Wishing you a Festive Holiday Season and a Happy New Year!

I will not break into all the possible "holiday" options you might be experiencing (or not). Just like in Sleeping Beauty, if you try to invite "all" the fairies, you will be sure to leave one out, and the thirteenth fairy will come to your baby's christening and curse you all. So really, don't go there.

I figure you can just wish anybody the best from wherever you are coming from.  It's the only solid ground you have.  So whatever you celebrate, wish that happiness on others.  If you don't celebrate anything, then I believe Mr. Dickens has created "Bah, Humbug!" and it is available for use in any denomination.

But I do like to note that the January 1 "New Year" is only one of several options.

I am particularly fond of the Chinese New Year, as it involves animals and great yearly cards and ornaments, not to mention horoscopes.  So just to alert you, Chinese New Year is February 8th.  It is the Year of the Monkey.  Apparently the Chinese Zodiac timing starts a bit before the New Year, on February 4th, and there is a further refinement of 5 elements (one more than other Zodiac of 4: Earth, Air, Fire, Water).  Here the five elements are Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, Water. Apparently Air is not an essential element. Perhaps a mistake.

So Happy Red Fire Monkey Year!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I've been prosthelytizing.  I admit it.  When I hear the words "Happy Holidays" in the days before Thanksgiving--mostly from service providers--I find myself earnestly preaching The Word.  That is My Word.  

"No! You don't need to be politically correct for this day!  It is one of the special ones where we are all together as humans on American soil.  

It is a secular holiday, without any divisive religious implications. You don't even have to be an American to be wished a Happy Thanksgiving.  You just need to be in America and you are part of the team.

It is all about being thankful (and eating).  I think we can all get behind that.  The eating part is symbolic of one of the many things we are thankful for.  The fact that the meal is shared with others, often family and friends, is another. 

The classic Norman Rockwell painting we often see around Thanksgiving is just one of four paintings . celebrating the four freedoms articulated in Franklin D Roosevelt's January 6, 1941 State of the Union speech:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Worship
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear

Truly much to be thankful for.

Thanks!

Make the best of it!

Don’t settle.

Both are excellent pieces of advice.  They also are encouraging totally opposite behaviors.

There are some that need to have a clear and single answer.  They like to see issues in blac

k and white—which is how most media portrays things, given the selling properties of polarization and conflict.  They may be averse to the necessity of having to think, to become informed or to have to use their judgment.  It always should be one side...or the other.

Though the “answer” is that sometimes it’s one.  Sometimes it’s the other.  It depends.

However many are unwilling, uninterested—whatever—to either think some things through deeply, personally, or they may not feel comfortable being individually accountable for their decisions and actions. So rather than make up their own mind, they select  a prefabricated off-the-rack package of attitudes and beliefs. Those packages carry a number of different labels, often the name of a religion, political party—or perhaps a broad blanket label (Conservative, Liberal), or a subset or sub-sect of any of the aforementioned.

These packages have the benefit of being branded—and that may convey whatever specialness or relative perceived status brands convey.  Or the brands appeal may just be the comfort of being part of the team, the confidence that many others agree with this version of reality.  Hey, if you can feel validated, differentiated and superior because you drink Miller Vs Budweiser, marketing’s ability to differentiate the almost undifferentiate-able clearly is compelling and effective with most humankind.

But it also must be acknowledged that most everybody is willing to think deeply, personally, passionately about some things.  They can spend significant time analyzing information, parsing commentary, making and defending their own decisions.  They may delight in judging the behavior of their friends or a celebrity. Or the quality of a meal or recipe. The relative merit of cars. Perhaps it’s their football team, or baseball, or hockey. The nuances can be the focus of endless hours of conversation: the coaching, the players, the commissioner, the rules, with statistics and actions lovingly referenced, often going back decades. Whatever.

Even someone with a clear black and white need for clarity in some areas can, without any trouble, have the ability to see infinite shades of gray in another.

So in many areas—often rather important ones (such as one’s immortal soul), we take an off-the-shelf externally validated and branded package, often without much examination.  

But in other areas (such as one’s sports team), we may be passionately individual, personally involved and accountable, not trusting anyone else’s opinion about something so important as who might make the playoffs. 

But also (usually) not damning to hell for all eternity anyone that does not agree with our beliefs in this area....

And we are all like that, accepting some things wholesale, others with far more skepticism and personal involvement. Tolerant of differences...or intolerant.

What things do you “wear” off-the-rack? And what do you design yourself?

