How do you feel like when someone changes myths?

[Moral Gutpunch]

Prolly Naut

This is very reminiscent of Disney's most popular movies. (Gaston, Hopper, Ursula, Hades, Scar, Evil Mongolian man from Mulan, etc.) . The idea of good and bad are black and white nodes planted into our minds from early childhood. We aren't often exposed to the grey areas. I remember in Cinderella 2, one of the "evil" step sisters turned out not to be evil but I can't think of very many cases where something similar happens.

I thought I was the single person int eh universe who liked that movie for that

Prolly Naut

I also took note that it is common in the anime/manga scene for there to be some flash back or side story that reveals the "bad guys" past. These stories usually inspire sympathy for the enemy characters and many viewers are able to see them in a different light.

It's hardly ubiquitous, but often enough that this is some cop out that say 'see! He's not one dimensional!' and then the past is barely alluded to again, if at all. I like it when these flashbacks make something of them.

[Kaz_Nara]

I'd probably feel the same way I did when someone used the names Lucifer and Beelzebub for two characters that were apparently suppose to be Satan's sons... I was completely confused because those were all different ways of saying the devil. And the devil is one person. Though, I will admit, even thought the story wasn't as perplexed or structured correctly as if could have been, it made me think of some interesting plots from what she was trying to get at. As I probably know a good sum of others reading my comment might feel now too if they are writers.

(Idea's claimed here, copy righted.)

[Moral Gutpunch]

I don't think ideas can be copywritten.

[Miramelle]

Prolly Naut

This is very reminiscent of Disney's most popular movies. (Gaston, Hopper, Ursula, Hades, Scar, Evil Mongolian man from Mulan, etc.) . The idea of good and bad are black and white nodes planted into our minds from early childhood. We aren't often exposed to the grey areas. I remember in Cinderella 2, one of the "evil" step sisters turned out not to be evil but I can't think of very many cases where something similar happens.

In fairness to Disney, those movies are geared towards a younger audience, who have trouble conceptualizing moral grey areas. I remember reading a book to my cousin when she was pretty young; the fact that there was no bad guy and she couldn't pick a side was highly distressing and confusing for her at the time.

On the other hand, movies and books aimed at YA/teen/adult audiences have absolutely no excuses for not introducing the complexity of real life into conflicts. As someone pointed out, recent pseudo Greek myth based stories are a really good (bad?) example of automatically assigning a badguy role to a death god or similar. Because dark is evil, everyone!

[Cogent Dream]

Prolly Naut

Cogent Dream

I_Write_Ivre

Kita-Ysabell

Rotsab M. Hyolf

That said, I am a bit of a d**k about how certain myths go and tend to get peeved when (what I feel are) important aspects are altered or changed. Take the recent depiction of the Greek Pantheon in modern blockbusters.

You know what bugs the heck out of me? Arbitrary bad guys. Especially if it's a Death God. Osiris, Hades, Anubis, all not bad guys. It's like the Christian-ish projection that got it's hands all over the Children's Classics my grandfather gave me when I was really little (they're kind of hilariously bad) had to go and project a fear of death where there really wasn't one. It's just weird and awkward and horrible.

This confused the hell out of me for years (I knew more about pagan stuff than Christian stuff).

Do you know much of an improvement it was when Xena and Hercules aired? Hades was just slightly cranky, Hera mad Herc go mad and kill his family and Ares was a bad guy for wanting to create eternal war.

I just read this and totally agree with you both. Arbitrary bad guys are a huge example of ignorance and undermine the story's integrity.

This is very reminiscent of Disney's most popular movies. (Gaston, Hopper, Ursula, Hades, Scar, Evil Mongolian man from Mulan, etc.) . The idea of good and bad are black and white nodes planted into our minds from early childhood. We aren't often exposed to the grey areas. I remember in Cinderella 2, one of the "evil" step sisters turned out not to be evil but I can't think of very many cases where something similar happens.

I also took note that it is common in the anime/manga scene for there to be some flash back or side story that reveals the "bad guys" past. These stories usually inspire sympathy for the enemy characters and many viewers are able to see them in a different light.

Good observation, if you think about it most anime "bad guys" have a backstory that rationalises their "evil", usually through some terrible thing happening to them that turned them bitter. It's a lot nicer to see why they turned evil than just saying the character exists for the pure reason of causing evil (although the occasional nihilistic evil is interesting if done well).

