Thank you mat, Yes the term 1,2, and 3rd world was the power standing. It seems each generation seems to change what things mean. I stick to what things meant when they were said. Here is an example: "The Civil War to free the slaves." Nice saying, but not true. The Federal Government was not set up to run the States. When they started telling the States what to do, the States said, “No, that is not our agreement. If you do that, you have broken the agreement.” The Federal Government pressed the issue, thus many States succeeded. This is what started the Civil War. Two years after the war started, the South was winning, and England was going to aid the South. In order to stop this, Lincoln set in motion the freedom of the slaves in the hope England would back out of helping the South, not wanting to be a part of a slave issue. Following generations changed the true meaning of the Civil War. What is true today, will be changed by future generations. The meaning of things you record today, will also be changed. Present day generations judge how those in the past should have act, based on how we think, and they also change what terms used to other meanings. When I was a boy, a gay person was a happy man. Today if you say, He is a gay fellow, you might get a black eye. But I’m sure, if the present Generation was transported into the past, they would have done, and said the same as those of that time. I'm 79 years old. I know what the terms, "1,2, and 3nd nations mean. My generation made the terms up. I don't care if you change it to mean whatever. This present generation seems to want to change things from week to week. I remember when dark people wanted to be called colored. Then they wanted to be called spades, then again they changed it to Black, and again they changed it to African American. The NAACP, (National Association Advancement Colored People) is trying to figure how to change the word colored in their title to whatever. Sometimes people are just a pain in the ass. There have been times I just wanted to stop writing, and move into the high desert of Nevada just to get away from all the useless petty issues people have today. I’ve been told I insulted a whole country…I’m going to retract my statement that Canada is a second world Nation in power. Canada is 100 above number one. I’m going to go for a long walk now, and piss alongside the road.
That is 100% factually false. The Articles of Secession specifically mention slavery as the cause, and the Constitution of the Confederacy makes it very very clear that Slavery will be legal in the Confederation. The election of Lincoln (a staunch abolitionist) sparked the debate for sucession, and he was elected because the ballots in the south did not list him as a candidate. If you call "allowing people to vote for the candidate they want." as "telling the states what to do," you might have some kind of point. But Jefferson Davis made it very clear in speeches and in documents that the "right" to own slaves was the founding principle behind succession. Edited to add, just for fun, Exhibit C from the succession declaration of Mississippi
Okay, I've stopped seeing red now, and this statement is kind of true. Sort of. The South succeed to keep slaves. The war was fought to keep the Southern states. Lincoln was an abolitionist, and it's unlikely slavery would have lasted out his administration, which is why the South tried to break away. Everything else you wrote is, at best uneducated, and at worst an outright lie. No. Jefferson Davis knew he never had a chance at European aide. All he had to offer was cheap cotton, the price of which had been dropping steadily for the last 10 years. England was getting its cotton from India, and France was getting their cotton from England. England had also abolished slavery a couple of decades before, and was unlikely to leap in to war that (again) was clearly being fought over slavery.
Slavery would have ended without the Civil War. The Cotton Gin had already been invented, and proven. The South would have sent the slaves North, or back to Africa, Like President Grant wanted to do after the war ended. The North did not want a large cheap workforce take over all the jobs. Only a few hundred took Grant up on his offer.
Jack, You can disagree with my post, but I do not approach you calling be a liar. I know you are friends with a few of the mods, and can say what you want on the forum, but I don’t lie, so screw you.
Pot meet kettle. Pretty sure you have more than a few name calling posts in your corner. This has to be the oddest thread, going from motives to write to Canada to secession of the Southern States and slavery.
If you really are 79 I would think that by now you would learn to let things go and keep on topic. Can we get back to discussing writing please.
No, you're still wrong. Slavery was an 80 million dollar a year industry in the years leading up to the war. The South had invested almost no money in an industry other than cotton. Even if they had wanted to walk away from a practice that was making up 75% of American exports, they literally had nothing else to do. The North's investment in raw material, mechanics, and (non-cotton) agriculture insured that any Southern businesses that tried to set up into those industries would struggle for years. One does not walk away from a method of free labor, to found a risky business venture, when there is 80 million dollars at stake. And when you say things that are lies, I will call you a liar.
A name caller and thread derailier who gets mad when he gets called a liar... I dunno, sounds like a pattern of trolling if you ask me. But since he's been here a while I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt... at least for now.
Except, can we take anything about digital self publishing seriously from a guy who was born when the Zippo lighter was a technological marvel? Now I know why he trolls the topic.
I have been called a name caller, liar, derailier of threads, troll, and an insulter of nations. it pretty much sums up the type of people on this forum. My age is even being attacked. lol.
:chill: And this derail ends here. Let's steer the thread back to its original topic, otherwise I'm going to close the thread.
I think it is possible to really like writing, and to write for that purpose, in fact I think that is true for most of us. We write because it's hard for us to stop. Trying to use that to make a living is only natural. EDIT: Mod orders (Good decision BTW)
I'm gonna have to make a bigger, angrier unicorn. But seriously, guys. As justified as you might feel in your criticism, this is not pretty. If you have nothing to contribute, it's best to just move on.
Actually this is a good (original) thread, because I reckon there are lots of writers out there who feel uncomfortable with the idea of marketing their work. You spend years working on a book, until you get it to where you think it's exactly what you wanted it to be. You get good, detailed feedback from many beta readers. You keep going back to it and re-writing, until you feel it's finally DONE. And then what happens? You've got to try to write query letter, to pitch it to the correct readership, trawl the internet and other sources to try to find the perfect agent. An agent who will not buy your book, but will attempt to sell it. Attempt. And in order to sell it, you might have to go back through your work and hack it to bits, so it fits some preconceived notion of what a book should be, or fits a word count, or whatever. And write a synopsis, and a blurb.... All that stuff feels like another planet to me. I wouldn't have a problem doing that for somebody else's writing, but I just can't see my own story as a commodity to be sold. I'm not being precious about it ...I've gutted it many times. But it's not a commodity. It's meaningful to me in ways that nothing else I've ever created has ever been. I'm not really able to get into the frame of mind I'd need to be in to hard-sell it. As I've not got lots of years left (I'm retired now) I really just want to get it out there for people who want to read it ...friends and family who are asking me for it, acquaintances likewise. If it gets a wee buzz via word of mouth, fine. If not, fine. Selling just doesn't matter to me. What kind of price is there on something that occupied nearly 20 years of my life, was such a learning curve, contains so much of myself? I can't put a price on it. Nor can I visualise drumming up business with it, or trying to trick an agent into reading it ...which they won't anyway, because it's 'too long for a first-time author.' It has been said that trying to make money and/or a living from the activities you truly love is the quickest way to kill the love. I think I believe that.
Selling or not, don't you want other people to read it? The hangup I'm having with the query letter (besides the whole thing ) is my bio. How do I make it interesting when most of my life is interesting but not about writing.
I remember a recommendation from some agent or publisher that basically said if you don't have anything writing-related to put on your CV (or bio), don't mention it at all. It's ok to not have writing experience, but it's not ok to mention it in the query.
I think I might believe it, too. I like writing, but if I wasn't getting paid for it, I probably wouldn't do it. Or at least I wouldn't do it as much as I do. So it's not that hard for me to treat my books like products. They aren't my life's work or expressions of my soul or anything, they're just stories. I try to write them well, try to make them emotionally true and meaningful and lots of other good stuff, but they're not part of me, and that makes the publishing process easy. If I was only likely to write one book in my lifetime, or if I'd been working on it for twenty years? I'd be wicked protective of it, I think. Two different styles, for sure. And one's much more profit-driven than the other!
