown" folder. And like most editors, he reads from the known stack first, and looks at the slushpile if he has time. This kind of prioritization, whether deliberate and automated or unconscious and sloppy, is pretty old, really.)

Or, of course, you can do the old manual trick of looking at the subject lines and from fields (usually available in some kind of an index in your mailer) and deciding which pieces of mail to open first (or which to delete first) from that index.

So--when people say they aren't reading you, that means just that--they are ignoring you. It doesn't stop your posting and participation in the list, although you may want to consider what lead to them taking that radical stance. It's especially surprising given that most of the members here are the kind of people who read the ingredients on boxes while standing in lines rather than just stand there with their mouths open--i.e., they tend to read EVERYTHING if they possibly can.

When tink says you can't post to the list, you'll know it. You'll also know what you can do to rejoin, because I tell every person who loses the privileges of membership what they need to do to rejoin the list.

Okay? Let's see if I can come up with an analogy...well, suppose WRITERS is a newspaper, with each person who posts being a reporter (of sorts).

One level--jester deciding not to read some people's postings--is just someone deciding not to read the sports section of the newspaper. That's their choice, and doesn't directly impact your ability to post and participate (although if you get enough people ignoring you, it'll be kind of boring, but nobody promised you readers...you've got to provide enough reason for them to start reading and keep reading).

The other level--tink removing privileges--is the editor-in-chief deciding that there isn't going to be sports section any more (and you, unfortunately, are the sports writer). Specifically, it's the listowner making sure that individuals are not misusing the privileges of list membership.

3. Isn't this list just for interesting or entertaining writing? Can't people just post anything that they like?

No, not exactly. This list is a workshop for writing, not simply a place for anyone to post whatever they like. For example, original writing (fiction, poetry, the occasional essay or non-fiction piece) is sent to the list as a SUBmission (with SUB: in the subject line). Other members then CRITique or comment on the writing (with CRIT: in the subject line). We also exchange TECHnique pieces (with TECH: in the subject line) discussing aspects of the techniques or technical side of writing. We sometimes post EXERcise (with EXER: in the subject line) pieces, written to provide others with a chance to exercise their writing. We post World Of Writing (WOW:) pieces sharing information about the world of writing "out there" beyond the workshop. We also exchange some FILLer pieces, usually focusing on experiences, ideas, or other background to writing which doesn't fit so easily into the other topic areas. Finally, we sometimes have INTeractive (guess where to put the INT: ) series, either the standard kind of round robbin stories with multiple authors adding new segments or other multiple member participatory threads. Shared worlds, etc.

In other words, while it is true that we do share interesting or entertaining writing, there is an etiquette or protocol for doing so. The BIO or INTRO pieces are intended to be autobiographical, not fiction. (And yes, I am well aware that there is some fiction in all writing--but let's not attempt to get bogged down in minor points, let's work together to understand, all right?)

4. What does it matter whether the life stories and experiences are true or not? Who knows what is real on the computer, anyway? If we tell a good story, and people enjoy what they are reading, where's the problem?

Ah, me. And all life is but a tale told by a madman, hovering in the mists of memory...and if the butterfly sneezes, who will dream us again?

There is, of course, at least one person who always knows whether you are telling the truth or not.

And that person is your judge, jury, and possibly executioner...or at least warden of the prison.

That person is yourself.

If you tell a story well enough--and people know it is a story, and enjoy it in the reading--indeed, there is no problem. This is working within the social framework that supports writing and fiction.

If you insist on telling stories when those about you are expecting truth, and from time to time pull the rug out from under them and laugh at their discomfort--no, that really isn't acceptable. This is using the social interactions as a way to trap and hurt people.

5. Look, just don't believe everything you read, and enjoy life. If you don`t want to read it, use delete.

Excellent advice. And, oddly, exactly what Jester proposed to do, which upset several people very much...

Of course, there is also the point that this list is NOT available for anyone to post anything that they like. In fact, members of this list should not have to use delete very much to avoid things they don't want to read. That's really the point in having a list--to try to make sure that most of the postings ARE "on topic."

What this advice to use delete and let people do whatever they want actually suggests is that after spending five years or more working on this list, collecting the members and getting a level of communication built up, I (as list owner) must allow anyone to use that membership collection in any way that they like?

I'm sorry to be the one to burst the bubble, but that isn't the way this works.

Feel free to start another list. But on this list, there are some rules, some guidelines, some ways of doing things which we all obey. They aren't as onerous as you might expect--mostly, they amount to common sense and a bit of respect for the other members.

I will point out that deliberately deceiving your readers when they are expecting truth or fact (and on this list, the members are also readers) seems...well, pitiful, to be honest.

If you want help learning how to work with this list, just ask.

You might be surprised at how much fun it can be.

tink

Original Posting: Sun, 10 May 1998 23:57:55 EDT

Susannah asked:
:) Will someone please define the difference between flame and argument?
:) What's wrong with a good argument?

Okay, I'll take a crack at breaking this egg...not that this is necessarily the definitive version, but...

I think the main difference lies in how we treat the others in the exchange.

In a "good argument," there is room for the other person to make a few points, to win some points. And when there is a conclusion, it is possible for all concerned to shake hands and "make up."

Flame attacks, on the other hand, require that the other person be obliterated, that they be personally destroyed. Frankly, winning isn't necessary in a flame battle, merely overshouting, vilifying, destroying, and otherwise grinding the other into silence... when there is a conclusion to a flame battle, there are very few people left to do anything, let alone talking to each other.

I guess I would say that in argument, one assumes that the other person is "honorable" in some senses. In flamage, one simply intends to destroy.

