Do you "modernise"?

I may as well add,

One reason not to do it, is that is can instantly date your story.

Also things can change quickly, so it may be obsolete by the time its published.

One anecdote is when Stan Lee was writing funny captions for a magazine of celebrity photos. Thecover of an issue had JFK, I believe, up on a podium with flags and banners, president of the United states, so on. He captioned it "Allow me to introduce myself." JFK was shot just as the copies were about to ship. Issue pulled, fortune lost, magazine cancelled.

Apparently *current famous fantasy author* fell into the hole of having a novel "modernised" and there was immediate fan backlash. I'll let you look that up. I only saw it on YT videos. Mistakes happen. He made it, so we don't have to.

Also remember there are people like the aforementioned persons with plackards, on all sides. And some people can be willing to go beyond that level. Just ask Mr T. The one with the jet, not the van.

PS

Of course, it could be worse:

"Books fatal to their authors"

https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/books-fatal-to-their-authors/

I looked up fantasy author modernised (zed) novel on Black Friday. This search offered me many books for sale on many websites. I am interested, maybe you can send me a PM?

I've only got one current novel in which cell phones are a thing. Even then I barely use them. I'd have to check, but I don't believe in my winning story I used phones. One guy had a tablet he was always poking. 

Those are what drive me most nuts in stories because they take so much tension away. Stranger Things - no cell phones. Otherwise Will would have just called, "Hey, I'm in the Upside Down." 

AI is the thing right now. Stories about rampaging AIs may not work, but a story set now or in the near future should include AI in the same way as cell phones. That tech is here. Only, we understand cell phones and can imagine where they're going to be in 10 years... Maybe a different interface, but still around. AI is a fog, difficult to see through to the future. Yet, that's what makes the speculation fun. 

A story where someone gets the future of AI wrong may not age well, but it could play well now as we all guess what the full impact will be. Probably rampaging AIs.

Posted by: @tj_knight

↑

 

A story where someone gets the future of AI wrong may not age well, but it could play well now as we all guess what the full impact will be. Probably rampaging AIs.

probably AIs using cellphones. But they'd likely just want to extend my expiring car warranty....

I'm surprised if you hadn't heard of the to do.

Seems to be from January: A Dredd dropped Santa's list and mixed up all the boys and girls names. Or something along those lines. I wheely would like say who.

Maybe in the future people will use AI to break my cryptic?

Let me know if you still can't figure it out.

Better yet, they may pop in to give their take?

I'm not in the know when it comes to public drama, then again, I'm not trying to be. I actively avoid "popular" opinion because it has nothing to do with my own, which I mostly keep to myself unless it relates to the craft I'm actively furthering.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with writing about a subject , modern or otherwise. What matters is how you go about doing so.

Take Lewis Carrol as an example. When you think about Alice in Wonderland's Mad Hatter, what comes to mind? I guarantee you're not thinking about Victorian England, about their use of mercury to treat rabbit fur as part of their hat making process, nor are you thinking about the hat makers, the "hatters," who developed the shakes as mercury exposure destroyed their nervous systems. Yet, if you lived in Victorian England at the time that Alice in Wonderland was released, you would easily recognize the parallel because "as mad as a hatter" was common knowledge during that time.

Also, while I didn't grow up watching Star Trek, the WotF Podcast has often referenced how the series took controversial topics, stripped away the familiar, and then set them within an environment where the issues could be more objectively examined while separated from our biases. The place where authors and creatives go wrong is when they masquerade their message/opinion as a story, then sell it to someone who believes a story is what they're purchasing. That's never going to go over well.

Personally, I believe your own "1950s viewpoint" will ultimately hinder your growth as a writer. While I don't know anything about your style or preferences for storytelling, I have firsthand experience with writing outside of my preferences. So I've witnessed how emensely such writing can inform the way you do want to write. And if you think about it, isn't sticking to your viewpoint a defining factor for the very controversy you're alluding to? When we become too rigid in our beliefs and practices, how can we expect another to compromise in their beliefs when we're not willing to even consider doing the same?

That's worth considering.

To answer your question, the only thing I care about is what is suitable for my story. For example, one of my current projects involves kid super heroes following a specific, philosophical, lesson plan of their teacher, who is secretly training them to one day defeat a dormant monster, which will become a great threat. So ask yourself, what part of that summary gives you any clue about what my message is? Well, the monster represents AI, but you'll see no mention of AI anywhere within the story. And that's the difference between authorial intent--one is concerned with the author's self, the other aims to entertain you while imparting buried lessons and altered points of view.

