Any lovers of writing here ?

[jason1980s]

I absolutely love writing and I think the ability to really write is a form of artwork.

I would love to hear stories about member's writings. Saintegenevieve's postings kept me entertained on a long train ride last month! I love reading newspaper or online articles about subjects that interest me. I like trying to write fiction books. I got one self published, have another done but not sure I want to publish and working on another because fiction is really tough for me and overall doesn't interest me unless I can do an amazing story. I'm better at real life stories and have potentially for publish non fiction. I'm best at letter writing to friends and often have people tell me they are brought to tears when reading, like Bret Hart might say.

People take for granted the written word with the social media era of quick texts, limited twitter characters and so on. I really appreciate the few people who write even more than me on responses to my facebook or ebay messages. I'm actually pretty shocked when they do so

[saintegenevieve]

That's really neat that you'd write that. I've been writing since the 11th grade. My styles can range a lot, and in some ways, I think the technical style of college writing has either made me a worse writer or what I do, which is translate books, has been such an involved process of almost a decade that that, combined with not being able to read that much, has led me to being less verbal

Bret Hart's book might be the only wrestling one I read that has legitimately good writing. His inability to self reflect is amusing though, but the book reads like some kind of Shakespearean tragedy, even when he left that industry a solid millionaire in an era where no more than maybe a dozen people were making that kind of money. There are people from the early 80s who drew more than he did, on paper at least, who barely made into the six figures. 

American academia is probably the worst place to learn how to write since the language that it abuses depends on a false construct that's heavily ingrained enough that no one bothers to question it. It's almost a uniquely American tendency to couch ideas in a scientific language. You start off with a thesis statement to be defined in one sentence. Then you have three supporting paragraphs. The conclusion is rhetorically geared towards "objectivity," as if what you're writing is the definitive answer to the topic and not but a small contribution to the nexus of what's being discussed. You see the impact of this in the culture wars where whenever the establishment gets a new fixation, it's suddenly supported by "science," which is something you're supposed to believe in for whatever reason, when it's only a method of induction. 

It's like when Neil deGrasse Tyson says illiterate things like "I want Reason to be our guiding principle," as if this guy is still stuck in the 19th-Century, never once realizing that Reason can be instrumentalized towards anything. You can use "science" to justify eugenics or pedophilia. After all, if the institutions say so and so is the case, then who can debate them? American Liberalism, so I'm talking about both sides here, philosophically-speaking, will avoid these issues by using a type of utilitarianism seen by Jeremy Bentham, law, or using a No True Scotsman fallacy like "Eugenics isn't good science" (except they won't even say that much since science is never "bad" or "not good," but rather the politically disagreeable conclusions reached are matters of politicization by nefarious forces). What I'm getting at is no one really believes what Tyson pushes, even when so few question him after he says such ridiculous things. The system technocrats put a band-aid on its holes.

Budding writers run into problems because progressive thought is kind of boring. I'm saying that neutrally. Conceptual horizons can't be challenged by much when history becomes a conspiracy between Oppressor and Oppressed, and social justice issues become reduced to childish sloganeering, and now emotional blackmail "What if this was your child?" We're now at the point where we're practically making up identities just so we can say "First Congressman of [X and Y orientation and ethnicity] to represent the 3rd congressional district of Missouri." People can believe all of that stuff. I'm not here to impose a view or a bias. I just don't think such precepts inspire a great deal of imagination, which matters if someone wants to write fiction.

