This post started out on just some thoughts about finding and using your muse. However, since it seemed pointless to even talk about finding a muse if you don't know how to use it properly, I expanded the topic to include the entire creative process.
And so we have the following.
My Basic Formula
I realize that not everyone is going to, or even needs to, follow my exact formula. However, it is what works for me, so this is the framework for this discussion.
Routinely practice skill - Ask a question - Trigger the muse - Put it down - Question/Critique
Routinely Practice
Duh. Why do you think I have a blog?
Art is work. If anyone tells you otherwise, they don't get what art really is.
Not every post is muse driven. Most of my posts are driven by the simple need to practice and so I ask myself "what sounds interesting today?" and I go from there. This gives me space to be imperfect and to practice the more mundane skills like grammar, transition, and clarity. Besides, when your muse hits, it can only use what you skills you currently have.
Ask A Question
All new things started with the plausible answers to a question. Is there another way to have light besides fire? Lightning is bright. What if there was a way to capture it's energy?
I use questions to trigger thoughts that usually lead to stories that explain my answers. If practice is the laying out a fireplace, the question is the spark that starts it on fire.
All About Respecting Muses
A muse is a habit, ritual, occurrence, person, pet, place, sound, touch, thing or combination thereof that gives rise to the creative inspirations.
That's great and all, but what if you don't know what your muse is?
All I can say is, trial, error, no small degree of self awareness, and practice at respecting the inspiration when it does come. By respect, I mean taking the time to really think it out, write it down, or do something to acknowledge it. That action creates a habit and a greater awareness for future inspirations.
Eventually, you'll start to get a sense of what circumstances will usually trigger your inspiration. I say usually, because inspiration can be fickle sometimes and requires a little ground work and some patience.
Putting it Down
As I kinda already said in the previous section, you have to respect the muse by acknowledging it. For me, that's writing notes on whatever I can get my hands on. Paper, pen, phone, scraps, whatever. Then as soon as is possible, I revisit those notes and flush out the broader thoughts I was thinking in a word document.
Questions and Critique
This is the part where I may butt heads with a few people. Some people get the impression that creative words, plays, movies, songs, just kind of appear perfectly out of thin air to lucky individuals who then just tell the rest of the world about it. We "ooo" and "ahh" over the genius of it, then move on.
Reality, inspiration is rarely perfect, but it has the potential to be with some work. If practice is laying a fireplace, and questions are the spark, then the muse/inspiration would only be the tinder. Anybody who has laid a fire before knows that tinder will burn and brightly, but only briefly and with very little heat. If you want a fire, you have to build it on the tinder with small sticks, then gradually adding larger lumber till you can sit a log on the coals and then let it burn. You can't even be willy nilly with that part. If the sticks are misplaced, you can smother your fire or fail to catch anything alight. Fires are logical and systematic. They can be individual and creative, but it has to make sense.
It's the annoying part of creativity. The logic. The grammar. The rules. Realizing that what makes perfect sense and seems awesome to you, may not make sense to Joe in Atlanta. After you've got something going, you have to question it's existence a little and notice the mistakes. It's a painful, but necessary part of creativity that only makes the work stronger. And work it is. Refining takes a long time and a lot of patience. This is what separates the hobbyists from the artists. The willingness to be honest with their creations and to put in the time and the work towards making them perfect. Even this practice blog post has gone through several rewrites.
In Case You're Lost: Example
Practice
As some of you might know, I hadn't written much in the two years after receiving a Creative Writing degree. I missed it. So I dusted off this blog and started to regularly write about things that interest me. I also started studying my art by reading again. It's different than audio books because I can see the words and how they are laid out and that reminds me of some of English's more obscure rules.
Question
My current novel was entirely triggered by the questions: "If there were magic in today's world, where would it have come from? How would it have been created?"
Trigger the Muse
I've been working slowly on this novel for over a year now. I know that relaxing to music while traveling by foot, car, or plane triggers my better thinking. It's not a guarantee that those circumstances will result in brilliant creative thoughts, but it helps.
Over the holidays, I spent a good twelve hours traveling longer than I would have normally due to bad weather and airline maintenance. I took the extra time to ask myself some questions about the plot holes in my current book and boy was the creative muse on fire that day. I would have rather been with my family, but since circumstances were against me, I still consider it time well spent. The point is, it probably wouldn't have been as good if I hadn't been reviewing the project as a whole the week before.
Put it Down
I was grateful my memo pad on my phone was operational in flight mode. When I got home, I transcribed the notes into my usual storage area with additional thoughts and questions.
Question and Critique
After I get a chance to write a few mock chapters with my new ideas, I'll go over them again like a critic or a fan and see if I still have glaring questions.
If I feel like the project is almost done, then I would ask my final questions. "I really like this, but how appealing would it be to other people? Has it been done before, and if so, is it cliche or classic? If it's likable that's great, but is it relatable? If I were someone else, would I still like this?" Most importantly! "Is there anything I could change to make it even better?"
Sometimes, I feel like I'm working at Ironman's computer. I have a bunch of elements and scenes scattered in front of me. I switch, modify, rewrite, review logs, add, subtract, and play it again in my head until it feels just right. Always, I am building and cross referencing to make sure everything will fit together into a complete whole when it is done. (Note: It took many beginners novels and mistakes to learn the importance of that particular skill.)
This is the line where we cross from using the muse, to using the inner critic and the mountain of work that happens afterwords. Both are essential. The inner muse creates the heart and framework, while the inner critic notices the inconsistencies, the gaudy use of "be verbs" and saves us from regrettable mistakes reaching the printing presses.
After the muse, it's all hard work. This is what separates the writer from the hobbyist, but that's for another blog post.
Sunday, December 27, 2015
Sunday, December 6, 2015
My Biggest Struggle with Marie Kondo
Ok, I obviously love getting rid of stuff.
However, there are two deep, deep, subjects that I balk at dealing with...ever.
Most things, with years of practice and continued philosophical testing have started to come easy.
Money management, after years of practice that's easy.
Clothes, love to donate them.
Dust collectors (statues, odd n ends), VERY easy to get rid of (maybe a little too fun to smash or shoot in the desert.)
Cheap things that are easy to repurchase, why do I even own these?
As for my two worst subjects....
Books....I SWEAR, I WILL read them.
Papers....I'm pretty sure they reproduce. They are impossible to truly get rid of. Especially when I have a note of inspiration scribbled on an old receipt for a book idea that I've had.
The thing about books is I come from a book culture. My family is full of writers. My mom is a librarian. I grew up with two very tall book shelves set prominently in our living room. I've been writing since second grade. I'm an avid reader and like to quickly acquaint myself with whatever local library happens to be near by. I've always had a book shelf stuffed with books. I cry whenever I read about how the Nazi's burned books. Barnes and Noble is my happy place for spending money.
Granted, I'm not a stranger to donating books. It's just very, very, very difficult to convince myself that I will never read, re-read, or even reference a particular book. I try to think about it philosophically. Books are the absolute worst to move. They are heavy and awkward and if you're not reading them, they will collect dust. Once the knowledge or joy has been obtained, what use is it? I have a small collection currently with me and whole collection still waiting for me to sift through at my mothers house. Is it really worth it?
Yes.
Because I need them for professional reference both as a writer and as an aspiring body works expert.
What if I need reference materials when I retake certification exams?
What if this is the only reference I have to that particular inspiring myth?
It's a classic. I like to reread it.
Hello, it's The Hobbit.
I like books. I like having them. I like reading them. I like browsing my full shelf on rainy days and revisiting select passages. It makes my world complete. The only reason I'm not up to my eyeballs in books is because libraries exist.
I guess I can take comfort in knowing that I have the ability to donate books. It's just that more books than Marie Kondo would ever approve of still give me all kinds of joy. That's why, even though I love Barnes and Noble, I only visit once or twice a year.
As for papers. I do try, but I really do think they multiply. I try to revisit the subject on a regular basis for maintenance, but I'm pretty sure it's a losing battle.
We all have our struggles.
However, there are two deep, deep, subjects that I balk at dealing with...ever.
Most things, with years of practice and continued philosophical testing have started to come easy.
Money management, after years of practice that's easy.
Clothes, love to donate them.
Dust collectors (statues, odd n ends), VERY easy to get rid of (maybe a little too fun to smash or shoot in the desert.)
Cheap things that are easy to repurchase, why do I even own these?
As for my two worst subjects....
Books....I SWEAR, I WILL read them.
Papers....I'm pretty sure they reproduce. They are impossible to truly get rid of. Especially when I have a note of inspiration scribbled on an old receipt for a book idea that I've had.
The thing about books is I come from a book culture. My family is full of writers. My mom is a librarian. I grew up with two very tall book shelves set prominently in our living room. I've been writing since second grade. I'm an avid reader and like to quickly acquaint myself with whatever local library happens to be near by. I've always had a book shelf stuffed with books. I cry whenever I read about how the Nazi's burned books. Barnes and Noble is my happy place for spending money.
Granted, I'm not a stranger to donating books. It's just very, very, very difficult to convince myself that I will never read, re-read, or even reference a particular book. I try to think about it philosophically. Books are the absolute worst to move. They are heavy and awkward and if you're not reading them, they will collect dust. Once the knowledge or joy has been obtained, what use is it? I have a small collection currently with me and whole collection still waiting for me to sift through at my mothers house. Is it really worth it?