Posted by: @jtwrites

↑

When we become to rigid in our beliefs and practices, how can we expect another to compromise in their beliefs when we're not willing to even consider doing the same?

That's not always the problem, as it's often the fact the "non 1950s" idea is already a sudden and dramatic change.

So it's not asking people to change their view point, as they have already done so to get to the current situation.

If someone was very young when being indoctrinated into a new idea, then they may never have had the "1950s" viewpoint. 

But that's only a further negative in the "non 1950s" idea, as these people may grow to realise they made a mistake.

In their space ships.,

Posted by: @jtwrites

↑

Personally, I believe your own "1950s viewpoint" will ultimately hinder your growth as a writer.

I see it more as future proofing.

Stories can get awfully dated by not restraining things.

Like the mad hatter.

Its now a funny character no one gets.

But watch a "1950s" SciFi show, outer limits, and the like. And the characters are still relatable.

Im not sure a funny haired, never seen kindergarten cop character will age well, for example.

But, yes, a frustrated robot like Ash seems to.

What do robots have?

A magazine! 

"Thanks for the tip."

Listening to a WOF podcast and Toni Weisscopf being cancelled from guest of honour at discon 3 was mentioned.

Looked it up...

Basically in charge of a forum for Baen publishing, where apparently people were talking about stuff people didn't like. 

So you don't even need to do anything to have issues.

Although that may have been the actual complaint.

I don't understand people just saying "yes sir, no sir," basically lying to get along.

So it's good when people don't.

Like Ellison.

And it give people something to talk about.

Then they have to read your stories, or they may sound ignorant when discussing you.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/04/woke-books-are-a-flop-with-readers/

An interesting article. 

I went into a city bookstore and they have an abcd... section.

Puts me off, and likely more people than the few actively looking for such content if it's not there, I'd expect.

I find, listening to interviews and reading articles, normal caucasian male authors are more likely to simply talk about writing, as opposed to any particular political or social aspect they may push. But then I don't listen to many on other authors.

Often immigrant authors will write from that angle, different races from that, whatever is most obvious to the world about the person, often due to their banging on about it.

Please, don't do that.

Maybe a  gold medal winning Paralympian, or octo Mum.., maybe.

I don't immediately see an angle with JK Rowling, for example, except she wrote HP for her kids, which just gave her a market to aim for. Mary Shelley likely had some angle with Frankenstein, the dangers of mens meddling perhaps. But Stephen King? Regular folk in an extraordinary situation, aka, just a good story. 

The book mentioned in the article couldn't just be a book about the authors life, it had to be centred upon one political/social aspect. 

Not acting, no, not acting. 

You need a hook, and that's a doozy, but I would think acting would have been a more global one which may have actually helped sales, as opposed to limiting them.

Then again, I don't think a typical 50s family would approve either. Which is why I use them to help decide writing choices. They do like actress's though, so that may have been the better angle.

Note: I have not read any of the books mentioned. But I have seen all 7 Harry Potter films, at least 3 Frankenstein films and many Stephen King films.

And Juno, which was actually a pretty good film, from memory. If it ain't broke...

I've seen this article's "obstacles" listed on publisher/agent sites. And as a white male author, do you know what that information did for me? Initially, it was discouraging, of course. But only initially. After that, I realized what a great motivation it truly was. You see, I like obstacles. Love them, even. Because when one stand atop them, they often find that they're able to reach places they might not have otherwise.

It's just another form of competition, albeit one-sided. But I'm willing to bet that most people will incorrectly guess how it's one-sided. The most obvious answer is the favoritism side, right? Well, that's incorrect.

Think about running a foot race or any other form of competition. If you have any amount of competitive drive, you will run harder and faster when there's someone running alongside you. The presence of the competitor makes you better. It makes you both better.

Now, think of the unfair playing field. Who does the competition benefit? The favoritism side has no need/motivation to improve, so why would they? They are safe. They are comfortable.

"Somewhere in the world someone is training when you are not. When you race him, he will win."
-Tom Fleming

"The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night."
-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

All of the motivation is on the disadvantaged side. And a political view will no more craft a professional writer than a microscope will craft a master blacksmith.

So I say let them errect their fences, their higher bars. I'm still going to write, still going to improve. And when my craftsmanship has reached a point they can no longer ignore it, I'll be improving still.

