site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   2285 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for April 7, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have some experience with this. Writing groups can be very hit or miss. It's a lot like finding a good gaming group, but it's more personal because you're actually critiquing each other. In some ways, it's like dating. You will encounter a bunch of people who just don't work out for you before you finally find a group you vibe with.

I would personally recommend online groups focusing on your genre over a local group, unless you really find it valuable to have that face-to-face interaction. My experience is that aspiring romance writers aren't very helpful in critiquing aspiring SF authors, and vice versa.

You will find the quality of critiques you get is as wildly varying as the quality of the writers. You will encounter all the predictable archetypes: the snowflake who thinks you're being mean and bullying when you point out plot holes. The genius who's writing the next Great American Novel and if you don't appreciate it it's because you just don't get it. The hapless grandma who's very nice but can't write for shit. The person working out all their trauma and grinding political axes through their writing, etc.

And don't forget that being a good critique partner means that if you want quality feedback, you have to be willing to read their manuscripts and give quality feedback (even when they absolutely suck).

My best experience was joining a larger online group, paying attention to who was actually a decent writer and gave decent critiques, and then contacting them to form a small private group of our own.

First off, big thanks! Your advice is high-quality.

It's a lot like finding a good gaming group, but it's more personal because you're actually critiquing each other. In some ways, it's like dating.

Alas, my gaming groups have always been IRL friends so I've never had that experience. The dating analogy is a fun one. If there was a Hinge for writing groups I'd be all about it. Set some filters, screen out matches with some bants, and meet up - sounds like the dream.

I would personally recommend online groups focusing on your genre over a local group, unless you really find it valuable to have that face-to-face interaction.

I definitely agree that at least general genre matching seems like a must, but do you think it would be worth the effort to try local? I live in a major US city so, at least in theory, it should be possible to have both. I imagine that having face to face interactions could reduce a lot of the issues around dedication. Sanderson advocated pretty heavily for in person > online and while he's not my favorite author, the man gets shit done. As someone who has no experience with either medium (outside of a classroom setting) I don't have an informed preference.

My best experience was joining a larger online group, paying attention to who was actually a decent writer and gave decent critiques, and then contacting them to form a small private group of our own.

This seems like a winning move. Almost the only move upon reflection. I'd imagine the typical gatekeeping dynamic is in play: any group that is open to outsiders is likely going to suffer the weaknesses of that openness. I imagine that joining a group with the intent to defect is probably a point in favor of online groups? Would be much trickier and ruder to splinter an in person group without hard feelings.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats