|
Hmm
Apr 2, 2008 3:03:46 GMT -5
Post by Oliveman on Apr 2, 2008 3:03:46 GMT -5
Ok, let's take the discussion about misdirection to this thread. There has been a month since the last post, and I've had time to think about things.
I think we have a problem with establishing a specific motivation for being a part of our group. This is not our only problem, of course.
This website is stiffling. It is a message board, and not suited for the dynamic we want to eventually stimulate. What we're trying to accomplish needs both many opinions and the ability to share those opinions. While a forum is a good place for a large group, the ability to share, the lag of a forum format is similar, even worse than, e-mail, and as that lag and distance increases, so does the ability to have depth to a conversation developed by multiple viewpoints that are not static, but back up their points and investigate together. You know what I'm talking about - an intimate discussion with a friend is far more rewarding and enlightening.
So what are we to do? One thing would be to remake the website, hire professional programers to craft exactly what we wanted, get our selves our own url, and blossom after many resources have been invested there. I have ideas down that road, but let's leave those in reserve for now.
We could have more staged discussions over instant messanger applications. But if all they ever are is me inviting those involved who I see online into a conversation, then it is limited by when I am on, and I am trying the patience of those people I invite, those who start asking "what's the point of this?" or are bugged that I invited them in the first place.
The point, by the way, has always been to change the world. To be a force of good, reason, truth, and one to be reckoned with. But the question has always been how to do it, and how to not waste people's time with its realization and operation.
My most carefully considered solution, however, is to start small. Know we are hindered. Know we want to do more. But take what people we have, and do something worth doing. We do, after all, have incredible potential in each one of us. So why shouldn't we ask what potential we have in five of us? and when more join - 10? 50? 100? 100,000?
But the etherial wish for change is nothing without something to change. What will we concentrate on? We have to agree on something, and to be responsible, more than any hired person in the world, more than any volenteer, for its change, and the realization of a solution.
The fact that we all write should be secondary to our desire to act for change. I have no doubt there is some comradery in collective outrage and effort against impossible odds. I think it would only be natural support each other in our endevours, then, to help each other be the best we can be.
I'm not going to restrict anyone from talking about problems we could concentrate on in another thread, although I'd like to hear your ideas on all I had to say, not just that.
|
|
afs
Full Member
Posts: 135
|
Hmm
Apr 4, 2008 23:59:59 GMT -5
Post by afs on Apr 4, 2008 23:59:59 GMT -5
The point, by the way, has always been to change the world. To be a force of good, reason, truth, and one to be reckoned with. And this is where you lose me, time and time again. You start a writer's forum. I join. You say you want a sense of community. I nod. You say you want to change the world. I laugh. I'm sure this is going to be one of those things people take offense to, but this ill-organized mish-mash motley crew of anonymous on-line forum subscribers has about as much chance of changing the world (or, to go one further- being noticed by ANYONE) as they do of turning the sun off. Particularly when there really isn't any goal other than "change the world." That's all well and good, but you have to deal with a little thing called reality- where nobody gives a damn who you- or me, or any of us- are, or what we have to say (especially when all we seem to have to say is "we're going to change the world.") I look forward to picking up the copy of Times that has this forum displayed prominently on the cover, and reading about how ANYTHING has been effected by a group of INTERNET writers (the same group who can't seem to fill one forum.) Now, ban me if you want, and take as much offense as this as I'm sure you will. I don't give a damn anymore. This whole thing is laughable, but it makes me sad to think that you're missing the irony. Unless, of course, you see it.
|
|
|
Hmm
Apr 9, 2008 1:54:44 GMT -5
Post by Oliveman on Apr 9, 2008 1:54:44 GMT -5
No, of course I see your point. "Change the world" is a very outrageous thing to say, and at this point quite laughable. But anyone can contribute change in many ways- even a single person has tremendous power, and always has. When we have nothing to stand by except the wish that we might change the world, then yes, it will be impossible. We can't live in a warped reality, after all, and decieve ourselves. But we cannot allow ourselves to be decieved either by the lure of inaction, which is quite strong.
I think we must commit ourselves to finding which actions are appropriate and worth our time.
As writers, for instance, as we're always looking to conquer what might be cliche or done before, ask - what things, which concepts, are underreckognized, and need to be emphasized, in the vast history of literature? Not just "where will I make my mark?" but "which mark must be made?" And after that question is asked, the resolve to do it follows. Even if you are a writer because you have nothing else to do with your time, ask then "how will I use this time most wisely?"
One clear insight can free the world. That one-ness, that singularity of action versus the collective result is what we are looking for.
Yes, this does mean if we are to make a change as writers we must be read, reach a wide audience (or wide enough to affect perception), and speak something worth listening to. But this is a task we cannot ignore.
