J.A.Q.ing Off In Comments (Social Justice Bard)

We all know the steps to this dance.
Let's do it one more time.

I reran a post about "Tall Privilege" (one of my social justice metaphors) on my Facebook page a couple of days ago, and someone dropped a comment this morning with......questions.

Normally I wouldn't answer something like this.

I would leave it in the purgatory of "Not Approved for Moderation." I have a strict policy about not engaging this sort of thing. It causes an event of massive temporal and entropic proportions that threatens to disrupt the very dudebro time space continuum and could rip apart the fabric of the entire universe.

But then....

Well, I figured....what the hell.

As both someone who has done this dance a thousand times, and someone who worked as an educator for over a decade, it's actually comically easy for me to tell the difference between an actual good faith question and and a "Just asking questions?" counter argument that is supposed to "checkmate" a point (usually some kind of point about social inequality) in a Socratic style that the questioner thinks is slick as fuck.

It's not, but most people think they are the first person ever to come up with this shit, and the J.A.Q.ing off continues.

Phrasing it as a question also, of course, creates plausible deniability for SQiD's who are actually most interested in the sound of silence. Their inexhaustible reserves of bad faith energy and tireless probes of the "weakness" of such simple ideas as "there is inequality in the world and the people who experience it are probably better able to describe what it is like" serve more to bring stop energy and "punish" those who speak out.

But of course (when patience is exhausted and claims of bad faith come out) these questions can be pearl clutchingly defended with "But I was JUST ASKING QUESTIONS?"

I mean goodness, who is so against a thoughtful dialogue that they are unwilling to just answer a few innocent questions.  Clearly this is just an unreasonable person who can't defend their ideas from eminently reasonable query, and obviously the whole lot of them are irrational. Just because the questions are fallacy ridden, easily researched, completely disingenous, and I will ask them over and over again no matter how many times they are answered is no reason to suggest to suspect that I'm not working in good faith.

Fortunately, for the careful reader, the veteran of these fights, educators, folks with critical thinking skills, those who have been online for more than a week, pretty much anyone who has ever had a teen-ager try to outsmart them, anyone who has ever been manipulated, folks born on Tuesday, and people whose names contain a vowel,  the questions themselves often belie the agenda to "outmaneuver" whatever they're asking about.

So I give you D (piecemeal):

So... Questions:

1) The weirdest part of this article is the line "I might eventually come to NOT give all tall people the benefit of the doubt." That's bigotry, that's the definition of bigotry. The article talks about how tall people should not do this and must do that but has no advice for the bigoted short person. The tall person, who is doing nothing wrong in this scenario, maybe they're just reading a blog about writing, something that has nothing to do with height, gets a bunch of demands dumped on their lap by a bigoted short person. Doesn't that seem off? 

Nope.

Even if this weren't just a goofy illustration intended to prove a point.

You literally swung and missed with EVERY part of this question.

"That's bigotry, that's the definition of bigotry."  No it's not. Re-check your definitions. The definition of bigotry has to do with intolerance (usually extreme) and often includes the word hatred. It also often includes some idea of "obstinately" clinging to this idea, which means in SPITE of reason, arguments, and persuasion which is exactly the opposite of the data of having many if not most encounters with something reinforce it to the point that they don't assume it will be the opposite. If our short person outright hated tall people for no reason that would be bigotry (although see below), but that's a far cry from what I wrote which included literally the words: "I don't hate tall people."

Trust me, D. I'm an English major.

Also if you run around hoisting a dictionary into people's faces while trying to discuss complicated and nuanced social issues, the only thing you're really telling them is that your level of understanding is about as sophisticated as a sentence, maybe two.

Because here's the real issue: you're trying to ignore a power dynamic (which is particularly prevalent in issues outside of this metaphor of short v. tall). And you ignored it, in this case, by cleverly truncating not only the next clarifying sentence, but even the entire sentence that you quoted. Let me go ahead and quote the whole thing so we can deal with what was actually said:

"And if, everywhere I went, tall people just kept doing and saying that shit all the time and acting like total dillholes, I might eventually come to NOT give all tall people the benefit of the doubt for being cool. I might think that generally tall people fell victim to an all-too-typical societal view that their tallness equaled some kind of moral superiority until/unless I'd met them and knew for sure they weren't going to pull that shit."

Man....it really undermines that whole hyperbolic "this is bigotry!" claim when the actual quote is A) about not "being cool" rather than some deep seated hatred and B) specifically contextualized to be about assuming someone is holding a common cultural prejudice rather than a baseless judgement.

You know what they call it when you try to argue against a point that a person didn't actually make?

Here's a hint.
(Image description: A man made entirely of straw.)

The tall person, who is doing nothing wrong in this scenario, maybe they're just reading a blog about writing, something that has nothing to do with height, gets a bunch of demands dumped on their lap by a bigoted short person.

Did we read the post D? Is this tall person of yours from some OTHER post? Because that's not what the tall person is doing "in this scenario" is it? In fact, the tall person is described as doing a number of activities that are quite a bit more antagonistic. No one is suggesting that a tall person just sitting around reading a blog.

Hi. It's me again!
(Image description: A man made entirely of straw.)

2)The blog says don't apologize or feel guilty for being tall just acknowledge the privilege. What does that mean? What does that even look like? I have heard acknowledge your privilege many times in the past but no one has ever said what that action actually is.


Really? No one?  Ever? Are you sure? Well okay then, you're about to really get your money's worth today.

Like this: "I acknowledge I have privilege in this area."

If you really want to spruce it up: "I recognize that I am afforded advantages due to the unearned circumstances of my birth."

And when you reach level two: "I'm thinking that my advice how you should compensate for those things of which I have unearned advantages and haven't had to deal with in my life is really super condescending. I'm going to try having some empathy for how that lands, and not insist that you are wrong about your own lived experience or that I know how to fix it. I'm sorry."


3) The last line of the blog is "don't tell them that they're wrong." What if the tall person thinks they're wrong? Being short does not convey unquestionable wisdom. Short people can be wrong even about being short. Intelligence is not height linked. A tall engineer might have better insight in solving the problems of shortness than short florist. Why do we assume a person who is tall lack the intellect to understand what it would be like to be short? Why does a tall person have to surrender their right to disagree? Yes, a tall person will not experience the emotional urgency of the problem but isn't that distance a good thing? Lawyer can argue a case their emotionally involved in, doctors can't operate on their children. Why does the problem of shortness require the problem solver to experience blinding rage at the problem?

Blinding rage? (Rereads the post.) I'm pretty sure you added that yourself.

Diiiiiiiiiiiiiid somebody call?

The last line of the blog is "don't tell them that they're wrong.

Actually it's not. Again, you decided to remove an entire dependent clause from the sentence to suit your purposes. Let's take a look at the real quote:

"And if they take the time and energy to tell you what they need to be able to reach the same things you do without undue hardship that you do not experience, don't tell them that they're wrong."

