Write a controversial opinion

[GuiltyCowboy]

There was a giant mulberry tree, four stories tall, not far from my childhood home. Every spring, all the neighborhood kids would gather beneath it to pick its sweet fruit. The sensation of that juicy, wondrous flavor spreading across my tongue remains one of my most vivid and cherished childhood memories.

While most of the kids crowded below, reaching for the low-hanging berries within easy reach, a few of us preferred to climb. Up there, among the branches, the picking was freer, more rewarding.

The children below used to call us reckless, saying we took needless risks for nothing more than fruit. But the truth was, they either couldn’t climb or were too afraid to try. So while the lower branches were stripped bare by May, I could still enjoy the last of the deep-purple, wondrous berries from the thinnest, farthest branches well into July.

Now, I’m not saying the fruit below was any less sweet or nourishing than the fruit above, but it was low-hanging fruit...

I could write six thick volumes about my childhood without a single line of dialogue, and trust me, you would read every word.

The writing in this post is so bland it has ensured that I will absolutely avoid reading anything else you write!!

 

[MelissaBaby]

There was a giant mulberry tree, four stories tall, not far from my childhood home. Every spring, all the neighborhood kids would gather beneath it to pick its sweet fruit. The sensation of that juicy, wondrous flavor spreading across my tongue remains one of my most vivid and cherished childhood memories.

While most of the kids crowded below, reaching for the low-hanging berries within easy reach, a few of us preferred to climb. Up there, among the branches, the picking was freer, more rewarding.

The children below used to call us reckless, saying we took needless risks for nothing more than fruit. But the truth was, they either couldn’t climb or were too afraid to try. So while the lower branches were stripped bare by May, I could still enjoy the last of the deep-purple, wondrous berries from the thinnest, farthest branches well into July.

Now, I’m not saying the fruit below was any less sweet or nourishing than the fruit above, but it was low-hanging fruit...

I could write six thick volumes about my childhood without a single line of dialogue, and trust me, you would read every word.

I barely made it through this post.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Hmmm. Is that your impression, that we're showering each other in this forum with undeserved praise? That's not my impression. I totally agree with you that most of the work here is amateur work, including mine. A lot of it is fun and erotic, but it's not great art. But I see the support given here by authors for other authors as mostly helpful and constructive, rather than undeserved or cloying flattery. I'm not sure what the better alternative would be.

Well, not everyone, of course. There is a good deal of AH-ers who are supportive of other authors while still being more or less realistic. You and I certainly belong in that group. We'll say: "That was a good story." "You've improved." "Readers clearly like your writing. Keep it up." "Stay positive and have fun with writing," and other stuff along those lines. Positive and supportive, but still somewhat realistic.

But there's also a large group of AH-ers who praise each other limitlessly. It's very often unrealistic and way, way over the top. I don't think that approach is good for them. Reality check will be like a cold shower for many of those. It's their choice, of course, I'm just commenting on that pattern of behavior. This is probably the first time that I'm talking so openly about it.

I WOULD agree that there is a somewhat unhealthy aversion in this forum to criticism by readers. If you publish a story, you should be prepared to take your lumps and put on your big pants. There's way too much fretting over low scores and negative comments.

Agreed. All those threads where we complain and often mock commenters who say negative stuff about us, but then whenever we get a positive comment, we rush and post it in another thread. It's a childish and ridiculous behavior. You either don't care about comments, positive or negative, or you care and regard critically both types.

The "Only good comments about me and my stories are true" attitude is once again something that would be more fitting in a place made for teenagers, such as AO3. It seems surreal in a place filled with seniors.

 

[Britva415]

My favorite use of 2P is summoning @StillStunned into unrelated conversations

That matches what I've been saying about 2p all along: What you described isn't storytelling.

It's an imperative or an invitation or something, things which ARE served by 2p.

I forget who it was who rolled their eyes at my brainstorm about someone (not me, just someone) avoiding a lot of the 2p objections by writing a story in 2p voice which is all in the imperative mood.

 

[Britva415]

I'm puzzled by the suggestion of hypocrisy on this issue, and don't know what you're talking about with respect to political figures. That's not surprising, because you have a long history of making accusations against people without offering any evidence or specifics.