Yes.
Because I need them for professional reference both as a writer and as an aspiring body works expert.
What if I need reference materials when I retake certification exams?
What if this is the only reference I have to that particular inspiring myth?
It's a classic. I like to reread it.
Hello, it's The Hobbit.
I like books. I like having them. I like reading them. I like browsing my full shelf on rainy days and revisiting select passages. It makes my world complete. The only reason I'm not up to my eyeballs in books is because libraries exist.
I guess I can take comfort in knowing that I have the ability to donate books. It's just that more books than Marie Kondo would ever approve of still give me all kinds of joy. That's why, even though I love Barnes and Noble, I only visit once or twice a year.
As for papers. I do try, but I really do think they multiply. I try to revisit the subject on a regular basis for maintenance, but I'm pretty sure it's a losing battle.
We all have our struggles.
Living on $35 A Week Pt 2
As expected, the second week was not nearly as easy as the first week.
On top of the second week doubts, I went from a wonderful holiday Thanksgiving where I had my evenings free back to night school where the only easy food is the local over priced gas station.
I try to plan for these moments, but for some reason apples and carrots do not sound that filling at 8 o'clock at night, especially after a full work day.
I spent a total of 14.95 on gas station junk. As for the rest of my money... I actually have no idea. It had to have gone somewhere else because I only had three bills in my wallet by the end of the week.
It's not easy to budget.
If I've learned anything over the years, it's to keep trying anyway. When it comes to recording and planning my budget, I've gone from ledger, to Excell, to cash envelope, and back to ledgers in the last five years. It works for me. Each week I like to re-evaluate and if I need to tweek what I do or how I do it, I do it right then. This makes it easier to keep regular records that fit into my current lifestyle instead of feeling locked into a method that doesn't fit anymore. The point is, it doesn't matter how the information is recorded, so long as it is recorded and you keep your priorities straight.
This week, I also learned that even if you have good intentions to keep all of your receipts, they do have a habit of getting lost, hence the missing twelve dollars.
So, this next week I'm doing a couple of those tweeks. I'm going back to ledger. What I like about ledgers, is that you just take a notebook, make customized columns for your expenses, needs, income, total value, etc, and then update it every week. It keeps me honest and I can see how well I'm doing at a glance.
I'm also going to keep a small notebook in my purse instead of a pile of receipts. Small notebooks are only a little less likely to get lost. Instead of hoping my bag retains all of my receipts, I will write down the purchase before I even leave the store. This will help me to keep better records.
I already feel really good about this project.
Even though my rent situation is less desperate now that I know where I'm going and that I can afford it, I like knowing that I can handle emergencies. You know those rainy days where your car needs a sudden $500 dollar fix, or those moments when you're slapped with the knowledge that you'll be without a roof over your head if you can't come up with at least $1,000 in two months? This is why savings is amazing. When you have an egg that can handle things like that at the drop of a hat, the world feels so much more secure.
Some people might chaff a little at the restraint of only $35 a week as I did this last week. Really, I do like the restriction because it fits my goals. At this time of my life where I'm moving at least three times a year, I want to be able to just throw everything I own into my little Subaru and go. Buying stuff would be counter productive to that goal. I like the feeling of letting go of stuff. I like not having to dig through piles of "someday" usefuls to find the one thing I really need. I like my shelves, boxes, and drawers to have only what I love and use, not regrets.
When you think of it that way, $35 a week is really just buying me food and the occasional need like toothpaste. That's it. $35 could surely stretch that far and then some.
Then again, I'm not like everyone else. Stuff really is the bottom tier of my five love languages, while for other people, giving and getting gifts is their very top love language.
I guess, it really is just all about what you value the most.
On top of the second week doubts, I went from a wonderful holiday Thanksgiving where I had my evenings free back to night school where the only easy food is the local over priced gas station.
I try to plan for these moments, but for some reason apples and carrots do not sound that filling at 8 o'clock at night, especially after a full work day.
I spent a total of 14.95 on gas station junk. As for the rest of my money... I actually have no idea. It had to have gone somewhere else because I only had three bills in my wallet by the end of the week.
It's not easy to budget.
If I've learned anything over the years, it's to keep trying anyway. When it comes to recording and planning my budget, I've gone from ledger, to Excell, to cash envelope, and back to ledgers in the last five years. It works for me. Each week I like to re-evaluate and if I need to tweek what I do or how I do it, I do it right then. This makes it easier to keep regular records that fit into my current lifestyle instead of feeling locked into a method that doesn't fit anymore. The point is, it doesn't matter how the information is recorded, so long as it is recorded and you keep your priorities straight.
This week, I also learned that even if you have good intentions to keep all of your receipts, they do have a habit of getting lost, hence the missing twelve dollars.
So, this next week I'm doing a couple of those tweeks. I'm going back to ledger. What I like about ledgers, is that you just take a notebook, make customized columns for your expenses, needs, income, total value, etc, and then update it every week. It keeps me honest and I can see how well I'm doing at a glance.
I'm also going to keep a small notebook in my purse instead of a pile of receipts. Small notebooks are only a little less likely to get lost. Instead of hoping my bag retains all of my receipts, I will write down the purchase before I even leave the store. This will help me to keep better records.
I already feel really good about this project.
Even though my rent situation is less desperate now that I know where I'm going and that I can afford it, I like knowing that I can handle emergencies. You know those rainy days where your car needs a sudden $500 dollar fix, or those moments when you're slapped with the knowledge that you'll be without a roof over your head if you can't come up with at least $1,000 in two months? This is why savings is amazing. When you have an egg that can handle things like that at the drop of a hat, the world feels so much more secure.
Some people might chaff a little at the restraint of only $35 a week as I did this last week. Really, I do like the restriction because it fits my goals. At this time of my life where I'm moving at least three times a year, I want to be able to just throw everything I own into my little Subaru and go. Buying stuff would be counter productive to that goal. I like the feeling of letting go of stuff. I like not having to dig through piles of "someday" usefuls to find the one thing I really need. I like my shelves, boxes, and drawers to have only what I love and use, not regrets.
When you think of it that way, $35 a week is really just buying me food and the occasional need like toothpaste. That's it. $35 could surely stretch that far and then some.
Then again, I'm not like everyone else. Stuff really is the bottom tier of my five love languages, while for other people, giving and getting gifts is their very top love language.
I guess, it really is just all about what you value the most.
Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Living on $35 Dollars a Week
Week One Report
This week was really more about testing my self control and seeing if $35 a week was even possible.
Granted, I wouldn't be so motivated if I didn't have a lease ending in January with little to no hope of renewing it and no savings to speak of for another down payment. The living on $35 dollars a week experiment was really born out of desperation. If I can manage it, I should have enough saved up for a new apartment by the time January rolls around. Cross fingers.
$35 a week is impossible for many people. I considered it possible for my individual circumstance for several reasons: where I live, the fact that I am single with no dependents, I hate stuff anyway especially when I'm about to move, I work at a place that often feeds me for free or at least majorly discounted, and I wasn't going to include the obvious gas and rent bills that are set standards for my checking account anyway.
Food for thought; I only try to get gas once a week and only pay $20 for however much I can get. It seems to me that whether full or almost full, my tank will still a refill every Thursday for $20 so does it really matter if I fill it to that last gallon at all?
The $35 experiment will only work in cash. If I try to use card, it's too easy to forget that what savings I do have is not for paying taxes or buying stuff that is "almost in budget." If I'm going to succeed, it has to be cash. There is nothing more strict, or final, than cash.
Week one I did succeed. I only went shopping three times. Once at Smiths ($26.38), twice at Walmart (total $7.30). Spending a total of $33.68.
In the end, I got a really good sense of determining what I need vs. what I will actually use within a week period. This includes actually eating what I buy vs. buying what I have good intentions to eat. Every item I considered was weighed against what I had left in my wallet because it's embarrassing to realize I don't have enough cash to pay for what's in my cart and it would be too easy to finish a purchase with my card.
I won't say it bought the healthiest food, but it bought what would go the longest. Suddenly, $4 dollars for only six snack times in a week really didn't seem worth it compared to a bag of carrots.
Trying again for $35 next week. This seems to be working.
This week was really more about testing my self control and seeing if $35 a week was even possible.
Granted, I wouldn't be so motivated if I didn't have a lease ending in January with little to no hope of renewing it and no savings to speak of for another down payment. The living on $35 dollars a week experiment was really born out of desperation. If I can manage it, I should have enough saved up for a new apartment by the time January rolls around. Cross fingers.
$35 a week is impossible for many people. I considered it possible for my individual circumstance for several reasons: where I live, the fact that I am single with no dependents, I hate stuff anyway especially when I'm about to move, I work at a place that often feeds me for free or at least majorly discounted, and I wasn't going to include the obvious gas and rent bills that are set standards for my checking account anyway.
Food for thought; I only try to get gas once a week and only pay $20 for however much I can get. It seems to me that whether full or almost full, my tank will still a refill every Thursday for $20 so does it really matter if I fill it to that last gallon at all?