I wonder what will become of their walls then.

Posted by: @nova

↑

 

It's worth noting the Spiked Online article is based on a Daily Mail report, and they're rated one of the UK's least trusted newspapers, and IMO, one of the most agenda-driven. I'm very cautious about anything it publishes and always look for other sources.

Fair enough if you don't want to browse an "abcd" section, just browse those you're interested in. It's wayfinding just like a Fantasy or Sci-Fi section. I think "abcd" sections are brilliant and much needed considering all but straight 'western' white men have had little representation throughout history, especially in mainstream publishing and media. Personally, I like to understand perspectives other than my own.

Not sure what you mean by "normal caucasian male authors" - what are you listening to and reading? Authors will generally answer questions they're asked, and it's natural for anyone to write about experiences that have shaped them.

The authors you mention all have themes in their stories. That's one of the things that makes them good stories. Stephen King writes about prejudice, for example. Look into the themes of The Green Mile, one of his most famous stories. Read Harry Potter and see how it develops throughout the series. Also consider the broad appeal of Harry Potter, something that previous WotF judge David Farland talked about. Broader appeal definitely helps with writing success, although I don't like to put it as cynically as that.

Well put, JT.

Posted by: @alexh

↑

Fair enough if you don't want to browse an "abcd" section, just browse those you're interested in.

Yes, broad appeal is best.

It's more the fact there is an abcd section, as opposed to just putting it in the adult section, while they often still mix sci-fi and fantasy.

And these are the people who will be selling our books?!

I guess the shelf top is good advertising. Likey there is some handshake going on with the publisher/s of the material, like in supermarkets.

When I went to school some names were only for bullying and not realistically applied. Now, it seems, it would be bullying not to use them on many.

25 years. 

Interestingly, that's the same time frame as internet and mobile mainstream use.

Coincidence?

PS

I just looked up the Juno film on Wikipedia.

Retconning at its worst.

They ask for donations, but for what?

Some bloke apparently played the pregnant girl, even though they clearly show her name on the poster shown.

Well, I guess that's why they say you can't rely upon them for factual information.

Posted by: @nova

↑

I find, listening to interviews and reading articles, normal caucasian male authors are more likely to simply talk about writing, as opposed to any particular political or social aspect they may push. But then I don't listen to many on other authors.

Often immigrant authors will write from that angle, different races from that, whatever is most obvious to the world about the person, often due to their banging on about it.

Please, don't do that.

What...? With all due respect, that's demonstrably false. Writers draw inspiration from their lives, their backgrounds, their cultures, etc. So, it's no fault of an immigrant writer to draw inspiration from that experience and talk about how it influenced their writing. 'Normal Caucasian male authors' are no exception. They do the exact same thing. I'll use three examples of some of the most famous authors. Tolkien, King and Martin.

Tolkien - was very forthright about his experiences in WWI (Battle of the Somme) and how it affected him and his writing. How it shaped him. And I mean... He explicitly framed his work as a mythology for England, because he felt Britain lacked a cohesive native mythic corpus. 

His Catholicism, grief, war trauma, linguistic passion, and English nationalism are openly acknowledged influences. Lúthien was explicitly inspired by Edith Tolkien. It’s on their gravestones.

Stephen King - writes relentlessly about, working-class America, addiction (autobiographical), abuse, trauma, and systemic neglect.

He has spoken openly about his substance abuse and his politics and how they’ve influenced his novels.

George R.R. Martin - talks constantly about, Vietnam-era politics, power, governance, and moral ambiguity. All things that were influenced by his life experiences.

He’s talked openly about anti-war themes, journalism and activism

A Song of Ice and Fire is inseparable from his political cynicism and historical interests. I mean, it’s pretty much War of the Roses, but with dragons.

So...my point is that no, 'Caucasian male authors' don't simply talk about writing without any mention of politics or social aspects. They most certainly do. At least they do in my, admittedly limited, experience.

Posted by: @dagnir

↑

Writers draw inspiration from their lives, their backgrounds, their cultures, etc.

Not necessarily. It's called research.

They say write what you know.

I feel with King and Tolkien (don't know much about Martin), they are generally writing from an every man perspective (like a 1950s family). 

World war 2 was everyone's war, not just one person. And an average dull life is pretty common too.

But if all you know is how you look in the mirror, that's sad.

