Interesting Article

[R. Richard]

There's an interesting article in the Wednesday 19 May issue of Investor's Business Daily. The article is titled 'Perspectives Of A Russian Immigrant (No. 9). Svetlan Kunin analyzes today's political situation through the eyes of a refugee from the 'Evil Empire' USSR.

I'm asking people to read the article, probably at the library. I would like to get thoughtful commentary from people who have actually read the article. Please, no flame wars, just reasoned responses.

(Let me give you a bit of background on the Evil Empire. If you wanted to make a photocopy of a document, you had to first get permission from the entire bureauocracy at the place where you worked or studied and then the material to be copied had to pass inspection by the KGB agent who actually made the copies. If you were programming a computer, you had to do so in one of the few places where you could use a computer/printer combination under the watchful eyes of the KGB. You see, a computer/printer combination is a printing press and it was a crime in the USSR for a private citizen to possess a printing press.)

 

[sr71plt]

Does it have some good porn passages? I would guess so, since you posted it to the AH rather than the general board.

 

[R. Richard]

Does it have some good porn passages? I would guess so, since you posted it to the AH rather than the general board.

The entire Literotica site tends to be directed toward erotica, or porn if you prefer. However, the Author's Hangout is more specifically directed toward the concerns of authors. (You see, that's why they call it Author's Hangout.)

The article by Svetlana Kunin, that I reference, doesn't specifically address erotica. However, said article does address concepts such as freedom of speech and permitted items of speech. Such concepts are actually part of an author's concern and are a reason why I posted my reference to the Author's Hangout, rather than the General Board.

From the tone of your ridicule, I would assume that you either have not read the article (as I politely requested,) or you did read the article and failed to grasp the 'authorly' concerns. If you need help to read the article or to understand the more complex passages, why not PM me, in order to avoid any possible embarrassment? (Of course, I never stoop to ridicule myself.)

 

[sr71plt]

That certainly would be a busman's holiday for me. But also sort of like Einstein trying to have a conversation with a squirrel. No fun for me, I'm afraid--and trying to keep you up would be quite frustrating.

The general board is what this sort of topic is for here. Just comes across as amateur hour here.

 

[TE999]

Here's a link to the 'Perspectives of a Russian Immigrant' series on IBD's website.

http://www.investors.com/Search/SearchResults.aspx?Ntt=Perspectives+of+a+Russian+Immigrant


It's interesting and scary reading...unless you like totalitarianism.

Good luck getting a rational discussion going, RR.

 

[sr71plt]

So, what are you guys writing now? I have a Russian espionage novella going off to a publisher tomorrow for final edit and am reviewing chapter eighteen of a twenty-chapter full-length, terrorism-based novel this evening, which I hope to have off to the publisher by next Wednesday.

 

[cloudy]

So, what are you guys writing now? I have a Russian espionage novella going off to a publisher tomorrow for final edit and am reviewing chapter eighteen of a twenty-chapter full-length, terrorism-based novel this evening, which I hope to have off to the publisher by next Wednesday.

You're just as bad, if not worse, about wanting to control what's discussed here as you accuse others of being. Perhaps a glance in the mirror?

 

[sr71plt]

You're just as bad, if not worse, about wanting to control what's discussed here as you accuse others of being. Perhaps a glance in the mirror?

Preens in the mirror. "Why hello, handsome."

No, actually I get tired of these discussions by people who don't know what the hell they are talking about other than they like to rant ineffectually about politics on a porn board.

 

[R. Richard]

Sr71plt, I sent the following PM to Laurel. In my opinion, you have no right, now or ever, to try to prevent reasoned discussion in a thread in the Author's Hangout. I'm not terribly concerned about the personal insults you posted. I am concerned about your obvious attempts to prevent reasoned discussion. If you wish to present reasoned arguments against my request, please do so. If you try to PM me, I'll copy the PM and post it in the open, assuming that the language is suitable. If the language isn't suitable, I'll make yet another request of Laurel. Please just go away.