Best fiction book I ever read was Blood Meridian. It's violent to many. It wasn't really violent to me, since I had a violent life and I read a lot of true crime. Cormac McCarthy absolutely captured the insane tumult of the mid- 19th-Century. In fact, I had a pretty good idea about the book intuitively before reading it, since I read a lot of 19th-Century newspapers in a murder case I was researching for a few months done in 1899 California. That was a really violent time period. There were about 250,000 homicides annually were the numbers adjusted to today. Society was overwhelmingly male, few went to church (despite what evangelicals think), people got drunk, profit motives from petty heists to boom towns and mercenary outfits were abundant, poverty was stark, life was brief, and immigration from Irish Catholics inspired an upheaval from which the US has never recovered. It's the start of political nativism via the American Independence Party. Now, this is about concepts. You'll hear people say "Trump is Fascist" or "How could MAGA get power?" Neither view make much sense. American right wingers are modernists. Fascists aren't. American nativists have always been much more tied to feminism than people would think. That goes back 200 years. Add that nativists have always been a constant but their interests tended to merge with the establishment right. (Consider that "state's rights" became a rallying cry after World War II. That got incorporated into Movement Conservatism after George Wallace, another nativist, grabbed Rust Belt Catholics and the populist current of the Deep South. From there, after his defeat, you get Nixon-Reagan, and Nixon was better than Reagan anyway in every sense (in my opinion). 

It's hard to do fiction unless people are willing to challenge their conceptual horizons. It's the same as I advise budding actors in town. I tell them to read sociology, ethnic histories, religious bodies, history, and even anthropology. They never do because they think half of acting is your looks. Maybe for big money actors, but you can make a really good living if you can play characters

In the future, writers are going to struggle. The US has become a technocratic state where milquetoast "experts" are advising public policy. It's not a system that wants thinkers. It's a system that wants to reward those who pay homage to it. These people are good at defending the system until an emergency happens. Then they get paralyzed. Consider China prior to the First Opium War

Implications: few have a fluid education, careerism gets rewarded, so they can't or won't appreciate the good writers who do come around; wealth concentration leads to a technocracy pit of establishment writers, keeping out the outsiders; and anyone creative inspires enough envy that they either get blackballed or gaslit into conformity. The US establishment is becoming its own Forbidden City. Such breeds the worst vices from sloth to cowardice, indulgence to delusion

Writing and spirituality are equally linked. Technology alone is somewhat antithetical to doing either. It might make sense as to why de-urbanization has been the aggregate norm in history

I'll have a better idea next year about where my life will go. I'll finish my translation, which might really end up becoming the best ever done, and I'll have over 1,000 notes and proofs inside of the book.  I suspect a lot of offers will come since it sounds really poetic. Or not. It's always a matter of fighting the grain

My husband expressed to me today his wish that I write a book. Problem is that I'm very bombastic and rhetorical, etching my claims with facts, models, and condescension, like any good cultured thug does. Because of that, I'm not sure I'll get taken seriously, and that's unfortunate. You need to sound "objective" just because I guess sounding like you're objective makes what you say true. Liberalism and Platonism have a weird history, since they truly think they only the educated and the initiated are fulfilled humans 

In many ways, I would say there used to be a lot more freedom of thought back in the 19th-Century than anything we have now. 

[Grumpyoldman]

This site needs an enema.

[JC Motors]

Dec 12, 2022 14:05:18 GMT -5 Grumpyoldman said:

This site needs an enema.

[jason1980s]

I personally like reading thought provoking, engaging posts. In a world of texts and limited character tweets I like seeing posts like the one above. Her first week, maybe even day was when I was taking a train trip and super bored and I was on my phone reading her posts on the classics board and it kept me busy. I feel like reading has gone out the window. I doubt people even read the "signed" edition books places like barnes and noble put out to sell celebrity signed books-people just buy for the autograph.
Saintegenevieve is probably a bit too much for sites that really specialize in pictures and small talk. Someone like her should be focusing on doing books or blogs on wrestling stars rather than posting on a wrestling message boards.

[screech]

😴

[vampiroporvida]

I like to freeflow write, and do it as a catharsis, but when it comes to creative writing, I am less than horrible. Kudos to anyone that can do that artform, because it is not only a skill, but a gift. Words change lives; the written word changes whole worlds.

[TheSystem 1.5]

I frequently write responses to r/WritingPrompts on Reddit and I also do a fantasy fee and reviews from time to time. I’m awful but I quite enjoy it.

[secondwhiteline]

Being a professional writer and editor, I was excited to read this thread.

Turns out that was a mistake.

[jason1980s]

Dec 13, 2022 22:19:00 GMT -5 secondwhiteline said:

Being a professional writer and editor, I was excited to read this thread.

Turns out that was a mistake.

