If you’re a novelist, there’s good reason to keep your opinions to yourself.
I recently read an interview with John Grisham in which the author was asked, “Do you try to put Christian sentiments into your books?” He responded,
I’m a Christian, and those beliefs occasionally come out in the books. One thing you really have to watch as a writer is getting on a soapbox or pulpit about anything. You don’t want to alienate readers.
It’s a very diplomatic answer. Grisham doesn’t plead the fifth; he admits his 
religious persuasion. This can be dangerous, especially when Christianity is portrayed so negatively in the mainstream media. But notice, he also admits that his Christian faith, if handled wrongly, can “alienate readers.”
This is the tightrope that novelists walk. In our age of electronic super-connectivity, there is no shortage of opinions and outlets for voicing them. But if you’re an author, that connectivity can have a downside. The more opinionated you are, the more chance you will alienate readers and potential readers.
Not long ago, my fabulous agent posted an article entitled To Blog or Not to Blog? in which she discussed the pros and cons of authors maintaining a blog site. Among the cons she offered, was this:
If you’re trying to be honest and authentic on your blog, and you spout off about religious views, politics, your views on parenting or any other controversial topic, you risk alienating potential buyers of your books simply because they disagree with one of your personal viewpoints.
There it is again — “alienating” readers. Your views about politics, religion, and controversial topics, no matter how “honest and authentic,” can negatively impact your professional influence or perception.
At the time, I hedged. “This notion that you shouldn’t express opinions,” I wrote, “bothers me.” And I went on to give some specific reasons why.
Well, I think I’m having a change of heart.
Call it political correctness, call it spinelessness, call it selling out, but I’m beginning to think that backing off from some of my opinions may be the smart thing to do. Let me tell you why.
I recently perused my posts for 2010. Of my ten most commented upon posts, only one of them is NOT writing related. (Thus far this year, my top 2 posts are Christian Fiction and “The New Edgy” garnering 70+ comments and Why “Supernatural Fiction” is Under-Represented in Christian Bookstores, with 60+ comments.) Falling in line after that are various posts about Christian horror, Christian publishing, spec-fic, self-promotion, and writing rules.
What should I make of this? It’s pretty obvious: People are coming to this site primarily because of my posts on writing, Christian publishing, and issues of faith as they relate to art and culture. My visitors are not here for political commentary, parenting tips, sports takes, film reviews, social critique, or advances in science. Please note: This does not mean I don’t have opinions about politics, parenting, sports, film, social issues, and advances in science. It also does not mean I will NEVER blog about them. It means that whatever my brand is, it doesn’t have a lot to do with politics, parenting, sports, film, social issues, and science.
So am I inferring that novelists should just refrain from any controversial opinions? Nowadays, I don’t think that’s possible. Between Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, digital recording devices, investigative bloggers, and the 24 hour news cycle, what one believes can eventually be found out (like John Grisham’s campaign contributions). Furthermore, the possibility remains that being opinionated may in fact win you supporters. After all, it is my OPINIONS about writing, faith, and Christian publishing that seem to attract some readers.
The point is, whenever you voice a controversial opinion, it will have a plus / minus effect. I mean, I liked Anne Rice a lot more before I knew her political and theological opinions. And now… ?
So if someone asks me my position on __________ (fill in the blank), I will probably tell them. However, I’ve been waking up around 3:30 every morning for the last six years to write… stories. That’s it. I’m not seeking a career in politics, sports, social activism, journalism, ministry, or music. I’m a novelist. And the bottom line is this: Good stories have little to do with a storyteller’s politics or religion.
I don’t know what Cormac McCarthy’s politics are, but I loved The Road. I don’t know what Dean Koontz believes about climate change, but I like the Odd Thomas series. I’m not sure who Tosca Lee voted for, but I really enjoyed Demon: A Memoir. I’m not sure what Leif Enger believes about gay rights, but Peace Like a River is a wonderful book.
I don’t know the opinions of a lot of my favorite authors. And I’m better off NOT knowing.
A little while ago, my blog provider went out of business, and I had to return to my Blogger blog. While I could import the old posts from the other blog to my Blogger blog, it would be a lot of effort and I decided it wouldn’t be worth it. Part of the reason is I decided that I’d rather focus my blog on writing than politics and religion, which is what my blog used to focus on.