The $35 experiment will only work in cash. If I try to use card, it's too easy to forget that what savings I do have is not for paying taxes or buying stuff that is "almost in budget." If I'm going to succeed, it has to be cash. There is nothing more strict, or final, than cash.
Week one I did succeed. I only went shopping three times. Once at Smiths ($26.38), twice at Walmart (total $7.30). Spending a total of $33.68.
In the end, I got a really good sense of determining what I need vs. what I will actually use within a week period. This includes actually eating what I buy vs. buying what I have good intentions to eat. Every item I considered was weighed against what I had left in my wallet because it's embarrassing to realize I don't have enough cash to pay for what's in my cart and it would be too easy to finish a purchase with my card.
I won't say it bought the healthiest food, but it bought what would go the longest. Suddenly, $4 dollars for only six snack times in a week really didn't seem worth it compared to a bag of carrots.
Trying again for $35 next week. This seems to be working.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Black Friday No Way
Happy Thanksgiving!
Despite what you may assume from the title, I'm not bashing the idea of having Christmas sales so early in the year.
I AM going to get serious though. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people gather outside stores in the wee morning hours after Thanksgiving. These tired, turkey drugged shoppers then wait with increasing anxiety as the minutes slowly drag by until the store opens. Finally, one terrified associate is either bullied into or brave enough to turn the key and allow customers to swarm the store for the big sale.
Every year, someone dies.
That initial push always kills someone. A life, something irreplaceable and impossible to discount is lost. It doesn't happen very often, but it happens more often than it should.
Just to illustrate the point, imagine having to have this conversation.
"Oh, I'm sorry, how did your beloved family member die?"
"Sales shopping."
Really? Is it worth it for someone to lose their precious family member and never see them again in future Thanksgivings?
Not to mention the arguing, the bickering, the stealing, the shop lifting, the easy theft, and the total disrepair of morals that would have held true had the shoppers been more awake, alert, and less desperate.
Granted, some families can only afford nice things on this one particular day. Yes, stores are trying to depressurize the day with online shopping and extending the sale around that particular day to the rest of the month.
Still, someone always dies.
For stuff.
For things that will wear out and break down and in the end only bring a few moments of pleasure.
For things that can be bought at the same price with the right discount and coupon combo any other day of the year or afforded with the right savings plan.
Why?
Because we are impatient. Because it's exciting to race. Because stuff is presented as bright and shiny and needed.
Historically, there have been times when a single death was all it took to enact cultural movements. Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination triggered World War I. Emmett Till's brutal murder sparked sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement. Today, people are shot by police and gangsters and plenty are in arms to call for things like gun reform, end of racism and police brutality.
People die on Black Friday and all you hear is, "Too bad. Isn't that so sad?"
There are no loud wars on the stuff culture. There are no cries for dis-banning the practice of Black Friday. Wars on the stuff culture don't turn profits. People don't like hearing the word "no" or the phrase, "you don't need that" or "you can't have it." I guess the major difference between the people who die shopping and the innocent people who die on the streets because of gang violence is that there is no solid bad guy, except for our culture of stuff.
Sorry for the especially dark post. As you read this, this holiday season, remember the people around you, and be aware of them, love them, watch out for them, protect them. Even if they're not your baby. If you are shopping early tomorrow, watch for the people that fall and then fight for their lives.
It's more important than any 75% discount.
Despite what you may assume from the title, I'm not bashing the idea of having Christmas sales so early in the year.
I AM going to get serious though. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people gather outside stores in the wee morning hours after Thanksgiving. These tired, turkey drugged shoppers then wait with increasing anxiety as the minutes slowly drag by until the store opens. Finally, one terrified associate is either bullied into or brave enough to turn the key and allow customers to swarm the store for the big sale.
Every year, someone dies.
That initial push always kills someone. A life, something irreplaceable and impossible to discount is lost. It doesn't happen very often, but it happens more often than it should.
Just to illustrate the point, imagine having to have this conversation.
"Oh, I'm sorry, how did your beloved family member die?"
"Sales shopping."
Really? Is it worth it for someone to lose their precious family member and never see them again in future Thanksgivings?
Not to mention the arguing, the bickering, the stealing, the shop lifting, the easy theft, and the total disrepair of morals that would have held true had the shoppers been more awake, alert, and less desperate.
Granted, some families can only afford nice things on this one particular day. Yes, stores are trying to depressurize the day with online shopping and extending the sale around that particular day to the rest of the month.
Still, someone always dies.
For stuff.
For things that will wear out and break down and in the end only bring a few moments of pleasure.
For things that can be bought at the same price with the right discount and coupon combo any other day of the year or afforded with the right savings plan.
Why?
Because we are impatient. Because it's exciting to race. Because stuff is presented as bright and shiny and needed.
Historically, there have been times when a single death was all it took to enact cultural movements. Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination triggered World War I. Emmett Till's brutal murder sparked sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement. Today, people are shot by police and gangsters and plenty are in arms to call for things like gun reform, end of racism and police brutality.
People die on Black Friday and all you hear is, "Too bad. Isn't that so sad?"
There are no loud wars on the stuff culture. There are no cries for dis-banning the practice of Black Friday. Wars on the stuff culture don't turn profits. People don't like hearing the word "no" or the phrase, "you don't need that" or "you can't have it." I guess the major difference between the people who die shopping and the innocent people who die on the streets because of gang violence is that there is no solid bad guy, except for our culture of stuff.
Sorry for the especially dark post. As you read this, this holiday season, remember the people around you, and be aware of them, love them, watch out for them, protect them. Even if they're not your baby. If you are shopping early tomorrow, watch for the people that fall and then fight for their lives.
It's more important than any 75% discount.
Sunday, November 22, 2015
My Conversion to Living Tiny
I know. Two tiny living posts in a row, but I felt inspired. One of the keys to being a good writer is to sometimes allow your inspiration to carry you away.
Why do I love tiny living? What is the appeal? I grew up in the largest house on our 70's middle class street and managed to snag the largest kid bedroom. By all predictions, tiny should not have been in my living standards vocabulary.
It all started with a cat.
Yes. A cat. I'm one of those people who enjoy snuggling warm soft fuzzy things that purr at me and cover me with sticky hair. I'm unashamed. When I was eleven I realized I wanted a cat, really, really badly. So badly, that for two months I would only check out books with cats in them especially if they were purely educational to impress my parents. After some bargaining, I convinced my parents that if I managed to keep my room white glove clean for a solid month, then I could be the proud owner of a tiny kitten. I got two kittens and I proudly took care of their every puke and water need.
That exercise taught me that a clean room was a pleasant room especially when compared to the bed of stuffed animals, clothes, and plastic that used to be my floor. I also learned that if you don't want your shirt to be vomited on, it's better to keep it off the floor.
Years later, I realized that my personal stress level would be great reduced after taking time to reorganize my room. As a creative person, I loved to relocate my furniture and this was more easily done when the room was clean. I also got a sense of pride displaying my hard work to my family members.
Hard work, done well, feels good, after all.
This all contributed to my enjoyment of organizing tons of stuff into boxes. However, I didn't really start to see the benefit of living with less until I worked a couple of summers cleaning out homes for some wealthy friends of my mother. They had big houses. Really big. And it was full to the brim with stuff they hadn't touched in years. My job was to help them get rid of it.
I remember one particular room. It was completely stocked with enough ramen noodles to keep a soup kitchen going for a month. It was bought and stored with the good intention of being a food source in case something bad happened. A noble precaution, except the food hadn't been checked on for so long that three mice had chewed, peed and pooped on every single package. The mice themselves were found dead on top of the crispy noodles. Probably from ramen noodle overdose. Incredibly, they were also expired.
Another house was so littered with tiny random things like paper and beads that hours of work felt like doing nothing at all. I remember sitting in a tiny five by eight work studio and just looking at the stacks of paper, crafts, music charts, and other tiny bits of stuff. The piles of things were stacked higher than my shoulder as I sat on the floor and I thought, "If that tipped over, I could be buried alive, and no one would ever know."
During those summers the question kept popping up over and over, "Who needs this much stuff?" The answer, of course, is always, "Well I do. That's why I bought it. Even if I can't remember why."
I learned a lot about the psychology behind keeping stuff that summer. A lot of the stuff they hadn't touched in years was labeled generally as, "just in case," or, "the project I started, but never finished, but I am going to finish it someday." While, "just in case" can be largely justified in terms of emergency or food storage, I feel like the second one is more emotionally based than logical. Honestly, it just seemed sad. It was a stress that wasn't necessary and it effectively cut off entire rooms from access to those who lived there. Those projects hadn't been touched in years. I knew they weren't going to finish it. They knew they weren't going to finish it. Yet they were content to let that project eat at the back of their "to do" list that is never completed. They were content to walk by open doorways or peak in the drawers of their home and feel the tiny pricks of guilt for not doing what they said they were going to do. Every. Single. Time. For. YEARS.
For some people I guess that works. It might even be a comforting thing. For people like me, it would be like continuing to eat sugar with a bad cavity. I can understand being desensitized to the thing, but that tiny prick of guilt does leave a mark somewhere in the esteem area of the subconscious.