Laurel:
I'm asking that sr71plt be banned from Literotica. The reasons behind my request are as follows:
1) I started a thread in the Author's Hangout titled, Interesting Article
2) The purpose of the thread was to discuss an article published in Investor's Business Daily. Said article discussed freedom of the press, freedom of speech and censorship. The article addresses 'authorly' concerns and is something that can be expected to generate a lot of controversy.
3) It was my intention to allow reasoned discussion of any and all relevant points of view by those in the Author's Hangout.
4) Sr71plt began to post in my thread. Sr71plt made no relevant posts, just ridicule, straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. The obvious aim of sr71plt's posts was to prevent reasoned discussion.
5) I welcome reasoned, opposing points of view in the threads that I start. Lively discussion often leads to discoveries by those who had different points of view to start a discussion. Learning is good.
6) Sr71plt's manner and attitude have no place in a forum, such as the Author's Hangout of Literotica. Sr71plt clearly wants to prevent discussion. Discussion is what a forum is all about.
Again, I'm asking that sr71plt be banned from Literotica.

 

[sr71plt]

Sr71plt, I sent the following PM to Laurel. In my opinion, you have no right, now or ever, to try to prevent reasoned discussion in a thread in the Author's Hangout. I'm not terribly concerned about the personal insults you posted. I am concerned about your obvious attempts to prevent reasoned discussion. If you wish to present reasoned arguments against my request, please do so. If you try to PM me, I'll copy the PM and post it in the open, assuming that the language is suitable. If the language isn't suitable, I'll make yet another request of Laurel. Please just go away.

Laurel:
I'm asking that sr71plt be banned from Literotica. The reasons behind my request are as follows:
1) I started a thread in the Author's Hangout titled, Interesting Article
2) The purpose of the thread was to discuss an article published in Investor's Business Daily. Said article discussed freedom of the press, freedom of speech and censorship. The article addresses 'authorly' concerns and is something that can be expected to generate a lot of controversy.
3) It was my intention to allow reasoned discussion of any and all relevant points of view by those in the Author's Hangout.
4) Sr71plt began to post in my thread. Sr71plt made no relevant posts, just ridicule, straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. The obvious aim of sr71plt's posts was to prevent reasoned discussion.
5) I welcome reasoned, opposing points of view in the threads that I start. Lively discussion often leads to discoveries by those who had different points of view to start a discussion. Learning is good.
6) Sr71plt's manner and attitude have no place in a forum, such as the Author's Hangout of Literotica. Sr71plt clearly wants to prevent discussion. Discussion is what a forum is all about.
Again, I'm asking that sr71plt be banned from Literotica.

Apparently you haven't read the forum rules. Otherwise you'd be writing one of your fascinating books rather than wasting time making yourself look such a fool as this. Didn't you come to Lit. because of the erotica writing (selling yours?--assuming what you write is erotic)? Wouldn't it be nice if you did it and talked about it here rather than ranting about a subject you know nothing about and that is totally irrelevant to why you came here--to sell your fascinating books--and actually loses readers for you because of your sophomoric postings about politics?

P.S. Any poster here who wanted/wants to discuss the content of this irrelevant article certainly could have done so/could do so regardless of what I posted. Obviously they don't want to.

 

[R. Richard]

Apparently you haven't read the forum rules. Otherwise you'd be writing one of your fascinating books rather than wasting time making yourself look such a fool as this. Didn't you come to Lit. because of the erotica writing (selling yours?--assuming what you write is erotic)? Wouldn't it be nice if you did it and talked about it here rather than ranting about a subject you know nothing about and that is totally irrelevant to why you came here--to sell your fascinating books--and actually loses readers for you because of your sophomoric postings about politics?

P.S. Any poster here who wanted/wants to discuss the content of this irrelevant article certainly could have done so/could do so regardless of what I posted. Obviously they don't want to.