[Prolly Naut]

Miramelle

Prolly Naut

This is very reminiscent of Disney's most popular movies. (Gaston, Hopper, Ursula, Hades, Scar, Evil Mongolian man from Mulan, etc.) . The idea of good and bad are black and white nodes planted into our minds from early childhood. We aren't often exposed to the grey areas. I remember in Cinderella 2, one of the "evil" step sisters turned out not to be evil but I can't think of very many cases where something similar happens.

In fairness to Disney, those movies are geared towards a younger audience, who have trouble conceptualizing moral grey areas. I remember reading a book to my cousin when she was pretty young; the fact that there was no bad guy and she couldn't pick a side was highly distressing and confusing for her at the time.

On the other hand, movies and books aimed at YA/teen/adult audiences have absolutely no excuses for not introducing the complexity of real life into conflicts. As someone pointed out, recent pseudo Greek myth based stories are a really good (bad?) example of automatically assigning a badguy role to a death god or similar. Because dark is evil, everyone!

I actually am a huge Disney fan. I wanted to point out that this is the way things are, but I don't have a particular stance on whether or not it is the best thing for children or not. smile

Do you think that perhaps your little cousin was distressed because at that point he or she was already used to the idea that a character is either GOOD or BAD?

Also is it possible that so many YA/ teen media still incorporate arbitrarily evil characters because they unconsciously fear that exposure to the these grey characters might distress the audience that has only been exposed to GOOD and BAD characters for most of their lives? (Just as it caused distress for your little cousin)

Any input is welcome from anyone. I'd love to hear your opinions. I might even start a separate thread on this interesting topic.

[Prolly Naut]

Cogent Dream

Good observation, if you think about it most anime "bad guys" have a backstory that rationalises their "evil", usually through some terrible thing happening to them that turned them bitter. It's a lot nicer to see why they turned evil than just saying the character exists for the pure reason of causing evil (although the occasional nihilistic evil is interesting if done well).

Yes. And also the anime/manga stories that have become the most popular in America for younger children consist of Pokemon, Sailor Moon, Dragon Ball Z, etc. Take note that in all of these series it is very clear who the villain is at all times.

I'm seriously thinking about starting a thread for this topic. I'd love to hear other input. ^^

[Mortok]

I_Write_Ivre

Kairi Nightingale

But I am curious, what do you define as a stupid reader? Because when I mentioned that readers may not like the idea of a 'vampire' dolphin, you said you didn't care. Are they stupid for not liking your idea? Are they stupid for disagreeing with you?

He/she/it also said that he/she/it didn't want to have to respect the reader or put effort into not offending them.

I figured the ideal audience was any reader who's fine reading and author who doesn't give a s**t about the audience.

"If I make up what other people say, I can never lose an argument ever!"

[Miramelle]

Prolly Naut

Miramelle

Prolly Naut

This is very reminiscent of Disney's most popular movies. (Gaston, Hopper, Ursula, Hades, Scar, Evil Mongolian man from Mulan, etc.) . The idea of good and bad are black and white nodes planted into our minds from early childhood. We aren't often exposed to the grey areas. I remember in Cinderella 2, one of the "evil" step sisters turned out not to be evil but I can't think of very many cases where something similar happens.

In fairness to Disney, those movies are geared towards a younger audience, who have trouble conceptualizing moral grey areas. I remember reading a book to my cousin when she was pretty young; the fact that there was no bad guy and she couldn't pick a side was highly distressing and confusing for her at the time.

On the other hand, movies and books aimed at YA/teen/adult audiences have absolutely no excuses for not introducing the complexity of real life into conflicts. As someone pointed out, recent pseudo Greek myth based stories are a really good (bad?) example of automatically assigning a badguy role to a death god or similar. Because dark is evil, everyone!

I actually am a huge Disney fan. I wanted to point out that this is the way things are, but I don't have a particular stance on whether or not it is the best thing for children or not. smile

Do you think that perhaps your little cousin was distressed because at that point he or she was already used to the idea that a character is either GOOD or BAD?

Also is it possible that so many YA/ teen media still incorporate arbitrarily evil characters because they unconsciously fear that exposure to the these grey characters might distress the audience that has only been exposed to GOOD and BAD characters for most of their lives? (Just as it caused distress for your little cousin)

Any input is welcome from anyone. I'd love to hear your opinions. I might even start a separate thread on this interesting topic.

