Graeme

Des, I don't disagree, but in the defence of those who think there are other matters of more concern, we're talking tactics and strategy, not the end goal. You've described the end goal that we all want, but how do we get there? Is it time to go for official recognition of same-sex relationships, or are there other steps along the way that should be a priority? In Australia, I believe it's time to go for same-sex marriage, but I've heard enough from our American friends to know that there are those that still suffer from the lack of anti-discrimination laws. What's the good of having same-sex marriage if you can't get a job because you're gay? Having an income is part of what's needed to "pursue a relationship that promises happiness in our secular democracy", so shouldn't that also be important? That's where people differ. It's not whether same-sex marriage is a goal worth achieving. It's whether it should be the priority now or are other things, like anti-discrimination laws, more important? Australia is pretty good in that respect and in my opinion same-sex marriage is the right priority for us at this point in history. For the USA, though, I don't think it's that clear-cut.

Melbourne transgender man AJ Kearns says he is 'blessed' to have become pregnant and given birth also AJ Kearns in photographs: The father who gave birth

Why does a story have to have one main character? Why should it be a problem if the reader doesn't know who the main character actually is? I did this deliberately in my novel Leopard Skin Cover in that the 'main character' isn't revealed until late in the story. Until then, the reader is left guessing as to who it is. I'll admit that I find rotating 3rd person challenging to write, but that's mainly because each time I do a scene I have to decide who is the most appropriate character to 'view' that scene. Other than having to make that decision, it's no different to first person. The reader is getting to see that scene from one characters point of view, and that's all. Different scenes have different characters presenting their view because different characters are present in each scene. I think first person can itself be even more challenging because it requires that character to be present in every scene. How do you present things that that person doesn't know in first person? That's a real challenge unless you're willing to break the rules and use another person's point of view (ie. rotating 1st person, analogous to rotating 3rd person but with the added confusion that "I" means someone different for each character) or to insert 3rd person sections. When you have a story with a single main character, or a single character focus, first person is very apt. I chose first person for my novels New Brother and The Price of Friendship for exactly that reason. I wanted the readers inside the head of the main character of those novels. But in Heart of The Tree, Leopard Skin Cover, and Leopard Spots, that would be impossible because I have events happening in different places at the same time that need to be covered (eg. one character disappeared, other characters went searching for him -- I needed to cover both streams in the story where each didn't know what the other is doing). I experimented with a different technique in Falls Creek Lessons, but I wouldn't want to repeat that again. I think it was successful, but it was also partly a gimmick that would lose its appeal with too much repetition.

There's a variant of 3rd person limited that I've seen called rotating 3rd person limited. That is, write from the perspective of a single character, but different scenes can have different characters as providing the perspective. I find this much easier to read than varying first person perspective because the pronouns don't get in the way. There is no "I" with differing meanings for differing scenes. When "he" is used instead, it becomes much easier and much more natural to drop in a name instead early in the scene to make it clear that the perspective has shifted. That's the way I've been trying to write most of my non-first person stories.I don't always succeed because slipping into omniscience is so easy, but that's been my goal. So when I said third person limited, I really meant rotating third person limited. Another variant on what you're saying is the unreliable narrator. I've tried one first-person short story where the narrator was insane, but I didn't immediately tell the readers. It wasn't a total success in that I think only about half the readers realised that the narrator was unreliable while the other half scratched their heads and frowned at how the story ended. But it was an interesting experiment

I wanted the short story from a particular character's point of view. However, I also wanted to keep my options open for extending the story into a novella or novel. If I did that, I would definitely need other points of view, and 3rd person limited would give me that.

I have one short story that I wanted to write in 3rd person limited, but I was struggling. What I did was to re-write it in first person and when I finished, I translated it to 3rd person limited -- a largely mechanical task. Apart from a few phrases, it was simply changing "I" to "he", "my" to "his", etc.

Wonderful!

When you're dealing with dialects, there's a lot more flexibility. "So's we don't get caught" is an example. To me, that immediately brought to mind the speech patterns of your old-fashioned lower-class English labourer/petty thief. Capturing that feeling in so few words is why things like that are acceptable. It wouldn't be acceptable from an upper-class gent, but in the right context...

I usually use Cole's method when I hit an apparent dead-end, but I also like to try to work out why it's a dead-end. My characters are bossy -- they do their best to avoid doing things that aren't in character, even if I want them to. I've hit dead-ends as a consequence. To fix those ones, I go back a little and change something leading up to the dead-end point, so the characters can work around it. In Leopard Skin Cover, there was a point where one major character had decided to not tell anything what he had planned until certain events had occurred. I then sat and stared at a blank screen while trying to work out what to do next. Eventually, I realised that I had closed off all options to continue the story in the short term until those events happened, so I went back and changed that decision. The character decided to only tell a handful of people, but that gave me something to write about until those certain events took place. Naturally, that technique only works if the blockage is within the story itself and the parts that need to be changed haven't already been posted online, but that's one of the reasons I try to stay well ahead of the posting cycle with my writing. It gives me time to go back and make alterations if needed to help.

That's what I thought, too.

I don't outline. Instead I have a set of events and an ending in mind. My journey is discovering how to get from the start to the end visiting as many of those events as I can (I do drop some of them if I decide that events stop them from working). The events can also morph during writing. For example, in Leopard Spots originally I had character X doing something, but when I got to that particular point in the story, character Y was better off as the one to be involved in that event. I do, however, always keep in mind where the story is going. I won't start writing a story unless I have a good idea of how it will end.