[There's a tickle in the skull somewhere that suggests there may be a difference in the role of the audience, also, but I'll let someone else develop that nuance--or nuisance?]

I should probably avoid speculating about the personal security and insecurities behind each approach, although it may be obvious that I consider "good argument" as useful, even beneficial...

original posting: Sat, 9 May 1998 00:26:10 EDT

[WARNING: intended as fun. I enjoy diddling with words, don't fret too much about the deep hidden meanings because I certainly wasn't trying to sink too much into it, just a few idle licks on the keyboard before the time passes me by...]

:) Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 18:35:12 PDT
:) From: Dick
:)
:) I'm new to this.

You know, there's a morsel of truth hidden in there for all of us? I mean, every instant is the first time for any of us to be then, so we are always new to this, no matter how often we may think we've dipped our toes in that river before...

(waxing philosophical so soon? or maybe it's so late, as the bits flow?)

:) Is this a good list?

Good? Bad? It's a list. There are over 1,250 members, and we range widely (some may rage wildly, others rang wittily...it averages out, although the abnormal is quite acceptable here).

Frankly, I think it's a great list. But I'm prejudiced.

I will say that part of the "goodness" of the list depends on what you put into it, and on how you look at experiences. If you are willing to learn, actively, through discussion and interaction with others--you will probably consider the list to be "good." If you are looking for a place where the god(desse)s of truth will shower you with the definitive ways to do miracles of art and craft, and all you have to do is sop up the dampness...well, you're likely to find it a bit dry and sandy, even irritating.

:) Is this a good list for beginning writers?

Aha! Good for beginning writers, and that morsel of insight about every one of us always being new to this...so we are always beginning, always trying new things, always working on that next creation?

But, in fine, I think the answer would be yes. We aren't exactly organized by ranking or anything (imagine if there were belts for writers? we could do contests, with judges and all that, and pass out the appropriate belts for those who demonstrate their skills. and we could have schools!) But in any case, we do invite those who write to participate, whether you are beginning, professional, post-professional, or some other placement.

:) Are there professional writers on this list?

There are people who have been paid for their writing on this list. There are people who live by their writing. And, of course, we have those who profess writing, those who write as an avocation, those who write as a hobby, and probably many others.

:) Who writes good fiction?

There's that word again--"good"?

By volume of sales, I would be forced to say the Romance Writers write the best fiction.

By various other measures, one might point in other directions.

Perhaps the question is, what do you consider "good" fiction--and how could you write such fiction?

Now that's a pair of questions we could work on together.

:) Who are the better poets?

Ranking poetry? As well battle banjoes, or fight kites.

Tell you what, why don't you read some of the submissions, perhaps critique some, and let us know what kinds of insight you find in the poetry (which may or may not tie into the poets behind the words, but I'll let you talk about that)?

I'm new to this?

What a concept, that iceberg of time shattering the complacent luxury liner of our egos, leaving us floundering in the cold water of a new reality, a new creation, a wider ocean...

With our friends perhaps playing on the foredeck, or huddled in the lifeboats, or pushing us up to lie on a piece of molding, waiting for the rescuers to come?

welcome!

Original posting: Sun, 12 Feb 1995 00:26:34 EST

Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy
David D. Burns, M.D.
1980 Avon Books
ISBN 0-380-71803-0

If you recognize some of these patterns of thinking in your life, you might want to read this book...

Even if you just recognize some of these patterns of thinking in other people, you might want to read this book--so you can give them some advice...

1. All-or-nothing thinking: You see things in black-and-white categories. If your performance falls short of perfect, you see yourself as a total failure.

2. Overgeneralization: You see a single negative event as a never-ending pattern of defeat.

3. Mental Filter: You pick out a single negative detail and dwell on it exclusively so that your vision of all reality becomes darkened, like the drop of ink that discolors the entire beaker of water.

4. Disqualifying the positive: You reject positive experiences by insisting they "don't count" for some reason or another. In this way you can maintain a negative belief that is contradicted by your everyday experiences.

5. Jumping to conclusions: You make a negative interpretation even though there are no definite facts that convincingly support your conclusion.

a. Mind reading. You arbitrarily conclude that someone is reacting negatively to you, and you don't bother to check it out.
b. The Fortune Teller error. You anticipate that things will turn out badly, and you feel convinced that your prediction is an already established fact.

6. Magnification (Catastrophizing) or minimization: You exaggerate the importance of things (such as your goof-up or someone else's achievement), or you inappropriately shrink things until they appear tiny (your own desirable qualities or the other fellow's imperfections). This is also called the "binocular trick."

7. Emotional Reasoning: You assume that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: "I feel it, therefore it must be true."

8. Should Statements: You try to motivate yourself with shoulds and shouldn'ts, as if you had to be whipped and punished before you could be expected to do anything. "Musts" and "oughts" are also offenders. The emotional consequence is guilt. When you direct should statements toward others, you feel anger, frustration, and resentment.

9. Labeling and mislabeling: This is an extreme form of overgeneralization. Instead of describing your error, you attach a negative label to yourself: "I'm a loser." When someone else's behavior rubs you the wrong way, you attach a negative label to him: "He's a goddam louse." Mislabeling involves describing an event with language that is highly colored and emotionally loaded.

10. Personalization: You see yourself as the cause of some negative external event which in fact you were not primarily responsible for.

(p. 42-43)

[OWC: Try writing a story to illustrate each type of distortion, and the results of viewing the world through those eyes...]

That's Obligatory Writing Content (OWC) in case you haven't seen the acronym before.