u/bambucks

Hey all, I'm writing an anti-war novel focusing on mail call during boot camp, as well as during active war.

I've never served in the military (not a fan of imperialism), so my knowledge on this is fairly limited. I wanted to know if any of you would be willing to help fill in the gaps. What is mail call like? What does mail typically consist of? Do tensions ever flare when a squad member doesn't get mail? How can letters from home (or lack thereof) affect morale, mindsets, radicalization, etc. of soldiers? Any other little details that don't make it into movie adaptations?

I want to show how crucial a role mail call plays, offering a brief solace in the middle of seemingly never-ending hell. I want to show something real, that doesn't act as propaganda for the military industrial complex or capitalist imperialism, whilst being as accurate and respectful to those that served as possible. Even those that still have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Thanks.

Whether by ballots or bullets, socialism will win. When it does, how do you picture the transition to it looking? Do you abolish private property in an instant? Do you phase out markets over time? Or will it take decades, like China's current metamorphosis? What are the main priorities to tackle first?

Posted this a few days ago but I’m posting this again because most people in the comments seemed to miss the part where I explicitly said hypothetically Democrats win every major election in Texas for the next several cycles, turning it into a solid blue state.

Many who commented didn’t engage with the hypothetical, either saying Talarico wouldn’t win the upcoming Senate election, or one Democratic victory wouldn’t turn the state blue, which wasn’t the question posed.

So again, if Democrats start winning statewide election in Texas, and don’t stop for the next several cycles, what happens to the Democratic and Republican parties as a whole, their strategies, etc. ?

The last time a Democrat won a statewide office in Texas was in 1994. Recent polling for the upcoming midterms show James Talarico with a chance of changing that. But let’s say hypothetically, not only does Talarico wins, but Texas as a whole goes blue in future elections as well, ultimately following in Colorado or Virginia’s footsteps in becoming a Democratic stronghold.

What happens then? How do the parties change policy-wise, strategy-wise, etc. it’d become tough for the Republican Party to win another presidential race, so how would and/or should they respond?

In the novel I'm writing, my protagonist attends meetings that are similar to AA (but not for alcoholism), and I want my protagonist to hear stories from the other attendees in order to learn more about them as people, how they got to this point, the need for the meetings to exist in the first place, as well as for my protagonist to share his own story (or how he tells himself, maybe the story changes bit by bit the more he tells it?)

My main issue is that I am not sure how I want to go about doing this, as I feel that the stories themselves could be very interesting, but I fear that they would bring the pacing to a halt, as the circle goes around and tells their tragic stories one by one, eventually getting to my protagonist.

I'm planning on my protagonist attending several meetings over a period of time, and perhaps I describe a couple stories per meeting? Hearing and reacting to these stories are important for my protagonist to grow as a character. How many stories should I devote to a chapter? How many meetings should I include? Should I be super detailed for each story or just be like: the old man talked about feeling lost after his wife died in a freak hot air balloon accident. (not actually what happens in my novel fyi).

Any input would be appreciated!

Writing a psychological thriller where the protagonist and his wife's marriage is falling apart.

The main issue stems from a lack of communication. The protagonist's parents had a toxic marriage that ended in divorce when he was a child, and he is still traumatized by that, and now as a parent and husband himself, he is determined to not do the same to his child. But in his mind, to make sure that doesn't happen, he refuses to even acknowledge that there is an issue, because if he acknowledges the issue, that means that the issue is real. And real issues mean imperfect families, and imperfect families break up. He believes he is saving his marriage, but is ultimately hurting it by doing so, but he doesn't (or won't) recognize that until it is too late.

How do I toe the line of a crumbling marriage, but the two both have a lot of love for each other. The wife just feels more and more run down as she can't talk to him about things without him shutting down or changing the subject, to the point where she shuts down and becomes avoidant herself, before finally leaving, while still having it seem realistic, and have the reader still want to root for the husband in the end as he attempts to make amends and change his outlook.

Whether it was your first novel, or the one you’d been putting off for years until you felt you were finally ready to tackle it. I wanna know what was going through your head as you reached the end. Emotional? Relieved? Ecstatic?

I’m currently working on the zero draft for my first novel so I’m still a ways away, but as I churn out pages, I think about how it will feel when it is completed.