@nova

Posted by: @nova

↑

I feel with King and Tolkien (don't know much about Martin), they are generally writing from an every man perspective (like a 1950s family). 

And what is an 'every man perspective'? Every man that fits in with the 1950's mold you've mentioned? Everything I said before is backed up by the men themselves. Those are the things they have openly and plainly said influenced them. The 1950's were a very specific point in time. One that was fleeting and which was not the definitive era of American history, let alone human history. It was brought about by very specific events, and it was, in the end, unsustainable. That's why it ended. 

Posted by: @nova

↑

World war 2 was everyone's war, not just one person. And an average dull life is pretty common too.

I never said anything about WWII. I said WWI. The war Tolkien fought in? And where did I say it was 'one person's war'. Like...what? I said Tolkien's experiences there influenced his writing. Which it did. Self-admitted by the man himself. So, I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you're trying to argue here.

Posted by: @nova

↑

But if all you know is how you look in the mirror, that's sad.

There is...so much I could say to this. You say that like you haven't been lamenting every writer who doesn't fall into your comfortable 1950's mold.

Posted by: @dagnir

↑

Every man that fits in with the 1950's mold you've mentioned?

It's like mom and pop, the American/most western/likely others dream.

A time/place of simple innocence perhaps, but a good moral compass or what not.

Wholesome family fun, summer days and picnics.

Stuff no one can really, honestly, poo poo.

Any town USA/or wherever.

The every man is some one anyone can easily relate to. 

Middle American, middle aged, middle management. Or whatever. Average Joe. Or GI Joe.

In fact most tv and film, and books?? Use John or Jack as the main character. Both likely because it's instantly recognisable as a real common person and it's common enough to avoid law suits.

They are both great starting points for stories, and great first readers.

Posted by: @dagnir

↑

It was brought about by very specific events, and it was, in the end, unsustainable. That's why it ended. 

Did it?

There are still wholesome, church going, nuclear type families out there. 

Not everyone is standing on the corner waving a funny flag.

But the 1950s is probably the best guage. Post war Renaissance, or such.

Heck , even Japan and Germany were doing something right, Sony, so on. Was programma 101 German?? I do like walls too.

Spring.

Yeah that's it, that's the feeling.

(Ignore the wall thing now, although lambs in fenced paddocks are cute, and a wall is like a fence, hmm...)

Posted by: @dagnir

↑

So, I'm afraid I'm not understanding what you're trying to argue here.

It was a World war.

EVERYONE had experienced it.

It's different to a few boat people here and there or one race or other.

EVERYONE on earth at the time, and to some extent since, experienced it.

Even some untouched natives scratching their heads as the planes flew over.

WW2 even more so, perhaps.

By then many natives were actively joining in.

Posted by: @dagnir

↑

There is...so much I could say to this. You say that like you haven't been lamenting every writer who doesn't fall into your comfortable 1950's mold.

Well, it is.

It's not the author's I'm comparing to the 1950s, although they had some of the best, it's that the best stories would be appreciated by them.

I believe LOTR was 50s ish, for example.

Dune?

Darth Vader from the planet Vulcan.

But if you just write about yourself, that's pretty vein.

The authors you mentioned write about very different stuff. 

Tolkien went fantastic, while King likes to keep it real.

The WW and dull every man life is not just looking in the mirror, it's looking down from above.

The fact they fit in there is, well dah, because they live there, like everybody else.

Hey @dagnir welcome to the forum! Your points above are well researched, cogently expressed, and much appreciated by the vast majority of us here. I can tell you are going to be a fantastic contributor, and I am glad you are on the forum.

Up till now, I have avoided commenting on this thread - but as you are new here, I wanted to comment that this thread does not represent all of us. From my perspective, you are correct: there is no such thing as the 'one experience' of life (by race/ethnicity, generation, gender, religious affiliation, etc.) that makes it 'the norm', and from which all other experiences are less valid or somehow a 'deviation'. We all experience the world differently.

I've also avoided commenting on this thread until I've had a chance to think about it. And the more I've thought about it, the less I understand the intent or meaning of the question, "Do you modernise?" After reading through many of the posts, I'm further confused by the content. I mean, I know the words are all English but, taken together, I can barely understand most of what's even being said, let alone comprehending whatever arguments are being made.

The question itself seems very strange, specifically because the purpose of speculative fiction is to, well, speculate. And especially with science fiction, we speculate about possible future states based on current scientific, political, and social trends.