Or do you agree with F. Scott Fitzgerald that: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” and perhaps are able to move forward, sticking to your vision, but...making the best of it if circumstances indicate that an intransigent, uncompromising stance is not working.

How do you read?

I was discussing a book with a friend and commented that I still read like a 12-year-old. Then realized that comment might need a bit of explanation!

For me, that means that my reading experience—even after all these years and all the books—is one of total immersion, utter commitment to the characters and story.  I believe in the characters—they are people to me—and I enter the space they inhabit for the duration of the story.

I see authors and their work—or really any creator/creative act, whether it's creating a story, a painting, a piece of music, a song—as having a similar relationship as a parent might have in creating a child.

Sure, you've created it. And yes, you have significant responsibilities towards it, and a deep connection with it. But it is not you. You do not own it. It has the right to self actualize in the best way it can.

Your job as a creator is to enable it to be the best it can be. Not just on your terms—though your role is a significant one—but to achieve the three part balance: of what you have to offer, what the creation itself needs, and what is needed to enable it to survive in "the world."

So to all the author/creators that incorporate helpful feedback—sometimes painful to hear—a giant thank you for your dedication to making your "child" the best it can be. For setting aside your ego for the sake of the work. And the same in my experience goes for editors: for not bringing personal preferences and agendas to the experience, but appreciating that your shared role is to enable that "child" to be the best it can be and face a challenging world with strength, self confidence, and the ability to withstand "The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks That Flesh is heir to" (to quote Hamlet). There should be a balance that is ego free for parent/creator, for editor/teacher, to be open to delivering, hearing and incorporating what is best for the child/work.

This perception has helped me understand and believe in the value of the role of an intelligent external opinion in the development of a work, and thus the external party's 'right' to challenge the creator's vision if it doesn't feel right, doesn't feel like it is best serving the work.

But my understanding of my reading style has also has helped me understand my own often quite passionate dislike of a story! Yes, I am sorry to say the offending work is often a very well reviewed, award-winning literary 'masterpiece.'

I realize that in 'literary' or groundbreaking stories authors can have a goal, a point of view, something they wish to illustrate or challenge. And they have chosen the compelling medium of storytelling to express that point. Their characters and plot serve the author's vision. The character's lives, their actions and reactions, the events that occur in the story may at any point in time be subordinated to that Vision. Manipulated to do their creator's bidding.  The character's integrity, consistency, their very selves are just a pawn to the author's desire to present an idea, to illustrate a point, to surprise, to break new ground.

I know my horror and sense of betrayal is...well, perhaps naive. One could argue that the author created these characters; surely he or she can do whatever she likes to them?  But for me, those characters are real, and they are not being respected. It's like watching parents force their musical child to play competitive sports, or harp on marriage for career minded one—or vice versa!

Luckily some stories deliver on both—offering profound insights, breaking new ground, opening minds and hearts to a new perception though the humanity and vivid evocation of their characters and the believability of their story. Those are the stories I treasure.

So just saying my recent foray into Pulitzer prize-winning fiction has not been a very successful reading experience for me! But this realization has also helped me understand why a good friend can totally adore a story that I have found emotionally bankrupt—and enabled me to stop thinking that my friend is an idiot!  I now realize that we read differently and derive sustenance and delight from different things.

And that's not a bad thing.

Some sweeping generalizations and celebrating stereotypes:

Copy line on movie ad (no, I can't remember the title) with armed woman: Wife. Mother. Hero.

Why is a women defined by her relation to others? Would any man be described as Husband. Father. Hero.? I don't think so. More like: Explorer. Visionary. Hero.

It's all about what he does, who he is. Hers is about who she is connected to. That's why women traditionally have an honorific that links them to their male partner: Mrs. Or lack of partner: Miss. Vs men, who are just Mr. Their status as a partner is deemed irrelevant.

For instance: a man does not need to be reminded to put his oxygen mask on first. His default is to think of himself first, others later. And he expects others to think the same way—to first take care of themselves, then perhaps consider others. That may be why he doesn't thank you (you female person) for your selfless act. He thinks you're crazy. Or stupid. Or both. Or maybe just trying to ingratiate yourself with him, as he tends to think hierarchically, so sees favors in a transactional manner. Not that a man isn't capable of a selfless act, it's just an unlikely part of his daily routine.

Women often think of others first, themselves last. For many that's their default (yes, even if they're not mothers). And they expect others to think the same way. And of course they (female people) take it personally (perhaps with a long-suffering sigh) when they discover there's no parity, and they're not very high on anyone else's list. Perhaps even more irritatingly, they may be thought of as being an idiot for taking care of others and not bothering to take care of themselves.

