Category Archives: Writing

Writing

A Blogging Note / Update

 The above picture is of my paternal grandfather, James Terry.
For several reasons, I recently had to revamp my blog. It turned out to be much more problematic than I intended. In fact, it was a mess.

One positive thing to come from the mess was that I decided to practice some organizational minimalism and simply “delete” 97 drafts, some of which were either intricate or lengthy. It wasn’t easy to hit the button. My internal argument was to remind myself that if I had not finished most of them, it was because they would never be ready or they were somehow broken. Likewise, I also deleted 167 posts that had been previously published. Some of the ones I trashed probably should have been kept while some of the ones I chose to save definitely should have been discarded. To my surprise, many of the ones I chose to trash were humorous or whimsical. I didn’t notice a trend until I was almost done decimating my lists. A few of the posts will be missed as time passes. I’ll treat them as an incentive toward doing better in the future.

But I promised myself to always try to avoid perfectionism, no matter how uncomfortable.

The above picture is of me when I was just a few days old, with my siblings.
P.S. I know that these pictures don’t have anything to do with the blog message, at least not directly.
Ancestry, Biographical, Writing

We Are All Unreliable Witnesses (and memories can’t be trusted)

Since I’ve started genealogy, I’ve discovered that almost everything we do, think, say, and recall is riddled with inconsistencies and errors. Not that I didn’t know that before. One look at my idea of fashion proves that point.

An example: I’ve heard the story repeatedly that my maternal grandfather William A. Cook lied about his age to gain entry into the U.S. Army during WWII. Turns out, it’s completely untrue. My favorite cousin sent me a discharge paper from his personal wallet. His original birth date is on the document. He used his original DOB on everything that’s come up so far.

Among other things, I’m waiting to see when and if he and my maternal grandmother Nellie Cook were ever married. Family says that a marriage license had been seen but that grandma had scratched over the dates repeatedly. While I haven’t visited any of the likely 6 county courthouses yet, no one has any source verification, other than “they were married.”
This picture of my grandparents was taken in Rich, when they lived relatively close to White Church and cemetery there.

 Start with NOTHING as a precondition.

One of my earliest blog posts dealt with the errors and inconsistencies of our family stories.

Now, more than ever, I am convinced that much of what we “know” from memory is a large Swiss cheese.(And the more motivated we are to be revisionists, the easier it is to convince ourselves…)

As I learn more about cognitive function and memory, I wonder what percentage of my collective memories might be wrong.

Since having my DNA tested, I can now say that I have NO detectable American Indian bloodline. For some reason, another close family member had still believed that we were at least a small part Indian.Where the stories originated, I’m not sure. As with most issues, the family member kept insisting that “so and so” told him/her that we had Indian ancestry. When I mentioned that I had asked several of the elder generation and told them I was getting DNA-tested for confirmation, all stated that they had no idea where the mistaken idea of Indian ancestry originated. Still, the family member persisted – no amount of facts would sway him/her.

But as it was repeated, it became a truth, probably forever. That’s how family myths get passed down erroneously. 

Perhaps a future genetic marker will contradict the genetic information I’ve discovered, but I doubt it. One of the great values of new technology is that it wipes the slate clean, truth or otherwise, whether we like it or not.

Religion, Writing

Our Right to Believe – Their Right to Criticize

“Who says we can’t challenge or joke about religion? You have the right to believe what you want; I have the right to believe it’s ridiculous.” -Ricky Gervais

This quote is true. And you have the right to think my belief is ridiculous.

One thing people don’t like to acknowledge is that we don’t like being ridiculed for beliefs. We also don’t like being called out when we do it to others – even when they deserve it.

It’s more difficult to get by with criticizing if you are criticizing something mainstream, such as Catholics. But if you walk into a room of Catholics listening to a story about Mormons or Scientology, you will hear derision and laughter. But if you point out to the Catholics that much of their ideas are just as crazy to you as the Mormon’s beliefs are to them, you have basically just punched them in the face.

Common courtesy dictates that you don’t go out of your way to ridicule or undermine someone’s beliefs.

But if you are expressing your beliefs in public please don’t expect to be given a free pass. People do have the right to express their opposing beliefs. And we can do it without calling everyone else names.

Maybe.