To me, it seems a given that most folks here not only "modernise" but also "futurise." Even with a time travel story say, for instance, about someone going back in time to the 1950's, that person will take with them all their modern belief and value systems. The 1950's were a horrible time for anyone who wasn't a white male, especially if they were living in the US (not that being a non-white male living today is all that great either — sheesh we're in a mess.)

Perhaps a better question would be "Do you romanticize about by-gone "utopian" eras that may or may not have actually existed to an outside observer?" For example, Ursula K Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness does a phenomenal job exploring this very concept.

In writing, especially for anyone trying to publish (or win contests), the phrase "clarity is king" rules supreme. I hope I can understand future content in this thread so I can contribute in a meaningful way. As it is, I'm struggling here (maybe it's just me), and it's never good if an audience can't understand what's being said! I would challenge everyone to make your writing clear, both in your stories and also in your comments in the forums!

Posted by: @gideonpsmith

↑

Hey @dagnir welcome to the forum! Your points above are well researched, cogently expressed, and much appreciated by the vast majority of us here. I can tell you are going to be a fantastic contributor, and I am glad you are on the forum.

I’ve been thinking this as well, @dagnir. You’re representing what must surely be the majority perspective for this forum, and you’re representing it very well. And to echo Morgan’s point, just on the clarity of your writing alone, I expect your future is bright here—not to mention the intellectual curiosity and empathy you've shown in earlier posts, both of which can only deepen the impact of your stories. 

Hopefully this unusual back-and-forth hasn’t been discouraging or skewed your view of this community. Generally, this is a very sharp and supportive bunch. Most of us also appreciate things like reading books and writing toward the future, as one would expect from a group called “Writers of the Future.” 

Posted by: @nova

↑

Any town USA/or wherever.

For starters, the world is a lot bigger than all-town USA. As I previously mentioned, I believed your 1950s viewpoint would hinder your growth, and I’m only more convinced of that. It’s plain that you’re romanticizing a time period—measuring ongoing deeds with a metric that doesn’t apply.

Writing itself is a means of communication. Of sharing ideas. Of collaborating. Language isn’t static. Over time, it changes. It grows. It evolves. And should someone come from a place, say 1950’s America, where they don’t seek to evolve as well, they cannot communicate in whatever time they find themselves in.

As Morgan touched on, there is a clarity issue here. But I believe there is also a comprehension issue. Harvey, you’re taking obscure quotes and answering them with what largely appears to be non sequiturs. That’s not communication; it’s awaiting your turn to speak.

While it’s fine for us to admire different time periods, we can’t expect the rest of the world to adopt that view. Essentially, that’s what you’re expecting. You want everyone to read you from a 1950s vantage, and that’s never going to work.

If The Lord of the Rings were published today, it would not see the same measure of success. Assuming a separate fantasy-inspiring work was published in his time, one that would have brought the fantasy genre to our present point in time, The Lord of the Rings would not have the same reception or impact.

Our language and attention have evolved since then. Readers wouldn’t have the patience to get through it, which means Tolkien would essentially expect everyone to adopt the patience and attention of a different time period. That’s a big ask, considering readers wouldn’t know his name or his work. And all while publishing alongside the 4 million books that are published each year.

As your peer, respectfully, I don’t feel that this thread is promoting your writing, nor you as an aspiring writer. While I’m merely speculating, I believe you’re more focused on values rather than writing and storytelling. If that’s the case, I encourage you to flip that metric on its head.

Posted by: @nova

↑

But if you just write about yourself, that's pretty vein.

The authors you mentioned write about very different stuff. 

Tolkien went fantastic, while King likes to keep it real.

The WW and dull every man life is not just looking in the mirror, it's looking down from above.

The fact they fit in there is, well dah, because they live there, like everybody else.

@nova I'm not going to keep going back and forth with, I can see you're determinedly fixed in your viewpoint and there's little reason to engage with a person who flatly refuses to acknowledge any perspective outside his very select group. So, I'll just say this. Everybody else doesn't 'live there' (wherever 'there' is). I don't live there. You are the only one who's peculiarly focused on other writers only 'mirroring' themselves (whatever that means, too). I never said people should write clones of themselves. I said every single author to ever write has drawn from his/her own experiences and background. That's not subjective. It's a fact. And the white male writers (who are the only ones you seem to think are valid), are no different. Their writing was shaped by who they are or were. This is also not subjective, but you refuse to see it because it throws a wrench into the views you so desperately cling to. Because you need to think they're writing from some pure and neutral ideal. They're not.