Oh. So we're not really talking about "unquestionable wisdom" are we? We're talking about someone drawing from a lifetime of being short and doing the emotional labor to tell you what they need with regards to a hardship they experience but you do not. Just like poor people are able to point out that "just work harder" or "skip the latte" isn't really good advice to escape intergenerational poverty. Or women can tell you that advice to "lean in" isn't always particularly helpful.

Don't mind me. Just mixing it up.
(Image description: Another man made entirely of straw.)

Short people can be wrong even about being short.

Yes, but they aren't as likely to be wrong as a tall person telling them what their life is like. Who do you think is better to describe someone's life than that person themself?

Intelligence is not height linked. A tall engineer might have better insight in solving the problems of shortness than short florist.

While an engineer designing some sort of actually useful solution to the social advantages afforded to tall people is an intriguing idea, that's pretty deep into the metaphor, to go for the sake of a specious hypothetical. I suspect what is really being asked is aren't there some people smart enough to disregard what folks identify as their own problems and what would help them, and instead tell them what their real problem is and how to fix it. ("Those kids don't need breakfast. What they need is a better work ethic!")

That's pretty fucking arrogant.

Intelligence isn't height linked, but knowing what one's own life is like has a massive correlation with actually being the person in question.

Besides my scenario wasn't about some wacky inventor genuinely trying to help a short person reach the top shelves with rocket boots or something. (Gotta read the actual text, dude.) It was about someone who dismissed the problem. Reading what I actually wrote, it would be more like our very smart engineer saying, "You should really calm down about this. Statistically speaking, there is only a .04 chance of falling off the counter and in all likelihood, even if you did, you would not be severely injured. Your real problem isn't that you need your coffee cups placed on the bottom shelf. It is that you need to go to the gym to improve your leg strength so that you can easily generate the 567 kilojoules needed to make the initial jump from the floor to the counter each morning. And have a better attitude."

But I guess it's a lot easier to read right past what I actually wrote...

We really have to stop meeting like this.
(Image description: Three scarecrows--or men made entirely of straw.)

If you want to invent a better step stool (probably because the short person tells you what the problem is with the existing one), awesome. Then you are not a dillhole tall person spoken of in the post.

#notalltallpeople

Why do we assume a person who is tall lack the intellect to understand what it would be like to be short? 

Oopsie! You painted yourself into a corner with all this "intelligence" shit. 

Here's the problem with that line of thinking: If the tall person really had an intelligent sense of what the short person's life was like, they would almost certainly have stumbled along the fact (at some point during their painstaking intellectual research) that one of the most irritating parts of being short was tall people telling them what their life was like.

To put it another way, if someone were as intellectually savvy as you suggest (and not just assuming they know everything because they were in the GATE program in sixth grade) and had used that intelligence to become EDUCATED about the topic, they would have a vastly more sophisticated understanding of the issues, the impact of the issues, how to broach those subjects, how to frame them productively, what NOT to do, what had actually been tried a gazillion times to no avail, and will generally not act the dillhole described.

Most privileged people who tell folks pushed to the margins of our societies how they ought to live to rise above their circumstances display little more than a BREATHTAKING ignorance about the topic.

Why does a tall person have to surrender their right to disagree? 

This is a much more fraught scenario than I wrote. In your version there is blinding rage and surrendering rights. It sounds very dystopian. Did you maybe just read The Hunger Games? Or...wait I know.....

Sup.
(Image description: First man made entirely of straw.)

Nobody has to "surrender their rights. This isn't a Cory Doctorow novel. It just makes them a dillhole to assume that they know more about what it's like to be short.

Yes, a tall person will not experience the emotional urgency of the problem but isn't that distance a good thing? 

No.

Disinterest is not a virtue. Particularly around critical issues like equality.

This is exactly why not enough people with privilege think things like ongoing racism, misogyny, transantagonism, and bigotry are really that big a deal, can wait (indefinitely) until the "right time," (which is always at least after the next election), and spend their energy trying to silence anyone who points it out. It doesn't affect them directly, so it's non-urgent. They've got better shit to do.

Lawyer can argue a case their emotionally involved in, doctors can't operate on their children. Why does the problem of shortness require the problem solver to experience blinding rage at the problem?

I think you're missing some words here, but I get the idea: that only someone emotionally detached is capable of arbitrating what the life experiences that "count" as bigotry are.

First of all one problem with your analogy is that this isn't a court or a operating room. These are social issues that we're all of us invested in up to our eyeballs whether we think so or not, and while they lead to medical and legal inequalities, this isn't a trial or a surgery. (But on the bright side, you at least mixed it up fallacy-wise with some false equivalence. I sure was getting tired of–)

No? Oh sorry. I thought I heard my name.

Tall people (or anyone with privilege) arbitrating what "really" counts as bigotry is exactly emblematic of the problem.

Think about this: Imagine you said to me, "I think my boss has it in for me because of my nasally voice" and my only response was, "Only your boss is capable of determining that because they don't have a nasally voice. You are clearly too impartial to judge."

See how fucking ridiculous that sounds?

And yet we hear this EXACT argument about sexuality, gender, and race basically every day without even questioning it. The aggrieved party is deemed incapable of determining what "counts" as bigotry–not in a court of law but even just to TALK about it–and because their accusation (simply by virtue of existing) is so fucking irrational, the only person capable of judging is the very person being accused (or someone from THEIR group).

"Why of course I wasn't being a bigot. I don't have a bigoted bone in my body."

(All bigots have bigot-free bones, are the least bigoted person you'll ever meet, and love people even if they're purple.)

Can you MAYBE see how actually THAT creates a conflict of interest that we conveniently gloss over? This narrative of "the impartial judge" (so white people are the only ones truly capable of judging racism, straight people are the only ones capable of judging homophobia, men are the only ones capable of judging misogyny, etc...) has an actual glaring, overwhelming, undeniable, elephant-in-the-room issue of a complete conflict of interest that is never even considered within the "distance" you are just asking questions about.

Because when you think of who stands to lose social standing, moral high ground, control of the narrative, or–should the playing field actually be leveled–even resources, it is immediately clear that NO ONE is capable of being completely impartial.

Ever.

So you might as well weigh all stories with equal empathy and veracity.

4) Tall people are considered privileged because more CEO and presidents are tall, they can reach thing and certain women only date tall men. But tall people can not be astronauts, they have shorter lifespans, and their clothes cost more. Why are some arbitrary measure considered privilege but other are not? If a tall person wants to be an astronaut then they are very disadvantaged even if they could be a CEO.

Just so you know how ridiculous the astronaut example was to throw in here D, you can be 190.5cm (6'3") and still be an astronaut. So you're not talking about the difference between "short" and "tall" people. You're talking about the the 1 percentile of REALLY tall people who don't physically fit into the shuttle modules.

The lifespan thing is actually an interesting point because it can show how important it can be to read what is written instead of bring a bunch of assumptions to the table. Okay so let's pretend the short vs. tall lifespan thing was definitively solved (it's not) with short people coming in an extra 5 years on average than tall. If the post were discussing lifespans, rather than the things it did, we might have to acknowledge that there is some privilege that goes the other way.

Then again the post didn't actually deny that short people had some privilege, did it? It also didn't qualitatively insist that being tall was "better" did it? (Hint: the answer to both is no.)