It might shock you to know that a lot of people don't like to post in a thread where ridicule is being used as a sort of club to bludgeon those who try to enter a discussion.

As to the books that I write. It may come as a shock to you, but you can click on my book titles in my signature and get a blurb of each of my published titles. You can then even get samples of the stories.

Please go away, I don't need trouble and neither do the others who might just want to post here.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Sheesh, you two argue like the women.

 

[sr71plt]

If you need help to read the article or to understand the more complex passages, why not PM me, in order to avoid any possible embarrassment?

It might shock you to know that a lot of people don't like to post in a thread where ridicule is being used as a sort of club to bludgeon

Yep, got that right.

(Yes, I know how the linking of books here works, thanks. I've read some of your blurbs.)

 

[cloudy]

Sr71plt, I sent the following PM to Laurel. In my opinion, you have no right, now or ever, to try to prevent reasoned discussion in a thread in the Author's Hangout. I'm not terribly concerned about the personal insults you posted. I am concerned about your obvious attempts to prevent reasoned discussion. If you wish to present reasoned arguments against my request, please do so. If you try to PM me, I'll copy the PM and post it in the open, assuming that the language is suitable. If the language isn't suitable, I'll make yet another request of Laurel. Please just go away.

Laurel:
I'm asking that sr71plt be banned from Literotica. The reasons behind my request are as follows:
1) I started a thread in the Author's Hangout titled, Interesting Article
2) The purpose of the thread was to discuss an article published in Investor's Business Daily. Said article discussed freedom of the press, freedom of speech and censorship. The article addresses 'authorly' concerns and is something that can be expected to generate a lot of controversy.
3) It was my intention to allow reasoned discussion of any and all relevant points of view by those in the Author's Hangout.
4) Sr71plt began to post in my thread. Sr71plt made no relevant posts, just ridicule, straight out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. The obvious aim of sr71plt's posts was to prevent reasoned discussion.
5) I welcome reasoned, opposing points of view in the threads that I start. Lively discussion often leads to discoveries by those who had different points of view to start a discussion. Learning is good.
6) Sr71plt's manner and attitude have no place in a forum, such as the Author's Hangout of Literotica. Sr71plt clearly wants to prevent discussion. Discussion is what a forum is all about.
Again, I'm asking that sr71plt be banned from Literotica.

Why should what you want be any more important than what srplt wants?

Laurel believes in true free speech. I highly doubt you'll even get a reply to a PM so biased.

If he bothers you that much, put him on ignore. Otherwise, you're just as much to blame for the sniping as he is.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]If he bothers you that much, put him on ignore. Otherwise, you're just as much to blame for the sniping as he is.

Yes. It's the nature of antipathy that we become what we hate.

 

[3113]

Writers need gist for the mill--but not to be preached to or converted

Settle down children. You're both right--depending on RR's intent on posting this article.

Does it have some good porn passages? I would guess so, since you posted it to the AH rather than the general board.

Ah, but this is an authors board, not just a porn board and though the site is called Lit-erotica, it does have areas where writers can post non-erotic fiction. Hence, such articles are of interest to those wanting to write a story that might take place in Russia. IMHO, and it is most humble I assure you politics, science, history, culture are all relevant discussions here as we are writers and writers cannot survive in a vacuum. Even porn writers need more than just info on body parts, orgasms and fluids in order to write up a porn story.

So these are gist for the mill, a way to feed it. Plot bunnies, after all, can come from anywhere, and realistic details are often the spice that bring a tale to life.

On the other hand, if RR is posting this only in order to "teach" us how awful communism is rather than giving us a history lesson about Russia under certain totalitarian dictators, if he is trying to preach to us the dangers of socialism, and argue that we are headed in this same direction, then he is, indeed, posting this in the wrong place, though that is his perogative. Propaganda isn't very useful to writers. Also, being writers and readers and fairly worldly, most of us are know places that were under capitalism that ended up nightmares very like Russia; we also know (or even live in) countries that are socialist systems and are very democratic and happy and nothing like Russia was at all.

