Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

That's why I dropped my social media 6 months ago.

Social media is just a tool, and like all tools, mileage gained depends on how you use it. Twitter, I have no time for, it's of no use to me (too narcissistic), Facebook on the other hand, is really good for co-ordinating and keeping in touch with family members around the world and co-ordinating work projects. I do have visibility split into two though. Personal and work, and never the twain shall meet.

For instance, I can take a picture of a construction site, have visibility marked only for work contacts and they can say, "I'm putting services across yadda" and someone will come on and say "If you are doing that, then I need access at this point to do nadda..." And one picture everyone can see, will in effect, co-ordinate itself, removing the need for everyone to attend a meeting on site, and more importantly removing the need for (in reality) wasteful transit time to and from a site which for most, would be at least a day wasted.

Family wise, it allows me to keep tabs on older members who are many miles away via Facetime and I can see how they look, how they sound, how they are moving and make a more practical assessment as to how 'I'm fine, I'm good' they say they are. All without appearing too 'mothering'.

Well, I understand that Americans have a weird way of it, but even then I believe those who think they're not into politics are effectively self-delusional.

I have an MC who insists he is apolitical and is regularly schooled on the fact that EVERYTHING is political.

Yes, but... the original poster's point is a good one. There's screed/rant and there's art. One can lecture or one can show.

The rants get old fast and are not persuasive. Art can be.

One of the most influential books in my life is Orwell's 1984. Political? Hell, yeah. But done through showing rather than ranting.

Yes, but... the original poster's point is a good one. There's screed/rant and there's art. One can lecture or one can show.

I wasn't disputing that; I was commenting on the idea that anyone could actually be apolitical throughout their entire existence.

Wouldn't claiming to be apolitical be in itself a political statement?

Absolutely. He's called out on THAT, too! :-)

Absolutely anything and everything anyone is ever written or said is political propaganda in some way

Isn't that a literary version of anthropomorphic personification?

Yes, I agree with you that some works are deliberate political propaganda in some way, George Orwell's Animal Farm for instance. But to state that all written work is political? That the adventures of Blyton's Famous Five are political propaganda? That sounds to me like personification, where a reader is attributing something as being something else because that's how they perceive it, rather than how it actually is. A mixture of positive bias and perceivement (ie I like fish so everyone else must like fish as well).

One thing humans are good at, is overthinking. Ie, that girl really likes that man and likes being with him, so she must want to sleep with him, as opposed to, she just actually likes him platonically and likes being around him.

Of course, no spy movie/book would be seen dead without making some outrageous intellectual leap of faith over how some politician is going to vote in an upcoming vote because they had three eggs that morning. When most likely, that politician just fancied three eggs that morning.

EDIT:

A mixture of positive bias and perceivement

Correction. This is wrong, what I meant, and should have typed instead of 'positive', was 'conformational'.

Would you think of Rambo: first blood part 2, as a political movie?

It's an action movie with a political theme.

"First Blood," the novel not the movie, is about the generational conflict between the Korean War generation (the sheriff) and the Viet Nam generation (Rambo). In the book, the conflict was so great that both died at the end.

A good example of this is the film Star Wars, when you understand that Lucas wrote the Empire to be a representation of America's and it's Foreign Polices of the time.

Would you think of Rambo: first blood part 2, as a political movie?

I've never, ever, seen Star Wars as a representation of America's foreign policies. I have seen it as a Western copy of Hidden Fortress, manipulated so as to be understood by Western audiences, because a lot of the nuance of the original is lost on the majority of us. But that's it.

It's been so long since I have seen First Blood part 2, that I couldn't even tell you the plot.

I don't know. It's an interesting topic, as some writers and directors make films and books whose allegory, quite frankly, goes so far over the heads of those reading/watching that it's a hazard to commercial aircraft.

I also wonder how much is people seeing signs where signs do not exist. Like I mentioned earlier. I've heard and read that Bruce in the film Jaws is an allegory for capitalism. I don't see it myself. I see Bruce as simply a more controllable and safer version of using the real thing. But humans have been doing it since they could talk. "Oh look! Three geese flying overhead! That means there will be no commercials on TV tonight!"

The stars/director and some individuals will praise for hours the meaning of the film 'Mother!' I just see it as a really, really bad film with no redeeming qualities what-so-ever. But some love it, so, well, yeah...

You are probably right. Maybe I don't see any meaning in Blyton's books because I could be too close to the source material.