Writing

Steve Pavlina

http://www.stevepavlina.com/

This “blog” goes back several years. Off and on, I have went back and re-read many of his posts. While I don’t agree with a lot of it, the truth is that Steve is smarter than me and a  better writer. In case I forget to mention it, he believes a lot of things that I disagree with and that I know aren’t defensible.

I would say that much of his content is the vague ‘personal development’ genre. In light of that comment, I will admit that I once was an avid Wayne Dyer reader. One of my remote family members had a copy of Your Erroneous Zones in English. I read it. Being incapable of understanding most of it, it wasn’t until years later that I realized how blindingly obvious it was – and surprising. Not only did I go on to read all of his books, but I read most of them the first time in Spanish. I reread it until I could cite much of it verbatim.

Especially with some of his earlier writing, I liked the brash style. His comments on religion echoed a lot of what was swirling around in my mind. Paradoxically, his blog also contributed to my interest in returning to church to investigate the fuss before I got too old and close-minded.

The point of this note is to point people toward Steve Pavlina. Agree or disagree, he is one of the best at what he does.

He will piss you off if you are reading closely. Much of his later stuff dealing with his personal choices makes me itch – it really is that far off base.

But many good writers can have great things to say – even when they sometimes sound like madmen dancing in shards of glass.

General, Writing

Spider Salad, The N.R.A., World Cup FIFA, Pinterest and the NFL on Thanksgiving

Spider Salad, The N.R.A., World Cup FIFA, Pinterest and the NFL on Thanksgiving

Warning: this post is just plain weird… I apologize for the weird title, but it will likely drive in random traffic. Anyone coming to this blog post by accident needs a good surprise. Sometimes I like to unwind by writing creatively and coming up with purportedly clever things to say and then randomly call people and whisper the pithy quotes to them. Or put them on the internet, where time and human dignity intertwine to create something both interesting and horrifying simultaneously.

My new book, “Spider Salad” will be published soon, possibly the first ever to be printed in invisible ink on pre-recycled paper. (Is that joke too layered?) A lot people don’t know that I make a living writing. A terrible living, perhaps, but one not aspiring to glamor or box seats at some ignominious sporting event. True, I punch a clock daily to buy my daily bread; believe me, the clock deserves a good punch or two on a routine basis – and I owe it no loyalty for having conspired to steal my creative life in lumps of 8 hours at a time, year after year.

If I were going to write a book, I mean. The Braille edition might come out first. The plan is to pull a prank on those needing it and use small, sharp tacks instead of exclamation marks. As they read, their fingers tracing the bumps and indentations, they will involuntarily provide the “!” when the sharp points hit them. This might cause a problem in libraries, as random shouts of exclamation are generally met with disfavor there.

“Spider Salad” has all the suspense and vague implications that a great book should possess, minus all the words, plot and nonsense to get in the way. It could be a cookbook, a societal diatribe or even a murder-mystery.

This title has something for everyone, unless you are a nihilist, in which case it literally has nothing that will interest you.

It could be a book about self-reflection. I could put a small mirror on page 98 so that it could literally be self-reflective.

I could glue 4 or 5 coins to the inside cover, so it could literally bring change to your life.

“Spider Salad: A Recipe for Disaster”  (A FEMA manual.)
“Spider Salad: Oops, Sorry I Shot You Twice” (An NRA pamphlet.)
“Spider Salad: Why Teaching Isn’t a Real Job” (A Workaholic’s Daily Motivational.)
“Spider Salad:  Why Do I Bother With Rhetorical Questions?” (A Debate Guide.)
“Ensalada de Araña:Y Tú No Me Compras?” (A Marketing Book for Hispanics.)

This book is going to have everything – except a plot, words, or content. (The Republicans among you are already familiar with this glaring lack of substance and content. If you are Republican, please mentally go back and insert the word “Democrat” in lieu of “Republican.” If that’s too many steps, you probably are either a sports fan or management of some sort. We know who you are – you lips are moving as your read this. If you are a Tea Partier, then you are still staring at the first few words of this post, wondering where all the pictures might be.)

Writing

“Be known what you are for, not what you are against.”


“Be known what you are for, not what you are against.”

