Writers Groups: the good, the bad and the ugly

[djrip]

Reckon it's not going to be any of the stuff I've written here - A Little Help is the ideal size at 750, but I can imagine finishing reading it out and hearing pins drop.

Because of the 2nd person, right? They hate that.

 

[JGittes]

That's a mixed bag of experiences. I'm not sure if it's helped or hindered to be honest. I went looking on the various meetups' sites for basic things such as forums, but didn't find anything - except a few links to Facebook groups - so it's hard to judge the calibre. The other telltale I'm looking at is if the meetups are in the middle of the working day. Surely an indicator it's a coffee morning with writing, as opposed to something more serious? I do know I've gotten a lot out of the forums and PMs here, but as stated above, it's a pretty lonely road.

Suck it and see seems to be good advice - so will give that a go. I can always turn up to the pub and pretend to be looking for the toilets if it's immediately obvious it's a wash. Apparently you're supposed to bring along 1000 words to share. Reckon it's not going to be any of the stuff I've written here - A Little Help is the ideal size at 750, but I can imagine finishing reading it out and hearing pins drop.

During the pandemic lockdowns here in the UK, the Guardian newspaper started a series of Zoom 'Masterclasses' with many focused on short story writing, editing, novel writing, marketing, deep point of view, and other topics of interest to writers. Some are better than others, but they all had interaction between the presenter, always a published author, and the attendees. People in the UK mainly attended the courses, but they would all have welcomed people from the US. Be careful of the time differences should you decide to give them a try.

There are also online workshops. You might search through Substack for writer's workshops. I know of at least one there, an online version of the workshop I attended. In good conscience, I can't recommend that one, but there must be others. I've also taken online workshops through some independent bookstores in the US as well.

 

[KeithD]

After retiring from the government, I went into publishing. I opened a book editing service and, after a couple of years, added on consultancy on getting published that included a top 100 Website listing on Writer's Digest. Over the more than twenty years since then, along with my own writing, I concentrated on helping others get published in a specific geographic region. I opened writers' groups, established a regional annual anthology fed by money-award contests, and generally encouraged authors to help each other develop and progress. The one major observation I have come out of that process that I have is that writers soak up any possible help they can get individually but do very little of helping anyone else develop and progress. That includes their participation in writers' groups.

 

[oneagainst]

Because of the 2nd person, right? They hate that.

There's cuckqueaning twincest with bondage and quadraplegia, but you're right, 2nd person is probably the bit that would tip them over the edge

 

[sapphyrix]

There's cuckqueaning twincest with bondage and quadraplegia, but you're right, 2nd person is probably the bit that would tip them over the edge

can confirm, i know people who would be like "i would never judge your sexual fantasies that's just rude" but also be like "why would anyone write anything in 2nd person!!"

 

[oneagainst]

have you ever heard of national novel writing month? the goal is to write a 50k word novel in a 30 day month.
(welllll, 50k isn't really a novel, more of a novella, but it's a reasonable amount to do in a month and finish the other, like, 20k to 70k later.) (novel word count expectations vary heavily based on genre)
the idea is very much about productivity, writing badly and having fun the first time around and then editing later, instead of worrying about how good it is on the first draft and thus never finishing the first draft cause you're so self conscious.
nanowrimo has a lot of regional writing groups, and in my experience these have been the best ones.
they are down to earth and don't tolerate the self absorbed idiots. no people that are like "WELL i WILL write this brilliant idea someday when i have the TIME *doesn't actually write*" no literary snobs, no people who think you have to be published to count as a writer. just if you write you are a writer, and it's equally valid to write just for fun for yourself or to write something to be edited and try for publication.
they're good people.

I'm not sure that's reached Aus. There's Shut Up And Write here, but it seems a little contrived. I had a look at a nearby group and the first line was that they were a group of serious authors looking to publish, and if it's a hobby the group isn't for you.

The soul crushing thing (so far, there may be further soul crushing later) is that these groups seem to cluster and coalesce around a "published" author leading the charge, in their established clique. I'm going to brave next week. I've selected a group that meets in the back of a pub instead of the council library. Call it an intuition....

 

[sapphyrix]

I'm not sure that's reached Aus. There's Shut Up And Write here, but it seems a little contrived. I had a look at a nearby group and the first line was that they were a group of serious authors looking to publish, and if it's a hobby the group isn't for you.