I will say just one more thing. If you persist in this rigid mindset, you'll only cut yourself off at the knees. Only those who learn how to adapt endure. In every single period, both within the USA and outside of it, there have been people who write things (and I'm including works of fiction in this) that were made solely to appeal to the politics and mindsets of the time they were written in. That isn't something unique to the modern age. Those works just didn't survive. Those that DO are the ones with broad enough appeal to transcend time, even if they also appealed to the mindsets of their perspective eras.

I wish you all the best in your future entries.

Posted by: @gideonpsmith

↑

Hey @dagnir welcome to the forum! Your points above are well researched, cogently expressed, and much appreciated by the vast majority of us here. I can tell you are going to be a fantastic contributor, and I am glad you are on the forum.

Up till now, I have avoided commenting on this thread - but as you are new here, I wanted to comment that this thread does not represent all of us. From my perspective, you are correct: there is no such thing as the 'one experience' of life (by race/ethnicity, generation, gender, religious affiliation, etc.) that makes it 'the norm', and from which all other experiences are less valid or somehow a 'deviation'. We all experience the world differently.

@gideonpsmith Thanks so much for the warm welcome! It's alright, from all the kind responses I've gotten both here and other threads, I know this doesn't represent everyone else. It's nice to meet you! I look forward to getting to know all of you better, as you've all been so thoughtful. And quite a few have given me a lot of new books to read, which is awesome! 

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

And the more I've thought about it, the less I understand the intent or meaning of the question, "Do you modernise?" After reading through many of the posts, I'm further confused by the content. I mean, I know the words are all English but, taken together, I can barely understand most of what's even being said, let alone comprehending whatever arguments are being made.

@morgan-broadhead All good! To be perfectly honest...I'm still having trouble understanding a lot of what's said here. It's not just you. I always try to be open-minded and curious, but sometimes it bites me in the butt, lol.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

To me, it seems a given that most folks here not only "modernise" but also "futurise." Even with a time travel story say, for instance, about someone going back in time to the 1950's, that person will take with them all their modern belief and value systems. The 1950's were a horrible time for anyone who wasn't a white male, especially if they were living in the US (not that being a non-white male living today is all that great either — sheesh we're in a mess.)

Perhaps a better question would be "Do you romanticize about by-gone "utopian" eras that may or may not have actually existed to an outside observer?" For example, Ursula K Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness does a phenomenal job exploring this very concept.

That's a very good point! And even better, you've given me another new book to get. I've been reading Le Guin's Earthsea books, but I don't think I've heard of The Left Hand of Darkness. Just from the title it sounds really interesting, so I'm gonna have to add that to the growing pile of new books folks here have directed me towards. I love it!

Posted by: @krqueen_writes

↑

I’ve been thinking this as well, @dagnir. You’re representing what must surely be the majority perspective for this forum, and you’re representing it very well. And to echo Morgan’s point, just on the clarity of your writing alone, I expect your future is bright here—not to mention the intellectual curiosity and empathy you've shown in earlier posts, both of which can only deepen the impact of your stories. 

Hopefully this unusual back-and-forth hasn’t been discouraging or skewed your view of this community. Generally, this is a very sharp and supportive bunch. Most of us also appreciate things like reading books and writing toward the future, as one would expect from a group called “Writers of the Future.” 

@krqueen_writes Thank you so much for the kind words. I've gotten some of the books you recommended to me in another thread, by the way. I'm slowly starting to work through them; I've been particularly enjoying The Wizard of Earthsea and Realm of the Elderlings. I'm gonna venture into the sci-fi ones once I've gotten through the fantasy.

And it's all good, even if there was a moment of discouragement, it was brief. Everyone else here has been very kind and supportive. It's great meeting so many others who love writing as much as I do. I'm used to being the only book nerd around, so meeting so many others who love reading and writing has been amazing! 

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

I can barely understand most of what's even being said, let alone comprehending whatever arguments are being made.

Join the club.

But I'm glad people are taking the time to contribute.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

we speculate about possible future states based on current scientific, political, and social trends.

There is a balance.

Posted by: @gideonpsmith

↑

I wanted to comment that this thread does not represent all of us.

I apologise for being an individual.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

I would challenge everyone to make your writing clear, both in your stories and also in your comments in the forums!