Reading the title of this post, I’d like to go on record as saying that this makes sense to me. It doesn’t make me happy, however, as I’m failing at meeting the goal it states.
 .
I’m quick to point out that most of my environment is equally guilty of not meeting it, either. That probably doesn’t mitigate my guilt, though, does it?
.
There’s one person in my life in particular who is almost consumed by his insistence of categorizing the world in 2 columns: For / Against. I laugh when I hear him talk, sometimes. He would be furious at me if he knew that I was privately not only noting this tendency but laughing about it. He probably doesn’t realize that he does this so pervasively. I’m sure, too, that he doesn’t see that people often delegate him to the “crackpot” status due to the vehemence of his opinion.
 .
Having said that, I wonder how often I’m guilty of the same and don’t notice that people are placing me in the same “negative” group?  Hmmm… (But blogging or anything worthwhile is almost impossible to do well without sounding like you oppose everything.)
Writing

Soapbox Part II, Sort Of…

Another post quite a while ago, I reminded people why I don’t usually have comments turned on for immediate publication on this blog.

Having suffered with the idiocy of the internet, my opinion hasn’t changed. Anytime you put out an opinion, even an honest, reasoned one, many people simply can’t overcome the need to snark and snarl at it. People reading casually don’t tend to think deeply about the content and they then latch on to the most irrelevant details of your thoughts, twist it, and then retort back with the weirdest, least helpful things they can say. That’s the internet. I can’t change it, nor do I want to.

The more honest and personal the content, the greater the propensity for needlessly harsh commentary. Just as your Aunt Kathy will fill every status update on facebook with crazy religious nonsense (even posts about raising money for kittens), you will find yourself spending way too much time trying to get into people’s heads about what they write. (Remember one of my favorite quotes: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”) Give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume that they are bored.

In an ideal world, I would love to leave commenting active for the blog. Many people have some great criticism or helpful advice. Other readers will see this and learn more from the comments at times than the even the writer can convey. The reality is, though, that much of the commentary on blogs is either edited praise or a crazy mashup of hatred and snipe, usually involving politics or religion. I’ve found that people with really great commentary or ideas find a way to get that idea to you in another form. The snipers tend to have a “drive-by” lazy mentality about their ideas. If they can’t lob an easy verbal bomb, they leave more quickly.

Many will criticize but few will take the time to rebut or argue in either a fun or meaningful way.

As always, I recommend that you get your own forum for your ideas if mine at too liberal, weird, or uninteresting for you. X

Entertainment, Writing

“Pure Drivel” – Steve Martin

“Talking about music is like dancing about architecture.” – Steve Martin

“You’re on your way to becoming the next Shakespeare’s brother.”

On writing dialogue: “Simply lower your IQ by 50 and start typing.”

I had lofty ambitions about these 2 quotes but everything I wrote and tried seemed stupid.

I know what you are thinking – that nothing has stopped me from writing stupidity before! Which fits nicely with much of what Steve Martin was writing about in “Pure Drivel.”

I don’t mind writing just drivel, but what a joyous thing to write pure drivel. It might not be glamorous to write average prose, but as dumb and boring as it might be, it is no less wonderful that that feeling that you get when you are eating and burp, creating the illusion of yet more space for even more food to be eaten.

Religion, Writing

Selective Wall

Another great term I recently learned is that of the “selective wall.” I’ve seen other descriptions for the same thing – but they don’t have the same concise clarity as this phrase.

The Selective Wall is mainly used toward belief systems and religious ideas. It means that a religious group might feel that they should receive special consideration and that this would only be fair to them – while the same treatment for others is a insult to their right to believe the way they wish.

The example I read and remember is one involving information being passed out at schools. Religious crazies demanded the ability to hand out literature – and received it. Then, other groups, both religious and atheist, began to take advantage of the same privilege. The religious crazies then started screaming that it was unfair for others to be able to do it it, as it was unfair to them.

Great reasoning, isn’t it?

Religion, Writing

Courtier’s Reply

Somewhere recently on one of the sites I love to read I learned about the Courtier’s Reply. As much as I read, I don’t remember this from anywhere. It was one of those “a-ha!” moments, as it is an effective way to draw attention to someone trying to make a bad argument.

Basically, the Courtier’s Reply is a “silencing argument,” especially when used in religious discussions.  It attempts to state that you aren’t allowed to comment or criticize an idea or religion unless you have studied it down to the most trivial level.

The article I read pointed out that in cases of religion, the Courtier’s Reply is all the more relevant once you point out that members of a particular religions are NOT required or even expected to have a requisite level of knowledge, much less exposure, to the same information that you are expected to have.

It’s great shorthand to remind myself when I hear this type of reasoning in arguments.