I can't believe the reactions to my blog. My blog is about nothing but writing and what it's like to be published, get a contract, not get one, feeling bad on a writing day, feeling good, etc. It's not about anything personal like my cat or what I wear.
As Ed Gorman said to me this morning:"What's the point of publishing a cowering blog?" Why should I shutup...the whole point of the blog is to take the reader with me as I go through the life of being a published writer. Guess I won't be published anymore, huh?
And nobody reads because I also said:"I’m not saying an editor of that age has to be horrible, in fact I know that someone so young could be the best editor I’ve ever had." I don't think a single person read my post correctly. This is because in this form as in email there are no nuances.
And if you'd read further, Rick, you'd know the hem had to be shorter because the book takes place in 1943. I guess I'm shocked at the reaction I got because if you read my post you'll see it's really all about projecting and that I make fun of myself.Why do I think there are a lot of wannabes leaving comments?
Seems like a lot of fuss over very little.
There's an old saying: if one person tells you you're sick, don't worry. If five people say it: lie down.
One of the things I've learned from this blog is that people read things I did not intend. Does that make me right, and them wrong? Of course it does. That's also not the point.
If you are blogging, and writing about your work world, people are going to read it and draw conclusions. Conclusions you may not like, you may not agree with, that you in fact think are stupid. Telling them so is like a food fight (cue: Animal House!)--you may win, but you're still wearing green jello.
I'm not going to give a line by line response to this.
I stand by my original post.
All opinioins to the contrary, misguided though they be, are welcome in the comments section.
Unless of course you don't think Animal House is funny. Then you are consigned to a life of Ingmar Bergman movies.