I have no clue if it's best for them or not, I just don't expect a kid to reason like I can, and can see where they would be confused.
I'm not entirely positive on what was going on in her little head, but something about the fact that she couldn't figure out the right person to side with managed to viscerally distress her, because she didn't know what the right choice was. It got to the point where we had to stop reading and pick another book- the entire concept was confusing and upsetting, somehow. I think that part of it may have been the rose-tinted glasses kids see the world of adults through- before then, it had never occurred to her that there might be a situation with no clear right choice, that she couldn't find a decisive response for.
Part of it may have been preconditioning to expect a blatant good guy to agree with, but I have no idea. Unfortunately, she couldn't entirely express why she was so upset beyond the fact that it was the confusion, and not the topic or personalities involved. Sadly, she no longer remembers what I'm talking about (but now understands and accepts the concept, a few years later).

I think the arbitrary evil thing is just easier to both write and justify. It's a motive, backstory and character all in one. If the enemy is blatant, pure evil, the audience is automatically on the side of the good guys, no matter how shallow or questionable they are. Some of it may be consciously avoiding upsetting the audience this way, and some of it may be laziness, depending on the work. It also may play on what we came to expect as children- fiction is an escape, and real life would be so much easier if every side had a clear right and wrong. In that case, it's a comforting break from reality, in a world where we only have to worry about the 'how' of defeating evil, and not the underlying 'why'. But when it comes across as pandering, it's just annoying.

[The Phoenix Rises Again]

Miramelle

Part of it may have been preconditioning to expect a blatant good guy to agree with, but I have no idea. Unfortunately, she couldn't entirely express why she was so upset beyond the fact that it was the confusion, and not the topic or personalities involved. Sadly, she no longer remembers what I'm talking about (but now understands and accepts the concept, a few years later).

Weird. I had the opposite experience of not liking things (especially Disney) because I didn't understand why the bad guy was bad. Was he angry? Stupid? Didn't understand? Liked being mean for power? i just remembered preferring things that were over my head because eventually I'd understand them.

[Mortok]

Kairi Nightingale

Actually, this is what I meant; that the reader was disagreeing with your idea with a valid reason. I'm sorry I wasn't clear on that.

What do you consider valid reasoning, then?

Quality of writing, internal consistency of the universe, etc.

Quote:

I mean, a horror story where innocent-looking dolphins turn into bloodthirsty, demonic creatures at night feeding on unsuspecting swimmer or sailors could be an excellent story. But if a character saw these creatures and said "Omg, Vampire!" then I'd have to question your reasoning for it.

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

Maybe my vampire is an otherwise stereotypical vampire who just happens to be able to shapeshift into a dolphin. Maybe he can shapeshift into any creature he wants.

Maybe the dolphins become humanoid, but keep their sharp, pointy teeth, and that makes them look like vampires.

Maybe all mythical creatures in the world are actually really one species of shape-shifters, who like to ******** with humans, and we call it a "vampire" because we don't comprehend its true nature.

Maybe a spate of mysterious killings appear to be the work of a "vampire", but my monster-hunter tracks the source to a river and finds a flesh-eating dolphin, but the true name of the species is never discovered.

Maybe my story is set in a different world, and "vampire" just doesn't mean the same thing that it does on Earth.

The reasoning, whatever it is, will likely be in the story itself. You won't need to question anything.

Quote:

Would arguing that the basis of a vampire is a land-dwelling, humanoid creature who comes out at night to feed on people be an illogical argument? After all, just because it drinks blood, doesn't mean it's a vampire. I mean, I'm just don't think the terminology would fit very well with a dolphin-like creature, even if it did drink blood, and would suggest an alternative that could work even better with an aquatic monster. Would that make me stupid?

It would be extremely illogical. The only evidence you have to back it up is other fictional stories that someone made up. Their definition of a vampire is not anymore "true" than mine is. It's like saying my recipe for brownies is "fake" because mine have nuts and yours don't.

Quote:

Just for the record, I understand that breaking conventions could be a wonderful thing in writing but only if the writer in question fully understands why the rules were there in the first place and has a good reason (or at least a reason other than "just because I can" ) to break them. The rules do exist for a reason after all and I believe that some rules are better left unbroken than others.