Each sex is 'modeling' behavior that the other guy just isn't picking up. Neither is exactly right, but not entirely wrong, either. And it doesn't align.

Men tend to see things hierarchically, competitively, with winners and losers, while women tend to be more collegial and consensus driven, focusing on making something work. (Hey, my title promised "Some sweeping generalizations and celebrating stereotypes," don't say I don't deliver!). Deborah Tannen's Talking 9 to 5 offers some great stories of how these different basic assumptions can create miscommunication, misunderstanding and problems.

In many cultures, women traditionally have had little to no direct power and have had to work with indirect power: influence, relationships, connections, being liked, finding people to partner with. For a woman, helping others, doing favors, etc. is often a way of establishing friendship and usually inspires thanks, gratitude and likely a return favor in response—if the recipient is a woman.

But if the recipient is man, he may well see the gift as an effort to curry favor, confirming his status as the superior: the one to whom gifts and honor are due. Thanks are not necessary and no return gift would ever be given, as that would mean Giver and Givee were on the same level, which is not an acceptable idea when a hierarchy has just been established to Givee's satisfaction!

Women may view support as a circular, mutually beneficial experience. For men, it is likely more linear, a bottom up effort to propitiate and curry favor of the leaders—who may then have an obligation to protect their underlings. Like a feudal lord getting his due from his dependents, he will have to try to stave off the barbarian hordes if they show up, or build a walled city to protect them, but he's not partners with his serfs.

You can see how misunderstandings and disappointments might abound!

And why romance writers and romance readers are a necessary ingredient to our lives....

Isabel Swift

Character, personality, empathy, story...

How do you create compelling, distinct characters, convey personality, create a sense of empathy, and tell a story...with a limited number of words?

While I can't answer that question, I know it when I see it, feel it, and thought you might enjoy this lovely example.  

We not only get to know the four friends, but the narrator as well....

The Four Friends

Ernest was an elephant, a great big fellow,
Leonard was a lion with a six foot tail,
George was a goat, and his beard was yellow,
And James was a very small snail. 

Leonard had a stall, and a great big strong one,
Earnest had a manger, and its walls were thick,
George found a pen, but I think it was the wrong one,
And James sat down on a brick 

Earnest started trumpeting, and cracked his manger,
Leonard started roaring, and shivered his stall,
James gave a huffle of a snail in danger
And nobody heard him at all. 

Earnest started trumpeting and raised such a rumpus,
Leonard started roaring and trying to kick,
James went on a journey with the goats new compass
And he reached the end of his brick. 

Ernest was an elephant and very well intentioned,
Leonard was a lion with a brave new tail,
George was a goat, as I think I have mentioned,
but James was only a snail.

                           A. A. Milne (1882-1956)

               

In my day...

I was looking for a pair of normal jeans and not having much luck.  So I went into the giant Levi shop (All Levis All The Time) filled with hope!  Surely Levi would be able to deliver a pair of regular jeans.

Think again.

Fabric dark, cheap feeling, and like ever other jean product available on the market "stylishly" torn, big holes at knees or strange white blobs of wear on the legs in places that would never, naturally, get worn.

Or multiple peculiar holes all over, as if they'd been left hanging in some automatic weapons firing range and had been peppered good. Or both...

I look at the young clerk and confessed: "You know, I just feel it is my job to wear out my own jeans.  It doesn't seem right to have it contracted out to some machine or child laborer."

He nodded sympathetically. (The customer is always right).

Yes, in my day we had active lives.  We did stuff.  We wore holes in our jeans without any outside help. Yep, not even from our disinterested non-helicopter parents.

Our jeans were authentic.  Artisanal.  Indeed the work was just about as local as you could get.

When you look at the language being used now to market and enhance our present possessions, foods and lifestyle, beneath the words, you can hear this wild, inchoate cry against the virtualness of much of our present existence: instant, effortless, convenient.  But somehow insubstantial, unsatisfying.

Unearned.

There are two kinds of people in the world...

As the joke goes: One: people who think there are two kinds of people, and Two: people who don't.

Yes, exactly!

There are a myriad of kinds of people, but there are often strong dividing principals around a specific point that offer insight into choices, opinions, actions.

The classic example is that there are Lumpers and Splitters: those that habitually aggregate things (information, whatever) into piles, and label those collective piles.

Or people who see things as individual, unique elements that are distinct.

You can see the pros and cons of each.  The efficiency (and inaccuracy) of Lumping.  The time-consuming inefficiency (and greater accuracy) of splitting.

We all are Lumpers and Splitters in different areas of our lives.