It talked about the privileges of being tall–the social advantages. Those don't go away because there might be one or two privileges to being shorter. It talked about not denying the privileges of being tall.  (Wanting to be an astronaut does not make the advantages of being tall go away.) And if our hypothetical short person were ignoring the privilege of their longer life span and giving the tall person a bunch of unsolicited advice on how to eat cruciferous vegetables to live longer and just move to Russia to be an astronaut because they have a taller height cap, they would probably be the dillhole in the scenario.

But....tall and short people aren't really what this is about and not the point you're trying to make, right?

Yes there will always be the lone advantage or two that goes the "other way." Men can't get that scholarship written for women. White people can't apply for a grant from the NAACP. Women can sometimes get free drinks*. That doesn't erase what is an overwhelming gestalt experience. And only if you ignore the entire rest of the goddamned world to focus on that one facet can you even come close to thinking that the scales are balanced. But framing the narrative in a way that focuses on what you want to be true and ignores everything else (possibly including causation) is disingenuous at best. Not too many people say "FUCK I wish I were shorter so I could live a statistical average of five years longer!" and there's a reason for that.

*If they are willing to risk anger, slurs, rage, physical assault, sexual assault, and even being killed if they accept that drink and then turn down the offerer.

I mean, that would be like mentioning that clothes are sometimes a little more expensive for taller people but leaving out that on average taller people make more money than the clothes would have cost and....um.....

Let's move on. Shall we?

5) On the idea of tall privilege one of the examples of privilege is that more CEO are tall. But what if this difference is due to something else, like, for example, gender. Women tend to be shorter so couldn't be the case that the average height to position difference is due in part to gender not height? Aren't we really talking about a multi-factor problem and pointing to an average based on a single factor just wrong. Won't any policy based on a single factor of a multi-factor problem over-correct and produce oppression? 

Excellent point. This is called "intersectionality" (like between two or more "axes" in a graph) and it points out that there are multiple complicated moving parts in privilege and marginalization. For example, CEO's ARE mostly men, so gender seems to be a factor too.

Of course as critical thinkers, we can isolate certain factors by accounting for them. If only gender mattered we would expect to see a wide spectrum of heights among those almost exclusively dude CEOs (we don't–they tend to be taller) and a generally even spread of incomes among men regardless of height (also no). If only height mattered, we would expect that CEOs would roughly reflect the statistical commonality of taller women (they don't) and we would see taller women generally making more than shorter men (nope). So we can infer that both these factors are real.

Being white also matters. Being cis also matters. Being from a high class background also matters. Being straight also matters. Being Christian also matters. And each of these things has a complex interplay with all the others. White women don't experience racism. Black men don't experience sexism. Black women experience both and often in ways that amplify each other.

What a marvelous observation, D. You've taken your first step towards understanding how oppression and supremacy work along lots of axes, which is–I'm 100% certain–exactly the point you were trying to make.

Won't any policy based on a single factor of a multi-factor problem over-correct and produce oppression? 

Policy? Was there a fucking policy in my post somewhere that I didn't see or remember writing?

Can I be done now. I'm tired.

Look it's pretty easy to read between the lines (well, not so much between them as the actual lines themselves) that your real question is about affirmative action and the "imminent dangers" of reverse discrimination. Because what ever will become of the mediocre white men if we start trying to factor for societal advantages and disadvantages?

In fact, it is absolutely true that any group that only corrects for one factor (say, by hiring more women) may create oppression inadvertently ("Now we have gender parity, but everyone is white and heterosexual"). But if you're asking, as I'm pretty sure you are, if the world is going to become a cesspool of reverse racism and misandry if we don't keep things 90% white dudes, not so much.

A better question might be: "Will the people with privilege, who perceive themselves to be losing power, prestige, jobs, control of the narrative, "their" country, etc....  Will they, as the playing field levels from total white male hegemony (that, at least here in the US, includes slavery, genocide, and codified legal bigotry) even suffer things to become equal, nevermind skewed in the other direction?"

Let's just say that in the US, where literal Nazis are marching the streets and white nationalism has put the serial sexual assaulter Donald The-Least-Racist-Person-You've-Ever-Met Trump in power it's looking pretty fucking unlikely. Or did you think that the party in power that is mostly straight white men is looking back to the halcyon days before the ERA and Civil Rights because of the 90% tax bracket and powerful unions?

However if short people inherit the Earth, D, I promise I'll take a moment from my CEO job with my multiple yoga instructor partners, pop back to that post, and change it to be about short privilege instead. Pinkie swear.

Unfriended (The Renown Margin)

Didn't they make a horror movie out of this?
Image description: Facebook "Unfriended."

The law of big numbers really starts to work against someone who curates and cares about their friends on social media. It can be incredibly helpful to those within the public eye have a public and a private persona.

See, for me public/private has a very literal expression seeing as I have so much of an online presence. I literally have a public account and I have a private account and about 90% of the people in the latter are the folks I would say are included in my "private life" in some way.

But here is the part that isn't about me. Perhaps the most fundamental part of your PUBLIC PERSONA™ is going to have to be a certain level of acceptance that this public facing self has a revolving door on its "friendships."

Me. Oh so very me.
cagle.com
Image description: man chained to a computer monitor
with the Facebook F logo on it.

Folks will sweep into your orbit because of your work or your fame or your mystique or because they like the show you're putting on or just to see what all the fuss is about or even in hopes that it will benefit them somehow, and they will woosh out just as easily.

And if you're going to be in a situation where you have fans, you really have to be able to not let that get to you.

This is true in all of life, of course. Friendships run the gamut from mercurial to stronger than family to Guy-You-Really-Like-But-Really-Only-See-At-Chet's-Annual-"Everyone"-Barbecue. We like chatting with people we hang out with at work at lunch, but most of us don't keep in touch after we quit. These relationships come and go.

Intern: I found a "busy revolving door" gif.
Me: Post it.
Intern: It might not frame your fans in quite the light that you see them or that they would particularly apprec-
Me: Look we're running behind, just post it.

Folks find they don't get on with someone that well and kind of start working around them, only being cordial if they get cornered near the to-die-for shrimp puffs at the annual Arbor Day party having been abandoned by their bestie who went to go sing Weird Al's Spiderman Song with the guy who knows how to play Piano Man on Aunt Gertrude's 1970's organ. ("Oh hey! How's it going? Oh yeah.....I did. I did. Yes. We're so happy. But...you know....I hope you don't feel bad. I had to limit myself to like 600 invites because of the fondue fountain, so....yeah....nothing personal.")

And in a certain respect this dynamic that has been around since the days of yore has only gotten weird with the advent of social media where clicking a button makes everything official. (Does anyone doubt that snidely declaring you are unfollowing someone instead of just doing it is just about the equivalent of "I'm ignoring you now! La La La La!") I mean some friends "break up," but usually the relationship just kind of falls into torpor. Social media has made things strangely officious including the weird high-school-like con-fabs where one person declares they have unfriended [Person X] and then everyone chimes in with why they never really liked them anyway.