The problem I’ve run into is that I just don’t have that much to say about writing. When it comes right down to it, I’d rather write than talk about writing. So I’m a little bit stumped about how to revive my blog. I don’t want to return to talking about politics, in part because I don’t want to spend the time reading and following the news and other blogs in order to be part of that conversation.
So I’m down to putting up a post about once a week, and I’m wondering if it’s worth the effort.
Donald, I totally understand; it’s a very difficult decision. I’ve often thought about the pros and cons of long-term blogging, especially as it leeches valuable time from writing fiction. From what I’ve learned, building readership takes a long time, requires consistency (minimum 3 posts a week), and exceptional content. I decided that if I was going to do this long term, I had to give myself freedom to broach subjects other than just writing (which is why I will address politics, music, culture, film, science, etc.). But my focus on “faith, culture, and composition” remains a mainstay.
If you follow the link to Rachelle’s article in my post, you’ll see she doesn’t think blogging is a necessity for an author. It’s really a personal decision. Frankly, now that I have two books coming out, my hard work has paid off. I have a little bit of a leverage. So for the unpublished author, I think that maintaining a consistent blog is a huge promotional plus. Nevertheless, there are plenty of novelists who have done just fine without blogging.
Thanks for your comments, Donald!
Great post, Mike. I really loved the ending.
However, I am concerned that some soapbox too much on Facebook. 😉
There have been times I’ve thought about unfriending, not reviewing, not sharing the news about an author, because they shared an opinion that enraged me. But then I remember the book of Acts. I remember that even the disciples didn’t always agree. However, everyone believed. So I take the high road.
This is a tough one. The truth is that I don’t buy some books after going to an author’s site and finding that I can’t stand his politics or his foul-mouthed sarcasm.
I adopted an “I’ll be professional and not say anything offensive” approach, and my blogs dried up. Who cares to write if you can’t share passionately held beliefs?
So I’m about to go back to writing whatever I darn well want to write. In the end, if you are bland and boring, no one is going to read your blog anyway. And are you going to sell books? Who will buy books from a boring blogger? And you don’t have to be offensive to share deeply held beliefs. You can do it respectfully, I think.
I do buy books from people who hold different beliefs from my own. I love to read and listen to passionate people. I just don’t like to read sarcastic and mean people as they misrepresent what I believe and turn me into a joke. So I think I will try to treat others fairly and respectfully even when I’m disagreeing.
I expect I’ll fail often, though, unfortunately. I don’t know. Is it disrespectful to call someone’s thinking arrogant and shallow? I just did that last week and this week I’m plagued with doubts. I’m guessing if I ever get published the girls from Christianity Today won’t be inclined to give me a positive review. UGH.
Sally, thanks so much for commenting! After reading your thoughts, I’m wondering if I might be being misread. I’m definitely not saying we should never say anything offensive. If someone asks me my views on abortion, Islamic terrorism, race relations, the emerging church, etc., I will tell them. (In fact, I have blogged about all those things here.) The point I’m wanting to make is that none of those opinions are the essence of my “brand.” Though they are essential to my worldview, they are nevertheless peripheral to my writing career.
You wrote: “In the end, if you are bland and boring, no one is going to read your blog anyway. And are you going to sell books? Who will buy books from a boring blogger?” Interesting statement with many possible implications. I agree, in this sense: Author blogs — particularly Christian authors — are a dime a dozen. That niche has been over-mined. Unless someone is published, has an established fan base, and/or regularly produces unique content, it is very difficult to grow / maintain blog readership. However, I’m not sure that controversy or outspokenness alone spurs popularity, or maintains it. There are many other factors. Appreciate your thoughts!
“Who cares to write if you can’t share passionately held beliefs?”
My blogs rarely discuss passionately held beliefs, but do share my passion for books.
In my experience, author blogs, especially novelist’s blogs began to bore, because they become to narcissistic. Many are just about the author’s books, their day, their beliefs, their lives. It gets to be too much. I like Neil Gaiman’s Journal, because he shares a lot and he invites his readers to participate with him on things. When he does have decide to stand on a soapbox it’s short and sweet. Most importantly, he doesn’t talk about himself more than he talks about his books, and the writing.