So to equate a communist/socialist economy with the creation of a government equal to totalitarian Russia would be naive at best--and the writer of the article can't argue this either, as they are a bias observer. We might as well read Ayn Rand who created her pro-capitalist propaganda after the nightmare of Russia. If she'd hand that nightmare thanks to America's great depression, she might well have been a proponent for socialism instead.

I haven't read the article. But I'm going to assume that RR understands this, and would never bother trying to convert us to his faith with what is, essentially a "small sample" fallacy. If this article isn't preaching any such thing, then it's certainly useful to writers without sr7's extensive political/cultural knowledge. I suspect, however, that it probably won't tell me anything I didn't already know from the number of wonderful novels I've read taking place in totalitarian Russia, like Red Square. Does it offer any new and different perspective on "the evil empire"?

 

[R. Richard]

3113, my intent in posting the article was to get some discussion going about the free press/free speech viewpoint of a woman who actually lived in the old USSR and how her viewpoint causes her to view the current political situation.

For the record, Communism is not awful. The Jamestown colony would arguably not have survived had they not adopted the Communist viewpoint (All who do not work, do not eat.) However, the Jamestown colony did return to capitalist format, after they got past the first few difficult years. The iron control of Communism was necessary to the survival of the colony. However, once things got up and running, the colonists didn't want Communism.

The thing that I hoped would spark discussion is the almost total control of press/speech under Communism. A writer can't really do what it is that he/she wants under a controlled press/speech environment. The writer of the article thinks that the US is headed for a much more controlled speech/press environment. I had hoped for comment from the Author's Hangout people.

I was/am upset that sr71plt seemed intent on intimidating people from posting.

Settle down children. You're both right--depending on RR's intent on posting this article.

Ah, but this is an authors board, not just a porn board and though the site is called Lit-erotica, it does have areas where writers can post non-erotic fiction. Hence, such articles are of interest to those wanting to write a story that might take place in Russia. IMHO, and it is most humble I assure you politics, science, history, culture are all relevant discussions here as we are writers and writers cannot survive in a vacuum. Even porn writers need more than just info on body parts, orgasms and fluids in order to write up a porn story.

So these are gist for the mill, a way to feed it. Plot bunnies, after all, can come from anywhere, and realistic details are often the spice that bring a tale to life.

On the other hand, if RR is posting this only in order to "teach" us how awful communism is rather than giving us a history lesson about Russia under certain totalitarian dictators, if he is trying to preach to us the dangers of socialism, and argue that we are headed in this same direction, then he is, indeed, posting this in the wrong place, though that is his perogative. Propaganda isn't very useful to writers. Also, being writers and readers and fairly worldly, most of us are know places that were under capitalism that ended up nightmares very like Russia; we also know (or even live in) countries that are socialist systems and are very democratic and happy and nothing like Russia was at all.

So to equate a communist/socialist economy with the creation of a government equal to totalitarian Russia would be naive at best--and the writer of the article can't argue this either, as they are a bias observer. We might as well read Ayn Rand who created her pro-capitalist propaganda after the nightmare of Russia. If she'd hand that nightmare thanks to America's great depression, she might well have been a proponent for socialism instead.

I haven't read the article. But I'm going to assume that RR understands this, and would never bother trying to convert us to his faith with what is, essentially a "small sample" fallacy. If this article isn't preaching any such thing, then it's certainly useful to writers without sr7's extensive political/cultural knowledge. I suspect, however, that it probably won't tell me anything I didn't already know from the number of wonderful novels I've read taking place in totalitarian Russia, like Red Square. Does it offer any new and different perspective on "the evil empire"?

 

[sr71plt]

Does it offer any new and different perspective on "the evil empire"?

What might be as interesting, or even more interesting, perhaps, would be the question "what sort of issues did the various intelligence communities turn to after the Cold War was "won/lost"? A series of full-length novels, "The Koniotis Mysteries"--starting as e-books and moving to print--tackle this question, dipping back into the late eighties and early nineties with the breakup of "the evil empire" and progressing on.