And there are apps that send you a notification within seconds. Good luck just trying to slip away and hope no one notices.

Okay, okay. Just bear with me.

I'm not saying that your online friends aren't "real." I'm saying that they they accurately reflect a continuum of meaningful to casual and that if you're pushing in on that "famous" edge, there will be a lot more casual and superficial types––just like your meatspace relationships.

I'm talking about social media here because that creates a very literalized action for what I'm mostly trying to explain on a theoretical level, and not in any way because I'm totally addicted to social media and can't entirely conceive of a world without it.

I'm not. I'm not I'm not I'm not!

For those who have begun to experience fame (or who think they might), and have split their lives into private and public spheres, unless they are a true Salingian misanthrope and have no friends, physical, handwritten, or online, they will have to confront the fact that their "public level friends" will come and go very capriciously. More so than an "average" number of friends or someone might who doesn't have random people really wanting to get near them. It is important artists and entertainers beginning to touch that spark of fame keep themselves protected by not assuming (initially) that those relationships are bear resemblance to true friendships, no matter how much adulation or seeming intimacy pours out from them.

Let me say that again: these are not real friendships. They may BECOME real friendships, but that's not what they are to start.

People will come and go, and that's where it can get tricky–and a little painful–if you're treating those friendships like they are fully reticulated relationships. The going part hurts if you assume all friendships are founded on an equal foundation.

Again....folks, I'm telling you this because Writing About Writing is (among other things) a real-time transparent look into trying to develop the trajectory to a successful writing career. This is one of those things I wish someone had told me. I had to learn it the hard way and there were a lot of tearful nights before I realized that people unfriending wasn't really a rejection of me as a person.

People unfriend me (metaphorically and literally) all the time and for all kinds of reasons. And a very important thing to stress is that is okay–everyone gets to make the decisions for themselves about who they hang around with and what will make them safe and comfortable in this world. Nobody owes anyone else a friendship or even an explanation for walking away from a situation they view as toxic.

Many of these are social media specific, but they would have versions for people who didn't have a strong social media presence as well.

I'm too radical. Some people want to vote Democrat and call it a day on being "liberal enough." I dip my toe into criticism (particularly of our current administration) often enough that they think I'll never say anything more tough to agree with than "Trump is a bucket of unwiped anal sphincters." Then they bring some privilege denying bullshit or straight up maybe-they-deserve-it level bigotry to my wall, I point out that something they're saying is having an impact they probably didn't intend, and they go full SQD on me. Or maybe I defend certain circumstances of punching Nazis. Or point out that the stroke of a lawmaker's pen can be a violent act. Or tell them their favorite book had some pretty non-trivial problematica. Or....

I'm not radical enough. And for some I'm just not radical enough. I don't cheer torture so long as I personally deem someone unworthy of the eighth amendment. I'm not okay with extrajudicial murder so long as it's the "right" sort of people, or of lone agents opening fire on civilians so long as one of the bullets happens to hit a Republican politician. My empathy doesn't end at "those people" even if that would make me fit in a lot better with certain groups. And while I recognize a wide gulf between cheering and "it's really hard to summon much sympathy," sometimes that nuance gets lost when effigies are burning and the takes and blood are hot.

Disagreeable amounts of nuance. I often bring nuance to a situation that someone desperately wants to paint as cut and dry and doesn't feel is as complex as I think it is. Conversely, sometimes I point out that bigotry, top down violence, and systematic discrimination is a fair bit simpler and requires a more direct response than the endless, ever-deeper nuanced framing of privileged narratives and silencing of those harmed.

I'm too political. I obviously post a LOT about social issues, particularly when there's a bee in my bonnet and some people can't deal with that. It's not even always that they disagree with me; they just don't want to have someone on their feed bringing it up every day.

Not political enough.  Some people came for the social justice and did NOT stay for the selfies and nerdery.

The political/apolitical phase. Maybe they cared about politics for a while, but then it really got intense and was hard on their mental health. Or they just decided that Facebook is a place for friends and kitten memes and their done with heavy shit.

Enjoy your echo chamber! Okay, unlike most of the others, these guys really are jerkwads. They make some racist or sexist or transphobic point and then when they experience the slightest push back, they stomp off and invite me to enjoy the "echo chamber" of my wall, which is funny because the political spectrum in here leads to some pretty....robust conversations and you would have to be be very far off to the right to see us as a monolith.

Ironically, they say such things while leaving forever a conversation they don't like.

YOU'RE not my doppelganger! Some people really do need everyone around them to agree with them all the time. And when you're an opinionated writer like I am, you find out really quickly where the areas of non-overlap are. And as soon as I disagree on one thing, they're out like trout.

What are these intersections of which you speak? Often when something goes viral about issue [X], I get a lot of people into issue [X] sending me friend requests. Sometimes they get a little shocked when I care just as much about issue [Y], which they either do not or not nearly as much as the issue that first brought me to their attention.

The Wedge Issue. It's important to them that everyone agree with them (perhaps exactly) about one particular issue, and they don't want anyone who doesn't agree in their space. Though true of almost everything on this list, this one is worthy of particular mention that this isn't necessarily unreasonable. Often this issue is people's own experiences of oppression and everyone is absolutely entitled to feel safe in their own spaces.

Done with you. Some people aren't here to give folks they don't know a bunch of chances and if they perceive that I've handled enough situations badly or need more emotional labor than I'm worth to correct me, they no longer consider me safe.

Too much/not enough calling out. I often let things slide when I'm too mentally exhausted to have a fight, assume the best faith, or don't unleash force majeure on folks who are still working on 101 level issues. But I also don't run interference for those who step in it nor will I tone police anyone who would like a word. So people unfriend me because I'm not hard enough about their social issue, or because I "let" them get smacked around when they step in it.

Unhealed trauma. Sometimes people bring their unhealed trauma into a situation and their reactions to things become much more about them than what is going on. Enraged unfriendings are not uncommon.

Meanwhile in the comments. Like pretty much all of online, people bring a spectrum of patience and resilience to my wall.  Many of my friends are mostly strangers to each other, and things can get pretty heated when non-verbal communication and good faith are removed. Not everyone wants a friend whose posts they feel like they're getting into a fight to comment on. As much as I try to avoid topics I know are going to cause fallout between my social justice literate friends and everybody else (like the word "Sapiosexual," Trevor Noah, George Takei,  or whether Seth MacFarlane shows are socially pretty shitty), someone inevitably says "I don't have a problem with that," and then we're off to the fucking races–bring out the steam rollers with spikes. Shoulda stuck to agreeable topics like which way the toilet paper roll goes, pineapple on pizza, and how to say GIF.

Usually I do okay. Some days I don't.

Image description: Tombstone with Chris Brecheen '74-'18
Text: "Well that was more controversial than I thought it would be."