I am putting together a non fiction work I would like to potentially publish on Amazon. It will mostly be comprised of stories of people I knew and interviews with them. Other than interviews, the research material I need is from newspaper articles I collected on these subjects from a few years ago. I would like to do quotes from those. Even if I simply give credit to the newspaper and reporter in the paragraph text, would I still have to do a footnote or end note?

Also, if someone potentially named is not a public figure and I have no contact info to get their permission but at one point they were quoted by a newspaper reporter for an article, is that fair to put their name and a quote from them? Or would they have to go anonymous? They obviously gave their OK to the newspaper in question originally.

This is my first time trying to put together a non fiction work and I don't want to offend anyone, steal anyone's ideas without proper citation and don't want to hurt anyone's privacy-though most people could potentially be deceased.

[secondwhiteline]

Dec 15, 2022 9:46:12 GMT -5 jason1980s said:

Dec 13, 2022 22:19:00 GMT -5 secondwhiteline said:

Being a professional writer and editor, I was excited to read this thread.

Turns out that was a mistake.

I am putting together a non fiction work I would like to potentially publish on Amazon. It will mostly be comprised of stories of people I knew and interviews with them. Other than interviews, the research material I need is from newspaper articles I collected on these subjects from a few years ago. I would like to do quotes from those. Even if I simply give credit to the newspaper and reporter in the paragraph text, would I still have to do a footnote or end note?

Also, if someone potentially named is not a public figure and I have no contact info to get their permission but at one point they were quoted by a newspaper reporter for an article, is that fair to put their name and a quote from them? Or would they have to go anonymous? They obviously gave their OK to the newspaper in question originally.

This is my first time trying to put together a non fiction work and I don't want to offend anyone, steal anyone's ideas without proper citation and don't want to hurt anyone's privacy-though most people could potentially be deceased.

A few things:

1. I don't know what kind of work this is, but depending on the discipline, get yourself an MLA handbook or a subscription to the Chicago Manual of Style online; they'll answer a ton of questions like this.

2. I'm generally cool with being asked for style advice & rules, but you should know that there are professionals that might be rude about it. It's essentially asking for free labor, so just be cautious in how you approach that.

3. Click this link: on citing newspaper sources.

4. I don't think there's an ethical or privacy concern with citing a public quote made to a news source. They weren't speaking on conditions of anonymity.

[jason1980s]

Dec 15, 2022 12:33:26 GMT -5 secondwhiteline said:

A few things:

1. I don't know what kind of work this is, but depending on the discipline, get yourself an MLA handbook or a subscription to the Chicago Manual of Style online; they'll answer a ton of questions like this.

2. I'm generally cool with being asked for style advice & rules, but you should know that there are professionals that might be rude about it. It's essentially asking for free labor, so just be cautious in how you approach that.

3. Click this link: on citing newspaper sources.

4. I don't think there's an ethical or privacy concern with citing a public quote made to a news source. They weren't speaking on conditions of anonymity.

[/quote]


Thanks so much, that is all very helpful. A huge help for sure. This idea of mine is something that really excites me so I want to do it right, really for the other people who will be profiled.

[saintegenevieve]

Dec 12, 2022 23:48:30 GMT -5 jason1980s said:

I personally like reading thought provoking, engaging posts. In a world of texts and limited character tweets I like seeing posts like the one above. Her first week, maybe even day was when I was taking a train trip and super bored and I was on my phone reading her posts on the classics board and it kept me busy. I feel like reading has gone out the window. I doubt people even read the "signed" edition books places like barnes and noble put out to sell celebrity signed books-people just buy for the autograph.
Saintegenevieve is probably a bit too much for sites that really specialize in pictures and small talk. Someone like her should be focusing on doing books or blogs on wrestling stars rather than posting on a wrestling message boards.

That's really nice of you.

I have considered doing a book on the history of the World Wrestling Federation from 1984-2001, and the mentality that changed from it. I think it would help the industry out a lot if people wanted it. Problem is WWE makes so much money from shareholders that it far eclipses anything they could have done in the 80s and 90s even if they wrote Oscar-level content (not that I think that's possible in wrestling - Nash isn't wrong when he says that).

