I belong to an online writer’s critique group, Scribophile.com. It’s a fantastic site in my opinion. I wouldn’t be making the progress I’m making with my writing with out it.
*That’s hoping I actually am making progress*
But, like anywhere else there are some problems, but they are the problems you regularly encounter when you get a group of human together in any place and give them a place to speak their minds.
*Let’s hear it for Aliens and hope they have open minds 🙂 *
A common occurrence in the Forums (where we go to speak our minds) it regularly erupts in open hostile debate a often, outright war. Of course, some of the worst offender’s are those that enjoy conflict, you learn who they are pretty quick and avoid them like the plague they are.
(A pox on their threads)
But some people are just passionate, absolutely sure of their stance and it’s validity.
So, what are these wars about?
Religion and Politics are out, discussions of same are strictly prohibited by the Code of Conduct. What? You may ask, that’s censorship.
Well look at it this way. What have all the war’s throughout history been fought for?
Politics and Religion.
Especially as this in a site with international participation.
Yeah, I agree, let’s leave those two out, just better that way.
So, what are all the fight about if you can’t talk about politics and religion?
Well, as writers it should be obvious, writing.
- What are the rules of writing? Should they be followed scrupulously? iF you can actually agree on them, or should they be ignored at all costs?
- show VS tell- should you show the reader through Character action what is happening in the story or should you tell the reader using what amounts to narrative? (it’s a bloody on going battle)
- Death to those who used adverbs (really, some will kill you for using an adverb)
- Point of view, who is telling this story and weather we hear their thought and when? (just a deadly)
In reality it can be any subject that someone thinks then empirically know the answer to.
Well, I can guarantee someone disagrees and has just as much evidence (usually a well established many times published, Rich, Author).
Then there are those who disagree with both, stating you can’t go by what an established Author does as they have paid there dues and can bend or break the rules.
Well, I take the stand that I don’t know the rules and I’m willing to learn. But, learning on a peer site had to be a learning of collaboration.
Mostly it’s a case of “too many Chiefs not enough Indians” every body wants to teach their way, without taking into account, they may not know what they think they know.
Sometimes it’s more important to know what you don’t know.
A teacher and I don’t know who, once said. “the hardest lessons I ever learned, I learned from my students”
I take this to mean even children in a classroom can learn collaboratively, and we teach the most when we try to learn.
So, I’m going to learn like a child, and teach so I can learn, and learn so I can teach.