Doctor Scratch's recent thread has inspired me to share my thoughts with you. To wit, I've been wanting to scratch (no pun intended) my burgeoning writer's itch for quite some time now, but all I've lacked is a subject about which I feel passionate enough to devote the proper time and energy. Recently, however, I've felt that I have my calling: A straightforward, balanced, full-length biography of our favorite (fill-in-the-blank), Louis C. Midgley, an individual who has fascinated me for some time now.
I've already done some basic Internet scouring of Louis C. Midgley facts and figures and will soon be dedicating most or all of my free time catching up on any available academic papers he's written. I won't be able to interview any of his friends and family members until after he passes, though, because it will be imperative that I get the real, actual, unvarnished truth, whatever it may be.
The problem with this project is obvious: Among those who have even heard of Louis C. Midgley, who would want to read about him? Moreover, who would want to actually pay money for a biography about him? Therefore, my chances of making any money from this project are pretty much nil, which of course means that my chances of finding a publisher are also just above nil. Should I spend the time, money, and dedication for what amounts to a labor of love only? Or should I dedicate all that to some other subject, one with a real potential to turn a profit?
Please let me know if writing Midgley's biography will be worthwhile or if I should drop the idea like a hot potato, much as it would pain me to do so.
I would suggest that you take a look at the Dr. Matt Harris's and their commitment to their "subjects", and if you can come close to that commitment, go for it I am all in.
I would suggest that you take a look at the Dr. Matt Harris's and their commitment to their "subjects", and if you can come close to that commitment, go for it I am all in.
There are more than one?
.
"I think the idea of repairing a corpse does not work very well."
Please also include the recent kinder, and some would say new and improved MG 2.0. who appeared recently on this board. If this was him it appears to be different from the reported Tanner confronting one. It seemed like he now wanted to try and understand the arguments that people were making and not just reading to respond.
Please ensure many interviews are conducted along with your readings - the interviews may turn pro, con and neutral. All are important even if it seems an argument you are trying to make starts appearing weaker as new information is obtained - but credibility and corroboration of facts outweigh what someone says.
You write so well, Dr. Shades, with the ultimate goal of truth so I’m sure you will do well.
“One of the important things for anybody in power is to distinguish between what you have the right to do and what is right to do." Potter Stewart, associate justice of the Supreme Court - 1958 to 1981.
Please also include the recent kinder, and some would say new and improved MG 2.0. who appeared recently on this board. If this was him it appears to be different from the reported Tanner confronting one. It seemed like he now wanted to try and understand the arguments that people were making and not just reading to respond.
Please ensure many interviews are conducted along with your readings - the interviews may turn pro, con and neutral. All are important even if it seems an argument you are trying to make starts appearing weaker as new information is obtained - but credibility and corroboration of facts outweigh what someone says.
You write so well, Dr. Shades, with the ultimate goal of truth so I’m sure you will do well.
I would suggest that you take a look at the Dr. Matt Harris's and their commitment to their "subjects", and if you can come close to that commitment, go for it I am all in.
There are more than one?
I could be wrong, but I think Markk is following the modern, accepted, formal usage of 'their' as a singular possessive pronoun, Shades.
Please also include the recent kinder, and some would say new and improved MG 2.0. who appeared recently on this board. If this was him it appears to be different from the reported Tanner confronting one. It seemed like he now wanted to try and understand the arguments that people were making and not just reading to respond.
Please ensure many interviews are conducted along with your readings - the interviews may turn pro, con and neutral. All are important even if it seems an argument you are trying to make starts appearing weaker as new information is obtained - but credibility and corroboration of facts outweigh what someone says.
You write so well, Dr. Shades, with the ultimate goal of truth so I’m sure you will do well.
MG is not Dr Midgley.
Thanks, Morley! - always steering me to better information. Who knows, maybe he's from the UK and likes to drive old classics cars.
“One of the important things for anybody in power is to distinguish between what you have the right to do and what is right to do." Potter Stewart, associate justice of the Supreme Court - 1958 to 1981.
A biography should deal with Midgley's obsession about Brodie's biography of Thomas Jefferson. He cited all the critics. But Joseph Ellis has since changed his mind as to whether Jefferson fathered kids by Sally Hemmings and admits it must have happened. If Brodie's work is discredited with her Jefferson biography it equally shows that her No Man Knows My History can likewise be discredited:
Ellis acknowledged that the two most likely had a long-term sexual liaison. Ellis’s reconsideration of the facts, like Brodie’s love story, is predicated on a nationalist deracialization of Jefferson’s desire; page 3
