BronxWench

That's a very interesting point. When you're dealing with a fandom that began as books and has since become movies, there's going to be serious differences between the two. So, in a sense, the movies are AU themselves, and the original novels must be considered canon, I'd think.

For very good reason, I should point out. It's far too easy to crash a database like ours with too much access to the code, as was demonstrated a while back, before my time here. Given that we host over 9Gb of story data, that's a LOT to lose.

From Tosmail: Story Profile Upon looking at this, chapters 6, 9, and 10 appear to be cut off after the author used a ">_>" emoticon, since they end at ">_"

Spaces count, too. Frustrating, isn't it?

It's the field limitation. Right now, the summary and tags share a field, and that field has a 240 character limit. So, if you have a lot of tags, you won't be able to add much to the summary. There are two work-arounds. One is to post all your tags at the top of the first chapter. We don't count that as an author's note, and it gives readers a chance to know if they want to continue reading. The other is to tag each chapter for content. Both these work-arounds leave you the full 240 characters for your summary. Eventually, when we get there in the code rewrite, the tags will be in a separate field, and we might even be able to expand the size of the summary field. Hang in there!

Good question! I'm going to go with it being the easiest format, since it is a default setup on most word processing software. When I open a new Word document, or LibreOffice document, I can choose my style from the options in the ribbon menu, but both "Normal" and "No Spacing" are block paragraph formats. When I submit a manuscript to a publisher, they ask for block paragraphs, single spaced, no indents, Times New Roman 12 point typeface with a single line between paragraphs. When I get a final galley to read, each paragraph is indented and the line between paragraphs is gone, so a published manuscript, ebook or print, is going to have the indented format. I've seen authors indent paragraphs here, though. It can be done, either by the way you copy and paste to the text box (Copy from Word tends to preserve formatting best) or by manually editing in the Rich Text Editor, which can get tedious if it's a long chapter.

It's a shame - they were great stories! I can understand why she'd remove them, but it's a loss for those of us who enjoyed reading them.

If it's Azela, she removed all her stories, and there's nothing in her profile about putting them anywhere else.

Doesn't it? I'm so excited to be a part of the anthology, with some authors I greatly admire!

I just wanted to share this, in a bout of shameless self promotion:

I live in a neighborhood that is culturally and racially diverse, in a city that's the same, and I simply don't think about it. Being respectful is part of who I am. An example for me is the D&D games that went on around my dining table when Elderspawn was still in high school. There was such a cast of characters: a Muslim boy, a Hindu boy, a Russian agnostic, a Cuban-Irish boy, my Irish-Swedish kid, and an Italian kid with an allergy to Parmesan cheese, poor bugger. I'd make snacks for them, and it just never occurred to me until one kid mentioned it that I served things that were all halal, beef-free, and allergy safe. I called it being a halfway competent mom, personally. You just take everyone into consideration, and it works. So, when I write, I just do the same thing. I don't care about skin color, or faith, or gender. It's all about people, and putting them in a setting that challenges them, and seeing how they deal with it.

Now that's a discussion worth having, but you're right. It's not germane here. We'll have to take that one up at some point. And yes, please! Go appropriate, because I need my fix!

The Last Pure Human by TwistedHilarity

I still fail to see how JK Rowling's use of the notion of Skinwalkers is a form of whitewashing. I do, however, see it as both a patronizing exercise in people knowing better than the Navajo tribal elders, much like that group at the museum knew better than the kimono-clad Japanese-American women, and as an exercise in reverse racism. The only thing being whitewashed here is the motivation of the protesters, and I am quite certain there isn't enough calcimine in existence to lighten the stain of cyberbullying. There is no difference between what these people are doing, and a gaggle of preteen girls making another child's life a misery. Both are equally repugnant. This discussion has gone far afield of Clover's original inquiry, but to try and bring this around to the topic again, as writers, we cannot and should not allow the Internet and its flash crowds of delusional trolls dictate what we write. Culture is in the public domain, and it is not so sacred a cow that we cannot use it. If you believe otherwise, then yes, you are supporting censorship, and that is a slippery slope I cannot countenance.

I'm going to sit next to Chrissy on the "sick of the Internet" bench. Your definition of "whitewashing" is lacking outside the Urban Dictionary. It is this utterly inexplicable habit of redefining words that makes any rational discussion impossible, you know. It's disingenuous for you to say to me that I don't understand what you meant, or that I missed your point, because of course I will misunderstand, if you insist on redefining words. (I've growled at my child for the very same offense, I confess. I'm not interested in Internet slang and usage. My love affair is with the English language, with all its quirks and foibles, with its contrary rules and seductive cadences, with the way one can paint in measured syllables and capture the universe in the turn of a phrase.)

Criticism is valid. Excoriating someone on social media for daring to use a fairly well known and visible piece of cultural belief is bullying. It's not all that complicated. The right for these critics to voice their opinion must be earned by their presenting their criticism in a reasonable manner, and tweets are not it. Crowd-sourcing outrage is not it. Present some serious and credible reasons, but don't stamp feet and add hashtags as emphasis. The hypocrisy is most evident in the way these social initiatives pick and choose who they'll support. I'm pretty sure it's more offensive for the Navajo Nation to be thought of as needing to be defended by a social media campaign against JK Rowling than anything JK Rowling has written. It's quite condescending, isn't it, this assumption that the tribal elders can't step up and speak for themselves? And I would posit that it IS our responsibility to do the research before we jump onto the bandwagon, lest we find ourselves supporting someone, or something which turns out to be not what we thought it was.

