Been here before (so it must be me?) ...

Good morning little lonely reader. How are you today? Here in rural Lincolnshire looking outside across the lovely green expanse that is one of our paddocks and into the neighbour's fields (that unusually today are empty of animals) I am reflecting on writing groups and their benefits or otherwise ...

My impression, so far (after attending a number of groups and courses) is that they all in one way or another (and often in many ways) fail the subscribers/members.

That could mean that I am so intellectually gifted that I know better than the people running them or that I am a bolshy, cocky, over-confident 'smart-arse' (nobody likes them apparently) that actually doesn't really get these groups or courses and thus doesn't find any benefit.

Which of those above two choices would you think is more accurate?

Of course, lonely little reader, it may be that you don't know Tim J Rhohn-Sayers (me - well the bloggy and written me as the name is - and no secret about it - my pen name - my pseudonym). It could be that even if you are an anonymous existing commentator (i.e. someone who comments on my blog) or a named or 'handled' commentator (like "Agony Aunt" or "Alan" - who are 'regulars') that your knowledge of me as a person is not good enough to have a view on which choice is more likely - or, on the other hand, you might instantly opt for one of the two choices - and that includes the possibility that I am a genius ... (or a 'smart-arse' - but that's really unthinkable - isn't it?).

One thing that I am confident of is that some leaders of courses and groups have ulterior motives that are far and away from any desire to 'bring on' (using an equestrian term) budding authors. If we knew (as subscribers) what was the leader's true motivation for being in their roles we might never have joined in the first place - so yes, I am a cynic.

This is my (anonymous of course - meaning no names or groups identified) take on a few of the writing 'things' that I have been a member of:

One leader (or group) that ...

A) Was led by a charlatan who couldn't spell, or had a handle on grammar, for toffee.
B) Re a university course (I was contemplating) the recruiter had no qualms in saying "don't worry at all about any apparent cost (many thousands of pounds) - as you will never have to pay it anyway - it'll eventually get written-off probably or (implying that my age and/or retired status - meaning no or low income that) my scenario might not trigger repayments (ever, that is before I die). The charlatan in A above gained his 'degree' at this university. The recruiter also went on to say that (as I was asking about the very convenient uni-supplied coach service from my area to the campus) "oh I wouldn't be seen dead on that bus with all the young louts that use it." - How did she get the job? Well, now at least you know her gender.
C) Never had reviews and never answered emails.
D) Never had reviews and rarely, if ever, answered emails.
E) Was led by two 'sort of' leaders, both of whom had ideas of literary, class and intellectual self-assessment way above their real status and/or background and whom enjoyed keeping those that wanted to get on, down.

So, as an earlier post stated I am at a crossroads about my remaining writers' group as to whether I stay or go. I announced to one colleague that I was going but owing to a late-in mildly empathetic email - I postponed my demise - so for now I am going to attend the next meet, at least. UPDATE (25-09-18): no, actually I have left the group after receiving another rather annoying email from a fellow attendee. Best get the hell out of it and get back to writing (!) much as I enjoy the socialising (what little there was of it at this last group).

So what's the problem I hear you say?

Simples ... little or no desire from the leader to encourage or arrange attendee's manuscript feedback - so one never knows if what one writes is any good (to use a phrase ... or is that a clause?). You'll notice above in points D and E that this has been a common issue - but would one ever guess that there could ever be groups that do NOT give feedback? It's ridiculous. I, of course know why some leaders are against feedback - it involves them and takes time and time is usually equal to money.

If she who must be obeyed ever gets to read this post she will go, as they say, mental. Why? Because she is of the opinion that all the various group or organised writers' activities that I have embraced have been a total waste of time and purely a distraction from my actually producing that supposed "Best Seller Before I Die"!

By the way, this morning she and I were reading here and there, in bed (I guess my lonely little reader will wonder why I included the location). The significant conclusion was that we both agreed this:

A) Being a good writer is not any kind of prerequisite to being a best seller (as we between us have read such a lot of garbage from very well-known writers).

B) The marketing, back-up and reputation of a writer (that aspires to best-seller status) is more key than the quality of writing, sadly and bizarrely.

C) I know and she knows that I can write at least as good (or better that I say as well) if not better than, for example, Jeffrey Archer and that bloke that (whom) wrote "For Whom the Bell Tolls" (meaning for this moment in time - I have forgotten his name - but probably good that I do, as the few short stories of his - Ernest Hemingway, by the way, as it pops back, were pretty mediocre in our view.

My wife casually said this morning - "why don't you start a group?" My reply referred to my inappropriate qualifications (etc.) but that is a little laughable as that does not stop other writing group leaders. - Ha ha, I say.

Just thought I'd toss this all in whilst it's on my mind ...

 ... The above gives you an idea of what I look like ...