The soul crushing thing (so far, there may be further soul crushing later) is that these groups seem to cluster and coalesce around a "published" author leading the charge, in their established clique. I'm going to brave next week. I've selected a group that meets in the back of a pub instead of the council library. Call it an intuition....

nanowrimo has international chapters, i dont know if your particular area has, but https://nanowrimo.org/regions/find

 

[nylonpunkie]

This thread has got me fantasising about a Porno Story Writing Group; picturing lots of subtle, under-the-table rubbings and fumblings while people read out their depraved ideas, people having to dash off to the loo to relieve their horniness, members coupling in a dark corner of the car park after the session...

 

[oneagainst]

This thread has got me fantasising about a Porno Story Writing Group; picturing lots of subtle, under-the-table rubbings and fumblings while people read out their depraved ideas, people having to dash off to the loo to relieve their horniness, members coupling in a dark corner of the car park after the session...

Ah... average age?

 

[gunhilltrain]

I did miss it, The Good, the Bad, and Ugly.

That movie came out, what, fifty-seven years ago and I'm struck by how often that phrase has been reused in so many places. Perhaps it's because it conveys something that is difficult to express otherwise. Sorry, oneagainst, please don't take it personally. I've done that myself with other similar phrases, like in a few of my story titles here.

 

[alohadave]

There's cuckqueaning twincest with bondage and quadraplegia, but you're right, 2nd person is probably the bit that would tip them over the edge

I DNF'd a book that looked really interesting because the first chapter was in 2nd person.

I know there are books that have done 2nd that are well regarded, but I just don't like it.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Bring a notebook and overtly take notes as they're speaking. They'll be convinced you're going to write them into your next orgy...

Assert dominance. I like it.

 

[NoTalentHack]

I think all of you as being "non writer erotica authors" would like to know I won a major group contest judged blindly by members of another group( a straight up noir horror piece), and also smote ruin upon three other horror authors at both a panel held at the RI book expo and a round table discussion at terror con.

Yeah, you don't need them.

This is my take as well. There are writers who only publish here, or publish here and also self-publish on Amazon/SW that I'd put up against almost any established writer out there, at least in terms of telling a good, engaging story with technical skill, ones where they explore themes and such, and not just thing happened after thing happened. I'd include you in that, @oneagainst. In terms of improving your skills... I'm not saying we all can't improve, but there's "improving your skills" and "losing your voice." I'd hate to see the latter happen.

I thought about it as well; going to a writers workshop or the like, I mean. I had already mostly discarded the notion for a number of reasons. But what put the final nail in the coffin was this: https://www.openculture.com/2018/12...ive-writing-famous-iowa-writers-workshop.html TL;DR: The CIA funded a bunch of attempts (very successfully!) to make literature as... well, in my opinion, boring as possible in the name of fighting communism and socialism. An excerpt from the article:

“Good literature, students learned, contains ‘sensations, not doctrines; experiences, not dogmas; memories, not philosophies.’” These rules have become so embedded in the aesthetic canons that govern literary fiction that they almost go without question, even if we encounter thousands of examples in history that break them and still manage to meet the bar of “good literature.” What is meant by the phrase is a kind of currency—literature that will be supported, published, marketed, and celebrated. Much of it is very good, and much happens to have sufficiently satisfied the gatekeepers’ requirements.

Criticism, including peer criticism, can be valuable but it must be remembered for what it is: an attempt to change the artist's output, or an attempt to get other artists to make things more like the critic wants in the case of public criticism. They want you to be more or less verbose; more or less emotional; more or less focused on detail. They want you to be polished or raw or off the cuff or organized. Rarely, very rarely, do they want "you, but better" in the ways that you think are better.

If you want to improve technical skills like grammar, punctuation, etc., a proofreader is a good choice. If you want to become more commercially viable, finding an established editor and/or agent is the route to proceed down. If you want want to improve in a particular direction, talk to other readers and ask them "I write in this style, can you give me suggestions of writers that write like I do but better in your estimation?" then use that as a template.

But some group of randos who may or may not have every put anything up for others to read, who may or may not have your best interests at heart, who may or may not have biases against the type of stuff you do and want to steer you away from it? Nah. You've read the horror stories (and the tepid stories) above. Unless you're trying to network (which, again, is a dubious proposition) IME, you'd be better off writing more rather than talking about writing with folks just because they are geographically nearby.