Issue are a few:
1. I'm not part of smark culture. In a lot of ways, I'm a total outsider

2. I don't doubt WWF keeps Catholic-level detail of their records. I also don't think I would ever be given access to what I would want

3. I don't think McMahon is interested

Point 3 is important and overlooked. I'm reminded of when Donald Rumsfeld was asked if he consulted historians in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq or even during it. Rumsfled scoffed: "Real leaders don't think that way." He's not really wrong, despite what technocrats would like reality to be. Business, like politics, is driven by instinct, impulse, and group think. They don't function like an AI robot embedded in a purview of rationality

Lack of access wouldn't necessarily kill the project, but I think it would require a lot of speculation and third hand information on gate receipts from when Minnesota, for example, got invaded around 1986. In some ways, that would be the greatest incentive to me. What's the point if I'm going to have to plod through Wrestling Observers that don't interest me?

I generally don't think why the WWF machine, those behind key decisions, what kind of talent gets over are great mysteries. In fact, it's almost too predictable with how the company used to work as a business model.

[saintegenevieve]

Dec 12, 2022 23:48:30 GMT -5 jason1980s said:

I personally like reading thought provoking, engaging posts. In a world of texts and limited character tweets I like seeing posts like the one above. Her first week, maybe even day was when I was taking a train trip and super bored and I was on my phone reading her posts on the classics board and it kept me busy. I feel like reading has gone out the window. I doubt people even read the "signed" edition books places like barnes and noble put out to sell celebrity signed books-people just buy for the autograph.
Saintegenevieve is probably a bit too much for sites that really specialize in pictures and small talk. Someone like her should be focusing on doing books or blogs on wrestling stars rather than posting on a wrestling message boards.

Also, I work on other topics. It's just a translation book but the notes delve heavily into philology. I'll see from there where I go. I don't think I'd want to blog about wrestling mainly because its audience has a disproportionate number of social undesirables and I don't think the culture is ripe for anything thoughtful. Not all are like that, but a lot are. I tend not to like that kind of drama. See Stalker Screech as but one example

[saintegenevieve]

Dec 13, 2022 22:19:00 GMT -5 secondwhiteline said:

Being a professional writer and editor, I was excited to read this thread.

Turns out that was a mistake.

That's not the burn that you think it is. The average "professional writer" is nothing more than a bougie midwit striver wanting to be part of the chattering class in which they are not born and bred. Add in the sexual hangups and that they think a loser like David Frum is the mark of a thinker, I'll stick with a more fringe circle of people than with such insufferable sycophants. It's not like my husband doesn't make enough money anyway where I'd need such people in my life.

[Slaughterama]

I do enjoy putting words together and improving my syntax. Whilst I probably do speak a lot like I write, as I talk kind of slowly IRL and try to pick my words with some care, writing allows us to be even more careful. I’ve wrestled with the idea of writing books or at least a book. I just of feel like.. Who would want to read it? Especially these days. I still buy books, but on the whole I would say they’re mostly a thing of the past.

[saintegenevieve]

Dec 28, 2022 17:41:23 GMT -5 Slaughterama said:

I do enjoy putting words together and improving my syntax. Whilst I probably do speak a lot like I write, as I talk kind of slowly IRL and try to pick my words with some care, writing allows us to be even more careful. I’ve wrestled with the idea of writing books or at least a book. I just of feel like.. Who would want to read it? Especially these days. I still buy books, but on the whole I would say they’re mostly a thing of the past.

Consequentialist thought should figure less than they should. You never know who would want to read your book or not. I guess I don't care either way since I'm intent on a Last Stand if that's where things are to go.

That books are speculated as a thing of the past is to be expected. Society is moving more towards boastful illiteracy, nerd culture obsessed with trivia and debating their pet topics like Talmudic rabbis, and tastes within the lower PMC are meant to appease others for political reasons as much as they're to mitigate their own social alienation. It's gluttonous and hedonistic. Best I can do is crush the self esteem of others and continue my work in my counterculture. The Just and the Pious will always win, because reality pushes back on the Fallen.