I'm not a hypocrite on this point at all. I'm consistent. I do not boycott the works of artists because they were bad people in real life. I listen to the works of Wagner despite the fact that he was an antisemite. I'll watch movies by Tarantino and Polansky. I'm very clear about this. I listen to the music of the Beatles despite the fact that John Lennon admitted that he was abusive toward women. One can condemn the artist for their wrong, which I do, consistently, and still appreciate the greatness of their art. There's no inconsistency on this point at all. If you want to boycott artists, good for you. I take a different approach.

There's no way to be pure on this issue except to completely withdraw from the world and live in a hut in the woods, and I'm not going to do that.

YOU are the hypocrite if you think you are charting a nobler path. I have no doubt you have watched movies by and attended concerts of bands consisting of men who have abused women. The fact that some allegations have received more publicity or are more talked about makes no moral difference to one's support of the artists.

Controversial opinion:

Most of the time, when a "they're the same people" argument gets used, no evidence that they're the same people can be found. It's basically an ad-hominem.

 

[lovecraft68]

I have similar feelings but mine are directed at how well companies treat the people who work for them.

Can’t pay a living wage? You don’t get my business.

Refuse to work with unions? You don’t get my business.

Support politicians who will allow you to avoid paying tax and to circumvent laws on pollution? You don’t get my business.

Conversely, I’m happy to look at a painting by Caravaggio, who actually murdered a man.

We all have the things we care about. It’s probably impossible to care about everything. Try to do the right thing, be cool, relax, get through life with your head held high.

If someone doesn’t care about the things you care about, that doesn’t make them a bad person necessarily. They might just care about other things.

Very rational take and based on your personal stances which is fine, its how it should be.

Issue is when someone vocally supports "A" and A had done something criminal, but then they call out "B" who has done a similar thing. Why one and not the other? Personal stance, difference is that person is then projecting that its okay to commit a crime if they like that person.

No murderer, rapist, trafficker, etc should be supported by anyone who condemns half of them while touting the other half.

This tastes great because a cute girl made it, this tastes like crap because some gross guy made it.

That's the 'argument'

Consistency and conviction are alien to most people as is the definition of each of those words.

One of my all-time favorite movies I'd discussed here in the past is Natural Born Killers, loved it. Some time back I found out that Tarantino wrote either the full script or part of it that the movie was based on. Haven't watched it or mentioned it until this post because its relevant. I try not to give rapists any support. Same for Polanksi, I saw Rosemary's Baby many year ago in the 80's great movie, then I found out what Polanski did. Tossed my copy haven't watched it since.

I'm not a TMZ sort of person, I don't watch much tv or even many movies or shows anywhere these days. I don't follow entertainment news. There could be someone who's work I support as in I've listened to them or watched a movie that did something I am unaware of. If I hear that they did something and there is substance to the accusations and not just heresay which isn't easy to discern these days, then I will no longer watch or listen to anything they're involved in. Sad to say even being in the dark on many things that list is getting bigger all the time.

That's me and we're not all the same. But to me there is no gray area. You're the person that you don't care what someone does if they entertain you or the one who does and either are a choice, the ones who play the A/B game are the ones I'm tired of.

If I targeted someone else I may not get backlash, but I mentioned someone the sheeple see as cool and trendy so I get flack.

Base human nature never fails to fail.

 

[yowser]

But there's also a large group of AH-ers who praise each other limitlessly. It's very often unrealistic and way, way over the top. I don't think that approach is good for them. Reality check will be like a cold shower for many of those. It's their choice, of course, I'm just commenting on that pattern of behavior. This is probably the first time that I'm talking so openly about it.

This is a tangent, and unrelated to the AH, but illustrates your point.

In my college years (more than a couple decades ago in the US, would never be allowed to happen now) there was an English prof who let's say had a reputation of being rather fond of some of his female students. This was minor scandal and gossip at the time, the main issue being that many female students knew there were red flags and to be very careful when taking one of his courses, but the real trouble didn't come until one of his 'favored' students ran into huge difficulties when in grad school for creative writing later. She had been told by her 'mentor' that her work was splendid, outstanding, superb etc. but when she got to the big leagues, the exposure was extreme.

She sued the college and presumably the prof, not on the basis of improper sexual relations (that would have stuck too) but that the relationship had harmed her career. Prof was dismissed (murky face-savings settlement, I think he got a six month paid leave and told not to come back.)

Moral of the story: be very careful about believing exuberant praise. Maybe get a second opinion. (There's plenty more morals in this case, but I'll leave it at that.)

 

[AwkwardlySet]

This is a tangent, and unrelated to the AH, but illustrates your point.