A lot of 'rules' are also extremely stupid and unnecessary. The 'rules' don't actually help you to tell a good story, they help you to tell a story that has wide audience appeal. The two are not mutually inclusive.

A lot of the 'rules' that WF members come up with are especially stupid.

Quote:

Ex: Grammar. It's there for obvious reasons: to be clear and understandable. If someone wanted to write an entire book using incomprehensible chat-speak, that'd be crossing that line I mentioned earlier. Don't you think?

No, I do not think so. Grammar 'rules' have been broken before, and they aren't set in stone anyway. They exist to clarify meaning, which means that as English evolves, grammar rules will change.

Finnegan's Wake, by James Joyce has little to no grammar at all. It is, in fact, complete gibberish. I actually despise Finnegan's Wake, but the point remains. It's been done.

Another example I would like to use, but can't back up because I can't remember the author or the title, is a children's picture book. It's set in a post-apocalyptic society, where a boy lives almost completely on his own in a deserted city. The story is narrated by the boy himself and a lot of words are misspelled or spelt phonetically because language has degraded. As a story, it's perfectly easy to understand, and actually following proper English 'rules' would be detrimental to the meaning and the feel of the work as a whole.

It actually attracted a lot of criticism for "teaching children to spell badly" or "teaching children that spelling isn't important". Those are stupid criticisms from stupid readers.

[Mortok]

Cogent Dream

Prolly Naut

Cogent Dream

I_Write_Ivre

Kita-Ysabell

Rotsab M. Hyolf

That said, I am a bit of a d**k about how certain myths go and tend to get peeved when (what I feel are) important aspects are altered or changed. Take the recent depiction of the Greek Pantheon in modern blockbusters.

You know what bugs the heck out of me? Arbitrary bad guys. Especially if it's a Death God. Osiris, Hades, Anubis, all not bad guys. It's like the Christian-ish projection that got it's hands all over the Children's Classics my grandfather gave me when I was really little (they're kind of hilariously bad) had to go and project a fear of death where there really wasn't one. It's just weird and awkward and horrible.

This confused the hell out of me for years (I knew more about pagan stuff than Christian stuff).

Do you know much of an improvement it was when Xena and Hercules aired? Hades was just slightly cranky, Hera mad Herc go mad and kill his family and Ares was a bad guy for wanting to create eternal war.

I just read this and totally agree with you both. Arbitrary bad guys are a huge example of ignorance and undermine the story's integrity.

This is very reminiscent of Disney's most popular movies. (Gaston, Hopper, Ursula, Hades, Scar, Evil Mongolian man from Mulan, etc.) . The idea of good and bad are black and white nodes planted into our minds from early childhood. We aren't often exposed to the grey areas. I remember in Cinderella 2, one of the "evil" step sisters turned out not to be evil but I can't think of very many cases where something similar happens.

I also took note that it is common in the anime/manga scene for there to be some flash back or side story that reveals the "bad guys" past. These stories usually inspire sympathy for the enemy characters and many viewers are able to see them in a different light.

Good observation, if you think about it most anime "bad guys" have a backstory that rationalises their "evil", usually through some terrible thing happening to them that turned them bitter. It's a lot nicer to see why they turned evil than just saying the character exists for the pure reason of causing evil (although the occasional nihilistic evil is interesting if done well).

I don't see how it's 'nicer'. Sounds totally stupid to me. It's just a cheap ploy to make audiences fele like an issue is more complex when it really isn't. Personal trauma does not justify world domination, and would not in reality. The writers are just making a cheap tug at your heartstrings because anime loves to transform the villain with "the power of friendship".

Disney villains are not 'evil for the sake of evil', and they don't need tragic backstories to justify their actions, because their motivations already make perfect sense, the vast majority are decidedly more relatable and human than anything in anime.

[Miramelle]

The Phoenix Rises Again

Weird. I had the opposite experience of not liking things (especially Disney) because I didn't understand why the bad guy was bad. Was he angry? Stupid? Didn't understand? Liked being mean for power? i just remembered preferring things that were over my head because eventually I'd understand them.