[Slaughterama]

Dec 28, 2022 22:36:42 GMT -5 saintegenevieve said:

Dec 28, 2022 17:41:23 GMT -5 Slaughterama said:

I do enjoy putting words together and improving my syntax. Whilst I probably do speak a lot like I write, as I talk kind of slowly IRL and try to pick my words with some care, writing allows us to be even more careful. I’ve wrestled with the idea of writing books or at least a book. I just of feel like.. Who would want to read it? Especially these days. I still buy books, but on the whole I would say they’re mostly a thing of the past.

Consequentialist thought should figure less than they should. You never know who would want to read your book or not. I guess I don't care either way since I'm intent on a Last Stand if that's where things are to go.

That books are speculated as a thing of the past is to be expected. Society is moving more towards boastful illiteracy, nerd culture obsessed with trivia and debating their pet topics like Talmudic rabbis, and tastes within the lower PMC are meant to appease others for political reasons as much as they're to mitigate their own social alienation. It's gluttonous and hedonistic. Best I can do is crush the self esteem of others and continue my work in my counterculture. The Just and the Pious will always win, because reality pushes back on the Fallen.

I would like to journal something that touches on absurdism, dudeism, remaining impartial. Dr. LaVey opened my mind up on gluttony and hedonism. Indulgence is okay as eventually life brings balance back to life and we often find balance in imbalance. 

[Mr Angry Cena]

I quite enjoy the textual musings displayed here, right here, on the Wfigs forum. 👍🏻

[saintegenevieve]

Dec 29, 2022 4:53:40 GMT -5 Slaughterama said:

Dec 28, 2022 22:36:42 GMT -5 saintegenevieve said:

Consequentialist thought should figure less than they should. You never know who would want to read your book or not. I guess I don't care either way since I'm intent on a Last Stand if that's where things are to go.

That books are speculated as a thing of the past is to be expected. Society is moving more towards boastful illiteracy, nerd culture obsessed with trivia and debating their pet topics like Talmudic rabbis, and tastes within the lower PMC are meant to appease others for political reasons as much as they're to mitigate their own social alienation. It's gluttonous and hedonistic. Best I can do is crush the self esteem of others and continue my work in my counterculture. The Just and the Pious will always win, because reality pushes back on the Fallen.

I would like to journal something that touches on absurdism, dudeism, remaining impartial. Dr. LaVey opened my mind up on gluttony and hedonism. Indulgence is okay as eventually life brings balance back to life and we often find balance in imbalance. 

Gluttony isn't the edgy thing that you think it might be. That's the temptation

In real terms, gluttony has been a culture sucker. Film is largely trash these days since every Type II Diabetic wants to see explosions. Wrestlers are largely incapable of getting heat because every low caste nerd obsessed with high spots will jeer anything that is cool. Music sounds like it comes out of Hell's waiting room. Kids are having more sexual partners than ever before and seem more lonely than ever. There's a great relationship between gluttony and sloth, both feeding into the other.

I'm genuinely struck by how good film was in the 70's. Signs of that period still would abound decreasing into the 80's. I have difficulty reading modern books since they're often written for someone with a form of mental retardation. What grown person can't read sentences longer than 12 words? Political discourse is a bit better than it was 8 years ago, but barely so, which is remarkable given how much the Overton Window has shifted since. I'd almost swear that a massive eugenics project happened in secrecy to explain why people have become so dim-witted, except the answers to those questions are never that easy.

I don't want to move to nostalgia so much. In watching an Oprah episode recently on the Last Temptation of Christ, you can tell that Boomers are losers. When they try to pwn someone in debates, they cite Hitler (Evilism) and MLK (Goodism) in terms of diametrical counterfactuals. It's the kind of talk that bar midwits do. I suppose the difference between then and now is top-down cultural wasn't so driven by low quality people unlike today, where way too many go to college for no reason other than to delay adulthood, and the rest has been corporatized via PR firms and focus groups, all appealing to the lowest common denominator. Irony is that those most "anti-woke" set the stage for the culture that they whine about now since they wanted all things public relegated to the private sphere

This has had a huge impact in academia as well - a point often discussed by my friends and me.