The purity scourges. At this point my friend list has been rocked by at least twenty major fallouts between multiple and shifting alliances of coteries that I can't even keep track of. These range from unapologetic transantagonism and antisemitism and sexual assault survivors not wanting to even have mutuals with a person actively victim blaming them, to a person unfriending everyone who had mutuals with someone starting a call out campaign against them to misinterpreted comments that were Ship of Theseus'ed in the worst possible faith. And people go through and unfriend folks and demand their friends (who maybe don't even know what's going on) make Sophie's choice. And it's all their prerogative of course because everyone is entitled to feel safe, even by proxy. But it does mean I might (and have) get (gotten) purged without even knowing what is (was) actually going on.

SWERF and TERF Every once in a while a trans exclusionary radical feminist or sex worker exclusionary radical feminist manages to slip through the defense grid and get onto my friend lists and one of us realizes what the other is about. It is basically a race to the unfriend button like the beginning of a round of The Family Feud.

The life cycle of many a fan.

• This guy is great. I'm going to follow him on every social media.
• This guy is so great. I love everything he writes. He never sells out to anyone demanding he be different. He just does his thing and screw the haters.
• This guy is so great. I love everything he writes.....except maybe that one thing.
• Boy I really wish he wouldn't write about that one thing.
• There's that one thing again. I mean he does other stuff but he does that enough that I can't enjoy it.
• Man, is he on about that one thing again. I can't stand it anymore!
• "Dear Chris. As a long time fan, I am entitled to give you feedback about how to shape your creative life more for my personal tastes and desires. Talking about 'The Thing' once a week is far too often for everyone's tastes. You should stop doing it because you're driving all your fans away. I'm totally not projecting my own desires into your entire fanbase. Plz change. Kthxbai."
• HE DIDN'T LISTEN TO MY DEMAND!! HE IS SO INTRACTABLE!
• I hate this guy. Get bent. He's no artist--UNFRIENDED!
• Perhaps some years later: "He's okay. I read most of his stuff....still on about that one thing though."

Do as I say! Some people see my outreach and sort of wish it was their outreach. They have a cause or just a timber that they feel is their moral imperative, and the ends justify the means. Soon I'm dealing with people demanding I frame every issue exactly as they would, care about every aspect and facet of an issue with exactly the same amount of force majeure with which they would, and absolutely, positively NEVER use levity or nuance in a way they have deemed inappropriate. Sometimes they even tell me directly what my next post should be. This is how you treat an employee, not a friend, and when I react badly, that's usually not when they reevaluate how pushy they've become, but rather (because the ends justify the means) when they end the friendship.

Nothing to do with me. In the world of social media this might mean someone left the medium (Facebook or whatever). But all kinds of things happen in someone's life that could make them suddenly scarce. They have a new lover, new job, new social life. They want to put their fervor into multi-level marketing. They move to Antarctica. They went to live in a yurt.  Whatever. It doesn't have anything to do with me. Months later I notice they're gone.

The jealous partner. Oh yeah. This is it's whole thing. People flirt with me (sometimes pretty hard) because I'm polyamorous and I fill some validation or something that they're not getting in their lives. Then their possessive jealous partner (usually, but not always, a boyfriend or husband) who I either didn't know about or was told wouldn't care, turns out to care a lot and the person is in less of an "open relationship" than was first advertised. He demands I be unfriended immediately.

The Legions Miscelanea. Recently a friend unfriended me because they made a sweeping statement that they were going to unfriend anyone who took FB quizzes due to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Having listened to perhaps 50 hours of congressional testimony and breakdown on NPR, I offered up how they were factually inaccurate about how this data mining actually worked. Locked information stays locked on a profile, and Cambridge Analytica involved an ACTUAL political test to get its information. I was very clear in this response that I didn't actually TAKE those quizzes (about which Game of Thrones character I am, or whatever), but if they weren't going to trust FB to be honest about how an outside app would access their information, they shouldn't be trusting Facebook at ALL. BAM unfriended. Ostensibly because I'm a security risk (even though, as I said, I was clear that I didn't take those quizzes), but really it was probably to punish me for being "wrong." I challenged their narrative that a single "What Kind of Burrito are You?" quiz on an entertainment website was infodumping everything about a person's whole friend list to some shady megacorp. (Data mining is scary, but that's not how it works.) They didn't like that.

One guy blocked me when I pointed out that he could have linked and/or credited a tweet instead of copy and pasting it as one of his own. One gal was sure I was the one that left some message on her Saharah that she didn't appreciate. (I never even used Saharah.) I'm pretty sure a couple of people have unfriended me because they'd like to fuck the woman who still drags me from time to time for not choosing her when she defended a sexual assaulter and blamed the victim. I know I've been on the bad side of one of the feuds. One person unfriended me because I wouldn't meet up with her in Salt Lake City later that day–Later. That. DAY.  I mean there are so many stories and the fewer people that see you as a real person and project who you are onto you instead of bothering to get to know you for real, the more they treat you as disposable when things get even slightly weird.

Who even knows? A lot of people just fucking ghost. They talk about me, but not too me. And maybe that's what feels safer and less confrontational to them. I'm certainly not entitled to an explanation. But it also means I never really know. And if I tried, I'd probably just hurt my soul. I thought we were friends, but I guess not so much on their end.

Now imagine....just imagine for a moment....what a quibbling mess I'd be if I let my personal demons tear me apart Every. Single. Time. one of these things happened. I'd never get ANYTHING done. My life would be a miasma of anxiety, self doubt and loathing, abandonment triggers, and the surety that my imposter syndrome was right all along and they just realized I'm faking it*. 

*Well...okay....like more than it already is.

Being written out by friends you love and trust is hard enough that you don't want to sign on for it with folks who have a different "frequency" of friendship with you. That's just asking for trouble. And as I said while not everyone is going to have these dynamics play out so literally as they do on social media, everyone who is starting to find some kind of "fame" around what they do is going to have to deal with the fact that they are going to have "friends" come and go like they are a little bit disposable.

Hopefully if your life is bending that way you separate your public and private life, protect yourself (and them) by managing your expectations, and don't have to learn these lessons the hard way like Chris did.

Public and Private (Renown Margin)

There are a whole series of things I want to write about when it comes to The Renown Margin (wherein I'm not really famous, but some parts of my life are juuuuuuust starting to bend that way) and I have several articles on their way about everything from why it is very unlikely that anyone famous will register outrage from a stranger to the fact that people start to treat me as a stand in, and even being the beneficiary of that can be scary. I'll space these posts out a bit, but there's a lot to say.

But all of it seems based on a core concept that I need to get out first.....

One of the most important pieces of advice I can give folks in arts and entertainment has nothing to do with writing in particular, and it has nothing to do art conceptually. It is simply this:

Keep your private and your public faces separate and be very careful of who you trust enough to cross over that Rubicon.

People will hurt you if you let them.

Most of them won't mean to (though some of them surely will), but they just aren't careful. They know you're a human, of course, on an intellectual level, but for many of them you're not quite registering as entirely real.

Analogously, you're more like a stuffed animal. Most of what they like (or don't) about you, is what they have decided you are based on little or no evidence.

Geoffrey shares all my core values as well as my
exact take on every current event.

