But good books have a the numbers and if you're lucky the writer has already made the mistakes or done the research so you don't have to. For example, I ignore 99% of the advice in style magazines (some women don't, but a lack of judgement on some folks' part, even though it may lead to legions wearing bubblegum pink lipgloss, is not a reason to condemn all fashion writing IMO). But a year's subscription to Allure was worth it just to learn you could carry a dryer sheet in your purse in rub it on your head after brushing and stop static flyaways. I had babyfine hair stick straight out from my head all winter until I turned 40 and read that hint. I already had asked everyone I knew and no one had any ideas.

There are parenting and writing books which are stupid and ones which are the results of the writer (who is just a person making recommendations after all, just on paper) talking to lots of folks and testing lots of ideas and sharing what they have found to be most effective.

Hi, new thread.

Obviously it's a little more important when it's something like making sure your kid is healthy, but even with writing, it's always helpful to have someone you know and trust as an example, or an ear.

Yes, this this this. And with time passage, I would imagine most people develop or hone the ability to do the wheat/chaff thing, and to separate the wanking of an individual hobbyhorse from the bellybumping.

I don't read the books, the same way I never read the parenting books (full circle). When it comes to writing, I never felt the need; I was able to do it, and I had beta readers and WIP editors I trusted to tell me if shit was going wrong, and the best editor to ever wear shoe leather to tell me the same.

And now, honestly, out the door. Making Kinko's rich, here.

In general, in matters of evaluation, the problem is that across the board the people who are best at things do not perceive themselves as above average, while people who are the worst at things think they're very good.

(Exceptions made for sports figures, who all know it when they're very good, much to my annoyance.)

So someone who gives shit advice can get away with it for a long time before someone else points out he's wrong, simply because the first someone is totally sure he's right, and the second person is cautious enough to doubt.

even with writing, it's always helpful to have someone you know and trust as an example, or an ear.

Helpful, but not always possible, and often terrifying. If you're sensible and realise that there's no one true way about any of the arts, I think copious reading can be very useful.

If you're not sensible, then all the humans in the world mightn't help.

Gah! (pumping another quarter in the slot)

Parenting support groups are not equal to people I know and trust on the subject.

I think we define parenting support groups differently, love. Mine, in the UK, was a group of parents with infants ranging between a week and about six months old, plus one "social counsellor" (provided by the state, with our UK tax dollars) and one "pediatric professional".

I'm beginning to sense parent support groups here aren't the same...

If you're sensible and realise that there's no one true way about any of the arts, I think copious reading can be very useful.

Probably true. But if it terrifies you (the universal you, not you specifically), that's something to confront early; publishing a novel comes with everyone criticising it. And if you're sensible about it, copious reading can be disastrous. It's one reason I read almost no fiction when I'm in mid-book; I don't want the voice changing. My editor is paying for that voice, and she loves it, and I'm-a keeping it.

Full circle, again: if Terry Pratchett took that no-adverb advice to heart, he'd have a different voice and he'd probably be selling insurance for a living.

If you're not sensible, then all the humans in the world mightn't help.

Words to live by.

And a new writing thread. Wow.

In general, in matters of evaluation, the problem is that across the board the people who are best at things do not perceive themselves as above average, while people who are the worst at things think they're very good.

(snip) So someone who gives shit advice can get away with it for a long time before someone else points out he's wrong, simply because the first someone is totally sure he's right, and the second person is cautious enough to doubt.

This should be put on a damn bronze plaque somewhere. Multiple somewheres.

There's also the fact that the shit advice might be pure gold for one out of every hundred readers, while the other 99 are being screwed by it. Again, totally subjective. Wheat, chaff, skill, needed.