Dee, I totally agree with you about novelist’s blogs tending to “bore.” I expect a writer to tell me about their books, give writing advice, and highlight stuff pertaining to their brand. Totally get that. But if that is the ONLY thing he/she is doing, I quickly lose interest. I also like Gaiman’s journal for the reasons you mentioned. While I know he and I probably disagree about a lot of things, he doesn’t hammer on issues and there’s enough “other stuff” to keep me interested. Thanks so much for commenting, Dee. Grace to you!
I guess I was interpreting your words through my own experience.
I was thinking about what Noel is getting on her blog for her comments about Laurel Snyder’s books. Noel has spoken out strongly about something and people are angry with her. In the world of children’s lit there are some sacred cows you attack at your own risk.
There was even a groundswell after Orson Scott Card won the Newbery. People wanted it taken away because they said when children googled his name they’d stumble over his anti-gay hate and be harmed. I suspect if the awards committee knew of his stand on gays before they voted, they wouldn’t have been able to help being swayed by that knowledge.
I decided, after I dissed Neil Gaiman and he stopped by my blog to let me know he saw me, that blogs are not my living room and I’m not talking to a bunch of like-minded friends. I don’t care about ruining my chance to publish. I won’t compromise my beliefs for a chance to be published. But I don’t just spew in public about my beliefs on any hot button issues. So I’ve tried not to spew on my blog. From there I’ve gotten to where I hate to blog because I don’t have anything interesting to say. Everything I want to say is offensive to someone. Lately, on my Christian blog, I offended a bunch of ladies in my church when I said Christians should look to the Bible for ways of dealing with stress and depression before they run to the doctor for drugs for themselves and their children. Who knew that so many people in my church are on drugs? I can’t speak without offending people, it seems. 🙂
So I’m wondering if on blogs writers should just write what they want and know that they won’t please all the people all the time. But some will find them. Their audiences will find them. Others will hate them and ignore them.
Or maybe they should just stop blogging.
I’m still thinking all this over. WWJD 🙂 ha ha
I should correct something: I don’t think it was Orson Scott Card’s stand on gays that bothered people. I’m not sure he has a stand on gays. It’s his stand on homosexual practice that bothers people, I think.
PS. Yes, I’ll still read Grisham novels even though I don’t agree with his politics. (Thanks for the link.) I love Grisham novels.
haha (dryly) … timely. how about when their views enter their writing with intent to educate?
http://noeldevries.blogspot.com/2010/10/scoop-of-e-e-evening-penny-dreadful.html
Thanks for the link, Noel. Check your inbox for my thoughts–I started to reply here but it got too off-topic, and would have been too bewildering for anyone not following your link.
Love it, Noel! Not only is your link an example of how ideologies can unnecessarily drive an author, but the number of comments your post generated (and their acidity) illustrates the downside of voicing our own opinions (if, in fact, getting all that blog traffic was a “downside” 😉 ). Don’t feel bad. I recently had to remove a post from Novel Journey because I was assailed in the most viscous way by raging feminists. Remind me to share that incident someday…
“Don’t feel bad. I recently had to remove a post from Novel Journey because I was assailed in the most viscous way by raging feminists. ”
Let me guess: the romance post? I loved that one.
Mike, I’m sorry I missed that post. Clearly I don’t socialize enough…I’d have enjoyed a nice cup of tea and some ladylike sword-crossing.
Great, thoughtful, well-worded post, Mike. As always. I’m not able to comment as often as I like, but I make a point to read here regularly. And forward trackbacks to friends on more than a few occasions.
Actually, I find the John Grisham quote to be terribly ironic, coming from John Grisham–one of the more didactic and opinionated bestselling novelists I’ve encountered. The most recent Grisham book I read, The Appeal, is nothing short of a didactic, highly contentious political message hung on a sloppily constructed story. It thoroughly annoyed me–and I even agreed with his main point. But when I get the ‘lesson’ but, five months of thinking later, still haven’t determined who the actual protagonist was–there’s a problem there.
Grisham is a transparent writer, and I suspect that the only people who would be surprised by his campaign donation history are people who haven’t read his books.