This doesn't mean you can't be radically open and authentic in public. It doesn't mean you have to be aloof or unpersonable. It doesn't mean you can't enjoy the company of those who like what you create.  It simply means that it's probably in your best interest to be very, very careful (and this is for you, mind). It's probably a capital idea that you get square with a slightly uncomfortable truth: most people you know through whatever is affording you that level of fame do not like you as a person.

I'm sure you think I'm great since we've never once met,
but hang on a second.

Did that sound harsh? It shouldn't. They don't even know you as a person. They might think they do, and that's the problem. Most people don't think they know someone they've never really met, but with you they might have made some assumptions and spackled in the cracks with Whatevertheywant™. Not all of them will take the care to respect that they don't really know you, so you might want to keep them at arm's length until you know that you can trust them.

The people who like your work have come to you for "the show," whatever they think it is going to be, and if you let them in, they may hurt you when "the show" is no longer exactly what they want it to be or just wander off when they are no longer interested. People who don't like your work will attack without regard for the human being that is behind whatever has upset them.

If they like you personally, often the aspects people know become distorted, and often those they don't know they fill in with some level of projection, so that they don't really know you. They know bits and pieces (often the curated stuff that you are public about) and fill in the blanks. And if they don't like you the same thing happens, your failings becoming all they are aware of and they assume you also kick puppies and hate orphans.

Of course when folks begin to see your flaws they may accept them or they may suddenly change temperature on you with no warning.

And mixed in with these folks (who are often just careless), are people who absolutely want to use you. You are a means to their end. They want some of "it" to rub off on them whether it is literally people coupling with you to boost their own networking profile or just folks who think that fame is some sort of fairy dust that shakes out of people if you're near them.

They're not even the worst part. The worst part is that there are a few out there who want to see you fail. They are just watching to shoot you down when you stumble and say they always knew you'd fall. (Just Chris being extra paranoid? Well even if I hadn't heard precisely as much about other famous folks, it's fantastic what you can find out when people don't realize they're commenting on a public thread.)

Holy fuck!!!
The things you can find on Google are truly terrifying.

This is a nasty cocktail to be swimming in with nary a care. And if you give out your trust like some nilly who likes it willy style, and assume that everyone who likes you really really likes you, you're going to get hurt. And not a little.

This is one of those things I wish someone had told me before I got slapped around by it a few times and had to learn to piece together my own boundaries out of bailing wire and spit.

Oh sure, not everyone is carrying around exactly my people-pleasing/abandonment issue, step-dad-was-likely-a-malignant-narcissist-who-definitely-emotionally-and-physically-abused me baggage, but you can still expose yourself to a lot of unnecessary hurt.

I don't even mean the unsolicited pornographic selfies and solicitations that are recanted the next morning when the alcohol wears off; those don't really cause me angst.  And I don't even really mean sliding into my PM's to get some validation and emotional labor until exactly the moment another relationship starts. That shit is mostly eye roll worthy and just inconsiderate.

However, over the years people who have gotten to know me only through my writing have befriended me and then casually disowned me utterly from their life when I came down the "wrong" way on Sanders v. Clinton; flirted with me, hit on me, come on to me, and even made sexy plans with me, and then ghosted when their marriage that wasn't quite as open as they'd implied; assumed the worst possible faith about a single interaction they thought targeted them despite a years long relationship; leaned on me for support and developed a rapport and relationship and even said they loved me only to basically disappear once their crisis was resolved; brought me into their confidence for months with many words about how invaluable our relationship was both because of my sense of social equity and personal empathy only to completely disappear one day; and have said all kinds of things that make me feel less like a human and more like someone they are entitled to. (I mean, I get that "I'm going to marry you" is supposed to be a compliment, but buy Chris dinner and ask him about his dreams first, mmmkay?)

Each of these things hurt. The acute kind of pain that happens when you break up with someone or lose a friend. I wondered what I did wrong. I blamed myself. I don't believe any of these things happened because those people suck. I'm fulfilling a role in their lives, and I was not being careful enough about who I let in. And that familiarity we shared was more disposable to them.

Because they never really saw me as a PERSON.

Even still, these are folks who went out of their way to treat me like someone they really liked–those few anecdotes doesn't even count the dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of folks who sort of drift in and out, usually my social media presence, for their own reasons (the topic for a future post) without so much as a word.

When strangers treat me this way, it doesn't really bother me. I don't expect to have a relationship with someone I joke with for three stops on the BART, and I don't feel betrayed when someone I don't know assumes I have no reason beyond my own moral turpitude to have gotten tired of Bernie Bros. It just is easy to forget that folks are really actually strangers when they act like they know you and seem to quite like you.

Not unless you have that boundary in your head to begin with.

In my case, this advice has a very literal expression on social media. I have a public account and a private account. But that also works for me because I have a huge online presence, and I am wary when I meet people who know me only as an author. I remember that it'll be a while and several meetings before they know Chris, and not a chris-shaped stuffie filled with preconceptions and projections.

If you are starting to develop an audience (or just want to), I can't give you any advice more valuable than to keep your public and private facing selves separate.

What is Plot Driven (Mailbox)

What does "plot driven" mean?

[Remember, keep sending in your questions to chris.brecheen@gmail.com with the subject line "W.A.W. Mailbox" and I will answer a couple a week.  I will use your first name ONLY unless you tell me explicitly that you'd like me to use your full name or you would prefer to remain anonymous.  My comment policy also may mean one of your comments ends up in the mailbox. JSYK, most drunk questions are NOT worth answering.] 

"Doug" asks:  

I just got a rejection letter and I wanted to know what the hell does "plot driven" mean. (I might be a little drunk.)

(Note: Minor spoilers for Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Daredevil Season 1)

My reply: 

Well have one for me. That sounds like a rough rejection letter. Though if it was hand-written, instead of a form template, you might actually be closer than you think to being publishable.

This question disappeared from my inbox, but not from my mind, so I reconstructed it as best I can. Please remember if you send a question it might take me anywhere from a couple days to infinity to get back to it depending on its level of Awesome Sauce™. There are definitely ways to hedge your bets on a sooner-rather-than-later answer, and most of them don't even involve ash hauling.

But let's get back to your question, Doug. (I'm going to call you Doug since I can't remember your name from the original email. That's cool, isn't it.....Doug?) What does plot driven mean?

It means your plot is driving. *rimshot*

No?

More?

Oh fine.

Because this question is sort of impossible to answer without understanding its opposite, let me also talk about "character driven." Because if you're getting a rejection letter that says your story is plot driven, what they are also saying is that it is NOT character driven. Even though isn't really possible to have a story that is completely plot driven and more than a little unusual to have one that is completely character driven, it is quite common to find a lot of great media that is a spectacular mix of both. (An undead army beyond the wall to the north is a plot-driven, external threat, but the six books of infighting among those trying to fill a power vacuum that is needed to confront that threat is totally character driven. A powerful space station that can destroy a planet is plot-driven. The roguish character who leaves the fight...but then comes back because of a heart of gold is character driven.)

These two tend to be less like dividing a pizza (where there are only so many slices and you either get plot [pineapple and Canadian bacon] or character [sausage with extra olives] and never the twain shall meat–Get it? Meat...instead of meet?....never mind.) and more like treble and base.