JK Rowling isn't trying to own the concept of Skinwalkers, any more than Tony Hillerman was trying to own it in his novels. She didn't try to own any of the Eurocentric concepts she used in the first seven novels, either. So, let me be blunt. Is it only wrong because it's a Navajo belief? Because I haven't seen any Navajo tribal leader weigh in on this nonsense, and their word would carry a lot more weight with me than the Twitter feed of passionate youth who think everything is supposed to be "fair." Oh, and to clarify one point, I don't make a fuss because I'm pagan, and we understand that there is no one truth. I don't need to defend the witches. They're pretty good at it on their own. They're rational adults and can decide for themselves if they're offended. I on the other hand would be very happy if I could be spared the condescension of being told that I don't understand reverse racism when I see it.

It's impossible to write without tripping over that spectre of cultural appropriation, however. So yes, in a very real sense, the message is that we all need to only write that which we've lived. In which case, we've rung the death knell for literature, not that I think these strident, self-important, self appointed arbiters of "What Is Fair" actually care. As a parent, I am pleased that I've managed to raise a college student who can think on their own, without resorting to the protective coloration of an Internet cabal of bullies. And I use that word deliberately, because their language and actions are those of a group of bullies. They are no more interested in dialogue than they are in giving up one speck of their own privilege, privilege that affords them the ability to offer their sanctimonious judgments without regard to the harm they do.

Those issues being inadequate healthcare, inadequate educational opportunities, job discrimination, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, broken families, to name a few. Tony Hillerman used his novels about Navajo life to illustrate the issues that are real, but you know, as a white man, that was probably wrong of him to try to shine a spotlight on these very serious issues. It's a good thing he didn't mention Skinwalkers. Oh, wait...

JK Rowling also took parts of my faith, and incorporated them into her fantasy world, and you don't hear me, or most pagans, for that matter, running around, tearing hair out and sobbing about the appropriation of religious and often cultural beliefs. Being American, I do happen to know people of Native ancestry. My ex-boyfriend had been engaged to a Navajo woman, who was sadly killed by a drunk driver. He spent time on the reservation where she lived, and they had plans to live there after they married, had she not died. Her brother wasn't happy, but her grandmother overruled him. So, really, what would he have been doing, had he lived among the Navajo, as a member of their tribe by marriage? He was as white as they come, Slovine and Finn mix by way of Northern Minnesota. I worked with Native people, and for the most part, I can tell you... they are pretty much people like everyone else. They have the same needs, desires, and goals as, well, people like me. (Entitled white people who are obviously supposed to apologize for our very entitled existence, apparently. So, to steal from the Christians, because they won't care, either: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.) The broad brush here is being wielded by the few shrill voices screaming cultural appropriation, and not all those voices belong to people who actually have a dog in this fight, as my dad would have said. This isn't worthy of discussion. It's bullying via public excoriation, and it's shameful.

I don't think anyone is making light of it. But on the other hand, at some point in time, we need to stop bubble-wrapping the world in case someone's feelings get hurt. You now what? Life hurts. That's what makes us stronger people and often better people. It's how we deal with adversity. When I had a miscarriage, should everyone have hidden infants from my sight, in case I felt diminished by my inability to carry that pregnancy to term? Should there have been a separate practice, so I wouldn't have had to go to my OB's office for a post-miscarriage exam, to make sure all the placental tissue had been expelled? I mean, I saw pregnant women there. It was hard as hell, but you simply need to deal with it. The world goes on. This is no different, when you think about it. Yes, there are living Navajo, and dozens of other tribes whose beliefs may or may not resemble what JK Rowling has written. Should we not mention any of their beliefs? Should the health insurance I had when I worked, insurance that covered Navajo singing-ways, have specified that only Navajo would be allowed to take advantage of that because no one else could possibly believe what they do? Do you see how silly this can get?

Pretty much! I have a WIP set in a slightly AU version of Wales in the 4th Century CE, I say AU because I am not using actual place names, and it's a male/male story. While the Romans were certainly familiar with catamites, and Romanized Britain would have no doubt been exposed to the Roman habit of taking pretty youths to bed, an arranged marriage between two males would be well out of the realm of historical reality. But it's fiction, and I'm taking liberties. If someone wants to take umbrage because I've appropriated something or someone, let them. They have a choice. Don't buy the book. Vote with your wallet. If people are that offended by JK Rowling's new book, then they can simply not buy it. How very radical--decline to provide economic support for something you don't care for. The alternate is that we all stop writing, because we're all going to offend someone somewhere at some point in time.

And Chrissy has said it perfectly for me as well. JK Rowling hasn't even held herself out as an expert on actual witchcraft, or any actual pagan faith. She uses bastardized Latin for her spells, and her witches and wizards celebrate Christian holidays. If we're going to treat her North American wizarding world as a factual discourse on North American history, then I rather imagine we'll need to start treating Wikipedia as an unimpeachable reference as well. It's called fantasy for a reason, people.

Exactly, those are the flat fee for review sites. They leave a generic review on the line of "Great book! Couldn't put it down!" which tells you nothing and is never from a verified purchaser or disclosed recipient of an advance review copy. I hadn't been aware the author accounts were getting banned as well, so thank you for that update. I've never wanted to pay for reviews myself, so I don't think I have to worry, and when I review on Amazon, it's as a verified purchaser.