And–to justify this comment’s existence–this leads to a question. What if the political message, the strong opinion, is part of the story you’re telling? How do we walk the line between The Appeal and.
Cry, the Beloved Country. (Sorry, couldn’t mention those two in the same sentence!)
I held my tongue until someone brought this up. Hey I love Grisham’s body of work. I even was an extra (way way way in the back of A Time to Kill) when it shot in the Jackson, MS area. He’s a native son and all that. However, Grisham is far from silent about his opposition to issues like capitol punishment. His voting record is pretty well known, sometime from his own writing.
I’ve lost interest in countless musicians/bands because they’ve been too loud regarding their political beliefs. (Not that I was ever a big fan but whatever happened to the Dixie Chicks for example?)
I think it’s not so much what is said, but how it’s said. Opinions given in a preachy, pound-the-table judgmental manner are a turn-off and simply generate bad blood. Opinions given in a quiet, thoughtful manner with an obvious open mind and consideration given to the opposite point of view are interesting, and usually generate discussion. The latter is usually what I see here, which is why I keep coming back. I don’t think you have to worry about being interesting, Mike.
A sense of humor always helps, too.
Thanks for the kind words, Mark. While I do think tone has a lot to do with how readers respond to an author’s opinions, I also think that some issues are so polarizing that just their mention can be volatile. Another thing is when an issue becomes a pet project for a novelist. I mentioned Anne Rice in the post, who I feel is an example of this. The sheer amount of space (on her Facebook page) that she devotes to highlighting (1) her defection from organized religion and (2) same-sex acceptance really turns me off. Frankly, I wouldn’t have as much an issue with Ms. Rice’s opinions if she just didn’t use her authorial platform as a springboard for them. Thanks for your comments, Mark. Have a great week!
I worked for Ticketmaster a few years back when groups like Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, the Dixie Chicks, Streisand were all on one glorious political bandwagon. An entire summer of political diatribes peppered with song. A long summer of calls from customers asking us if we could do ANYthing to get them to just shut up and sing.
I happen to be a fan of science fiction in general, and space opera in particular. Orson Scott Card is a genius (I think) and has proved it with his Ender’s Game / Ender’s Shadow books (among others). However, he also has a number of side writing gigs, including a reviews blog and a political commentary blog. Opinions expressed over on those other two blogs have impacted his ‘brand’ to the place that when I write about something Orson has blogged about, people recoil in horror that I find anything he has to say interesting. I really liked his Inception review, but quickly found that even mentioned Orson’s name caused my gay friends pain.
That put me in a weird position. On the one hand, I don’t want to knowingly cause friends pain. On the other, nobody tells me what to read or what not to read, what to consider brilliant or what not to consider brilliant. Ultimately, I decided that I don’t overdo my praise of Orson’s stuff, and when I read something I think is savvy, I mention it and leave it to those who follow me to decide whether to unfriend me or not.
Another writer, John C. Wright, is one of the best space opera writers currently working. He happens to also be a writer who (following a remarkable incident) converted from rigorous, thoughtful Atheism to equally thoughtful theism as a Catholic Christian. He also posted his thoughts on the day and was quickly branded as a narrow-minded bigot by some, thus diminishing his brand.
Nobody’s perfect. But I get very uneasy when one’s personal opinions are used against them to invalidate their work as an author or reviewer or thinker. We’re seeing the beginning of a new Red Scare, only this time, those who are being blacklisted are simply guilty of thinking that we still live in a country where we have free speech and thought. Elizabeth Moon recently made a post where, in the process of making a fairly innocuous 9/11 message about understanding and solidarity, simply musing about what to do about Muslims in America and a building at Ground Zero and so forth provoked a fierce backlash that resulted in her being uninvited as Guest of Honor at WisCon. Two links which I have found helpful are Nancy Kress’ post about being late to the debate, and a post by Terry Bisson further down in the thread:
http://nancykress.blogspot.com/2010/10/late-to-debate.html
http://nancykress.blogspot.com/2010/10/late-to-debate.html?showComment=1288187188232#c7118913476139966749
What I’m getting at is this: it can be lethal as an author to freely and boldly speak one’s mind about political or religious things. I’ve already seen the backlash I get when I bring up Orson Scott Card or John C. Wright in the context of Science Fiction and the chill that comes over the conversation by those who don’t (or can’t, or won’t) see them in the same light as I do.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t know or speak the truth. I am saying we need to at least be aware of the possible or probable consequences of that expression in what we thought was a free society.