Next reason for liking the tiny life style. I moved. A lot.
We all know moving is a pain. We also all know that moving with a lot of stuff is even more of a pain. Between college semesters, I got really good at downsizing to the bare essentials of living, if not to the bare essentials of play things like board games. The goal was to always pack into as few compartments as possible without overloading anything. Especially, if I knew I was going to be living on a top floor. This was also a time of my life when I began to get a real sense of cost vs the earned dollar. Money, particularly quarters, became extremely valuable. Living in an apartment with six girls who cook and only one fridge also taught me the value of space saving. Note: it's rude to take up fridge space with a pizza box, it's much better to store the pizza in a stack container or a ziplock.
After college, that dollar became even more important. I really wanted to live independently, but I really couldn't see a way clear for me to do it. Then, I learned about the tiny house movement. I was so enchanted with the idea that I bought the first two seasons of Tiny House Nation and spent a month researching composting toilets. My boyfriend at the time was more inclined to talk about general financial gains and design technicalities than to consider actually living in one, but I was hooked. Fiscal responsibility is very important to me. I also loved the idea of travel, of uniqueness, and customization for a smaller price a lot better than living in a house I couldn't afford. In that lifestyle there seemed to be a lot more time for living. I also liked the idea of not having a lot of "stuff" to deal with.
I still am.
Currently, I live in a shared apartment, but I really only use the space in my kitchen, my 8x4 bathroom, and my 8x8 bedroom. I don't really buy stuff. Whenever possible, I get rid of stuff. I moved states and packed all I owned into a tiny Subaru. Recently, I managed to fly with just a carry on back pack for the weekend using the Marie Kondo method of folding. I love how people are getting hooked on this idea that less is more.
There are at least ten different blue prints sketched out in my sketch book with ideas and designs for different rooms and living spaces. I plan to someday live in a tiny house all of my own, whether mobile or solid is yet to be determined. In the meantime. I continue to live in a way that tests myself and my ability to go tiny. Hey, 20-50,000 to build a home is still nothing to sneeze at. If you plan to build a tiny home, it's better to do years of testing first.
Why do I love tiny living? What is the appeal? I grew up in the largest house on our 70's middle class street and managed to snag the largest kid bedroom. By all predictions, tiny should not have been in my living standards vocabulary.
It all started with a cat.
Yes. A cat. I'm one of those people who enjoy snuggling warm soft fuzzy things that purr at me and cover me with sticky hair. I'm unashamed. When I was eleven I realized I wanted a cat, really, really badly. So badly, that for two months I would only check out books with cats in them especially if they were purely educational to impress my parents. After some bargaining, I convinced my parents that if I managed to keep my room white glove clean for a solid month, then I could be the proud owner of a tiny kitten. I got two kittens and I proudly took care of their every puke and water need.
That exercise taught me that a clean room was a pleasant room especially when compared to the bed of stuffed animals, clothes, and plastic that used to be my floor. I also learned that if you don't want your shirt to be vomited on, it's better to keep it off the floor.
Years later, I realized that my personal stress level would be great reduced after taking time to reorganize my room. As a creative person, I loved to relocate my furniture and this was more easily done when the room was clean. I also got a sense of pride displaying my hard work to my family members.
Hard work, done well, feels good, after all.
This all contributed to my enjoyment of organizing tons of stuff into boxes. However, I didn't really start to see the benefit of living with less until I worked a couple of summers cleaning out homes for some wealthy friends of my mother. They had big houses. Really big. And it was full to the brim with stuff they hadn't touched in years. My job was to help them get rid of it.
I remember one particular room. It was completely stocked with enough ramen noodles to keep a soup kitchen going for a month. It was bought and stored with the good intention of being a food source in case something bad happened. A noble precaution, except the food hadn't been checked on for so long that three mice had chewed, peed and pooped on every single package. The mice themselves were found dead on top of the crispy noodles. Probably from ramen noodle overdose. Incredibly, they were also expired.
Another house was so littered with tiny random things like paper and beads that hours of work felt like doing nothing at all. I remember sitting in a tiny five by eight work studio and just looking at the stacks of paper, crafts, music charts, and other tiny bits of stuff. The piles of things were stacked higher than my shoulder as I sat on the floor and I thought, "If that tipped over, I could be buried alive, and no one would ever know."
During those summers the question kept popping up over and over, "Who needs this much stuff?" The answer, of course, is always, "Well I do. That's why I bought it. Even if I can't remember why."
I learned a lot about the psychology behind keeping stuff that summer. A lot of the stuff they hadn't touched in years was labeled generally as, "just in case," or, "the project I started, but never finished, but I am going to finish it someday." While, "just in case" can be largely justified in terms of emergency or food storage, I feel like the second one is more emotionally based than logical. Honestly, it just seemed sad. It was a stress that wasn't necessary and it effectively cut off entire rooms from access to those who lived there. Those projects hadn't been touched in years. I knew they weren't going to finish it. They knew they weren't going to finish it. Yet they were content to let that project eat at the back of their "to do" list that is never completed. They were content to walk by open doorways or peak in the drawers of their home and feel the tiny pricks of guilt for not doing what they said they were going to do. Every. Single. Time. For. YEARS.
For some people I guess that works. It might even be a comforting thing. For people like me, it would be like continuing to eat sugar with a bad cavity. I can understand being desensitized to the thing, but that tiny prick of guilt does leave a mark somewhere in the esteem area of the subconscious.
Next reason for liking the tiny life style. I moved. A lot.
We all know moving is a pain. We also all know that moving with a lot of stuff is even more of a pain. Between college semesters, I got really good at downsizing to the bare essentials of living, if not to the bare essentials of play things like board games. The goal was to always pack into as few compartments as possible without overloading anything. Especially, if I knew I was going to be living on a top floor. This was also a time of my life when I began to get a real sense of cost vs the earned dollar. Money, particularly quarters, became extremely valuable. Living in an apartment with six girls who cook and only one fridge also taught me the value of space saving. Note: it's rude to take up fridge space with a pizza box, it's much better to store the pizza in a stack container or a ziplock.
After college, that dollar became even more important. I really wanted to live independently, but I really couldn't see a way clear for me to do it. Then, I learned about the tiny house movement. I was so enchanted with the idea that I bought the first two seasons of Tiny House Nation and spent a month researching composting toilets. My boyfriend at the time was more inclined to talk about general financial gains and design technicalities than to consider actually living in one, but I was hooked. Fiscal responsibility is very important to me. I also loved the idea of travel, of uniqueness, and customization for a smaller price a lot better than living in a house I couldn't afford. In that lifestyle there seemed to be a lot more time for living. I also liked the idea of not having a lot of "stuff" to deal with.
I still am.
Currently, I live in a shared apartment, but I really only use the space in my kitchen, my 8x4 bathroom, and my 8x8 bedroom. I don't really buy stuff. Whenever possible, I get rid of stuff. I moved states and packed all I owned into a tiny Subaru. Recently, I managed to fly with just a carry on back pack for the weekend using the Marie Kondo method of folding. I love how people are getting hooked on this idea that less is more.
There are at least ten different blue prints sketched out in my sketch book with ideas and designs for different rooms and living spaces. I plan to someday live in a tiny house all of my own, whether mobile or solid is yet to be determined. In the meantime. I continue to live in a way that tests myself and my ability to go tiny. Hey, 20-50,000 to build a home is still nothing to sneeze at. If you plan to build a tiny home, it's better to do years of testing first.
Journeys into the World of Marie Kondo
By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about the book, "The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing." by Marie Kondo.
On a whim, I picked it up from Barnes and Noble last week. Glad I waited as long as I did, because it was on a 30% off sale. Can we say easy $10? Like most self-help books, it's not the kind of book that is designed to be read straight through. There is an index, the advice is straight forward, and the writing is clear, but if you're looking for a quick references on how to fold a particular article of clothing, its easier to find examples on YouTube. I'd consider it more of a philosophy book that focuses on "why" than a reference guide that tells you "how."
I began a pattern of cleaning and reading then cleaning again. Each section of the book is short enough that you don't loose motivation between the pages. The philosophy was the most interesting part of the book. Eastern philosophy is full of giving respect to things that most westerners wouldn't even think of. Still, that act of giving respect, creates discipline and an environment where things last longer and relationships are deeper. The closest western equivalent to this philosophy would be living with constant appreciation and gratitude. This book supports that assumption. Marie Kondo teaches that it is better for things to be used, than to go unused. That folding clothes in respectful ways makes them last longer. That getting rid of items that aren't worn out is actually a good thing. And as all tiny livers know, less is so often much more.
So far, I've gotten rid of an astonishing three bags of donated clothing. I swear I didn't think I had many clothes to begin with, much less three bags worth of clothes that didn't inspire happiness. My closet suddenly went from not having enough hangers, to having hangers with nothing to do. I'm a little scared to tackle the bookshelf, but that's what's going to happen next. My room already looks a hundred times better.
This exercise has also got me thinking. I don't own much. I don't need much. However, would what I currently own fit into a tiny house space? If I had to suddenly make the jump into a tiny house even smaller than I dream about, would I even fit? Before Marie Kondo, I'd have to say no. At the very least, If I did suddenly have to change apartments again, I know it will be an easier move.