We tend to be Splitters in areas of interest or importance to us, knowing and delighting in the myriad nuanced differences of a "thing," be it horror movies, romance novels or football.  For many, the sentence, "I don't watch horror movies (any films)/read romance novels (books)/like football (sports)" dismisses the entire genre (or the entire medium, in a bigger Lump).  Often accompanied by a dismissive, "They're all the same."

But to a fan, a Splitter, interest and knowledge in something transforms your world from black-and-white (yes/no) into a universe of color like in the movie The Wizard of Oz.

So for example, Lumpers might roll all scary movies into a ball of "horror" and make blanket statements about them.

But to a Splitter, there are many types of horror—per Steven King there are three: the gross-out; the unnatural; terror. But other Splitters parse it differently: supernatural/unnatural; slasher/splatter; disaster.   All usually include elements of suspense, fear, mystery. And there is a truly infinite number of varieties on these themes with strong opinions and preferences for individual types.

As a fan of romances novels, I will keep myself under control, simply noting that three initial Splits could be contemporary, historical, fantasy.  But each one of those then can be subdivided into suspense, paranormal, mystery, sexy, sweet, and so on. Again, with an infinite number of sub-genres, mixing and matching to please different palates.

Football—while seeming for some of us to be "all the same" (bunch of guys running up and down a patch of "turf" in matching outfits, trying to move an inanimate object in one direction or another)—in fact is also full of subtlety.  You heard it here first! Coaches, owners, players, injuries, penalties, sanctions, criminal investigations, finances, fans and more all contribute an ever-shifting kaleidoscope of the game.

There are many circumstances where we simply have to Lump.  We can't retain, effectively present or make decisions when we consider all the complexity of a large number of things.  A business presentation starts with an "Executive Summary" offering in a single paragraph, the top-line conclusions of what may be a lengthy and nuanced piece of work.

We often judge others by a single action (perhaps cheating) and label and Lump the person a cheater.

But really, their action may have been specific, isolated in a particular situation, or an area they deem gray, (low level fudging on their expense report ) whereas other areas may be scrupulously black and white (the integrity of their work, their commitment to their job).

Lump it.  Split it.  But don't dump on either one....

Romance Writer's "Research"

Can we address the absurd queries about romance authors doing "research," nudge, nudge, wink wink?  Does anyone ask mystery or horror writers how many people they had to disembowel before they could write their story?  I don't think so.

(And of course, there is the fact that if they answered, they'd have to kill you).

It's also delightfully contradictory, as others often accuse romances as being utterly unrealistic stories--that also apparently must be based on personal experience.  Hmmmm.  You must choose one or the other, but you really can't have both those complaints simultaneously.

There is a dictum: write what you know, but luckily, it's not a requirement.

Write what you can imagine.

Write what you think about, care about, fantasize about, dream about.

Write to explore what you don't fully understand.

Write to open minds, to touch hearts.

It's called fiction because you make it up...

Power corrupts...

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”   Lord Acton

Well, no, actually.

Power allows existing personality traits to manifest themselves--it may enhance, but it doesn't create the traits.

Naturally military dictators willing to kill and crush all opposition to achieve power aren't likely to be the nicest of people.  They are already "corrupt." Though they may have initially put on a mask of niceness to get support, the moment they achieve their goals, the mask falls and their basic dictatorial personality is manifest. Absolute power does not corrupt them--it is simply an enabler to allow a preexisting condition to express itself.

Unfortunately, since they themselves are quite unpleasant people--willing to do anything to achieve power--they often assume everyone else is the same, and can be quite paranoid. And to paraphrase the joke, just because they are paranoid doesn't mean they are not hated and that everyone is indeed out to get them. Again, the traits were all there to start off with, power is not the cause, though it does enable the effects.

But examine people that have not acquired power through force. Look at people who were born into power--kings and queens--to see how the opportunities that absolute power offers is always transformed by the personality in power throughout history.  Even though England's present royalty doesn't have much actual power, you just know that Prince Charles would not go around beheading people (except for a few architects perhaps) if he had absolute power. There's even variety in dictators,  Stalin, Tito, Castro all present quite different profiles in power.

Even the "power" of modern day celebrities demonstrates a great deal of variety. Some achieve power through talent and/or luck, not trampling on others (actors Vs reality TV stars).  Some actors are clearly total egocentric jerks (and worse), using and abusing their spotlight.  Others clearly are fairly normal human beings.

So don't blame power. It's just a door opener to the jerk within...

The Bully Pulpit

Did you know that  Emerson's saying is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," not, as I had heard for many years (and found very confusing), 'Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.'