Actually, it just now occurred to me that my cousin is very mildly autistic, and it may have been a predictability/pattern thing she hadn't quite gotten a grasp on yet. It certainly might account for her more extreme reaction. It should have occurred to me earlier! If she was too young to have gotten a proper impression of 'grownup' conflicts, it may have been outside her response range (as up until then her biggest disputes in life had been "whose turn is it on the swing", something easily arbitrated by an adult or rules.
To a lesser extent, most kids (and I'm thinking the 7yo. and younger group) rely on predictability in their lives, and are upset when the routine changes. Hence, the preference for clear cut decisions and sides in stories.
I have always been like you in terms of wanting a motive, but it may be a side effect of how I was raised- in a very literary household where discussions like this happened all the time. On the other hand, my cousin's parents are stereotypical tv-watching, overprotective parents who never exposed her to anything beyond sanitized, moral-based stories (Blech). Personality and upbringing thing, I'll bet.

[Kairi Nightingale]

Mortok

Quality of writing, internal consistency of the universe, etc.

So general opinions don't matter at all to you? I find that very narrow-minded for a writer.

Quote:

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

Maybe my vampire is an otherwise stereotypical vampire who just happens to be able to shapeshift into a dolphin. Maybe he can shapeshift into any creature he wants.

Maybe the dolphins become humanoid, but keep their sharp, pointy teeth, and that makes them look like vampires.

Maybe all mythical creatures in the world are actually really one species of shape-shifters, who like to ******** with humans, and we call it a "vampire" because we don't comprehend its true nature.

Maybe a spate of mysterious killings appear to be the work of a "vampire", but my monster-hunter tracks the source to a river and finds a flesh-eating dolphin, but the true name of the species is never discovered.

Maybe my story is set in a different world, and "vampire" just doesn't mean the same thing that it does on Earth.

The reasoning, whatever it is, will likely be in the story itself. You won't need to question anything.

On the contrary, the original argument was that you couldn't take a dolphin and call it a vampire. That was the assumption I was going off of. With what you've stated above, you've twisted things around enough so that it would make sense on its own and be fine. But I was trying to make a point about a very specific situation.

That one that says it's a different world and "vampire" doesn't quite sit with me well, though. I mean, going by that logic, you can call a dog an elephant or a lamp a door. I know that's exaggerating a bit but that's the reasoning your using and it doesn't seem like a very good one to me. The rest could be interesting.

Quote:

It would be extremely illogical. The only evidence you have to back it up is other fictional stories that someone made up. Their definition of a vampire is not anymore "true" than mine is. It's like saying my recipe for brownies is "fake" because mine have nuts and yours don't.

So, I'm stupid for having an opinion? That's nice.

And no. Like I said, I was referring to calling a dolphin a vampire and therefore getting rid of the basis of what a vampire is thought to be. It wouldn't be like saying your recipe is fake because yours uses nuts. It'd be like calling your brownie recipe fake because it's not a brownie, it's a chocolate covered bagel.

Quote:

A lot of 'rules' are also extremely stupid and unnecessary. The 'rules' don't actually help you to tell a good story, they help you to tell a story that has wide audience appeal. The two are not mutually inclusive.

A lot of the 'rules' that WF members come up with are especially stupid.

Now you're the one making assumptions.

I was not talking about WF rules. I'm talking about certain conventions stated in every writing book I've ever picked up. I'm talking about advice and tips seen on professional writers blogs.

Quote:

No, I do not think so. Grammar 'rules' have been broken before, and they aren't set in stone anyway. They exist to clarify meaning, which means that as English evolves, grammar rules will change.

Finnegan's Wake, by James Joyce has little to no grammar at all. It is, in fact, complete gibberish. I actually despise Finnegan's Wake, but the point remains. It's been done.

No, the point doesn't remain. My point was that if someone broke conventional grammar rules, it'd turn out to be complete gibberish. And what you just said proves it. So if you don't want your work to be incoherent, use grammar. It's not enforcing rules. It's common sense. If you don't know what you're doing with it, don't do it.

Quote:

Another example I would like to use, but can't back up because I can't remember the author or the title, is a children's picture book. It's set in a post-apocalyptic society, where a boy lives almost completely on his own in a deserted city. The story is narrated by the boy himself and a lot of words are misspelled or spelt phonetically because language has degraded. As a story, it's perfectly easy to understand, and actually following proper English 'rules' would be detrimental to the meaning and the feel of the work as a whole.

It actually attracted a lot of criticism for "teaching children to spell badly" or "teaching children that spelling isn't important". Those are stupid criticisms from stupid readers.