However, there are otherways to cause influence, but that's not all we have to find. We must find reasons to commit ourselves to change, whatever that change might be.
Think about it this way: if you are a writer to tell the truth of things, what truths have not been properly told? if you are a writer to entertain, how have people not been entertained properly by the writers who are out there? if you are a writer to be famous (I won't shun that viewpoint outright, maybe some are)- why, and how will you connect to your readers?
If we can harness the power of our collective discoveries, we will not only help each other as writers, but help each other to cause change in the world. Yes, "change the world" - the footprint of even one person can make a mark. In fact, I should really say "change the world in a way we would like to, in a positive way", since we all have changed the world through our presense in it.
We do not have to convince anyone that we have the capability of doing something. No one, that is, but ourselves. Then, in taking action, the world will know one way or the other.
|
|
|
Hmm
Apr 9, 2008 9:35:13 GMT -5
Post by kamikaze189 on Apr 9, 2008 9:35:13 GMT -5
Since AFS brought my attention back to this place, I'll give the closest thing to "changing the world" I've seen -- but I'd like you (Oliveman and possible co.) to name your closest/best example.
Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, and Christopher Hitchens have all written books about religion and god, basically arguing the position that there isn't proof or evidence to support the hypothesis of god, religion is harmful, and so on. The arguments are well made but perhaps could be improved. Yet these four authors' books have accomplished what I would say is only one thing. They've gotten the atheists to be more outspoken. In that way, they have changed the world.
But will that really have much effect in the long run? Probably not. On Dawkins' website, the users are keeping track of what they call "fleas" -- these are theist authors who have published books to counter Dawkins' book. Right now, he has about thirty counter-books to his one.
In addition to the obvious problem of resistance to change, less than ten percent of the American populace actually reads. I mean with regularity. People who go out and buy books. Compare the number to the amount of people who watch movies -- that's about all of us with few exceptions. So even to get a bestseller, you don't even need that many readers. And even if you do get a bestseller, you will not have directly reached a quarter of the population. Now, I'll grant that the number of people who read books is greater in other countries besides the U.S., but I can't imagine that it is remarkably higher.
Writing is not going to change the world, most likely, but what about the other arts? What about music? You run into the same problem of reaching people. Popular music is popular because it sounds good. The content hardly matters, as a simple listen to "This Is Why I'm Hot" will reveal. Or any Britney Spears song. Or country song, probably.
If you want change then I suppose the best way to do it is to make some friends with influence already. Learn, if you don't already know, how to give a good speech. Get on talk shows, give your speeches, tell people how fucked up they are, and try to change the world. You'd reach more people and would therefore likely have more influence. Make any writing you have short, concise, and on a website for free -- the book reading crowd is small.
My two cents.
|
|
afs
Full Member
Posts: 135
|
Hmm
Apr 10, 2008 14:01:09 GMT -5
Post by afs on Apr 10, 2008 14:01:09 GMT -5
...tell people how fucked up they are, and try to change the world. You'd reach more people and would therefore likely have more influence. That would have more of an impact. Too bad we can't actually DO that, lest we offend people. Olive, you have this bizarre gift for double-speak. You can go on for paragraphs and not really say anything. I'm not insulting you, but it always sounds like you're tap dancing around what you mean. For my sake, after you've typed what you want to say, sum it all up in a paragraph no more than twenty words. OK. You said "We're going to change the world," I said, "How so?" You said "Write and basically rely on chaos theory," so now I say, "To what end?" Why leave a mark as a group? What is this going to accomplish? You've set an astounding goal (unaccomplishable, in my book, considering your politically correct drives have left you here alone with the two members who seem to ride against the grain of this whole shebang). But, let's say this goal is somewhat realized in any way. So? You've been read by John Q. Public. As writers, shouldn't that be your goal to begin with? Just to get published? I wouldn't start a political party and say that our goal is to get published. Why start a writer's group and have political goals? Unless of course it's a political writer's group. Which this one really isn't. In closing, I guess what I'm saying is what I've been saying this whole time: You're glib, if that's the word I'm looking for. These aspirations seem hollow and ridiculously overambitious. You've alienated your members (not to your discredit; they helped drive that nail) and now are left with what only appears to be a failed attempt at a delusion of grandeur. You want to start a writer's forum, let me know. Back when I thought this was one, if you remember, I wrote quite a bit- more than any other member, at the time (I'm not referring to my constant defense of the accusations that I was putting down another member (an accusation I still maintain was never quoted in context) but of fiction I put to this board, and subsequently deleted upon my departure.) I came here, like most others, I'm guessing, because I wanted to write. But most- it seemed- were too scared- or in my case, too impatient of- the fascist mindset this board was so quick to uphold.
