Some of you are writers...

[tooblue]

And there's nothing wrong if your work resembles Jack Weyland!

[SeattleUte]

Mike, this was an excellent post. I missed it at first. Here's the nub of it: Good literature involves, at its heart, conflict fraught with ambiguity. If King Lear had been perfectly wise in handling his estate and his relationships with his children, you would have at best melodrama. By definition, "literature" that amounts to pro-Christian or pro-Mormon-values polmemic--i.e., allegory sans conflict or ambiuity--is not good literature. Moreover, good literature is probably by definition subversive. This is probably why Tostoy and Dostoyevski, while religious and whose works were sympathetic to traditional Christian faith, still got into trouble with the Orthodox Church.

Now, to answer your question, I'm attempting a novel that at bottom is about religion--more precisely the importance of myth-making to our culture and civilization, how such myths have arisen, and their interrelatedness (it also has a fair amount of sex and violence, and a tight plot)--and no, I'm not concerned about how it portrays Christianity (its time period is long before the advent of Mormonism).

[SoCalCoug]

Hey, Mike: How about one of those usergroup-thingies for some of us writers to talk about how each other writes good?

[SeattleUte]

That's a real good idea.

[MikeWaters]

a private group? who would be let in?

[SoCalCoug]

The ones who appear to be serious writers - a separate category where we can maybe even post stories or portions of works for constructive criticism - things that we might be more open to doing among other writers, rather than those who wouldn't have serious criticism.

I think you broached the subject a while back. It seems like we have enough people here who are serious about writing things.

I find that when others get enthusiastic about writing, I tend to do more of it myself.

[bluegoose]

Can a usergroup have a president?

If so, I nominate Grapevine.

[MikeWaters]

so people can say "I think I am a writer and I want to be involved" and then by consensus be allowed in?

[creekster]

How about "I think I am a voyeur and I want to watch"; does that get me in?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so people can say "I think I am a writer and I want to be involved" and then by consensus be allowed in?

Here's how these groups usually work. If you are willing to read someone else's work and offer constructive criticism, there's space enough in the room, and somebody wants you in, you're in. The price for people taking the time to read your stuff and offer comments is that you return the favor and don't disappear after others have given you a hand. Usually voyeurs and sheer commentators are welcome if they have a good faith interest; in fact they're seen as something akin to bestowers of charity.