Very timely. I have toned down my contributions to a forum where I used to post on politics when I realized most publishing houses and agents are left of center. Not that I have anything against hard-core liberals, in fact I am very tolerant of everyone’s views, it’s just that I realized if I ever want to land a contract, my political leanings might come into play. I can imagine the conversation. Agent assistant: “Great writer. Check it out.” Agent: “I know. Too bad she’s a libertarian.” End of discussion.
I’ve tried to make my blog about writing, but every once in a while I fall off the wagon and rant about something. Passion can be a good thing.
🙂
I’m struggling with this issue a bit right now. For about a year and a half I’ve maintained a modest fashion blog. For awhile now, though, I’ve been thinking about deleting it. I’m blogging more on my regular (author) blog, and the fashion blog could theoretically be considered controversial.
As always, you know just the right topics to stimulate meaningful discussion. Part of me wants to be rebellious and ask, how many of us popped good money for the 3D experience of Avitar even though it was a thinly veiled excuse for James Cameron to expose us to his world view? So then, why should I worry about what others think of my opinion on Facebook ?
On the other hand, I wonder if my theological leanings were plastered all over Facebook is potential publishers would be put off and fearful a segment of readers would never give my fiction a chance. Then again that argument didn’t hurt the Left Behind series or The Shack.
The question for us as writers, is the same as for believers in general: what are we most identified with? When what we have to say and write becomes more identified with issues and personalities than Christ we’ve missed it. I visit your blog often because the things you write and talk about resonate with me as a writer and in individual.
Oh Yeah: Proud of him as a native of Mississippi but Grisham’s campaign contributions since 1999, $172,800. Total donated to anyone besides Democrats, $0. How pleased I am with his political leanings = not very. Will I read another novel of his at some time = very likely.
The thing is, for Cameron, the story has always come first, and the stories have been engaging and entertaining, if not always completely original. Cameron’s interpretation on those tropes has a hallmark of quality and if his stunning success in the box office is any indication, his treatment of classic stories obviously scratch some great audience itch.
If Cameron can make huge inroads into the paying public’s pockets while keeping apparent agenda, anybody should be able to, as well, if they don’t sell the storytelling short in the process of conveying a viewpoint.
Of course, on the flip-side, you’ve got someone like Harlan Ellison who is VERY opinionated and proud of it, ha ha. He’s galvanizing, and, even though I don’t agree with him on a lot of things, I’ve got to respect a guy like that. Or even Stephen King–that guy’s open about everything, and I respect him for that, even if I don’t always agree with him.
But, yeah, I think there’s a way to be “Here I am”, without being “Here I am and you’d better like it, blast it!! ARGH!!!!”.
I’m trying to think. Isn’t Harlan mostly known for being very opinionated about SF? When I think of political or religious screeds, I don’t think of Harlan. Furthermore, when Stephen King writes, he tends to write about writing or publishing issues. I don’t think he is predominantly known for other potentially divisive issues.
What I think I’m getting from this is if one’s true name is linked to one’s writing identity, they should be very aware that opinions about things other than the genre they are most known for can impact who might buy their books. Perhaps this is another argument for writer’s pseudonyms. Cordwainer Smith was able to write about things that Paul Linebarger might not want attached to his name as a military adviser and scholar.
“I said something to the ‘Nightline’ guy about waterboarding, and if the Bush administration didn’t think it was torture, they ought to do some personal investigation,” King recounted to Time. “Someone in the Bush family should actually be waterboarded so they could report on it to George. ” I said, I didn’t think he would do it, but I suggested Jenna be waterboarded and then she could talk about whether or not she thought it was torture,” King continued.
King was quite vocal in his distaste for George Bush, his support for the election of Barak Obama, and his adamant opposition to any restrictions on abortion. Several of his last novels include not-so-inside jabs at Republican politicians. So why isn’t he predominantly known for that? For some it is because they either don’t care or don’t know. For others it is because they agree. And for me, it is because I like most of his writing and am grounded enough I have no hear he will sway me one way or the other.