No no. Stick with me. I can make this work.

Turning one up doesn't eliminate the other, but it can kind of make it harder to notice. And while they both can go up to 11, you don't tend to get a lot of quality difference unless one is higher than the other, depending on what quality you want the "sound" to have. So what you've really been told is not that you have to abandon your plot, but that your plot is driving the story, and you need to adjust the "air/fuel mixture" a little.

It's a pretty normal problem to have too much plot. Certainly there are plenty of shitty stories that are just swimming in interesting characters but nothing ever seems to fucking HAPPEN, and there's no real conflict, but it's quite a bit more common when it goes the other way..

"Plot driven" tends to be focused on the external conflict and events. If there's a villain they are pretty much moving inexorably towards something BAD™ and not driven by motivations that play off against the protagonist. The characters are often reacting to what's happening in the world around them or by the villian. Imagine the plot as more of a roller coaster. You could drop Othello or Hamlet in there and it's going to go the same way no matter what even though those two characters are almost as opposite as could be. Your characters might be interesting, but nothing they do is really going to change what happens until the end when they defeat (or don't) the antagonist. You see this type of writing a lot in thrillers and mysteries, and it tends to focus on "plot twists" and quick thinking. And while character driven is more common in the literary genre (and seen as more "legit" as a literary choice by lit sommeliers) there is no shortage of character driven stories in any other genre.

Character driven tends to mean that it is the characters and their internal struggles that are moving the story forward. If Othello and Hamlet switched out their circumstances their plays would each be over in half an scene each. What ends up driving the story is not so much how they immediately react to what is going on but how they process and internalize it. Instead of a roller coaster, think of a car in which they could make turns or drive off the road completely. Consider how Boromir's character changed the entire trajectory of Lord of the Rings (which has a lot of plot driving it) or how the final conflict actually occured within the hearts of a couple of the characters and was only minimally represented in the hack and slash bid for time. There was no last boss fight between Aragorn and Sauron. Frodo failed. And the only reason Sauron didn't win was because of another character utterly corrupted by the ring.  The main conflict in a character driven story is often within one of the characters–can they overcome some sort of personal flaw.....or not.

The thing is, character driven tends to be more impactful as a story, and it's the direction that media has moved over the last century. We are all happy that Lando blew up the second death star and Han blew up the shield generator, but what apparently really resonates for us as a culture is less all that blowing up stuff and more the choice that Vader made as a father. And while stories of good vs. evil will always be cultural touchstones, increasingly audiences are enthralled by complicated stories of characters rubbing up against each other in ways that completely change the story, and that sometimes both sides of a conflict are sympathetic and relatable.

So if you have a Strong Female Character™ with a sword, ask yourself this question: "Would ANY Strong Female Character™ with a sword (and a comparable level of skill) go through essentially the same story or does this SFC™ make some choices that only THIS SFC™ would make. Does she go around a threat because she hates physical pain? What happens then when she gets tortured? Is she toughened by this experience or nearly broken? How does that affect her willingness to go on? Is she hard boiled badass who doesn't give a crap about anything but revenge? What happens then when her choice is to kill the Big Bad™ or save the child? How do the consequences of that decision unfold?  What happens in the story that changes the character? How?

This isn't just about how a character behaves as they're going through a scripted series of events either. Sassy characters mouthing off to BadGuy_12 and gentle characters trying to urge restraint from BadGuy_12 might be "turning up" the character driven a little, but if BadGuy _12 does what they were going to do anyway, it's still Plot Driven Land. An obstacle laden dungeon that unfolds like a video game where all the dialogue options lead you eventually to the same results and same three final battles, is Plot Driven Land.

Plot Driven Land–Population: Doug.

I've been watching a lot of Marvel shows on Netflix lately (I'm way behind, but they're pretty good when I do sit down and watch some TV). They are also great examples.

Consider how much of Daredevil Season 1 involves the interplay between two foil characters. A lot happens, but much of it because one character or another CAUSES it to happen for motivations we understand as the audience. Both are violent. Both care about their community in a way that they are willing to do almost anything. Around the same age, each loses their father. But one is a killer who sees the people around him as a means to an end rarely doubts himself except on a personal level, and the other teeters over that abyss of morality but comes back and is generally supremely self confident on a personal level but constantly questions of his larger vision. They exist as foils and characterization chiasmi.

Consider as an illustration of character driven, how much differently would, say, The Punisher, handle Wilson Fisk if he weren't (as Matt Murdock was) essentially worried about his soul and fighting that base compulsion to hurt someone for vengeance sake and/or commit murder. Don't just imagine The Punisher using a rocket propelled grenade on Fisk's face just in the final fight or compare their ability to kick ass or gather intel. Actually start back at the beginning and imagine how The Punisher's sense of vengeance rather than protection of a community would shape his behavior from the very first moment of the very first episode. It would become a completely different story of an escalating cycle of violence rather than one where each tries to outthink the other's motivations and the ongoing internal question of whether he was doing the right thing would be completely absent from a story in which (with Matt) it was a central theme. Rather than a story about the soul of Hell's Kitchen and gentrification it would be a story about how Hell's Kitchen was collateral damage in a personal war.

Now consider what would happen if Jessica Jones were put into that situation. Five fricken minutes after the opening fight scene, she would be back in her office, pulling liberally on a flask and (successfully) talking herself out of the idea that it was even her problem.....unless she had a personal stake in it.

So I don't know what your story is about, Doug, but perhaps it's time to let your characters drive a little.

Here's a bit more on Character Driven stories.

Okay who wants pizza?

The Book Was SO Much Better (Last Chance to Vote)

What book is outrageously, undisputedly, unquestionably so, so, SO much better than the movie?   

I'll let our current poll drift into February (especially if I let the end of it overlap the nominations for whatever the February poll is going to be), but only a few days. So if you haven't voted (or even if you have and it's been more than a week) it's time to make your voice be heard.

Remember this isn't about the best book or the worst movie but rather the book with the biggest gulf between itself and the movie. The book where you just want to grab people and say "But have you read the book? Oh. My. Sweet. Fucking. Jesus. Have you read the book?

The poll itself is in the lower left at the bottom of the side menus.

If you're on mobile you can scroll ALLLLLL the way to the bottom and click on"webpage view" to see the side menus and get to the polls.

Emergency!

Had an emergency tag in on Job 3. Four hours turned into nine.

If everything goes well this week, I'll just be "red shifted" one day, but The Four Year Old Clause™ is one of the only things other than illness or like local firestorms (or you know.....being thrown into a wood chipper by Steve Buscemi) that can completely throw a wrench in the monkeys.

Follow Writing About Writing

Interested in following Writing About Writing? Or perhaps everything I write? Or maybe a Facebook page with macros and puns?  

If you're trying to follow Writing About Writing, it might actually be confusing to navigate all the different ways to do so. We're on several social media, but not every social medium is updated in the same way. Some follow the blog, but others follow me as a writer. Some get every post I make, no matter how major or minor. (Many days there are two posts but one of them is relatively minor or a menu or some sort of revision of an older article.) Some media are privy to a cycle of "reruns" where (once a day) I cycle through the popular posts of the past so that new folks can see some of the things they missed (and old fans can be reminded of treasured classics).