 

[djrip]

This is my take as well. There are writers who only publish here, or publish here and also self-publish on Amazon/SW that I'd put up against almost any established writer out there, at least in terms of telling a good, engaging story with technical skill, ones where they explore themes and such, and not just thing happened after thing happened. I'd include you in that, @oneagainst. In terms of improving your skills... I'm not saying we all can't improve, but there's "improving your skills" and "losing your voice." I'd hate to see the latter happen.

I thought about it as well; going to a writers workshop or the like, I mean. I had already mostly discarded the notion for a number of reasons. But what put the final nail in the coffin was this: https://www.openculture.com/2018/12...ive-writing-famous-iowa-writers-workshop.html TL;DR: The CIA funded a bunch of attempts (very successfully!) to make literature as... well, in my opinion, boring as possible in the name of fighting communism and socialism. An excerpt from the article:



Criticism, including peer criticism, can be valuable but it must be remembered for what it is: an attempt to change the artist's output, or an attempt to get other artists to make things more like the critic wants in the case of public criticism. They want you to be more or less verbose; more or less emotional; more or less focused on detail. They want you to be polished or raw or off the cuff or organized. Rarely, very rarely, do they want "you, but better" in the ways that you think are better.

If you want to improve technical skills like grammar, punctuation, etc., a proofreader is a good choice. If you want to become more commercially viable, finding an established editor and/or agent is the route to proceed down. If you want want to improve in a particular direction, talk to other readers and ask them "I write in this style, can you give me suggestions of writers that write like I do but better in your estimation?" then use that as a template.

But some group of randos who may or may not have every put anything up for others to read, who may or may not have your best interests at heart, who may or may not have biases against the type of stuff you do and want to steer you away from it? Nah. You've read the horror stories (and the tepid stories) above. Unless you're trying to network (which, again, is a dubious proposition) IME, you'd be better off writing more rather than talking about writing with folks just because they are geographically nearby.

All that said, the Neil Gaiman one sounds cool.

 

[lovecraft68]

This is my take as well. There are writers who only publish here, or publish here and also self-publish on Amazon/SW that I'd put up against almost any established writer out there, at least in terms of telling a good, engaging story with technical skill, ones where they explore themes and such, and not just thing happened after thing happened. I'd include you in that, @oneagainst. In terms of improving your skills... I'm not saying we all can't improve, but there's "improving your skills" and "losing your voice." I'd hate to see the latter happen.

I thought about it as well; going to a writers workshop or the like, I mean. I had already mostly discarded the notion for a number of reasons. But what put the final nail in the coffin was this: https://www.openculture.com/2018/12...ive-writing-famous-iowa-writers-workshop.html TL;DR: The CIA funded a bunch of attempts (very successfully!) to make literature as... well, in my opinion, boring as possible in the name of fighting communism and socialism. An excerpt from the article:



Criticism, including peer criticism, can be valuable but it must be remembered for what it is: an attempt to change the artist's output, or an attempt to get other artists to make things more like the critic wants in the case of public criticism. They want you to be more or less verbose; more or less emotional; more or less focused on detail. They want you to be polished or raw or off the cuff or organized. Rarely, very rarely, do they want "you, but better" in the ways that you think are better.

If you want to improve technical skills like grammar, punctuation, etc., a proofreader is a good choice. If you want to become more commercially viable, finding an established editor and/or agent is the route to proceed down. If you want want to improve in a particular direction, talk to other readers and ask them "I write in this style, can you give me suggestions of writers that write like I do but better in your estimation?" then use that as a template.

But some group of randos who may or may not have every put anything up for others to read, who may or may not have your best interests at heart, who may or may not have biases against the type of stuff you do and want to steer you away from it? Nah. You've read the horror stories (and the tepid stories) above. Unless you're trying to network (which, again, is a dubious proposition) IME, you'd be better off writing more rather than talking about writing with folks just because they are geographically nearby.

I just want to point out/add that you mentioned the CIA controlling narratives, but left out how the "woke" has been banning everything from Dr. Seuss to all time classic literature to push their agenda which is pure censorship under the guise of these are "problematic" but leave out its only problematic to them and even then most likely not, and are just being used to push their agenda to control speech and creativity.

We now have "sensitivity" readers to tell you who your story might offend and word now has "inclusivity" in its editing program....which tells me I can no longer use "coed" "housewife" or Blonde with an e which depicts female. Yeah...that was disabled quickly.

I imagine there are people here who think I'm some type of conservative or even "right wing" and trust me, I'm neither, but the majority of this forum seems to buy into this fallacy that only the "right" are a problem. Amazes me a group of people who are so creative can blindly buy in to fake and contrived ideologies and fear and hate mongering politicians and sold out media.