I understand that rigid adherence to consistency can be problematic—following the letter Vs the spirit of a law or requirement can be absurd.

But in general some level of consistency seems like a good thing. Inconsistency can be unfair.  It's untrustworthy, can be arbitrary and impossible to work with or depend on.

So when someone is strongly endorsing some belief and presenting the profound rightness of their opinion and the unbelievable wrongness of alternative positions—when they demand that others change their minds and believe whatever the speaker believes, it begs the question whether that declared "truth" is adhered to consistently across the board by its passionate advocate.

That only seems fair, right?

Some people are convinced that their belief trumps all others.  And that everyone that believes differently is wrong, bad, indeed evil.  They believe that any action to convert or convince others of the error of their ways is justified, and if unconvinced, exterminating the unbelievers is a justifiable solution (figuratively or literally).

Unfortunately, that applies to many early versions of present religions—I'm thinking the Crusades and the Inquisition, for example—and for some, this attitude remains true to this day.

Bullies and bullying are not just in playgrounds or schools, they are all around us.  And like those bullied children, we rarely have the courage to stand up to them or call them out.  In fact, we can be complicit.  For even as we cheer at watching a triumph-of-the-underdog story, we delightedly click on some over-the-top hate-filled rant, or pillory someone for a politically incorrect faux pas.

Indeed bullies seeking the public eye often gravitate towards a position that is on the moral high ground, so they are given a pass on their bullying behavior.  They are "saving" some unarguably sympathetic element that cannot speak for itself—and thus cannot reject its self-appointed "savior" as a self-serving, manipulative bully (e.g. animals, children, environment, etc.).  Their statements of caring are specious and inconsistent—they talk and talk, but do not walk the walk.

If they truly cared about what they so passionately claim, what other behaviors might we reasonably expect them to exhibit?  What are they actually doing to meaningfully help those they are the alleged advocates and supporters of?

For the most part they just like to dictate to others how to live their lives.  But no matter how many flags they wrap themselves in, or selfie halos they snap on, they are bullies, and there is no practice to their preaching.

Just how consistent are they?  Really, that's not a foolish question.

The Court of Public Opinion

I learned one thing when I served on a jury.

Well, in fairness, I learned more than one thing, but one thing really did stand out, and I've never forgotten it.  

Perhaps because it was so obvious.  Perhaps because at the time, the people I shared my revelation with felt that it should hardly have been a revelation.  And perhaps it shouldn't have been.  

But OMG it is something I truly wish everyone actually felt was not only obvious, but something they should live by on a daily basis.

My particular case was excruciatingly boring and interminable (yes, even the Judge went to sleep once), but the experience truly reinforced the home truth: 

Don't judge before you have heard both sides. Really.  Don't.

Now in life, you often don't have the opportunity to hear both sides.  

So pop quiz: what shouldn't you do?  

Correct: don't come down on a final judgement.  

Sure you can have an opinion, but acknowledge that you're shooting from the hip and your aim and accuracy will suffer for it.

Of course, it is fun to judge others—it can be enormously satisfying and quite entertaining —but not if you start to take yourself and the numerous equally uninformed others seriously.  If you plan to make a serious judgment you have to investigate all sides and unemotionally do your homework. And it's hardly reasonable to take other opinions seriously unless they've listened to all sides and done their homework, right? 

But reason doesn't seem to have much cachet right now.

A favorite childhood tale was a friend who had a somewhat...difficult relationship with her older brother.  Her favorite method of pulling his chain was to wallop him, then shout, "Mommy, Johnny's hitting me!!!!" Mom would, naturally arrive just in time to see with her own eyes Johnny retaliating, and send him off, no excuses.  Eyewitness account!

Our judge instructed us in our role as a jury, noting that it was up to us to discern the truth from the information we were given.  "Ask yourself," he requested, "why someone is saying something.  Figure out what their motives might be, what the repercussions might be, and assess the information accordingly." (Like: will it sell more papers? Get hits? Go viral? Make me famous? Yes? Think about it.)

Good advice.

But in this self-obsessed, self-revelatory, boundary-less world of private/public yammering, everyone is a self-anointed judge, jury and executioner.  That is until someone points out the accused wasn't even there, or the visuals were utterly misinterpreted, or the victim was actually the perpetrator—or vice versa.  Oops!

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. [Matthew 7:1-2]

I appreciate the power of stories, books, films—whatever—to put us in the shoes of those pilloried by public opinion.  And, I hope, offer us some insight and restraint in controlling our own often irrational and thoughtless behavior.  

Bullying isn't just the province of the young.