Cyberworld, a publisher originating from writers at Literotica, has started publishing these novels by Gina Drew . Sort of an international crime/espionage series with flavorings of paranormal Romance. The first, Laughter's Echo, covering the exchange of illicit arms from Eastern Europe for drugs to feed terrorism in the Middle East, and the second, Salted Away, on what to do with leftover spy assets from the Cold War who might now be an embarrassment, are already available at Amazon.com and ARE, Smashwords, Bookstrand, etc. (Paperbacking coming in June). And more are to come in short order, addressing such issues as covert training of terrorists, money-laundering, struggling for a Middle East settlement against interests otherwise inclined, and strategic arms proliferation.

Better than linking to dry old partisan articles to start and fuel partisan arguments by people unable to do anything about it and that go nowhere, we can read novels written by our own AH authors that weave these issues into an interesting read.

 

[JackLuis]

RR, I read some of the articles. I think that there are bunnies there, not ones I'd skin, but perhaps someone else would?

As for Sr's comments, he can be so judgmental sometimes, probably because he's working that side of the street and wants to hype his stories.

Your idea for contrasting FOP and Commie control of communication is interesting and if set in China or North Korea, would show the current social conflicts. Beating the "James Bond, Cold War Drum" is a bit passe.

Or setting it in modern Russia, showing the "Hard Line" vs the Progressive, vs Underworld conflicts would be interesting.

What line were you thinking of pursuing?

Perhaps a North Korean female spy is sent to Russia and finds the Russian Communists she was supposed to link up with are connected to the Russian Mafia, by way of their KGB alumni? She loses hope for the Glorious Leaders Plan, to help Russia achieve another Communist Revolution.

She is forced to be bait in a Honey Trap for a Progressive Russian Pol, and she ends up being the one trapped?

You could fit in Drugs for Printers smuggling, or other "Counter Revolutionary" activities to fluff up the plot line and add external conflicts, so it isn't all humping for the Glorious Leader.

 

[Handley_Page]

RR, I read that article, after someone kindly put up a link, and I am surprised that it has not fomented a bit of a debate about the nature of Government (I do wish, sometimes that the trolls /kids would occasionally stay in the playground).

To my mind, all governments manipulate the people they are there to "serve". We've all seen it from time to time.
Quite what to do about it is another thing all together.

 

[TE999]

3113, my intent in posting the article was to get some discussion going about the free press/free speech viewpoint of a woman who actually lived in the old USSR and how her viewpoint causes her to view the current political situation.

The thing that I hoped would spark discussion is the almost total control of press/speech under Communism. A writer can't really do what it is that he/she wants under a controlled press/speech environment. The writer of the article thinks that the US is headed for a much more controlled speech/press environment. I had hoped for comment from the Author's Hangout people.

I was/am upset that sr71plt seemed intent on intimidating people from posting.

I thought your intent in posting this article was pretty straightforward and I don't understand the supposed confusion in your motive.

The author, having lived in a totalitarian state, recognizes efforts to control the media when she sees them. Twaddle such as the 'Fairness Doctrine', the government gaining 'emergency control' of the internet in 'times of crisis', selective issuances and cancellations of broadcast licences by the FCC, the POTUS saying there's too much 'confusing information' being disseminated by the various medias and forms of communication makes one wonder if this lady is in effect the 'canary in the coal mine'.

Some people want to silence the likes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and other conservative or libertarian talk show hosts because they disagree with their views on things. If that isn't suppression of freedom of speech I don't know what is. If the shoe was on the other foot to silence NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC the screams of 'facisism' and 'nazisim' would be deafening.

There's room for all opinions here and we're all capable of a reasoned and mature debate on current issues, for some it's just easier to make wisecracks, swear and attack the messenger...that's what the Iggy button is for.