Just had a thought. I have seen many comedy programmes on TV over the years, where the sketch is a group of people waxing lyrical and long over the meaning of the object in front of them, and how it is the personification of X,Y and Z. Only for the punchline to be, that it's the security guards lunch, or the cleaners cart... The sketches are possibly a sly existential dig at the preposterousness of 'modern art' and the mentality of those who can create a whole societal methodology from the equivalent of a sparrows fart.

In fact, I think there was something in the news recently about builders deliberately leaving rubbish behind in a European art gallery after they had finished work and it was there for months because everyone (staff included) thought it was an exhibit.... Or was it a work-boot? I can't remember the exact details now. At least it makes a change from cleaners throwing out 'exhibits' because they thought they were, quite literally, trash.

I also wonder how much is people seeing signs where signs do not exist.

I have a real life example of that. I have a friend who is an artist. He mostly paints horses and people, but he also does abstracts. I was at a party in his backyard and went up to a bunch of people looking at one of his abstracts hanging on his patio wall. They were each explaining the "meaning" behind the abstract.

Well, when the artist came outside, I asked him. He said when the painting was inside the house it was hung landscape (wider than taller), but it fit better in the outside area by turning it 90 degrees (portrait). No meaning at all. Simply an abstract.

Exactly.

It's a weird thing that we all do, overcomplicating things. Like seeing a face in the moon etc etc. I sometimes wonder if that's how religion got started. That and the extreme difficulty we have as a race to take responsibility for our actions. "God told me to do it..." "It's the will of god", "I'm doing Gods will." It's always someone else's fault other than our own.

Precisely. Everyone has their own values, and while it's best not to rant about it, pretending you don't is often just as offensive. Thus it's better to own your personal biases, as those presumptions typically define WHO you are.

While no one hates someone who's purposely offensive, no one likes a milktoast either.

I definitely agree with that. We may strive to be impartial, yet the world rarely stands for anyone who's supposedly apolitical, as it seems to be a personal affront to them.

Thus I don't state my political views, as like my love life, that's personal and not anyone else's interest, yet being apolitical will often draw more ire than ANY political stance will.

Therefore, I also don't attempt to hide my personal views either, and thus when I create characters, their own views are a part of their characters. After all, how can you describe a central protagonist who simply doesn't care enough to not have personal opinions on anything. That's the kind of boring, nondescript character NO ONE wants to read about!

Just as it makes no sense being a political lightning rod, nor does it make sense to avoid ALL personal view, either yours, or your many characters, as they each have their own views across a number of fronts. That's where the drama is stories come from, their competing viewpoints and different perspectives.

Its like on literotica, alot of "authors" have been going back through their collections and editing just about everything into gay/trans charecters.

Which is probably a major reason I have not been active there in about two decades.

And one thing I refuse to do ever is go back and "change" a story just to please others. That to me is simply pandering, and I find the very idea of that to be disgusting. I am very much one that write what I write, and others are free to like or not like it. Do not like it, that is your problem and not mine.

And I think some might think otherwise when reading some of my stories. One set in the 1980s in LA had a couple of gay characters. However, I lived there in that time and did have gay friends that made no attempt to hide that.

And it is only recently that I realized that one of my main series all revolved around minorities. But that was never actually intended, I simply loved the dichotomy in the first book that the "big Black bad-ass" was in reality a petite Jewish girl. And that the kick-ass Chinese Warrior-Woman was actually blind. The third of those main characters was Hispanic, but that was mostly as back-story and he would identify himself more as a "Veteran" than as a "Latino".

Plus as so many of my stories are essentially set in California, I am simply capturing the diversity of that state. Where even going to High School there 40 years ago was like stepping into the UN. With a diversity that would shock most in other parts of the country.

Mostly seen in the woke/liberal tribe members.

Or Hollywood. Look at the criteria for being eligible for the Best Picture Oscar.

Films must complete a confidential Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry form (RAISE) that meets two of four standards in order to be eligible to be nominated:

Standard A: On-Screen Representation, Themes, and Narratives (Must complete one):
- One of the lead actors or "significant supporting actors" is from an underrated racial or ethnic group.
- At least 30% of actors in minor roles are from at least two underrepresented groups, including: women, racial or ethnic group, LGBTQ+, the disabled.
- The main storyline, theme or narrative of the film is centered on at least one of the four aforementioned underrepresented groups.

Standard B: Creative Leadership and Project Team (Must complete one):
- At least two of the following positions — Casting Director, Cinematographer, Composer, Costume Designer, Director, Editor, Hairstylist, Makeup Artist, Producer, Production Designer, Set Decorator, Sound, VFX Supervisor, Writer — must be from one of the four underrepresented groups, and at least one must be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
- At least six other crew/team members (excluding PAs) must be from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.
- At least 30% of the film's crew is from one of the four underrepresented groups.

Standard C: Industry Access and Opportunities (Must complete one):
- Film has at least two apprentices/interns from one of the four underrepresented groups (including one from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group) in production/development, physical production, post-production, music, VFX, acquisitions, business affairs, distribution, marketing, and publicity.
- Film's production, distribution or financing company provides training/work opportunities to people from one of the four underrepresented groups.

Standard D: Audience Development
- Studio or film company has at least two "in-house senior executives" on their creative and development, marketing, publicity, and/or distribution teams from one of the four underrepresented groups, and at least one from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.

All of which is why I very rarely take the initiative to go see a movie.

That could be more about streaming.

But it may be why there aren't great movies anymore. Is it really the movie you want to tell, or are you writing a movie that makes it eligible to be nominated for Best Picture?

I'm not saying a great movie can't meet the criteria. I'm saying forcing a movie to meet the criteria may have a negative impact.

But it may be why there aren't great movies anymore. Is it really the movie you want to tell, or are you writing a movie that makes it eligible to be nominated for Best Picture?

This is actually nothing new at all. There are a great many movies that won "Best Picture", primarily because it checked off boxes in the "artistic" areas. Movies like The Last Emperor, Shakespeare in Love, The Greatest Show on Earth, and Around the World in 80 Days come to mind there.

But increasingly lately it is about their racial demographics, like Green Book. I actually was intrigued by the last, and the cast impressed me. But I could not stand to watch more than about twenty minutes of it. If I wanted that kind of movie, I would just watch Driving Miss Daisy again.

I loved "Green Book."

But I'm white. The complaints were from the WOKE crowd who said stuff like, "Yeah right, a white guy teaches a black guy how to eat fried chicken?"

Films must complete a confidential Representation and Inclusion Standards Entry form (RAISE) that meets two of four standards in order to be eligible to be nominated:

Which, by its very existence, is both racist and discriminatory. How those in charge (or it's creators) don't see the irony....

Which, by its very existence, is both racist and discriminatory. How those in charge (or it's creators) don't see the irony....

The logic is that you cannot be racist against a white male.

Its like on literotica, alot of "authors" have been going back through their collections and editing just about everything into gay/trans charecters.

Its at a point that most of it is unreadable. I think in the last week, i have hit 20 random stories in the "latest of the week", and only 3 did were not lessons in "the glory that is gay and trans"

Sorry, but in most cases, that simply a case of those gay, lesbian and trans characters wanting to write about their personal experiences, rather than some 'Commie liberal' trying to SELL their lates efforts to save the world from itself (the 'Great White' savior syndrome).

In those cases, the more voices we're exposed to, the better, as we've never been only one KIND of people, and everyone brings their now biases and perspectives with them. And if they happen to piss you off, then just don't read them, as it's no skin off their backs is someone disapproving of their very existence doesn't personally attack them.

The more voices at a table, the more reading options, whereas if we limit who's allowed to post stores, we ALL lose something vital. So read a work, or don't read it, just don't belabor the point.

I don't personally enjoy gay porn, simply because I'm NOT gay, that doesn't mean I want to ban every single gay-themed story or author, it just aint' my particular cup of tea, just as I'm not particular font of English teas, preferring coffee instead.

To each their own, as diversity makes us all richer, providing a rich, dynamic view of everyone's interests. And just as there's no need to accept every view, there's also no need to viciously attack them either, as it's JUST another view, nothing more and nothing less.

I did look in your stories for this, but couldn't find it. I guess it's a story you haven't posted yet.

That's right, the book isn't finished yet. I don't post here until the books is complete and has a bit of time at the Rain Forest retailer and Bookapy. I'm hoping it will be done by the summer.

You may to be trying to avoid sounding like a rant, but I think this sentence makes it pretty clear what your opinion is.

But this isn't the text of the novel, is it? This is a discussion forum. So why would I hide my opinion here? What I hope I've been able to do in the novel is add enough dissent from other characters to make it at worst ambiguous what the author thinks. Have I pulled it off? I don't know. Guess we'll see in the summer.