As a kid, I was taught that George Washington is the only President of the United States to not have joined a political party, viewing them as bad for the country and believing that they would only cause division. Safe to say, he was absolutely correct.

When I got a bit older and did further research about Washington, I learned that despite not joining a political party, he was largely ideologically aligned with the Federalist Party, led by figures like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams.

The Federalist Party collapsed in the early 1800s, with the only President of the United States to be affiliated with them being John Adams (and unofficially George Washington), but the main purpose of this post is, could George Washington have prevented the collapse of the Federalist Party had he chosen to not run as an Independent? Could the Federalist Party have had further electoral success? To what extent, and for how long? How much of a boost does Washington's affiliation and popularity take them?

For the sake of this thought experiment, let's say that in the upcoming midterms and onward, it's an absolute massacre, with Democrats sweeping every election. A true blue wave that hasn't been seen since the days of FDR. Liberals rejoice in passing everything on their wishlist: universal healthcare, codifying reproductive rights, overturning Citizens' United, easier and quicker pathways to citizenship, regulation on firearms (not going so far as a ban as there is a divide amongst liberals), etc. We get everything we want, everything on the Democratic platform.

What's next? Do the Democrats govern like modern New Deal Democrats? Do they move left toward socialism? Something else perhaps?

Writing my first novel and wondering if I should write under my real name or a pen name, and curious to hear from you and whether you use real name or pen name, and for what reason?

Thanks.

Here in the United States, our elected leaders range from center-left to far-right. The Democratic Party consists of center-left to center-right politicians, while the Republican Party consists of center-right to far-right politicians.

I find that there are two strains of American centrists:

1. Those whose preferred policies/ideology land somewhere between those of the Democratic and Republican parties, and

2. Those who believe that the best path is one of bipartisan compromise, meeting in the middle on issues.

This post is primarily focused on that second strain.

If it is the opinion of American Centrists that the best path forward is through compromise of the left and right, then shouldn't the centrist position be somewhere around social democracy, as is the case in most other countries?

I ask this because as I mentioned, Centrists tend to seek compromise between Democrats and Republicans, however, these are both capitalist parties, and only represent the right (capitalist) half of the political spectrum. If they are truly looking for better options and compromise, should they not broaden their horizons (or the Overton window) to include anti-capitalist ideals as well?

Many on the right in the US complain that the Democrats have gone so far to the left, but compared to most other "left-wing" parties, Democrats are firmly right of center. So American Centrists are really seeking compromise between right of center and far right. Democratic policy proposals such as universal healthcare are seen as 'far-left radical' positions, when in reality, in every other first world country, it's the norm with plenty of 'conservative' parties supporting such policies.

Democratic Party leaders often say that they need to "shift to the center" (meaning the American center) in order to win elections (often unsuccessful, see Clinton in 2016 and Harris in 2024), however, in doing so, Democrats further cede ground to the far-right, further shifting the Overton window away from the actual center, moving the American center toward most other countries' right and far-right wing.

The want for bipartisan compromise is a noble one, but when the Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that bipartisan compromise consists of right and far-right wing compromise, it shuts out any viable, actually centrist (as well as left-wing) policy.

Do American Centrists have it wrong?

"In God We Trust" is the national motto of the United States, and appears on all our currency. This came about around the 1950s due in part to rising tensions between the US and the more atheistic USSR.
Since its adoption as the national motto, there has been vocal opposition to it, calling it a violation of the separation of church and state, and not upholding the secular foundation of America. Calls for its change have increased in recent years.

1. Would you support changing the motto, why or why not?

2. What do you think the motto should be changed to?

I'm sure that we've all been there. We pick up a novel with "New York Times Bestseller" plastered on the cover and start flipping through it, only to think, "This is kinda whatever. I could write something better than this". Obviously, they've done something right in order to not only be published, but to become a bestseller. My question is really a two parter: 1) how good does a novel actually need to be in order to get published, and 2) Is the bar for publication lowered for a more marketable novel that might be lower in quality, and if so, by how much?

For example, Fifty Shades of Grey. I'm personally not a fan of the prose, but I understand the appeal and why it has sold millions of copies and spawned a trilogy and film franchise. I'd say this is an example of the marketability of the novel outweighing its quality (No disrespect to E.L. James or any Fifty Shades fans).