Free speech-which includes writing-is under attack from both sides, but people only see one, the one they don't agree with.

 

[lovecraft68]

I have come out of that process that I have is that writers soak up any possible help they can get individually but do very little of helping anyone else develop and progress. That includes their participation in writers' groups.

This is a valid point. Now I'll toss out something about the other side of what you're saying.

How many people have we-and especially you-seen who come here seeking an answer to a question or guidance on anything from category to series etc...and then argue with the people offering them advice and act like they had the answer all along?

I-and I know this has happened to others-have had people reach out to me and ask if I could look at their stories and tell them what I think. I'll spend time reasding it, then spend more time giving some feedback. I always try to give positive first, and when I get to things I think need work I'm not negative, I try to phrase it as constructively as possible because I don't want to discourage anyone

More than half of those occasions their response is along the lines of "what the hell do you know" and then rant over how I'm wrong about everything. I don't respond to those, I'm not going to argue, but my reaction in my mind is always "You asked me to do this."

So, yeah, a lot of people don't offer help as much as they should, but there's a lot of people who want help who are unappreciative to say the least and that discourages people from wanting to keep offering said help.

 

[djrip]

I just want to point out/add that you mentioned the CIA controlling narratives, but left out how the "woke" has been banning everything from Dr. Seuss to all time classic literature to push their agenda which is pure censorship under the guise of these are "problematic" but leave out its only problematic to them and even then most likely not, and are just being used to push their agenda to control speech and creativity.

We now have "sensitivity" readers to tell you who your story might offend and word now has "inclusivity" in its editing program....which tells me I can no longer use "coed" "housewife" or Blonde with an e which depicts female. Yeah...that was disabled quickly.

I imagine there are people here who think I'm some type of conservative or even "right wing" and trust me, I'm neither, but the majority of this forum seems to buy into this fallacy that only the "right" are a problem. Amazes me a group of people who are so creative can blindly buy in to fake and contrived ideologies and fear and hate mongering politicians and sold out media.

Free speech-which includes writing-is under attack from both sides, but people only see one, the one they don't agree with.

The thing is, if you don't like what the left is selling, you can just ignore it. You won't go to jail for not being woke or using the wrong pronouns. If you don't like what the right is up to, you may have to move to another state to regain your freedom in that respect, for instance to get an abortion, or to get gender affirming treatment, or to perform in drag, or to check out certain books.

Of course in Soviet Russia it was different, the left was a bit more aggressive there.

 

[lovecraft68]

The thing is, if you don't like what the left is selling, you can just ignore it. You won't go to jail for not being woke or using the wrong pronouns. If you don't like what the right is up to, you may have to move to another state to regain your freedom in that respect, for instance to get an abortion, or to get gender affirming treatment, or to perform in drag, it to check out certain books.

Of course in Soviet Russia it was different, the left was a bit more aggressive there.

I'm not agreeing with what you're talking about, my point is both things are wrong...both, like there is now law I have to say one if right which is what most people feel they have to do these days.

Yes, you can ignore what anyone says, but when they start taking books off the shelves and trying to control what can and cannot be said under the guise of "PC" and create the cancel culture that has destroyed lives and all because they have a differing opinion from the woke mob, that is an issue. But the other side does that as well, all this insane BS about who's on a beer can. Trust me, if you drink that swill, the person on the can is the least of your worries. Cancel culture is one of the most dangerous things in this society right now, but if the person being banned isn't someone you agree with its okay, but if you do agree with them its reeeeeee. There is no freedom when people only want to protect one side.

Oh, fwiw, the woke are certainly trying push 'misgendering' as a crime and claim using the wrong pronouns is "hate speech" so....you need to work on that argument.

In regards to abortion, a young co worker of mine recently had to have one, fortunately here in RI women have control of their bodies. I will tell you in all seriousness anyone trying to put her in jail would have to deal with me, and other people like me, first. I'll die on the hill of women's rights...but its much more fun to fantasize about killing on that hill. Oops, there goes my right wing membership card....shame.

 

[djrip]

I'm not agreeing with what you're talking about, my point is both things are wrong...both, like there is now law I have to say one if right which is what most people feel they have to do these days.

Yes, you can ignore what anyone says, but when they start taking books off the shelves and trying to control what can and cannot be said under the guise of "PC" and create the cancel culture that has destroyed lives and all because they have a differing opinion from the woke mob, that is an issue.