Food for thought, is there such a condition as chronically buying tiny stuff you think you need and then turning around three months later to donate it all? I kinda feel like that's how I live. My next goal is to live on a budget of just 55 dollars a week. At least twenty of that is going to gas and this will not include rent, so that will leave me about 35 a week for food and needs. Now that I'm posting about it, I will need to be accountable.
Happy Tiny Living Everybody
On a whim, I picked it up from Barnes and Noble last week. Glad I waited as long as I did, because it was on a 30% off sale. Can we say easy $10? Like most self-help books, it's not the kind of book that is designed to be read straight through. There is an index, the advice is straight forward, and the writing is clear, but if you're looking for a quick references on how to fold a particular article of clothing, its easier to find examples on YouTube. I'd consider it more of a philosophy book that focuses on "why" than a reference guide that tells you "how."
I began a pattern of cleaning and reading then cleaning again. Each section of the book is short enough that you don't loose motivation between the pages. The philosophy was the most interesting part of the book. Eastern philosophy is full of giving respect to things that most westerners wouldn't even think of. Still, that act of giving respect, creates discipline and an environment where things last longer and relationships are deeper. The closest western equivalent to this philosophy would be living with constant appreciation and gratitude. This book supports that assumption. Marie Kondo teaches that it is better for things to be used, than to go unused. That folding clothes in respectful ways makes them last longer. That getting rid of items that aren't worn out is actually a good thing. And as all tiny livers know, less is so often much more.
So far, I've gotten rid of an astonishing three bags of donated clothing. I swear I didn't think I had many clothes to begin with, much less three bags worth of clothes that didn't inspire happiness. My closet suddenly went from not having enough hangers, to having hangers with nothing to do. I'm a little scared to tackle the bookshelf, but that's what's going to happen next. My room already looks a hundred times better.
This exercise has also got me thinking. I don't own much. I don't need much. However, would what I currently own fit into a tiny house space? If I had to suddenly make the jump into a tiny house even smaller than I dream about, would I even fit? Before Marie Kondo, I'd have to say no. At the very least, If I did suddenly have to change apartments again, I know it will be an easier move.
Food for thought, is there such a condition as chronically buying tiny stuff you think you need and then turning around three months later to donate it all? I kinda feel like that's how I live. My next goal is to live on a budget of just 55 dollars a week. At least twenty of that is going to gas and this will not include rent, so that will leave me about 35 a week for food and needs. Now that I'm posting about it, I will need to be accountable.
Happy Tiny Living Everybody
Junk Literature Addiction
Dime novel quality works have been around since the end of the 19th century. These stories are the loose and fanciful creations from people who don't care what story they put together so long as it is entertaining and profitable. Today, dime novel quality stories permeate our libraries, movies, and television shows.
This is what wikipedia has to say about them.
"In the modern age, "dime novel" has become a term to describe any quickly written, lurid potboiler and as such is generally used as a pejorative to describe a sensationalized yet superficial piece of written work."
Those are fighting words. So why do we ingest such terrible literature?
It would be easier to start with what makes good literature. In my humble opinion, good literature is about potential. Good literature is literature that has a voice to reveal truth. It says something about the condition of humanity and/or its place in the universe. It gives way to deeper thinking and possibly real world application or change. Change isn't a required component, but there definitely has to be some inspired reflection on the truths as they are revealed.
That said, not everyone is going to have brilliant "ah ha's!" when they read something touted as good literature. Still, the potential for depth has to be there to be considered literature.
Compare that to the dime novel.
The dime novel is like my experience with Twilight; it's a short lived enjoyment that inspires no depth or internal awareness. You don't feel compelled to re-read these because you already got all you could get on the first go around. You're welcome to still re-read them, but the second experience could never be as good as the first. It's a book that says absolutely nothing, but gives you a thrill anyway.
Most genres strive to have a mixture of the two and many succeed. Shows like Avatar, the Last Airbender, Doctor Who, and Sherlock give people something to think about while at the same time being highly entertaining. They are often modernly called, "smart shows."
So why are there so many stories in the world, but only a fraction of them are worth the time?
Quantity and Demand
The people demand a thousand channels with a thousand stories to spend all their spare time on at any given moment of the day. The newer, the more exciting, the better. The people also demand new books to be released almost as fast as they can read them. This puts a lot of pressure on the companies that produce the entertainment to churn out products almost as fast as they can come up with them. There is no time for the depth of literature to sink into the creative process before the lights are out and the presses have stopped running. Shows like Sherlock can bypass this problem by taking three years to hammer out fine details, but most stories don't have that luxury.
Addiction to "New"
New stories are exciting. Repeating old experiences in a new format is both comforting and entertaining. When the subject is superficial though, we have no reason to stay and many reasons to feel bored. We ingest dime novel quality novels so often that we've fallen into the habit of excited anticipation, consumption, rejection, and impatience for the next big story. We've followed this pattern as a society so much that we hardly even notice that the "new story" of today is the same crap story of yesterday.
Personal Test: Do you have a new favorite book or story that you experienced last year? What was it? Have you revisited it since you first found it? How do you feel about it today. Now that you're aware of the cycle, would you go back and enjoy what you once had, or is it not worth the time to re-experience?
Anti-Reflection
Our society is currently molded on the belief that if you don't think about it, its not your problem and nothing is wrong. The antithesis is saying if you don't constantly think about something you don't actually care, but that's a different social problem.
Literature has the nasty habit of bringing deep thinking and reflection to the foreground; which provides an environment where you see things that you'd rather not see or deal with. One of the nastiest truths literature likes to bring up is the myth of the happy ending. There's this modern myth that life has to be good. There's a finish line that if you reach it, it will mark the beginning of eternal happiness and contentment. If life isn't good, then something is wrong, you're not on track to the golden finish line. Therefore, if something is wrong, then we have a responsibility to "fix it" or suffer forever. Literature often teaches that life isn't always good and that its normal to experience bad things. Literature also teaches that some things just can't be fixed, life isn't perfect, and that's totally normal. It's very different from the "disney-fied" messages of our youth and very uncomfortable to us because we're not used to acknowledging that side of life.
Kinda sad when you think about it. Life and adulthood does eventually happen. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared for it? I'm not saying, cast out all hope, but at least have more realistic expectations for what life is like. It is better to live with meaning, than to live for the happy ending.
If you've ever read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, then you probably couldn't help but notice how many today are like the character of the wife. The fact that's she's introduced as a suicide risk is telling on how living without meaning takes a tole on the human spirit. She was willing to go into debt to increase her experience in fantasy and perceived happiness. She would rather continue living in her meaningless make believe world with her "family" of entertaining tv personalities than deal with the internal problems of emptiness she knows is there, but doesn't acknowledge. Whenever her husband tried to get her to engage in any kind of conversation that had depth, she avoided and rejected him.
Conclusion
Personally, as a writer, I've always wanted to be someone who said something. I grew up on dime novels and better. I enjoyed the stories about dragons and fairy queens, but the stories I enjoyed the most had dragons and inspired self-reflection. My goal is to be the kind of writer to who can trick dime novel addicts into a state of reflection and reveal truth among the spoils of entertainment. If my name is going to be on the cover, I want it to be a work I can be proud of. Something that will be loved and will last at least a few decades. That's why I refuse to publish until I am absolutely ready. My expectations are high, I'll probably still fail, but at least I tried.
This is what wikipedia has to say about them.
"In the modern age, "dime novel" has become a term to describe any quickly written, lurid potboiler and as such is generally used as a pejorative to describe a sensationalized yet superficial piece of written work."
Those are fighting words. So why do we ingest such terrible literature?
It would be easier to start with what makes good literature. In my humble opinion, good literature is about potential. Good literature is literature that has a voice to reveal truth. It says something about the condition of humanity and/or its place in the universe. It gives way to deeper thinking and possibly real world application or change. Change isn't a required component, but there definitely has to be some inspired reflection on the truths as they are revealed.
That said, not everyone is going to have brilliant "ah ha's!" when they read something touted as good literature. Still, the potential for depth has to be there to be considered literature.
Compare that to the dime novel.
The dime novel is like my experience with Twilight; it's a short lived enjoyment that inspires no depth or internal awareness. You don't feel compelled to re-read these because you already got all you could get on the first go around. You're welcome to still re-read them, but the second experience could never be as good as the first. It's a book that says absolutely nothing, but gives you a thrill anyway.
Most genres strive to have a mixture of the two and many succeed. Shows like Avatar, the Last Airbender, Doctor Who, and Sherlock give people something to think about while at the same time being highly entertaining. They are often modernly called, "smart shows."
So why are there so many stories in the world, but only a fraction of them are worth the time?
Quantity and Demand
The people demand a thousand channels with a thousand stories to spend all their spare time on at any given moment of the day. The newer, the more exciting, the better. The people also demand new books to be released almost as fast as they can read them. This puts a lot of pressure on the companies that produce the entertainment to churn out products almost as fast as they can come up with them. There is no time for the depth of literature to sink into the creative process before the lights are out and the presses have stopped running. Shows like Sherlock can bypass this problem by taking three years to hammer out fine details, but most stories don't have that luxury.