Allow me to make a point at this juncture: I wonder that this issue relates to Christian novelists differently than it does ABA authors. In a way, Christian novelists ARE expected to adhere to a certain set of “opinions” (social and theological ones) that ABA authors aren’t. The CBA novelist who is openly pro-gay rights or theologically liberal will probably lose readers. Perhaps that’s an argument for keeping our mouths shut. I dunno. My point is, those types of restrictions aren’t inherent to ABA authors. So the reason that Stephen King or Orson Card can state their opinions and not lose readership is that the ABA as a whole is not beholden to any one Opinion. What do you think?
Now I think you closer to the mark. The CBA is a fairly close knit community in more ways than one. All the agents, publishing execs, and many of the writers know each other. The restrictions you speak of are not written in stone but rather implied. Even so, every writer has to decide how outspoken he or she feels led to be. Of course, we must also be willing to bear the results of those decisions.
I think you make a strong point there, for sure.
I think you continue to strengthen my feeling there is a real, distinct argument to be made for being writers who are Christian, writers who adopt a Christian worldview, rather than being pigeon-holed as ‘Christian writers.’ C.S. Lewis wasn’t a Christian writer. JRRT wasn’t a Christian writer. They were Oxford dons who wrote from a Christian worldview. They were able to speak to academia or to kids alike. “I have become all things to all men so I might be all means save some.” (By this I mean, using our audience’s own creeds and customs to show them truth through fiction.)
But, perhaps, it swings both ways. Perhaps “religion” is the thing you can’t talk about in ABA–aside from either A) making fun of it, B) making it really, really subtle, or C) not favoring one religion over another.
I’d love it if “The Coming Evil” was picked up by a big-time Hollywood company and attached a great director and was made into this big theatrical event, but that ain’t happening. Aside from the quality or popularity of the book, the fact that it’s so blatantly Christian would probably kill that dream from the jump.
I mean, I don’t write about Christianity and faith because I’m appealing to the CBA audience–I write it because that’s what I’m interested in exploring in a lot of my stories. But because of that, I figure that’s going to, by default, make me a CBA author–unless you’ve got an Anne Rice type situation where you’ve built up so much street cred that you could write whatever you want and be accepted.
But I’m not sure that an ABA publisher would have ever published “The Strange Man”, because it unashamedly favors Christianity.
So, it’s kind of a catch–there’s some things you can’t talk about at the ABA table and there’s some things you can’t talk about at the CBA table. And that goes back to Mike’s original post–how much do you censor yourself in order to appeal to both crowds and yet stay true to yourself? But that’s in writing, when I guess we were supposed to be talking about blog stuff :p
I think the key here is two things. Don’t beat at it all the time. And be respectful of others while expressing your beliefs. There is one author I refused to try after she commented a few times about how scary patriotic people were. One author I used to read made repeated remarks that went from harsh to mean toward those he disagreed with politically.
I know some authors I like, probably most of them, disagree with me on many issues. But they don’t feel the need to preach to me or call me names every time they get a microphone.
And believe me, if you are going to put your beliefs in your novel, make sure they actually fit. One author seems to feel the need to throw random political comments into his characters’ mouths in a book that isn’t political. What’s worse is, it is a tie in novel based on a TV show that manages to leave politics out of the story. And it does take me out of the book since current politics aren’t part of the universe. It feels more like the author showing off, “Look how smart I am because I have the correct political beliefs.” The author writes some non-tie in stuff, and believe me, I won’t be touching it.
Am in the middle of reading UNCHRISTIAN by David Kinnaman. He has something very interesting about how “outsiders” see Christians — one of the issues “outsiders” have with us is that they US (me in particular) as being hypocritical (saying one thing and doing another): “Doing what you say you are going to do was among characteristics young people most admired.” (p 54-55)
I am going to say what I say to my kids when they have chosen one “thing”, then faced with multiple choices, they vacillate and wonder if they made the right choice: go with your first, well-thought out choice; that’s the one you’ve spent the most time considering.