In my college years (more than a couple decades ago in the US, would never be allowed to happen now) there was an English prof who let's say had a reputation of being rather fond of some of his female students. This was minor scandal and gossip at the time, the main issue being that many female students knew there were red flags and to be very careful when taking one of his courses, but the real trouble didn't come until one of his 'favored' students ran into huge difficulties when in grad school for creative writing later. She had been told by her 'mentor' that her work was splendid, outstanding, superb etc. but when she got to the big leagues, the exposure was extreme.

She sued the college and presumably the prof, not on the basis of improper sexual relations (that would have stuck too) but that the relationship had harmed her career. Prof was dismissed (murky face-savings settlement, I think he got a six month paid leave and told not to come back.)

Moral of the story: be very careful about believing exuberant praise. Maybe get a second opinion. (There's plenty more morals in this case, but I'll leave it at that.)

Well, in the case of AH, at least there will be no lawsuits.

 

[StillStunned]

I could write six thick volumes about my childhood without a single line of dialogue, and trust me, you would read every word.

Do you have anything to base this claim on besides your own opinion of your writing?

 

[lovecraft68]

This one just came to me.

Amber Heard's career was ruined because Hollywood protects drunken abusers like Depp.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Just general advice overall instead of an opinion: everyone must learn when it is time to stop posting, go outside, and take a walk. A walk works wonders for writers too!

 

[NuclearFairy]

The children below used to call us reckless, saying we took needless risks for nothing more than fruit.

This doesn't sound like any children I've ever known. Especially not the ones from my childhood.

 

[MillieDynamite]

In the bible, Jesus's statement, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." It was (and for Christians still is) a commandment not to judge unbelievers, period! Don't do it if they are homosexuals, adulterers, or even murderers. But evanglicial Christains haven't found anything done by others, they won't judge!

This is just a passing thought, from a not-so-believing born-again gal. Now go back to your discussion.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This one just came to me.

Amber Heard's career was ruined because Hollywood protects drunken abusers like Depp.

Toxic women are just as bad as toxic men. She was batshit crazy BEFORE she met Johnny Depp.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

In the bible, Jesus's statement, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." It was (and for Christians still is) a commandment not to judge unbelievers, period! Don't do it if they are homosexuals, adulterers, or even murderers. But evanglicial Christains haven't found anything done by others, they won't judge!

This is just a passing thought, from a not-so-believing born-again gal. Now go back to your discussion.

That's really not what that passage is all about.

Also, not "judging" doesn't mean participating in or supporting something they find objectionable.

 

[NuclearFairy]

They are the children of allegory.

The line still threw me completely out of your narrative, and your closing line made it sound like you wanted us to believe it had actually happened to you.

 

[SimonDoom]

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.

 

[iwatchus]

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding.

Said by no vegetarian ever.

 

[SimonDoom]

Said by no vegetarian ever.

It's supposed to be "controversial."

 

[Britva415]

Using "said" as an adjective (as in, like"said [item]") in casual speech and writing drives me nuts. Save it for the lawyers, otherwise it sounds moronic.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Using "said [item]" as an adjective in casual speech and writing drives me nuts. Save it for the lawyers, otherwise it sounds moronic.

Example?

 

[NuclearFairy]

But the truth was, they either couldn’t climb or were too afraid to try.

Oh sure the ones in your narrative.

Whereas the ones I grew up with would either be placing bets on everything from how long it'd take you to fall, to how injured you'd be, and how loudly you'd scream. Or they'd be the ones shaking the tree while laughing and yelling, "Are you guys okay up there?" There is no creature quite so psychotic as an improperly supervised child.

 

[Britva415]

Example?

mention something

then call it "said something" later

 

[SimonDoom]

Using "said" as an adjective (as in, like"said [item]") in casual speech and writing drives me nuts. Save it for the lawyers, otherwise it sounds moronic.

I'm trying to think of examples of this in casual writing. I agree, though, it's never needed, even among lawyers.

 

[MillieDynamite]

What it is all about is that if you judge people harshly, you will be judged harshly in return. And while not judging doesn't mean supporting, it still means not judging others for their weaknesses, sins, shortcomings, or failures.

In the bible, Jesus's statement, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." It was (and for Christians still is) a commandment not to judge unbelievers, period! Don't do it if they are homosexuals, adulterers, or even murderers. But evanglicial Christains haven't found anything done by others, they won't judge!

This is just a passing thought, from a not-so-believing born-again gal. Now go back to your discussion.