help me write a book - what is needed, what is lacking, what areas need elaboration?

Hello all!

I've been working for a while now on writing a book. I have written a number of articles which I will compile therein, but now I'm trying to decide how I should organize and focus the book, and I would appreciate your advice and opinions!

I have read enough about spirituality, metaphysics, and occult to have a sound understanding of it, coupled with personal experience of course. Moreover I seem to have a knack at expressing things, and I think my efforts could be best put to use in writing.

However, I have not read everything around, and I don't want to repeat what others have already said. The way I say things seems to be markedly different from how other authors do, and I feel I should express my truth. After all, it's always the same wisdom expressed throughout the ages, only the delivery being different.

This community seems to be rather 'fluffy' in nature, which I do not mean in a derogatory way, but simply to express how occultists might often regard it. I want to target a broad audience in the occult, Eastern and Western metaphysics, scientists as well as mystics, and definitely 'fluffy' new-age spirituality too.

I believe the term 'fluff' is just a way the warrior spirit may categorize overly simplistic and optimistic spiritual expression, wherein denying the hard reality of things is actually a negative outlook disguised as a positive one. One of my main intentions is to address primarily American Christians who believe in Jesus, The Bible, and these sorts of things. I want to express how the hard reality is not negative at all, but that sugar coating it is only detrimental.

In your opinions, what aspects of new-age spirituality do you find to be overly 'fluff'-ified? Do you acknowledge 'the conspiracy', and how it promotes 'fluff' to misguide people? I need a better understanding of 'fluff' if I am to discern between the truths and fallacies therein, and I have not read any 'fuffy' spiritual works.

An example of fluff would be Mark and Elizabeth Claire Prophet's works... in this particular case, I believe they intended to address a primarily American Christian audience, and in this case to introduce ideas such as 2012 and the Age of Aquarius, fluff was necessary to be accepted into a(n arguably fundamentalist) 'biblical' mindset. This was a good move to address the intended audience, but now it must evolve into something broader in scope and more truthful in nature.

I would appreciate if you could elaborate as to what aspects of spirituality you find to often be over-'fluff'-ified. Or if you take offense to the term of 'fluff', then why? I agree that it is not a nice term to use, but calling a spiritual teaching wrong or misguided is equally negative, and I think that is the point. If you deny the darker aspects of spirituality or feel a repulsion against the occult, why?

I hope I am not offending anyone here. We all have Truth within us, and admittedly none of us express it perfectly... perfect expression doesn't even exist considering the variety of possible audience. I'm trying to establish a 'pretty darned good' means of expression, simply put, and I need to better understand how those "exclusively of the light" perceive Truth. I intend to write in shades of grey, and express how shades of grey are always of the light and darkness is non-existent. But you can understand how this can still be controversial in many circles.

If you are interested enough to want some examples of my writing, feel free to look at my website I link to in my profile. (it is a discussion board, but I'm not 'spaming' to promote it over this one - as I explain there, it is like a regular site but I prefer the discussion board layout, and there aren't actually any member discussions on it :))

Thanks!

peace n love

Namaste