Addiction to "New"
New stories are exciting. Repeating old experiences in a new format is both comforting and entertaining. When the subject is superficial though, we have no reason to stay and many reasons to feel bored. We ingest dime novel quality novels so often that we've fallen into the habit of excited anticipation, consumption, rejection, and impatience for the next big story. We've followed this pattern as a society so much that we hardly even notice that the "new story" of today is the same crap story of yesterday.
Personal Test: Do you have a new favorite book or story that you experienced last year? What was it? Have you revisited it since you first found it? How do you feel about it today. Now that you're aware of the cycle, would you go back and enjoy what you once had, or is it not worth the time to re-experience?
Anti-Reflection
Our society is currently molded on the belief that if you don't think about it, its not your problem and nothing is wrong. The antithesis is saying if you don't constantly think about something you don't actually care, but that's a different social problem.
Literature has the nasty habit of bringing deep thinking and reflection to the foreground; which provides an environment where you see things that you'd rather not see or deal with. One of the nastiest truths literature likes to bring up is the myth of the happy ending. There's this modern myth that life has to be good. There's a finish line that if you reach it, it will mark the beginning of eternal happiness and contentment. If life isn't good, then something is wrong, you're not on track to the golden finish line. Therefore, if something is wrong, then we have a responsibility to "fix it" or suffer forever. Literature often teaches that life isn't always good and that its normal to experience bad things. Literature also teaches that some things just can't be fixed, life isn't perfect, and that's totally normal. It's very different from the "disney-fied" messages of our youth and very uncomfortable to us because we're not used to acknowledging that side of life.
Kinda sad when you think about it. Life and adulthood does eventually happen. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared for it? I'm not saying, cast out all hope, but at least have more realistic expectations for what life is like. It is better to live with meaning, than to live for the happy ending.
If you've ever read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, then you probably couldn't help but notice how many today are like the character of the wife. The fact that's she's introduced as a suicide risk is telling on how living without meaning takes a tole on the human spirit. She was willing to go into debt to increase her experience in fantasy and perceived happiness. She would rather continue living in her meaningless make believe world with her "family" of entertaining tv personalities than deal with the internal problems of emptiness she knows is there, but doesn't acknowledge. Whenever her husband tried to get her to engage in any kind of conversation that had depth, she avoided and rejected him.
Conclusion
Personally, as a writer, I've always wanted to be someone who said something. I grew up on dime novels and better. I enjoyed the stories about dragons and fairy queens, but the stories I enjoyed the most had dragons and inspired self-reflection. My goal is to be the kind of writer to who can trick dime novel addicts into a state of reflection and reveal truth among the spoils of entertainment. If my name is going to be on the cover, I want it to be a work I can be proud of. Something that will be loved and will last at least a few decades. That's why I refuse to publish until I am absolutely ready. My expectations are high, I'll probably still fail, but at least I tried.
How to Freewrite
Freewriting is a tool used by writers to break up their walls. It is a gam;e with rules that you continue writing no matter the consequences. NOt matter the mistakes you make as you type. This createsand environment of freedom where the editors side of your brian isn't allowed to come out until the writing is done. But how does bbreewriting start? As you can see, I am typing very fast to prove the point that you dcontinue on no matter the mistakes that are matde. That is the firest rule.
The second rule, is that you canno't backspaece, fix or correct any mistakes that you see no matter what. The editor isn't allowed to even breath on a free write. This gives the writer the mental creative freesdom to just be and create without getting bogged down in details.
The third rule is to keep moving forward. Whatever thought that comesinto your head is valid even if it has nothing to do with the work you wish to create. If you have no thoughts, write about how you have not thoughts. Foe example, I only came up with three rules. I'm trying to think of more, but there really isn't any. Free writing isn't complicated and isn't meant to be really structured. You don't even need splits in paragraphs or tabs at the beginning of each thought. This is the mental massage that breaks holding patterns in your writing and allows you space to breath. Now I really want some cheese. Cheese is delicious. It is yellow, sharp is best. I hear that real cheese is white and better for you, it's probably true. Have you ever heard of cows giving orange milk? THat alone sounds gross, yet we like yellow cheese. I wonder if my character likes yellow cheese or white cheese. My back is wondering if this is a good position to type in.
She is a character that likes to breathe and find peace. Where is the excitment in that? If you have a character who likes peace so much, they have to be put into a whole lot of traumatizing experiences just to be interesting. On the otherhand, if you have a handful of a character in a forced peaceful setting, it can feel like a waist, but could it also be the grounds for an actual piece of literature?
Fahrenheit 451 style story that expresses that there is a time to fight and a time to rest and both moments are hard.
At this point I would usually launch into a made up scene that would give me a sense of my story. I'd still be free writing until the scene is done. Then I'd let the editor in just enough to see if the thought has potential. Hope you all enjoyed this example.
The second rule, is that you canno't backspaece, fix or correct any mistakes that you see no matter what. The editor isn't allowed to even breath on a free write. This gives the writer the mental creative freesdom to just be and create without getting bogged down in details.
The third rule is to keep moving forward. Whatever thought that comesinto your head is valid even if it has nothing to do with the work you wish to create. If you have no thoughts, write about how you have not thoughts. Foe example, I only came up with three rules. I'm trying to think of more, but there really isn't any. Free writing isn't complicated and isn't meant to be really structured. You don't even need splits in paragraphs or tabs at the beginning of each thought. This is the mental massage that breaks holding patterns in your writing and allows you space to breath. Now I really want some cheese. Cheese is delicious. It is yellow, sharp is best. I hear that real cheese is white and better for you, it's probably true. Have you ever heard of cows giving orange milk? THat alone sounds gross, yet we like yellow cheese. I wonder if my character likes yellow cheese or white cheese. My back is wondering if this is a good position to type in.
She is a character that likes to breathe and find peace. Where is the excitment in that? If you have a character who likes peace so much, they have to be put into a whole lot of traumatizing experiences just to be interesting. On the otherhand, if you have a handful of a character in a forced peaceful setting, it can feel like a waist, but could it also be the grounds for an actual piece of literature?
Fahrenheit 451 style story that expresses that there is a time to fight and a time to rest and both moments are hard.
At this point I would usually launch into a made up scene that would give me a sense of my story. I'd still be free writing until the scene is done. Then I'd let the editor in just enough to see if the thought has potential. Hope you all enjoyed this example.
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Writer's Block
This post is for all of my creative people out there.
Creation is awesome.
We love to dazzle the crowd with every brush stroke, every word, and every note. To the people who don't share our talents we look like wizards pulling genius moments out of star covered caps. To them, it seems as effortless and easy as breathing.
Oh how little they know.
You fellow artisans know about the suffocating pains between each brilliant moment. The times when we aren't wizards and the magic is simply out of reach. It is a terrible time when the world is either too busy, too stressful, or there is simply not enough inspiration there to allow for creation.
It is the pain of these times that makes the healing moments of creation so magical.
Yet, when you are stuck in a creation-less rut, how do we get back to doing what we love?
It's not simple, and every artist is as unique as their chosen medium. Yet here are a few things that might help should you find yourselves stuck.
Take A Risk
Artists are people who are already willing to experiment and take risks so I recommend trying different things to stimulate the creative well. Do something new. Go on a special vacation that allows you time to experience rather than just go through the motions. Or, take a "sick day" that allows you the time to go and find what normally inspires you.
Revisit What Works
This one requires a certain amount of self-awareness. Most artists can tell you about the moment of creation, but some find it hard to recall the moment before. The set of circumstances that sparked the creation in the first place. Go back in time. What inspired you to start last time? Was it observing people in the park? Playing with kids? Trying a new recipe? Something triggered the creativity. Find out what it was and then recreate those circumstances.
Find A Model
There is a saying in the artistic community. If you want to master your craft, you first need to learn about the masters. Read about them. Study them. Try to copy them. Learn how they did it. Even if historic figures didn't do exactly what you want to do; knowing how they did it and knowing what was good about it can give you focus for what it is that you want to do.
Make Time
I know this advice is worn out. It's annoying when people imply that you can pull more time out of hat with enough faith and belief. We all know simply wishing for more time does not put more minutes in a twenty-four hour day. What those people are really saying is that you can sacrifice your least needed things for this important thing. The reason why you don't hear people using those words is because telling people to give up something isn't a good selling pitch.
It is true though, that people don't always spend their time wisely. A little schedule reorganizing and reduction of wasted time, and you may find a spare hour you can dedicate to creation. If your schedule is simply too busy to allow for it, then maybe this is not the time of your life to create. However, I feel like if not creating is making life totally miserable, then it really is ok to change things up. Get a different job. Reduce the demands on your time. Put first in your schedule what matters the most to your over all life goals. Then, when the time is available, be careful to not waste it. You worked hard to get that time. It'd be a shame if it was spent on a temporary show you kinda like but won't remember watching come next year.
That's all I have for you today.
Good luck my fellow creative people!
Creation is awesome.
We love to dazzle the crowd with every brush stroke, every word, and every note. To the people who don't share our talents we look like wizards pulling genius moments out of star covered caps. To them, it seems as effortless and easy as breathing.
Oh how little they know.