Here, here!

Posted by: @dagnir

↑

In every single period, both within the USA and outside of it, there have been people who write things (and I'm including works of fiction in this) that were made solely to appeal to the politics and mindsets of the time they were written in. That isn't something unique to the modern age. Those works just didn't survive. Those that DO are the ones with broad enough appeal to transcend time, even if they also appealed to the mindsets of their perspective eras.

BINGO!

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Shoehorn in some contemporary politics or what not agenda pushing and go broke.

Write for the any time, any place and succeed.

There, that's your clarity right there.

And as far as mirrors, just write an autobiography no one will read and be done with it.

I guess I provoked some hesitant writers into writing, and that's a good thing.

I don't mind the - not love.

"Anger is more useful than dispare," I think it went.

I think I'll try stubbing my toe, then I will possibly write more.

Posted by: @nova

↑

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

we speculate about possible future states based on current scientific, political, and social trends.

There is a balance.

I'm not even sure what this comment is supposed to mean...? A balance of what?

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

I'm not even sure what this comment is supposed to mean...?

A good writer provides the reader with questions to be answered.

I believe I was meaning that while it's possible to write about current events up to a point, go too far and your moving to Paru and crying like a baby.

Perhaps take the base type of issue, rather than the specific issue. 

A pop star killed by her boyfriend?

Maybe a mechanic killed by a hitman.

Same issue, different specifics.

Plus, which one brings up more questions for the reader to demand answers to?

(However, the scenes on stage may do wonders for a later film's box office...)

Posted by: @nova

↑

A good writer provides the reader with questions to be answered.

I believe I was meaning that while it's possible to write about current events up to a point, go too far and your moving to Paru and crying like a baby.

Perhaps take the base type of issue, rather than the specific issue. 

A pop star killed by her boyfriend?

Maybe a mechanic killed by a hitman.

Same issue, different specifics.

Plus, which one brings up more questions for the reader to demand answers to?

(However, the scenes on stage may do wonders for a later film's box office...)

My question was about “balance.” Why are we moving to some place called Paru and crying like a baby?

What is a base type of issue versus a specific issue, and how do your examples illustrate them?

And why are we talking about stage productions and film box offices?

I’m just not following how any of that relates to the original question of “balance.”

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

Why are we moving to some place called Paru and crying like a baby?

Vowels will get you. Peru.

Crack a Bud light and think about it.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

What is a base type of issue versus a specific issue, and how do your examples illustrate them?

A World at war - what's cooking.

Hmm... Hansel and Gretel do get away with it though. Though they just turned the tables on the chef.

Posted by: @morgan-broadhead

↑

And why are we talking about stage productions and film box offices?

Because some books get picked up for films.

Speaking of, watching carols on TV.

Bah humbug.

Of course I'm laughing as I wrote that.

I'll just point out:

I watched a you tube video (let me know and I'll dig it out) of a chap having conversations with passers by at a university.

Some people yelled at him from atop a building.

Later about ten people came out and confronted him.

Apparently a student or two read his sign, and went home because they couldn't cope. I kid you not.

No one was saying what their actual complaint was, just some concern over the sign.

The stand off went for a while.

So you can't have a sign, but you can gather to intimidate someone while not actually saying what the issue is?

That's the vibe I was getting up above a bit.

It's not endearing.

Posted by: @nova

↑

a chap having conversations with passers by at a university.

Some people yelled at him from atop a building.

Later about ten people came out and confronted him.

It really depends on what the conversation was about or what the sign said, doesn't it? For example, death threats are illegal (in most places) and a sign bearing such a message would be deserving of confrontation.

Also, you may find this useful: https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/planning/paragraphs/

Nope.

Just biological fact.

Posted by: @ease

↑

death threats are illegal (in most places)

Oddly, probably the same group of Yahoo's, regularly wave their own signs about wanting to kill kids.

Posted by: @ease

↑

deserving of confrontation.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Posted by: @nova

↑

Oddly, probably the same group of Yahoo's, regularly wave their own signs about wanting to kill kids.

I have no idea what you're referring to. I've lived all over the world and seen the negative of all corners of the political compass, but never seen anyone yielding a sign about wanting to kill kids. Letalone 'regularly.' What nonsense.

Posted by: @nova

↑

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Right, but it'd be a little more efficient to say the words rather than write them down and hand over a note, wouldn't it? Confrontation does not need to involve violence.