An article in the newspapers this morning: Gay health: footballer Lachlan Beaton reveals agony of coming out to family and friends And the YouTube video from the article:

But that's different to a "writer's voice". I write what seems natural to the story I'm writing...which is what you're talking about. That's not a "writer's voice", though -- that's a story's voice. Of course it's possible that I write only stories that have one voice so I don't understand the distinction...

Not necessarily. It's quite possible it's neither showing nor telling. A plot is neither showing nor telling -- it's the story flow. Showing and telling are methods of presenting that flow. Sub-texts are closer to plot in my opinion -- they're part of the story itself, not the mechanics on how to present that story to the reader.

I never "discovered" my writer's voice. I've only ever written what I want to write. I may push myself at times by doing something different, but that's in genres and topics. I've never tried to alter the way I word things, the way I say things.

I'm assuming there's a degree of political correctness in the phrase. They can't say she was good-looking because that maybe sexist, so they simply say she was "fit" that implies a certain amount of attractiveness without actually saying so.

Both showing and telling can and should be used in storytelling. Showing gives an urgency and intimacy, but when neither is appropriate, telling allows the story to progress. We don't need to know the details of a journey that took a 100 days unless that's what the story is about. Being told that the journey took 100 days is enough, and the story can then pick up and show what happens next, if that's what the author wants to do. As for the big brown torn vinyl couch, that has its place, too. If the author wants to give the impression that a residence is decrepit, or that the family that lives there is poor, then such a description is appropriate the first time the reader encountered that residence. After that, no, that level of detail isn't needed. Balance between the two is important. Too much telling and not showing is, to me, boring, because I'm not experiencing anything -- I'm being dictated to. Too much showing, however, can also lead to boredom because I lose track of where the story is heading. Too much showing often results in a warm pool to soak in, but you rarely get anywhere.

Chris, I could be wrong, but I think he's technically correct. The Supreme Court has instructed the lower courts what to do, but the lower courts are the ones that will put that decision into effect. The decision didn't not mean that same-sex marriage is immediately legal -- it means that the states can't ban it. There will be a delay before the decision takes effect, and part of that decision is waiting for the lower courts to do their thing. I believe the delay will be measured in days, but, as I understand it, there's still a delay.

Pedro, the possibility is certainly there for it to be undermined, but I'm not sure how that would work. For example, Roe vs Ward introduced a national right for abortion, but there's been a steady erosion of that right as constraints and restrictions have been imposed. How they can do that with Same-Sex marriage, I don't know, but it's something to keep an eye on. Cole, the Supreme Court speaks on Constitutional matters and interpretation of national laws. The recent Hobby case that gave a 'religious right' to closely held corporations was based off national laws, not the constitution. As such, it could be reversed by Congress because they have the power to change the laws on which that decision was made. This decisoin, however, was made purely on constitutional grounds, and as such the only way it could be reversed/altered is via either a constitutional amendment or by another decision of the Supreme Court.

Pedro, you're correct, but overturning a ruling doesn't happen easily or frequently. There's a general principle that once a matter has been decided, it will remain decided. There are exceptions, but they're not common and the court generally moves cautiously when it comes to overruling previous decisions. There's a legal term for this, stari decisis, which essentially means 'Let the decision stand'. Interestingly, I noticed that after the dissent that Chief Justice Roberts read from the bench, he finished with an invitation for the gay and lesbian couples to celebrate, but he believed that the decision wasn't founded in the constitution.

I read about this last week in New Zealand. Some people read too much into things. As an aside, there are Christians who are vocal in their tolerance and acceptance, but they're not interesting, newsworthy-wise. That's why you rarely hear about them. The idiots are much more entertaining, so that's who you find in newspapers/blogs, etc.

I agree I'm still waiting for medical science to develop to the point where they can do a transplant of a fetus from one womb to another with a high degree of success. That would, to me, go a long way to finding a solution. It's analogous to the argument that a woman can give up the baby for adoption after birth, but it eliminates the issue of having to carry the child for 9 months (with associated medical and emotional impacts), which is especially important in a lot of cases. It wouldn't solve the problem, because I suspect there would be a shortage of women willing to accept these transplants, but it would shift the focus of the discussion.

Personally, I am neither in the pro-life camp, or the pro-choice camp. I find both extremes to be insufficiently nuanced. There are things that I definitely disagree with: Abortion as a form of birth control Abortion as a lifestyle choice (such as aborting a fetus if it has the 'wrong' sex) Not allowing abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape (I'm not saying they should be aborted, but I feel that the woman in this case should have a strong say in whether they want a 9 month ongoing reminder of their rape. Once a fetus transplant is a viable option, that would be my preferred option in this case, but that's not a viable option at the moment) I am less confident of my position on other matters such as: Abortion because the parents are unable to support the child -- including situations where the expectant mother needs to keep working to support other children and can't afford to take time off due to being pregnant. Abortion where a serious medical condition is identified (including Downes syndrome, but not dwarfism, which I don't consider to be a serious medical condition). As I said in my first post, I consider every abortion to be a tragedy. I would prefer more effort is spent on ensuring that there is no need to consider an abortion in the first place, by increasing knowledge and understanding of things like using birth control, and the risk factors that lead to abnormalities.

I have a friend who had two abortions. She didn't want to -- it was a medical necessity because both pregnancies were ectopic. There was no chance that either fetus would grow to be a living baby. Not aborting them would just have resulted in the death of the mother.

South African recipient of world's first penis transplant set to become father Interesting...