You fellow artisans know about the suffocating pains between each brilliant moment. The times when we aren't wizards and the magic is simply out of reach. It is a terrible time when the world is either too busy, too stressful, or there is simply not enough inspiration there to allow for creation.
It is the pain of these times that makes the healing moments of creation so magical.
Yet, when you are stuck in a creation-less rut, how do we get back to doing what we love?
It's not simple, and every artist is as unique as their chosen medium. Yet here are a few things that might help should you find yourselves stuck.
Take A Risk
Artists are people who are already willing to experiment and take risks so I recommend trying different things to stimulate the creative well. Do something new. Go on a special vacation that allows you time to experience rather than just go through the motions. Or, take a "sick day" that allows you the time to go and find what normally inspires you.
Revisit What Works
This one requires a certain amount of self-awareness. Most artists can tell you about the moment of creation, but some find it hard to recall the moment before. The set of circumstances that sparked the creation in the first place. Go back in time. What inspired you to start last time? Was it observing people in the park? Playing with kids? Trying a new recipe? Something triggered the creativity. Find out what it was and then recreate those circumstances.
Find A Model
There is a saying in the artistic community. If you want to master your craft, you first need to learn about the masters. Read about them. Study them. Try to copy them. Learn how they did it. Even if historic figures didn't do exactly what you want to do; knowing how they did it and knowing what was good about it can give you focus for what it is that you want to do.
Make Time
I know this advice is worn out. It's annoying when people imply that you can pull more time out of hat with enough faith and belief. We all know simply wishing for more time does not put more minutes in a twenty-four hour day. What those people are really saying is that you can sacrifice your least needed things for this important thing. The reason why you don't hear people using those words is because telling people to give up something isn't a good selling pitch.
It is true though, that people don't always spend their time wisely. A little schedule reorganizing and reduction of wasted time, and you may find a spare hour you can dedicate to creation. If your schedule is simply too busy to allow for it, then maybe this is not the time of your life to create. However, I feel like if not creating is making life totally miserable, then it really is ok to change things up. Get a different job. Reduce the demands on your time. Put first in your schedule what matters the most to your over all life goals. Then, when the time is available, be careful to not waste it. You worked hard to get that time. It'd be a shame if it was spent on a temporary show you kinda like but won't remember watching come next year.
That's all I have for you today.
Good luck my fellow creative people!
Friday, September 25, 2015
Refocusing on Tiny Lifestyle and the Dangers of Stuff
Next to dreaming about the children's book I'm illustrating and the YA novel I'm perfecting, I love to dream about someday living in a tiny house.
The thing I love most about the tiny life style is the simple, freeing, economics. I am a single millennial who grew up in a home that promoted thrift. Since entering the adult sphere I've also learned that just because you have full-time work you are not guaranteed to do/buy whatever you want.
And I'd always believed my parents were saying "no" just for my moral character.
This, among other adult lessons I've been learning, is why the cheapness and freeing aspect of tiny house living is just so appealing to me. Anything that increases your capacity to save, while decreasing your financial stress has to be a good thing.
I'm not in a position to build a tiny house yet, but I do try to live the lifestyle in my apartment situations. This does not make me infallible though. If there is a lesson to be learned in my recent life, it's this. If you value security, then avoid environments that promote a "stuff culture."
The seductive allure for stuff came to me because I had moved into a stuff environment. When I first moved, I had a solid growing budget and the few belongings I managed to fit into my ancient Subaru was plenty for me. Then, I moved into the apartment. You'd expect a stuff oriented apartment to look like an episode of hoarders, this was not the case. This is was the other kind of stuff environment where possessions were few, but expectations and tastes were high. It was beautiful with matching furniture and designs that would make a fashionista drool. The smooth, clean appearances and alluring smell of candle wax made it seem like the perfect apartment. What I didn't know, was that beneath the fog of wax, lay a budget devouring serpent that demanded lavish offerings.
The culture of keeping up appearances is a stressful one. I knew I wasn't totally happy and that I couldn't jive with my roommate. In the end it really came down to a difference in values. As each month past, all the comments started to wear on me. Topics about appearances and the need to "look nice." Continual requests to be quiet when closing the toilet seat to avoid advertising the embarrassing fact that even girls use the toilet. How who owned the most stuff or more of the contract was used as a lobbying tool for apartment rules. Demands that all things bought for the apartment must be first approved by my roommate. The constant stress of needing to appear put together and upscale was making the apartment anything but. Underneath it all, was the glaring truth that it was just a facade that none of us could afford.
Not knowing any better, I tried to fit in. I hate black, but the Walmart black furniture was the only affordable kind that was easy to match. Normally, I would have trolled the thrift stores for wooden constructs from the 70's, but I had this indescribable need to "match" with the apartment. Maybe, I thought if I looked like I fit in, then I would feel comfortable there. I even bought candle wax because I was worried my room didn't smell as good as the rest of the house and I didn't want to smell obviously human. The hungry stuff serpent bit me every time I went grocery shopping. I had this unusual desire to buy things I could buy then, but not afford long term like candle holders, fancy mirrors, cardboard quotes, and other useless items that only served as decoration. My roommate once bought a cardboard quote for our bathroom when we had been without a trash can for a month. Why? This didn't make sense to me. I felt like I was in this limbo world where needs and wants were standing on their heads.
It took me four months to realize how much my roommates attitudes and anxieties were affecting my spending habits and personal sense of well-being. I have no other word for the environment, but toxic. It was like a really nice looking hell populated by gremlins who look like Jim Henson's stuff lady puppets from the Labyrinth.
Thankfully, the contract was loose enough that it was more of a month to month agreement. As soon as I heard there was a vacancy elsewhere I jumped for it. My roommate couldn't believe I was willing to risk my deposit and just leave rather than stay and wait until I could find a replacement. She couldn't understand how much my freedom from that place was worth more than the $200. That's how different our values were.
My new apartment is organized chaos. The furniture doesn't match, but we recently got a giant elbow leather couch for just $100. It's a little messy, but comfortable, and it doesn't stink of candle wax. Within one hour of moving in, I felt welcomed and at home.
The sudden move reminded me about how one of my goals this years was to NOT buy stuff. I wanted to always be able to move easily and the current amount of stuff I own just wouldn't allow for it. The two pieces of furniture I justify because I had always planned to discard it once I moved states again and/or built a tiny house. Had I not moved, I probably would now be broke and have three or four pieces of furniture. Since moving into my new apartment, this is the first time I'd even recalled needing bookshelves. Which I don't.
My point. Stuff is attractive and your environment will largely dictate how you react to the "need" for stuff. If you find yourself in an unhealthy environment that compels you to buy stuff you don't need or can't afford, it may be time to re-asses the issue. What needs to change? Is it a manipulative roommate? It is a family member who has an unhealthy attachment to getting things? Is it the people you hang out with, or the neighborhood you live in? I never want to be in a "keeping up with the Jones's" environment ever again. I don't know how people do that for years. Those four months were exhausting enough.
The thing I love most about the tiny life style is the simple, freeing, economics. I am a single millennial who grew up in a home that promoted thrift. Since entering the adult sphere I've also learned that just because you have full-time work you are not guaranteed to do/buy whatever you want.
And I'd always believed my parents were saying "no" just for my moral character.
This, among other adult lessons I've been learning, is why the cheapness and freeing aspect of tiny house living is just so appealing to me. Anything that increases your capacity to save, while decreasing your financial stress has to be a good thing.
I'm not in a position to build a tiny house yet, but I do try to live the lifestyle in my apartment situations. This does not make me infallible though. If there is a lesson to be learned in my recent life, it's this. If you value security, then avoid environments that promote a "stuff culture."
The seductive allure for stuff came to me because I had moved into a stuff environment. When I first moved, I had a solid growing budget and the few belongings I managed to fit into my ancient Subaru was plenty for me. Then, I moved into the apartment. You'd expect a stuff oriented apartment to look like an episode of hoarders, this was not the case. This is was the other kind of stuff environment where possessions were few, but expectations and tastes were high. It was beautiful with matching furniture and designs that would make a fashionista drool. The smooth, clean appearances and alluring smell of candle wax made it seem like the perfect apartment. What I didn't know, was that beneath the fog of wax, lay a budget devouring serpent that demanded lavish offerings.
The culture of keeping up appearances is a stressful one. I knew I wasn't totally happy and that I couldn't jive with my roommate. In the end it really came down to a difference in values. As each month past, all the comments started to wear on me. Topics about appearances and the need to "look nice." Continual requests to be quiet when closing the toilet seat to avoid advertising the embarrassing fact that even girls use the toilet. How who owned the most stuff or more of the contract was used as a lobbying tool for apartment rules. Demands that all things bought for the apartment must be first approved by my roommate. The constant stress of needing to appear put together and upscale was making the apartment anything but. Underneath it all, was the glaring truth that it was just a facade that none of us could afford.