I also occasionally write for other venues (Ace of Geeks for example), and those who are following me as a writer, rather than JUST Writing About Writing, may prefer the media where I can share those other articles. Some social media have other signal to noise. For example, twitter gets ALL of these updates I post anywhere, including the reruns, which is great for people who don't want to miss anything but may feel too spammy for many followers, as I have no other presence on Twitter. On the other hand, if people JUST want my articles and nothing else, Twitter is perfect.

I'm not really present on any of these social media (except for Facebook). I cross post articles and very occasionally put something else up.

So what's the final word on how you should be following W.A.W.?

185 of the Earth's coolest people can't be wrong!
The real "Join this site" button is at the
bottom of this (and every) page.

Follow Writing About Writing through Google (Blogger, Google Friend Connect). Google's Blogger allows you to assemble a collection of blogs you follow. Most people following the blog this way have their own blog through Blogger, but it's not necessary. (You only actually need a Google account, which many people have through gmail.)

Pros- Shows all new updates (minor and major). Updates in a timely manner. Helps me with my "membership numbers," which are a bellwether of how cooly cool daddy-O the blog is.
Cons- No reruns. No posts from other venues. Blogger usually takes a few hours to get the latest post up. Wordpress is the chic, happening blog place; Blogger is like the high school kids who eat lunch in the quad.

It's going to burn your FEED!!!
Wait...what?

R.S.S. Feed (Feedly, Feedburner) If you have an RSS reader, you may like to simply be updated by having your RSS feed updated with the text of my latest post. If you click on the Feedburner button at the bottom of the page, you can subscribe to Writing About Writing through a number of RSS readers including FeedDemon, Netvibes, My Yahoo, Shrook, Newsfire, RSSOwl and more.

Pros- Shows all new updates (major and minor). Updates instantly.
Cons-Updates instantly! (Normally that wouldn't be a problem, but I am not a good writer. Usually I post before I've managed to find and fix the biggest typos and dingfab errors I missed before I hit "Publish".) R.S.S. feed do not include reruns–even the really good reruns. No posts from other venues. Many RSS readers are JUST text, so you won't see the fabulously hilarious images. Also, if you get a little behind on your feed, it feels like the sword of Damocles.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't punch in
the addys of all those Nigerian Princes.

E-Mail Notification At the bottom of the page there is an option to put your e-mail into a text field and subscribe to W.A.W. through e-mail notifications.  Every time I post an update, you will be sent an e-mail notification containing a link to the post. I've been told that there's even some preview text (the first 200 words or something).

Pros- Shows all new updates (minor and major). Updates right away.
Cons- No reruns. No posts from other venues. You already get ten billion emails a day.

G+ for the W.A.W. Page (The text there is also the link) This G+ page for Writing About Writing. This is JUST for blog updates and reruns. If you want to get updates through G+, you should probably pick this page OR the one below, but not both. If you do both, it will appear in your feed as if every single link is being posted twice, which I know is annoying.

Pros- Show all new updates (minor and major).
Cons- No posts from other venues. Does not include reruns. It's G+, so people will accuse you of working for Google or being woefully out of touch. They will give you tin foil hats and serve you Kool-aid.

G+ for Chris Brecheen (The text is also the link.) This is my personal Google account which I don't really use much other than to post about my blog. Above is if you want to follow the Writing About Writing page; this is if you want to follow ME as an author. If I get added by a name I don't recognize in life, I put the name in a circle called "Author Updates." I post all my reruns and posts to other venues in this circle. I don't often use G+ otherwise, though occasionally I will have a public update that would also be seen by anyone in that circle.

Pros- Major posts, but not minor ones. Does include reruns. Posts from other venues. Posts right away. Not much other "noise."
Cons- Occasionally you'll see a public G+ post I write. Since I post all articles, reruns, and posts from other venues here, this can seem very "spammy." People will accuse you of being a Google shill because you're on G+.

Twitter (@Chrisibrecheen) I don't use Twitter--not really. I don't really like it very much. I held in there for a while until all the retweets and replies became too much. So my tweets are ONLY cross posts of things I've written. Some people appreciate that it's a good place to get ONLY my updates; others find the "signal to noise" to be something that wouldn't make them want to follow me.

Pros- All posts. Reruns. Major posts. Minor posts. Posts from other venues. Posts right away. Not much other "noise."
Cons- I don't otherwise use Twitter. It would be JUST cross posts two or three times a day. Also misunderstandings in 140 character posts are a fact of life.

Facebook Page for Writing About Writing (Text is also the link) W.A.W.'s Facebook page is a whole different kettle of fish. It is, in fact, a thermo-kettle full of piranha. On my Facebook page, I actually post memes, macros, quotes, inspirational messages, videos, and believe it or not, I try NOT TO POST TOO MUCH FROM MY BLOG. Most of the FB audience is there for the shenanigans, not the blog cross posting. Sometimes I skip posting "less popular" updates in favor of a "best of" rerun that will attract more of my FB audience.  FB's algorithm blacks out posts, even to people who want to see it in order to encourage content providers to spend money promoting themselves.

Bitter.
So very bitter.

Pros- Lots of other fun stuff going on. Most posts from other venues.
Cons- Lots of other stuff going on. (Not a good place if you just want the updates or if you want all the updates.) Major posts. Not minor ones. FB algorithm prevents page followers from seeing every post so some W.A.W. posts will get lost. Skips less popular posts in favor of popular reruns. Not a good place to get all the updates. Enjoying anything on FB requires a shower with steel wool and industrial cleanser. Facebook is the antichrist.

Tumblr (Text is also the link) I joined Tumblr after Facebook's latest round of content throttling that basically ensures that about one quarter of one percent of my Facebook followers see any given post unless it is "engaged." Then Tumblr started doing it too and well.....it's really hard to keep more than one social media at a rolling boil at a time unless you want to be a social media person and not actually ever write.  When I have time, I'd like to start reintroducing full X-post with some of the "best of" of my FB page's content. (Like that's one of my next major goals.)

Close but........no.

Pros- Only main posts. Very few reruns (only the uberbest). Some funny macros. Social Justice crap (if you like that stuff).
Cons- Only major, major posts. No "minor" posts. Occasional reruns. Social justice crap (if you don't like that kind of stuff). Very sporadic posting. Basically I suck at sticking with more than one social medium.

Facebook for Chris Brecheen (The text is also the link) I welcome readers to follow me on Facebook, but the updates there get mixed in with a lot of other stuff about my personal life and the things that interest me, some of which (as you may have noticed) include social justice and struggles for equality. I can be a little.....intense. You might want to dig back a few posts and decide if the stuff I yell at clouds about is right for you. Please send me a quick private message if you friend me there. I deal with a hundred sunglasses selling randos a month. If you just want to follow (not friend), 99% of my updates are public.

Pros- All posts. You're more likely to see posts than on Writing About Writing's FB page.
Cons- I go up to 11.  Lots of posts. Facebook is still the devil.