In that case the writer understood enough about grammar to write it so it stayed coherent. I said, that a author shouldn't break rules unless they understand them enough to do it appropriately. If she broke the grammar rule while still being coherent (which was my point) and the book was success, congrats to the author. But very few people would be able to pull it off. Not everyone should do it. My whole point is to know your limitations as a writer. If you're going to ignore that, well, good luck.

Those aren't stupid criticisms. If a child saw the word tree spelled like tre then whose to say that they wouldn't spell it tre? If it's at the age where they are learning how to read and spell, then it would be important to show them what the correct word is versus the wrong one. I'm not saying that it is a dire issue but the concerns aren't unfounded like you seem to suggest.


Look, reiterating what I said previously, I'm just trying to point out that the rules ARE there for a reason. I don't know you. I don't know your writing. I'm just trying to say that, while you can break them, it's not a good idea if you're new to writing and don't fully understand the purpose of the conventions yet. By all means, try it. But don't just dismiss people if they say they don't like it. Why they are there and how they got there can be important information that your missing out on just by automatically dismissing them as "stupid" restrictions.

So far the only things that you have called "Stupid" seem to be just things that you don't agree with. There is a way to be considerate of other people's opinions while keep your own mind, you know. Calling them "stupid" and simply dismissing them isn't it.

[Mortok]

Kairi Nightingale

So general opinions don't matter at all to you? I find that very narrow-minded for a writer.

I don't understand what you mean by 'general opinion', but I think it's fair to say that vague criticisms that won't help me to improve are a waste of my time.

Quote:

I was not talking about WF rules. I'm talking about certain conventions stated in every writing book I've ever picked up. I'm talking about advice and tips seen on professional writers blogs.

I am talking about all of those and WF rules. So there.

Quote:

No, the point doesn't remain. My point was that if someone broke conventional grammar rules, it'd turn out to be complete gibberish.

My point was that complete gibberish can be published and studied by professors of literature. My point was that people smarter than both of us broke 'the rules' pretty drastically, and succeeded.

Quote:

And what you just said proves it. So if you don't want your work to be incoherent, use grammar. It's not enforcing rules. It's common sense. If you don't know what you're doing with it, don't do it.

You're assuming that people who 'break the rules' of grammar don't know what they're doing.

As I said earlier in the thread, 'rules' is the wrong word. Grammar is a tool to aid communication, it evolves, it's a lot more flexible than people think, and a lot of the older rules aren't really relevent. I don't know if you've ever taken the time to really listen to how people speak in real life, but a lot of the 'rules' of grammar do not accurately reflect the way people communicate today.

Quote:

Those aren't stupid criticisms. If a child saw the word tree spelled like tre then whose to say that they wouldn't spell it tre? If it's at the age where they are learning how to read and spell, then it would be important to show them what the correct word is versus the wrong one. I'm not saying that it is a dire issue but the concerns aren't unfounded like you seem to suggest.

But it's not an author's job to teach children, or be a role model to them. That's why the criticisms are stupid. The author is not obligated to make sure that her work helps children learn spelling.

Quote:

Look, reiterating what I said previously, I'm just trying to point out that the rules ARE there for a reason. I don't know you. I don't know your writing. I'm just trying to say that, while you can break them, it's not a good idea if you're new to writing and don't fully understand the purpose of the conventions yet. By all means, try it. But don't just dismiss people if they say they don't like it. Why they are there and how they got there can be important information that your missing out on just by automatically dismissing them as "stupid" restrictions.

Alright, yes, fine. Conventions are useful. For beginners. Sort of like training wheels.

Quote:

So far the only things that you have called "Stupid" seem to be just things that you don't agree with. There is a way to be considerate of other people's opinions while keep your own mind, you know. Calling them "stupid" and simply dismissing them isn't it.

I call people stupid when they can't back their s**t up.

I did everything I could to try and understand the opposing stance. I asked questions, I offered hypothetical scenarions, and I got no answers and no explanations. Nobody in here seems to be able to grasp the pretty simple abstract concepts that I tried to discuss. I've been accused of logical fallacies that I have not, in fact, made. I've gone round and round in circles trying to get a straight answer. I got nowhere, and I was insulted on top of that.

So yes, the Writer's Forum is starting to look pretty stupid to me.

But you, at least, seem to be making an effort at civility. So I'm willing to concede that you personally might not be an idiot.