Sure, I'll take a go.  This is a little lengthy, and consists of mostly
opinions. Please forgive. ^_^

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Presley H. Cannady wrote:

Military realists, army auditors, whatever you want to call
them (well, I should say us, since I probably fall in this
category) have, in my opinion, gotten a raw deal from some of
our fellow writers who feel put off by the attention to military
detail.

Okay...

Continuing in the purist tradition of Objective: Reflex Point 
and the Protoculture Wars, sister works by Peter Walker and 
Aubry Thonon, Mr. Smith takes his Marine Corps experience 
and pens a first-person account of the First Robotech War.

The military perspective is thick throughout the story
so far.  The reader is introduced to a slew of technical
terms, aviation jargon, and military rituals that
are both enriching in themselves and important towards
bringing Jeff Framton, the main character, from his
earliest stage of development--a young teenager with
dreams of flying--to the believable, seasoned veteran
we see by Chapter 48.

<snip>

The anti-militarist lacks either the experience, the 
knowledge, or both; he attempts to mitigate the ignorance 
he arrogantly flaunts with rambling, nonsensical attacks
on writers who take the time and effort to understand
the statics and dynamics of armed service.  With that,
I open the thread to the rest of the FFML.  Good luck.

Okay.  My take on it?  It is thus:
A militarist author can do a number of things with his or her knowledge
when writing a military-oriented story.  However, each direction depends
on (gasp) the audience the author wants to write for.

The author can choose to disregard all but the essentials of military
knowledge, and strip the military body in a story to its bones.  The
information pertaining to the military will end up being brief, but
logical (if the writer has military knowledge, he probably won't go
against that knowledge to save a paragraph here or there).  The story
probably won't deal too deeply with the intricacies of military life.

I would think this approach would appeal to quite a number of
non-militarists (and perhaps even anti-militarists), as well as more
accepting militarists (i.e., the ones who don't cry "sellout"*). 

*It should be noted that in any group (militarists, Ranma 1/2 writers,
fantasists, etc.) there are a number of purists who would call "crossover"
efforts (not cross-series, but multi-audience intentions) an attempt at
"selling out" because the writer, in their eyes, sacrificed certain values
for the sake of a larger audience.  This view, in my opinion is rarely as
absolute as it seems to the purist.

Other approaches steadily increase the military content -- character
drvien stories that don't use a lot of jargon, but tell about the
intricacies in other ways, stories with unapologetic use of jargon and
very deep uses of the writers military knowledge -- and each requires
different levels of tolerence from the audience.  A story will receive
the widest audience when it lets a non-militarist into the story without
him getting lost in what are to him meaningless terms, and also does not
insult the intelligence of a seasoned military reader. 

Knowing at least part of your opinions on readerships and their importance
to the fiction, I will assume (oooh, bad thing to do, I know) that you see
little use in catering to an audience that deep down doesn't know what
you're talking about.  However, one must also consider the secondary role
of the author -- that of the teacher.  A writer's interests can be
championed in a story, and his knowledge taught.  You can choose to teach,
or you can preach to the choir, as it were. 

However, expect a backlash from those who find the unforgiving flaunting
of _knowledge_ from those who are sensitive about their lack of that same
knowledge.  To them, such flaunting can seem stuffy, and, in the end, an
attempt to keep them out, rather than to help them in. 

For example, I love music, especilly progressive rock.  I'm planning on
writing a fic based on musical groups.  The big challenge is taking what I
know about theory and other intricacies of complex rock, and presenting it
to the FFML or the web. 

I can do it a number of ways.  I can be relentless in my description of
music, choosing the most accurate terms (time signatures, key changes,
whether it was a paradiddle or a series of alternating flams, what
equipment each player was using).  This will bring the greatest
appreciation from an audience that knows exactly what I'm talking about.
However, chances are I'd be slammed by the "general public" who doesn't
know what 13/8 or phryggian modes are.  Why?  Because, in using the jargon
of the lifestyle, I'm turning people away, rather than bringing them in.
I'm not being a good teacher.

On the other hand, I think I would gain little enjoyment if I skipped the
musical sections of the story completely, or resorted to using vague
cliches in lieu of musical data.  Sure, more people would understand my
language, but they would not learn aything.  We both lose out.

I guess the trick is to be challenging to the reader, but not so much so
that the learning curve is beyond convenience.  Certainly there are those
readers who don't wish to be challeneged.  Let them read cheesecake.
However, I think that, by keeping the learning curve reasonable, and the
material stimulating (spicing it up with a little jargon, and providing an
unobtrusive example to let the reader make the connection and *learn*), a
writer can teach the newcomers new terms, and present the seasoned ones
with accurate info that also brings other elements they might not have
thought of into the descriptions.

I'm of the opinion that a reader opens a book expecting to learn something
that he or she didn't know before.  Whether that something is an opinion,
or a way of life, or what-have-you, is irrelevent.  There are certain
expectations placed on you as the writer.  If those expectations aren't
met, you're the one to blame in their eyes.  You either didn't present any
new material for the reader (something the reader will classify as
"boring"), or you didn't present the reader with a friendly learning
environment (something the reader will classify as "cliquish" or
"confusing" or even "hostile").  Whether or not the blame is really fair
is irrelevent. 

Of course, in the end, pleasing yourself is important.  The big question
is: do you derive pleasure from teaching people, or by being exclusive?  I
admit to liking progressive because it isn't "normal" music.  But I also
enjoy simplifying my descriptions of my music to champion it to an
audience (my Boku No Marie story, "Music-Box Angel," instills Hiroshi with
a bit of my interest in prog), if it will teach my readers something new
about it.

So, it all depends upon your philosophy.  But anti-militarists, despite
their "flaunting of ignorace" and emotional logic, do have a point.  Maybe
they're just bitter because they aren't being let in on the fun.  If they
can see no enjoyment in reading a certain style, they probably aren't
going to compliment it.  Illogical?  Certainly.  But since when were
humans ever really logical?

I've rambled on (and on and on...).  I hope I did okay.  ^_^
I'd love to hear opinions on the matter of writer as teacher (or anything 
else I mentioned, for that matter). Any comments?

--Matt

------------------------------
"we will invent new lullabies, new songs, new acts of love,
 we will cry over things we used to laugh and
 our new wisdom will bring tears to eyes of gentile
 creatures from other planets who were afraid of us till then and
 in the end a summer with wild winds and
 new friends will be."
          --Author Unknown
------------------------------