|
|
|
Hmm
Apr 10, 2008 14:06:22 GMT -5
Post by Oliveman on Apr 10, 2008 14:06:22 GMT -5
Yes, much of popular music means very little, but I found something extraordinary in the past few days. The singer Sara Bareilles has become enormously popular due to her hit "Love Song". I've listened to it and much of her music, and have to say that it is EXACTLY what is needed - it is truthful, hopeful, pertinent, and contradictory (in that it calls attention to its meaning). On top of that, it is good singing. People don't just listen to what sounds good, though of course they listen to that. They also listen to what resonates with their souls, their spirit on the most basic level. Just one voice to clear space for an collective anxiety too deep, too painful to name can make all the difference in the world. I made sure to send a personal message over youtube to Sara (she has her own youtube page, and is very humble), thanking her for what she's doing, and to keep it up. We are not the only ones in this fight, whatever the nature of it is, after all - some are already out there fighting it, and we should lend them our support, where we can. As for books, there is a small portion of books nowadays that are bold enough, or connect with the reader well enough, that they catch on, or get on the news for being contrivercial, and so on. Become part of the public consciousness. Even books that reach a smaller audience, though, and are not turned into movies or featured on some talk show cause some effect - a pebble in a lake, perhaps, that may just affect one person in every few communities. But that effect of what is true, what connects with just one person and makes them remember your words, your story, allows for the ripple to start. They will share, even if through actions, even if through their demeanor towards others or the ways they teach their children, they will share what they have gained from your writing. We must never feel that writing is futile. There are many things it is, but for the serious writing, futile, it isn't. Of course, the point you bring up about web writing is good too - for non-fiction, for blogging. Too often today people don't take the effort to create a book worth of being published by traditional means, of being picked up and treasured. I have looked over books on Lulu and the like, where people make some effort, but, not taking effort enough, don't write to have something they can believe in, in the end. Quality is important, all the elements of it. In my opinion, we cannot take our task seriously enough, and can never learn so much about our art so that we need to learn no more. We can always look to other venues for the ability to change, but we cannot let that diminish our own. Indeed, even writers can have a chance at these other venues. Words are not just a part of novels, but scripts for movies and plays, the words of songs and poetry, and all the issues we can address directly through non-fiction. Yes, we have a greater opprotunity than you may think. btw, here are the links to two of Sara Bareille's songs: Love Song - youtube.com/watch?v=MR5xv3pt7KI&feature=relatedVegas (about dreams) - youtube.com/watch?v=PYNMcAqaOx4
|
|
|
Hmm
Apr 10, 2008 15:33:23 GMT -5
Post by kamikaze189 on Apr 10, 2008 15:33:23 GMT -5
Your post reminds me of the tale about the two people walking down the beach and there are a whole bunch of starfish that are on the shore. One of them throws some of the starfish back into the ocean. The other asks him what he's doing since there's no way he will change the course of nature. And the one doing the throwing says that it makes a world of difference to the ones he throws back in, though not in the big picture.
The hypothetical goal of "changing the world" is like the guy who mentions changing the course of nature. You won't be able to do it unless you have a lot of people's attention.
You seem to have backed away from this in your last post, talking about "a pebble in a lake" which is more like the more realistic throwing of a few starfish back into the ocean.
That said, I'd like to know what change we're aiming for? I could throw some out there that I'd like to see, but I have little hope that writing anything -- no matter how grand -- would "change the world".
Oh, actually, I did just now think of a few better examples of writing that changed the world. Thomas Paine's writing was very important to get support for the Revolutionary War, though the impression I got from my history classes was that it accomplished this by playing into people's prejudices. He was sort of "in the right place, at the right time" so to say.
And then if you look at religious writings. Take Dianetics, the book scientologists use. Mostly nonsense, but it unarguably has affected many people.
But where is honest, well-intentioned writing in all this? Back with my former example.
|
|
|
Hmm
Jun 2, 2008 11:58:12 GMT -5
Post by Oliveman on Jun 2, 2008 11:58:12 GMT -5
posting due to the ability for forums to dissappear due to inactivity- this will change soon in a meaningful way, as I'm about to turn my full attention to this site and group again
|
|
|
Hmm
Jun 2, 2008 12:01:25 GMT -5
Post by Oliveman on Jun 2, 2008 12:01:25 GMT -5
And, to actually answer your post kami, I'm proposing that we be that old couple who throws in starfish, then calls all their friends, relatives, and neighbors, then has them call their friends, to all come to the shorelines where they live or shorelines all over the world- and throw the starfish back in. That is impact, but yes, it started with an inconsequential portion of the larger effort
|
|