@FadedGiant (I know it’s your tradition not to talk much in chats or anywhere, but if possible try to reply on this one) Why people seem to support/fund those movements which are very high publicised? Balzac said it very rightly “Law is a spider’s web from which big insects can always go through but only small flies get caught up”. People support those guys whose image is harmed in media bcoz they know media is involved in it and by funding the victim they can highlight themselves.

People support some ongoing LGBT movements with lots of praise-worthy messages bcoz they see that they can be applauded for that.

But no one supports when a quiet, simple living man is hurt and accused. Even if that man tries to seek something from them, everyone almost everyone becomes a very high profile philosophers and start saying things like “why do you seek for sympathy?” “You have to fight alone, everyone is alone” and then they become lawyer and proves to you that whole mistake was of that quiet, simple man.

@Tsundoku Easy to be better reviewers with a much lower volume of posts :-) It's perfectly possible for one person on Lit to follow and read all new posts on the site, much less feasible on SFF.

@EddieKal Is it off topic at ELL? I don't know ELL's scope, but it seems to me like the kind of question that would be on-topic at both sites, although might get answers from different points of view. Definitely would be on-topic here though, yes - especially since the OP even mentions literary interpretation in the question and not just grammar issues.

@Tsundoku Agreed. I rejected a few suggested edits this morning which were removing useful information from tag wiki excerpts (cc @PrinceNorthLæraðr)

@bobble You definitely don't need to, but it could help to "support" the question, clarify that it's something worth discussing.

Generally we expect much less from questions than from answers :-)

@bobble Btw, with low rep you won't be able to create new tags, so you'll have to ping someone to create those for you.

@Randal'Thor Well, I wrote that under the assumption that SFF SE does not only have more posts but also more eyeballs... :-)

I'm now exorcising the many Tolkeins there etc.

I have reworded and undeleted this question. Is it now in a state that it can be reopened?

@Tsundoku I don't know. I don't read that sort of research, so this is not my kind of question, and I don't know if it should be open or answerable. I can tell why I'm reading young adult books, but that's more of a chat topic.

@b_jonas I understand. But the question is not about whether you or I read that sort of research; it's about whether the question is on topic.

@Tsundoku I think it would better to ask the question directly -- "Why do some readers continue reading young adult works and never graduate to general literature?" -- and not in the indirect reference-request style it is currently in. A good answer would of course cite research if there is any.

Indeed.

(Though, maybe not with "graduate" specifically.) ;-)

@NapoleonWilson Right. They might stop reading altogether instead of moving on to other genres.

@Tsundoku "Graduate" means "move on to a more advanced or exalted level" and I think Napoleon is objecting to the implication that general literature is more advanced than young adult fiction. I admit I was being a little provocative

I'm attempting to edit the question above, but I can't find any book by a Shirley Abbott called Southern Women. The closest I've gotten is Womenfolks: Growing Up Down South by a Shirley Abbott and All Out of Faith: Southern Women on Spirituality by a Shirley Abbot.

(trying to fix the tagging)

Anyone got ideas?

@bobble Did you ask the question owner to check the book title? That may be more efficient than trying to figure it out by yourself.

No, I guess I'll do that

I was mostly editing to fix the grammar and such

@bobble Google Books search shows that the text comes from Womenfolks: Growing Up Down South

Did not know that existed. Neat!

@Randal'Thor No, not off topic yonder either.

Since @GarethRees hasn't expressed any interest...

@EddieKal Yes, 100% fine by me — I put the allusion here since I wasn't planning to write an answer

@PrinceNorthLæraðr, new tags: shirley-abbott womenfolk-growing-up-down-south

@bobble I made a typo in one of those tags (now fixed): correct spelling is womenfolks-growing-up-down-south

Too late to edit my message now. North, see correct spelling!

@KnightwantsLoongback Interesting observation.

BBC In Our Time: Piers Plowman