new ACTION YES.

do you ever consider the amount of time spent on a work as contributing to the quality (quality not necessarily meaning good or bad but characteristic) of a piece of writing (your own or otherwise)?  meaning, is there any additional consideration to be made about a piece of writing, other than nominally, if the amount of time spent on its creation is known?  or does that knowledge only refer to generalizations made about other qualities supposedly consequent to time?  and if amount of time is considered to impact anything, doesn’t then the use of time become unclear?  i can imagine shorter periods of time, while usually referenced as evidence of laziness, to be better for a piece in that it more fully allows one state of mind to dominate and avoid paranoia.  paranoia of course, would then be the negative result of a longer period of time spent on a piece of writing, whereas most would reference longer time as evidence of hardwork.  i think some of the same mentalities are applied to other bare facts like age, level of schooling et cetera.  go phillies.

what are some stereotypes in the world of writing? (internet or otherwise, content or author, etc.)  please include behavioral tendencies (bonus points for using a nature show tone).

who writes good dialogue?  what is good about it?

make magic then send it to dogzplot.  read about the magic issue here.  it is ok to like this.

Thirst for Fire is here to burn your teeth like some awesome crack-tokes.

good interview with ben brooks, conducted by j.a. tyler.  read it. i almost passed out looking at the picture they used in the middle of the interview.

i enjoyed reading this story by kevin wilson. i also enjoyed the apple i just ate.  in conclusion, if you are looking for two enjoyable things, there is this story by kevin wilson, or the apple that i just ate.