Oh, fwiw, the woke are certainly trying push 'misgendering' as a crime and claim using the wrong pronouns is "hate speech" so....you need to work on that argument.

In regards to abortion, a young co worker of mine recently had to have one, fortunately here in RI women have control of their bodies. I will tell you in all seriousness anyone trying to put her in jail would have to deal with me, and other people like me, first. I'll die on the hill of women's rights...but its much more fun to fantasize about killing on that hill. Oops, there goes my right wing membership card....shame.

All kinds of people push for all kinds of things to be illegal, but only some things actually become illegal. Those are the ones that bother me. But yes, I agree both sides can be very annoying. I love that last paragraph!

 

[NoTalentHack]

I just want to point out/add that you mentioned the CIA controlling narratives, but left out how the "woke" has been banning everything from Dr. Seuss to all time classic literature to push their agenda which is pure censorship under the guise of these are "problematic" but leave out its only problematic to them and even then most likely not, and are just being used to push their agenda to control speech and creativity.

We now have "sensitivity" readers to tell you who your story might offend and word now has "inclusivity" in its editing program....which tells me I can no longer use "coed" "housewife" or Blonde with an e which depicts female. Yeah...that was disabled quickly.

I imagine there are people here who think I'm some type of conservative or even "right wing" and trust me, I'm neither, but the majority of this forum seems to buy into this fallacy that only the "right" are a problem. Amazes me a group of people who are so creative can blindly buy in to fake and contrived ideologies and fear and hate mongering politicians and sold out media.

Free speech-which includes writing-is under attack from both sides, but people only see one, the one they don't agree with.

No, I recognize it. I just also recognize that it’s the lesser threat. It’s not an existential threat; no one is saying Christians should be put to death, but one party is actively courting folks that want every trans person put in prison or put to death for being a “groomer,” as if the vast majority of sexual assaults on minors didn’t come from their organizations.

I’ve been a lefties long enough to notice how vicious my “side” has gotten in my some regards. It’s a problem, but it’s not THE problem. The right has a huge structural advantage that they want to widen until their wins become a fait accompli each year. Would the left like that, too? Sure. But they’re nowhere close to it.

And waving censorship around as a bugaboo, when one side is literally burning books while other is just… not publishing some of them anymore? Or maybe editing out flat-out racist language that’s there for no good reason other than the prejudices of men dead for decades? It’s not even remotely a contest.

That’s the problem with centrism as a virtue. It only works when the center is actually the center. And it isn’t, and it hasn’t been in years. You’re remembering what things were like when we were kids—or what we believed things were like when we were kids—and applying it to a now that’s closer to Germany in the 30s than America in the 70s.

See if this sounds familiar: a corrupt middle-right government courts a far right populist and his followers, loses control of them, then loses the election. The far right populist refuses to accept defeat, gets his followers to try to overthrow the government, and he and they end up in prison for their troubles. A weak mid-left party takes power, and the remnants of the populist right demonizes them and their allies as perverts and communists, burning and banning books, terrorizing them with relative impunity, etc.; eventually, the mid-right party can’t control their allies, the populist takes power both in the party and the nation, and… well, you’ve read the rest of the story.

Where are we in that narrative now? Who’s closer to taking permanent power? Who is actively trying to gerrymander away political power of their opponents on a massive scale?

Centrism is a luxury in times like this. We’re not arguing about whether we should increase taxes to revamp the community center. One side is saying “we’d like to be treated as full human beings,” and the other side is saying, “you should be put in camps,” and you’re out here acting superior because you want to “rise above the fray,” talking about Dr. Seuss and having to worry (optionally, I might add) about offending people. Fucking ridiculous.

 

[lovecraft68]

One of the tools to be a good writer is being able to write opposing POV's. Men try to learn to write as women, women as men, and also, a good writer can pen characters who's world views differ from theirs, and that means that when we're writing we are being open minded to the differences in people at least in the sense we're temporarily trying to be in their head and justify why think as they do.

Then for some reason, that skill becomes lost in real life and defaults to only seeing "my" side.

I am what is called a "paradoxical thinker" which means that on any topic, even one I have a firm personal opinion on, I can make a case for the other side's differing view. Doesn't mean I'll buy in, just means I can see both sides of any discussion if I make the effort to.

It's a mentality that is on the endangered species list these days just below common sense.

