The Place For My Writers Notes

original posting: Thu, 13 May 1993 18:32:01 JST

Chatter, divergent discussions, flames, and other topics are endemic to this list, and often result in harsh exhortations to focus on writing or flurries of gentle reminders (depending on who notices that we've wandered afield again and how they respond to such wandering). However, on consideration, I think both the harsh "writing, the whole writing, and nothing but the writing" and the gentler urges are mistaken.

First, almost a non sequitur, the chatter and lively reactions on this list can provide any good writer with indications of interests that may be found among larger segments of the writer's prospective audience. For example, knowing that this group responds positively to nostalgic recollections of comics, certain older movies, or other bits and pieces provides the writer with cheap "audience testing" that such responses are likely to be found in the larger audience.

However, let us ignore that, since there are other sources of such information, including the general FAQs and such from netnews. Still, there is an important role for the back-and-forth "small talk" often seen in this group. That role lies in exciting and refining the reactions of the writer, who will find that the emotional involvement practiced here will pay off when constructing fiction. And this is the problem with those who try to "douse" the flames before they have reached a conclusion, because whether we feel comfortable or not (I don't enjoy conflict) there is a certain sense in which we can only become "powerful" writers if we are moved to our depths about the issues we are writing about, and that is much more likely to happen if those depths have been opened up, irritated, and aggravated as much as possible in "friendly" fighting here on the list.

I.e., the depth of apathy lies in the lack of reaction, and in that apathy there is no oil for the writer's lamp. Writers strike paydirt when they look inside at precisely those points which cause emotional, hot reactions - and must learn to see more than one side to those grounds, to realize that the protagonist and antagonist are struggling within their very soul. I don't know a better way to find these points or to develop them than through exactly the kind of chatter and diversions that are frequently castigated on this list as being "off-subject."

Perhaps it is my own confusion, but the lists of hints, the critiquing and other activities can be found elsewhere, in purer form. The rumbling flow of point and counterpoint is rarer, and harder to replace.

Again, let me suggest that while the chatter and reactions of the list provides you with some suggestions as to interests of your audience, its most important function is in driving your reactions, in provoking, teasing, angering, even boring you. For in those reactions you can begin to measure yourself, to calibrate the instrument you play within all of your writing, to tune yourself to the current jazz and jive, in short, to come alive.

Your writing will benefit.

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...