What is a "based book?"

Something I think of when I think of "based" is that it's the opposite of what we think of as "woke", and woke is basically just another word for Marxism--anti-Christian, anti-patriarchy, anti-family, anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, anti-discipline, anti-life, etc.

I'll be honest, I'm not usually one for gatekeeping. It's too much work. I agree with a quite a few of the listed points, especially the opposite of 'woke' definition. However, I think my main view of things that are 'based' are that it must be authentic -- as in non-performative, which is admittedly a bit mushy of a definition since we are generally talking about fiction here. In this case, I'm thinking of woke attitudes that need virtue signaling and have requirements to flagellate specific norms in order to succeed or suffer the threat of vicious finger-pointing. I like to be positive, though, so perhaps we can say 'based' books build traditional values and individualism, rather than tearing these things down for the cheap delight of the mob.

Everyone's going to have a slightly different idea of how far based goes and what exactly it entails.

"so perhaps we can say 'based' books build traditional values and individualism, rather than tearing these things down for the cheap delight of the mob." is a good summary with some wiggle room for individual comfort levels.

In fact, you pretty much posted what I updated the For Authors page to say:

"No anti-capitalist/pro-socialist or other Marxist propaganda of any type, among other modern ideologies. Works promoting those ideas will be rejected. Our purpose is to serve readers who believe in individual liberties and traditional beliefs."

I think the definition of a "based book" is and should be evolving at this time. That's what the discussion is for. Hopefully we can eventually figure out a good definition together and run with it. :)

I'm sure more will chime in in time. This is a good start to developing specifics for those who may be a bit fuzzy on the concept.

I agree that based fiction is a more individualistic story, not pushing Marxism or submissive collectivism.
Some of what you said strikes me like a right-wing version of woke, which would be bad for different reasons. Most "Christian movies" have the same problem as anything "progressive."
I don't want to just have a different message to shoe-horn in.

Based originated as a compliment for people just being honest and true to what they believe, even if they'd get crap from woke people. I don't think it should be defined in extensive detail. Based is simply promoting greatness, temperance and virtues without beating anyone over the head with your message. It's also having the respect for your audience to believe they will get your core message.

I like this and agree a book doesn't have to be "Christian" to be "based." A lot of the based audience, is however, sick of shameless Christ-bashing so that's why I mentioned it as a discussion point. Personally I think intellectual criticism of Christianity or no mention of it whatsoever in a based book is Ok. Lame Hollywood style Christ bashing- no. Also, I think it's important to note that a lot of Christian fiction out there that is sickeningly sweet. After exposure, I feel like I need 20 units of insulin to avoid a glucose coma and I'm not diabetic; let's try to avoid this in our books :) Just my thoughts. Thanks for yours :)

If 'based' is the opposite of 'woke', then anything not founded on chasing the moving goalposts curated by big-tech algorithms and woke-captured institutions (corporate press, Hollywood, New York publishing houses, etc) has passed the first test. No list of specifics can ever define woke for long, because the doom loops will drive them to new extremes. Woke behaves like gasses, not like solids. I think that we should define woke by its process, which remains consistent over time, rather than its doctrines and details.

When I think of 'Woke', I think of a person steeped in the urban monoculture who is militant in demanding that others also obey that culture's latest and ever-shifting doctrines. Those doctrines are driven by social media algorithms rather than by principles, reason, or a moral foundation. There was no 'woke' until the smartphone was invented and algorithms drove doom loops of escalating outrage, crafting a new type of consensus built on heaping shame on an endlessly-escalating sequence of targets. The woke cancel others: it is a purity death spiral, always focused on shallow thinking driven by emotional provocations. Any person may be subject at any time to being cancelled for things that were accepted by all five minutes ago.

Wokeness is a power game with no permanent winners, and that makes it impossible to pin down. Drive a stake through it and it just floats around and laughs at you. Wokeness aims, perhaps not even consciously so, at purifying society through subtraction. Shame (and then cancel) people for this perceived wrongness, then move on to that one, then the next, and the process has no end. Who decides right from wrong? Nobody does. LITERALLY no one is in charge of wokeness; there isn't even a single algorithm driving them. Someone complains about something, others agree or support them, and what goes viral rules the day. There is no vision behind it, no charismatic leader, no moral foundation, nothing solid -- and most of all, nobody can be held to account for anything they do, because they are all hiding behind (and hiding FROM) the fog of all those gasses. It's fertile ground for malicious actors, who can construct complaints that serve their own selfish purposes and win the day if they drive enough outrage from others to go viral. It's the perfect ecosystem for aggrandizing the worst narcissists.

However, 'based' should not be defined solely by 'not woke'. There are bad things that are not woke, which do not belong as 'based'. We could pin down 'based', but perhaps we should fight gas with gas.

Personal accountability is the Kryptonite of the woke. They cannot even tolerate being questioned. Enforced silence, enforced conformity are their methods. Censorship is their tool.

Therefore, the ultimate 'based' move is unbridled freedom of speech. Trust readers to make up their own minds about things.

That doesn't mean having no standards, though. We are not bound to have to engage empathy to a suicidal level. How to balance freedom of thought with protecting against the malicious? I don't have the answer. But that is the challenge: two principles at odds. We need freedom, but we also need security. And too little of either leads to disaster.

Ruling out books that include A, B, or C means ruling out stories that explore A, B, or C in the deepest ways. A strawman argument persuades only fools. To defeat an idea, one must engage with it honestly, to steelman it, hear out its best arguments, perhaps face discomfort in letting it make its best case. If 'based' books cannot do that, then they aren't going to have much impact.

Based as a fiction category should encourage readers to ask questions. Based books should make their points not on doctrine or preaching but though telling a story and showing tradeoffs and consequences, while trusting readers to discern meaning for themselves. But this definition requires a willingness to face questions, not just to ask questions that support what one already believes. As such, a broad range of books would serve readers who are truth-seekers.

The woke did not invent puritanism. They have merely applied it to their ever-shifting neo-religious culture of intersectionality and viral outrage. If we want this community to do more than its own version of preaching to the choir, then we will have to hold ourselves to higher standards than that.

Orwell, Huxley and Chesterton depicted dystopian worlds and flawed characters to offer deeper, more enduring warnings to readers. Why was 'Mein Kampf' not censored? Warnings about levels of sex or violence can be useful to readers who do not (in that moment) wish to engage difficult reads; but censoring them from our midst may do more harm than good. We do not need to promote woke books; they have the backing of the urban monoculture and don't need our additional support. It won't be easy to find an ideal balance, but we should aim high.

Easy enough to identify books that are shallow and preachy, aimed at the woke choir. They check intersectional boxes, avoid asking any tough questions of woke ideas, and strawman their opponents. After that? I don't know. It gets harder to quantify from there. Do you want to aim for more security or more freedom? One way or another, that tradeoff must be engaged.

@mrandmrsrobertbrianthomas You make a good point that portraying things you disagree with fairly is important. That's something woke media doesn't do. They always break the 4th wall, turn to the proverbial camera and monologue at some point. A truly based creative should ironically make a better case for woke values while making an even better case for the alternative. All without heavy handed bludgeoning.