Courage man! Just keep writing. Read what Anais Nin said about the subject. I think her words are far more elegant than my memory will paraphrase, however. In essence both these methods will “work.” The first, you write for others. Keep writing for them, and you will eventually find a market. The second, which dear Anais, thought better to follow herself, just write. Write for yourself. Keep writing. Publish yourself. Eventually people will come to you. But you must love to write more than anything else. By the time they come to you, you may not need them anymore, but still they will be welcome. The sound of opening doors is deafening. Anais wrote for decades. before any but a few knew of her work. Decades. Not years. Continue reading
I made a rather long reply to Chris Martin’s blog. Here it is–hopefully and eventually, more throughly edited. It seemed like a good time to inaugurate a subblog because at such time, I find I express myself rather better and rather more passionately even if in a more plain spoken way.
You do manage to garner a large share of comments. Apart from my #1 fan, I hardly get any!
My take on peer review in general: You don’t need peer review, you need expert review.
An answer here to an unasked question in the very thoughtful post which links below:
I enjoyed this post quite a bit, young sir. I enjoy a well-reasoned essay, even if on an emotionally charged subject. Yours is a very well reasoned point of view. “But wait!” as Ron Popeil says, “There’s more.”
In these matters, our problem, in a very general sense–and by “our” I mean virtually all of us excepting those few who have received a proper education–and I do not number among them, although I wish I did. Virtually all of us do not know how to research a topic properly; and by research I mean “study,” because, as a scientist, I consider research to consist of experiments and theories one investigates and tests oneself, first-hand. Still, not splitting that particular hair, whether one calls it research or study, one must know where to look. When one hears that Microsoft, or Apple, or Monsanto, or Greenpeace are the Devil incarnate, one must, in general (if one knows how) make a valiant attempt to see if this theory can be DISproven, not proven. Scientists disprove theories, and when they cannot do so using any and all proper methodologies, then they begin to think that perhaps the theory–at least for lack of a better one–might be correct. Because of my background, I often do both that “research” which I deem “study” and that which I perform and devise first-hand.
The fact that almost all of us do not know how to do this, is not our fault (until we well and truly become aware of how and why this is the case and choose not to self-correct this mal-education, only then do any of us share some blame.) 150 years, or thereabouts, of marxist and proto-marxist education theory is responsible for this as well as many other deficits in all aspects of our ability to think.
If one investigates these “hotbutton” issues using the proper portals and even using both research and study, if possible, one often finds–and I must even go so far as to here state that one usually finds–that the lemmings are running toward or away from the cliff for no reason at all; or more accurately, that quite often one finds (as in the actual case of the lemmings themselves) that some version of Uncle Walt was up there on top of the cliff with a bin full of lemmings and a snow shovel.
So the first thing we have to do, is have a look on top of the cliff and see if he’s still up there with an empty bin, leaning on his shovel, having a smoke break, so to speak. And barring that, we see if we find lots of tiny scrabbling footprints, as one might expect to find, or a few large bootprints, some tire-tracks, and a half-dozen cigarette butts.