How many reels in your slot machine?

I was listening to a friend who was feeling a frustrated by her significant other.  She noted that everything was great, but....  And how much of a problem was that deficit?

And the issue made me think of slot machines.

You know how slot machines have big reels with many visual elements--from cherries to lemons, and all the fruit and symbols in between: melons, pineapples, plums, oranges, strawberries, lucky sevens.  And the more reels you have--three, five, seven, or whatever random access the electronic versions allow--it becomes exponentially less likely those reels will line up and a payout or jackpot will be reached.

And, over the years as I listened to single female friends, I realized that for some, the longer the wait, the more reels were being added to their required 'jackpot.'

One friend had an increasingly long list of requirements: successful, well educated, attractive, interested, interesting, appealing social circle, and given her age, he would have to have had a substantial prior relationship (no  50+ perennial bachelors, please) yet ideally without a crazy ex-wife popping out of the woodwork.  And if there were children: independent and delightful.

Well, after a lot of pulling of levers and spinning of reels, things actually lined up (a widower, but enough years away from his loss to be ready to begin again, great adult children, everything else checked out).  If seemed a miracle.  Cha-ching! Payout.

But ultimately, it didn't work out.

Why? we wondered.  Well, once all the external requirements had been met, suddenly the intangibles manifested themselves.  Yes, those pesky feelings.  And she said,  everything was great, but "we didn't have emotional intimacy."  And ultimately, that was the key element for her to make a lifetime commitment.

Now, don't get me wrong, that connection is enormously important, perhaps one of the most important aspects that needs to be felt before you make that kind of commitment.  But her realization didn't re-prioritize or diminish the importance of any of the other reels/requirements.  I knew if she found someone she connected with, trusted, was capable of sharing herself with...he also needed to be successful, well educated, attractive, etc. Each additional reel or requirement added isn't just plus one.  The incremental difficultly to get all those elements lined up is exponential.

So it behooves us all to understand what is truly essential.  What can't be compensated for.  What can't be 'contracted out' or lived without.  And try to let go of the rest, at least if you want a reasonable chance for a payout.

Romances for me have always provided wonderful, illustrative stories of what appears important...and was is truly important.  And by sharing the stories of the difficult process we have to go through to determine that complex algorithm for ourselves, they offer insight and examples.  What is a worthwhile compromise?  What offers a sense of balance, yet gives each party the essentials they need to thrive in the relationship?

It is an endless and ever changing conundrum--and is it any wonder we hope for and delight to find a happy ending?

I think not.

It's all about....

In Europe, there's a kind of oval black and white sticker people put on their cars to indicate their country of origin:  CH for Switzerland (fooled you, Confœderatio Helvetica), NL for the Netherlands, D for Germany (Deutschland) etc.

This became a fad in the US with various stickers sporting state, airport and place abbreviations or codes.  

So when walking down the street in a lovely town in Maine, the souvenir store showing a while oval with the black letters ME on seemed very much in keeping with the zeitgeist.  But what was the tiny additional lettering at the top...?  It read: 

— it's all about —

ME

That pretty much sums up the default response to most of the human condition. It's why people were burned alive for sharing the information that the earth revolved around the sun, and the universe did not, actually, revolve around us.

This realization has helped explain the advocacy for "Intelligent Design" over Evolution—a position that was basically incomprehensible to me.

Evolution is a system based, more or less, on meritocracy.  Those that survive have adapted most successfully to meet whatever challenges they face. In this perspective, the universe does not revolve around them; they must adapt to the 'universe.'

So if people are uncomfortable with the uncertainty that vision espouses, or they aren't sure they would rise to the top of a meritocratic ladder, or they can't accept the uncomfortable acknowledgement that they are not the center of the universe, or they need a sense of certainty, it's a problem. 

If for any reason they believe they would not measure up, or want to skip the uncertainty and just move to the front of the line, they need to believe that Someone Out There will Favorite them (their definition of intelligence, of course).  In a family context, basically, it's the happy belief that "Dad" likes them best (or whatever all-powerful deity you choose). Thus "Intelligent Design" addresses these uncomfortable-for-some issues.

And while this explanation may not be true for everyone, trying to understand the underlying needs for a belief can be a helpful tool in trying to understand when those beliefs that seem to fly in the face of established knowledge.  Stop and consider: what are the often powerful emotional needs that may dictate that belief system? Reason, rationality, science has nothing to do with it. Indeed, if you ever want to appreciate the lack of "intelligence" that has gone into the somewhat random process of evolutionary "design," do take a look at Neil de Grasse Tyson's article in Natural History Magazine.

Simone de Beauvoir articulates the male and female roles of Self and Other in The Second Sex. And for me, one of the most powerful aspects of a romance is the evolution the characters undergo in the process of the story.  The heroine often developing a stronger Self. The hero's realization that without the Other, he is not complete.  

That it's really not all about ME.

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