Don't worry RR, the pilot's not intimidating anyone, he's just being himself, a supercilious braggart and an ass.

 

[sr71plt]

Your position doesn't surprise me in the least, TE999, as you chug away at the irrelevant--and empty--partisan argumentation too--also with a (an irritating) sophomoric understanding of the functioning of American government and international relations.

What I see here is just offsettng irritations (and probably offsetting asshatedness too). The irrelevance and extreme (and stupid) partisanship of political ranting on here irritates me on occasion--and sometimes I say so, as the forum rules say I can. (You seem to ignore that I not long ago strongly supported the right to post "whatever" to the AH; doesn't mean I don't retain my right to point out how misguided I think some of it is.) And RR (and posters like you) are irritated that I point out the emptiness and impotence of ranting extreme politics on an erotica writing board. (I didn't say the topic shouldn't be posted to Lit. at all--I said it should be posted to the General Board).

Some here have tried to give RR the break of approaching the topic from a writer's eye. RR hasn't shown any intent other than approaching from the tired old uninformed ranter's eye, though.

Want some feel for the inside of how issues such as the one posed here work out in real life? Go check out those Gina Drew books I pointed to.

Bottom line: I have just as much right to say I'm irritated by a topic here as anyone has to post it--and I didn't actually open up that way. I asked how this related to writing erotica. Oblviously it doesn't--or to much of anything else AHers are interested in judging by the lack of discussion, which my comments to the thread by no means choke off.

 

[R. Richard]

My reason for posting the article was to get the reaction of others to what I saw as a real and perhaps realistic view of the suppression of free speech under a totolitarian regime. In my view, the writer created the image of an environment in which free speech/writers were suppressed. The suppression of writers/free speech was my concern.

The writer now indicates that the same general kind of suppression of writers/free speech is attempted to be put in place in the USA. I'm not at all concerned with the politics of why the suppression of writers/free speech is attempted to be put in place in the USA, if indeed the suppression of writers/free speech is currently being attempted to be put in place in the USA, just if my view of expression of the writer is shared by others. Apparently, my view of the total situation is shared, at least to large degree, by those who actually attempted to respond to the article.

I'm a writer. I attempt to develop the characters of at least a few protagonists on my novels. I'm also a professional systems analyst. I solve problems, my protagonists solve problems. When I find a 'bug' in a procedure/computer program, I 'kill the bug' without any real emotional involvement with said bug. When I encounter personnel problems, I react in much the same way, except that I NEVER knowingly violate current laws. (I drive my car without using a legally required proceeding flagman by day and a lanternman by night.)

If one of my protagonists encounters a problem, the protagonist attempts to solve his/her problem in the same general way that I would solve the problem. I try to stay away from the political views of my protagonists as much as practical.

I, as a writer, agree with the concept of enlightened free speech (No, it's not permissable to shout 'FIRE!' in a crowded movie theater or to slander or libel someone.) Free speech is, IMNTHO, necessary to the full functioning of a writer. I have little enough concern with politics, excepting the matter of free speech. (Obviously, some of the posters here are very concerned with politics.)

One of my real hot buttons is when someone attempts to silence free speech with insult and particularly with ridicule. I saw that sort of situation developing here and I reacted strongly. I don't much care about the political views of others, so long as they don't try to deny other people the right to express reasoned views.

IMNTHO one of the frequent posters in the AH is guilty something that I can address only with the worst polite insult in my profession. The person is becoming emotionally involved with the problem(s), during the attempted solution of a problem(s).

 

[sr71plt]

The tough thing about free speech advocacy, is that it goes both ways, RR.

Your unsophisticated partisanship is just as irritating to me as your irritation that I express it is to you.

Tough.

 

[trysail]

Face it, there are some folk 'round this joint who are pathological control freaks; when compounded with serious anger management difficulties and the social skills of a two year old, they possess a peerless ability to draw the ire of others.

What makes it particularly humorous is their surprise and repetitive dogged obliviousness to the behavior that initiated the reaction.