 

[djrip]

One of the tools to be a good writer is being able to write opposing POV's. Men try to learn to write as women, women as men, and also, a good writer can pen characters who's world views differ from theirs, and that means that when we're writing we are being open minded to the differences in people at least in the sense we're temporarily trying to be in their head and justify why think as they do.

Then for some reason, that skill becomes lost in real life and defaults to only seeing "my" side.

I do like to think about lots of perspectives in writing. In a story it might be interesting to think about a racist's perspective, for instance. But in real life, while I might be interested in their perspective in order to understand them and try to change their mind, I would not consider their racism a valid position to weigh and consider possibly adopting.

I have right leaning parents and we have great conversations because even though we disagree about things we both respect the other's intelligence, and we cite facts and evidence when we discuss and debate. It can be done!

 

[NoTalentHack]

One of the tools to be a good writer is being able to write opposing POV's. Men try to learn to write as women, women as men, and also, a good writer can pen characters who's world views differ from theirs, and that means that when we're writing we are being open minded to the differences in people at least in the sense we're temporarily trying to be in their head and justify why think as they do.

Then for some reason, that skill becomes lost in real life and defaults to only seeing "my" side.

Except it doesn’t. It’s just that, if you are well-read and we’ll-informed, you acknowledge that one side can have a POV that is influenced by things which are flat-out wrong. I don’t mean from a moral standpoint (although that’s sometimes true), but from a factual standpoint.

You're making this argument:


But this is the actual truth in most cases:


People can believe they're right, but that doesn't mean they are. I can write a sympathetic story about a rightwinger who believes he's right, and I have before. I can make him the hero in his own story, because he believes that he's right. I can do the same thing with a centrist. But that doesn't make him right.

I'm a big comic book fan, and in particular, I love Captain America. Him and Superman; I love aspirational heroes, guys we'll never be as good as, but we want to strive to be. Steve Rogers is my favorite Cap, of course. He's the one I grew up with. And I like Sam Wilson a lot, too; he'd be my second favorite if not for one character, and he edges close sometime. But my second favorite? This asshole:



In the 80s, just after the Iran Contra hearings, he took over as Cap when the government decided they didn't want a Cap that questioned orders and refused to represent them the way they wanted to be. So they came up with an excuse to strip Steve Rogers of his shield and give it to someone else. Their choice? A good ol' boy from Custer's Grove, GA, a decorated veteran and staunch family values-type guy (before the Republicans coined that term as a buzzword) who had been running around as the Super-Patriot fighting both real and staged crime while he jockeyed to get the nod as Cap.

The thing is, he's a good guy. Like, he's an asshole and sometimes a bigot, but he really believes that he's doing his best to support his country. And he's very much a "my country right or wrong" type, too, taking orders he thought were morally questionable at best, because that's what a soldier should do. He's a nuanced, interesting take on what heroism and service means, and I would probably absolutely fucking hate him in real life... except that he's also the epitome of the possibly apocryphal Churchill saying that "Americans will always do what's right, after trying everything else out first." Eventually, after doing his best as Cap and--in a lot of cases, doing a fine job--he realized he wasn't the right person for the job. He couldn't be a symbol of the American dream while also working as a tool of the American government, and he urged Rogers to take back the shield.

He still shows up, now as US Agent, still doing a mix of government work and standard hero shit. He's still an asshole and a conservative and a tryhard, and I fucking love him as a character. He's a devil's advocate and a "true" conservative in that he says "why are we doing this? What's the upside? What does it gain us, and are we hurting ourselves by making this choice?" If you're familiar with the Green Lanterns, he's the Guy Gardner of the Captain Americas, the guy that everyone personally can't stand, but also that they're kind of glad to have on their side. You know, when he is.

Writing characters, getting in their head and understanding their motivations, and all the other things you talk about are WHY I end up where I do. People believe things that are provably wrong; shit I've got a shelf of books on how people only think they act logically, when they mostly reinforce their own biases. It takes a huge effort of will to not do that, and most people that think they are usually aren't; it's something I spend a lot of time and effort making sure I'm not doing when I absorb new information. And it's something I regularly watch people NOT do as they instead let unassailable factual and statistical data glance off in favor of "but what about this corner case?" and "both sides do this" while ignoring that one side does it more, and worse, and with more malice.

 

[alohadave]

the "woke" has been banning everything from Dr. Seuss

That was a business decision by the estate to pull 6 titles that they felt had negative racial and ethnic stereotypes.

No one else called for the titles to be pulled.

Not everything is an attack on your values by the 'woke mob'.