While I’ve always wondered what I’d do if I was “famous”, I think it would be best — especially if I don’t want to go back and delete everything in the three years I’ve kept a blog — to continue to be honest in my representation of myself. It’s who I am — and I CAN present myself as disagreeing with the world while NOT being disagreeable. Card and Cook work hard at being disagreeable. Michael F. Flynn and Connie Willis often disagree with the world — but they aren’t disagreeable about it.
Then again, who am I to disagree with THE John Grisham? Or Rachel Gardner? I have no books, no fame and no platform. I am just me and when I become famous, maybe I WILL change my mind. Then again again, maybe I won’t — the name of my blog is, after all, POSSIBLY IRRITATING ESSAYS and only 16 people follow it. I certainly hope I think about where I stand now and have nothing to risk by having a strong opinion on something and later having a career to risk and tone down my opinion.
I’m a little late on this, but…
Honestly, a lot of it probably has to do with personality. Me, I’m just not that opinionated. Never have been. I’m usually more interested in listening to other people, which is why it took so long for me to find an angle to blog from, because for the most part…I really don’t know what to say, and don’t think I have anything to say anyone would be interested in hearing.
The only reason why I started blogging again is because a very close author friend of my mine encouraged me to, and then when I couldn’t figure out what to say that anyone would have an interest in, my wife suggested I blog about our journey through our son’s autism, because people kept asking her questions about it on Facebook. So for me, my blog has become a semi-personal journal of our life and struggles, with snippets about writing mixed in.
Honestly, I’m just not that opinionated. And all I wanted to be was an author. Not an activist. Call me passive, that’s okay. I can deal with that.
But ask yourself: when the unexpected happens, and your literary-related views on a personal blog are found offensive, would you delete rather than risk hurt to your future career? The editor of Horn Book recently devoted an entire post to mocking my conservative review of a children’s novel, sending over 1,500 readers to my blog in 72hours. Did I ponder the effect such smearing of my name might have amongst editors in the future? Certainly. Will I mention the same issues if they come up again in another book review? Certainly. I don’t spout off my views left and right, but when they are pertinent, I voice them.
Howdy I am so delighted I found your blog page, I really found you by accident, while I was researching on Yahoo for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would just like to say thanks for a incredible post and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to browse it all at the moment but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read much more, Please do keep up the awesome job.
I didn’t have time to read now …but this opinion maybe noteworthy let God be true and every man a liar that we may be justified in what we say and overcome when we are judged speaking of which casting down imaginations of every High thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God and bringing into captivity EVERY THOUGHT to thr Obedience of Christ. First thought was WHAT Isn’t flavored by our opinion as VariouS as DNA. of NURTURE /\ S. NATURE.
Moreover what does anyone have that they first didn’t receive whether visible or invisible ? Its which Spirit do you.we believe truth or error , which will yor receive ? Moreover Is Will, the power to choose your Only given possession ? Is the heart of the matter being the matter of the heart for where a man’s treasure is there with his heart be also the heart ,It is the policy maker between the gut and the Brain emotions and computations. the power to choose can be a dangerous Treason ! It is the opinion of some , that most all the problems in the world can be traced back to a man not loving his wife? It is interesting that Solomon or someone put proverbs 18:21 next to 22 personal opinion Pro. 13:10 \/ 1Cor.10:13 can Answer Most Questions. Even without. C1013. Ok proverb states. ONLY by pride comes contention but with the well advised wisdom . ( which can turn evil around for good and avoid many problems ) Man looks upon the outside but God looks upon the ? Heb.4:12 Discerning it’s thoughts and intents it is literally the WILL see 3 brains of the body… OPINION OPINION WHO has dominion. Financed by Gates *WHO CDC tells you and me Nothing about how to strengthen the immune system hmm // Rev.18:23 investigate closely.\\ For MSM LSD. with la la. Pharmaceutical commercials how to be free … Meanwhile WHO programming Who A.I. SIMON SAYS The more machines become like men the mote men will BECOME like machines 5&6G you “”Will “” see most unfortunately the ? of the tree of knowledge promising virtual godhood!!! Has the World bowed down to tyranny ? NWO WTC DHS CIA FBI Heads of FAKE. NBC MSM main stream misinformation 1984 Vaccination trap ? Of Course Animal Farm (ID) Just an Opinion
*Case before. Supreme Court. for Global Genocide especially in Africa