Not knowing any better, I tried to fit in. I hate black, but the Walmart black furniture was the only affordable kind that was easy to match. Normally, I would have trolled the thrift stores for wooden constructs from the 70's, but I had this indescribable need to "match" with the apartment. Maybe, I thought if I looked like I fit in, then I would feel comfortable there. I even bought candle wax because I was worried my room didn't smell as good as the rest of the house and I didn't want to smell obviously human. The hungry stuff serpent bit me every time I went grocery shopping. I had this unusual desire to buy things I could buy then, but not afford long term like candle holders, fancy mirrors, cardboard quotes, and other useless items that only served as decoration. My roommate once bought a cardboard quote for our bathroom when we had been without a trash can for a month. Why? This didn't make sense to me. I felt like I was in this limbo world where needs and wants were standing on their heads.
It took me four months to realize how much my roommates attitudes and anxieties were affecting my spending habits and personal sense of well-being. I have no other word for the environment, but toxic. It was like a really nice looking hell populated by gremlins who look like Jim Henson's stuff lady puppets from the Labyrinth.
Thankfully, the contract was loose enough that it was more of a month to month agreement. As soon as I heard there was a vacancy elsewhere I jumped for it. My roommate couldn't believe I was willing to risk my deposit and just leave rather than stay and wait until I could find a replacement. She couldn't understand how much my freedom from that place was worth more than the $200. That's how different our values were.
My new apartment is organized chaos. The furniture doesn't match, but we recently got a giant elbow leather couch for just $100. It's a little messy, but comfortable, and it doesn't stink of candle wax. Within one hour of moving in, I felt welcomed and at home.
The sudden move reminded me about how one of my goals this years was to NOT buy stuff. I wanted to always be able to move easily and the current amount of stuff I own just wouldn't allow for it. The two pieces of furniture I justify because I had always planned to discard it once I moved states again and/or built a tiny house. Had I not moved, I probably would now be broke and have three or four pieces of furniture. Since moving into my new apartment, this is the first time I'd even recalled needing bookshelves. Which I don't.
My point. Stuff is attractive and your environment will largely dictate how you react to the "need" for stuff. If you find yourself in an unhealthy environment that compels you to buy stuff you don't need or can't afford, it may be time to re-asses the issue. What needs to change? Is it a manipulative roommate? It is a family member who has an unhealthy attachment to getting things? Is it the people you hang out with, or the neighborhood you live in? I never want to be in a "keeping up with the Jones's" environment ever again. I don't know how people do that for years. Those four months were exhausting enough.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Discussing Living Tiny with the Rest of the World
I think I did know somewhere in my subconscious that not everyone would agree with my idea of tiny living. I just hadn't realized how passionate and opinionated some people could be about it. So far, when I talk about leading a life in a tiny house I get one of four reactions.
First and most rare, the supporter. These ones are as excited and knowledgeable about the subject as I am. They clearly see the benefits, universal applications, and efficiency of the idea even if they don't necessarily want to live that way themselves.
Second, the slightly confused and repulsed. Particularly when I tell them about composting toilets. They just cannot imagine living that way without some revulsion. They also have a hard time understanding why an RV just isn't the same thing as a tiny house trailer.
Third, the brick wall. These ones are stoically against the idea and are willing to assure me with great feeling that I would not actually like living that lifestyle. They are certain that if I were to really try it that I would find out that it was both uncomfortable and unlivable. They also tend to laugh and shake their heads like egotistic college professors do when they hear an opinion from a seemingly naive student.
Fourth, the refuter. This person isn't really interested in hearing about the benefits. They've already decided that their are none and they are going to do their best to scare you out of the idea by listing everything that could possibly go wrong. What about parking laws? Where are you going to put everything? How will you be able to entertain company? What about your poor dog? What if you have kids and they become *gasp* teenagers?
If you find yourself dealing with some of these kinds of people. This is my advice.
To the first group. Welcome them. Embrace them. Make sure you have their numbers or at least Facebook them. They often will come across ideas you haven't heard yet that are perfect for incorporating into your tiny lifestyle. They will also give you inspiration and the peer affirmation to continue believing in the lifestyle you've already decided is pretty good.
To the second group. These are good people, they're just feeling a little out of their depth when you start debating about the pros and cons between composting and incinerating your feces. Instead, bring the discussion into their home court. Talk about organizing. Talk about money saving. Talk about downsizing and all of its benefits. Depending on the person, you'll more than likely find a topic you both agree on and be able to expand from there. Who knows. Maybe you'll convert them to group one. No promises, but support in some aspects is always a good thing.
To the third group. Don't waste energy desperately trying to convince them that you aren't the naive adult they've already decided you are. They've either had too much life experience or too many opinions under their belts to make room for ideas that go against their perspectives. They often don't realize that they are projecting their miseries onto your life and therefore can't see how unfair they are being. Since most of them are well-meaning in their warnings, take what they say with caution and a cup of salt. But don't let their energy sucking go on for too long. You could be convinced that you'll be stuck penniless on a highway and sharing a meal of roasted roadkill with a drifter called Screws.
Finally, to the fourth group. These are possibly the worst energy suckers of them all. Realize that they aren't actually interested in how you're going to solve all their concerns about your life. So instead of scrambling to find ways to make a perfect lifestyle that will simultaneously end world hunger, take a breath. It's not their life, it's yours. No life comes without bumps or some sacrifices. Just remember that you've decided that the benefits outweigh these problems and that hundreds are finding satisfaction around the country. If some of their concerns actually do have you rethinking living tiny, then be sure you make the choice out of love and not fear.
These people never really go away. They are going to be present in every major life decision you make. Enjoy it. Laugh about it. Cry about it. Just always remember, it's your life. It's your decision.
First and most rare, the supporter. These ones are as excited and knowledgeable about the subject as I am. They clearly see the benefits, universal applications, and efficiency of the idea even if they don't necessarily want to live that way themselves.
Second, the slightly confused and repulsed. Particularly when I tell them about composting toilets. They just cannot imagine living that way without some revulsion. They also have a hard time understanding why an RV just isn't the same thing as a tiny house trailer.
Third, the brick wall. These ones are stoically against the idea and are willing to assure me with great feeling that I would not actually like living that lifestyle. They are certain that if I were to really try it that I would find out that it was both uncomfortable and unlivable. They also tend to laugh and shake their heads like egotistic college professors do when they hear an opinion from a seemingly naive student.
Fourth, the refuter. This person isn't really interested in hearing about the benefits. They've already decided that their are none and they are going to do their best to scare you out of the idea by listing everything that could possibly go wrong. What about parking laws? Where are you going to put everything? How will you be able to entertain company? What about your poor dog? What if you have kids and they become *gasp* teenagers?
If you find yourself dealing with some of these kinds of people. This is my advice.
To the first group. Welcome them. Embrace them. Make sure you have their numbers or at least Facebook them. They often will come across ideas you haven't heard yet that are perfect for incorporating into your tiny lifestyle. They will also give you inspiration and the peer affirmation to continue believing in the lifestyle you've already decided is pretty good.
To the second group. These are good people, they're just feeling a little out of their depth when you start debating about the pros and cons between composting and incinerating your feces. Instead, bring the discussion into their home court. Talk about organizing. Talk about money saving. Talk about downsizing and all of its benefits. Depending on the person, you'll more than likely find a topic you both agree on and be able to expand from there. Who knows. Maybe you'll convert them to group one. No promises, but support in some aspects is always a good thing.
To the third group. Don't waste energy desperately trying to convince them that you aren't the naive adult they've already decided you are. They've either had too much life experience or too many opinions under their belts to make room for ideas that go against their perspectives. They often don't realize that they are projecting their miseries onto your life and therefore can't see how unfair they are being. Since most of them are well-meaning in their warnings, take what they say with caution and a cup of salt. But don't let their energy sucking go on for too long. You could be convinced that you'll be stuck penniless on a highway and sharing a meal of roasted roadkill with a drifter called Screws.
Finally, to the fourth group. These are possibly the worst energy suckers of them all. Realize that they aren't actually interested in how you're going to solve all their concerns about your life. So instead of scrambling to find ways to make a perfect lifestyle that will simultaneously end world hunger, take a breath. It's not their life, it's yours. No life comes without bumps or some sacrifices. Just remember that you've decided that the benefits outweigh these problems and that hundreds are finding satisfaction around the country. If some of their concerns actually do have you rethinking living tiny, then be sure you make the choice out of love and not fear.
These people never really go away. They are going to be present in every major life decision you make. Enjoy it. Laugh about it. Cry about it. Just always remember, it's your life. It's your decision.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Apr 7th 2015 Considering Faithful Protestors
Let's face it. We in America live in an age where the underdog feels the most entitled to victory. If you feel like the guy at Starbucks deprived you of a couple ounces of foam, you are entitled to a lawsuit. If you feel like a system doesn't give you a fair shake, you have the right to make it known to the world. Which is great in most cases and even expected. America has a long standing tradition of protests and freedom fighters and some of them have done a lot of good. However, there are cases where such actions do not make much sense until you look at it a little more in depth.
In the last couple of years there has been an increase in news about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the member protestors who disagree with some actions of the church. In discussions with such protestors, I can understand how they get to the opinions they have and have sympathy for what they are thinking and feeling. I may not agree with them, but I can have empathy for them and understand the path that lead them to where they are. I can even follow the reasoning behind why they think it's ok to storm certain inappropriate venues so that their voices can be heard. What I don't understand, is how they so thoroughly blurred politics with religion.
In politics, it is essential that all voices be heard where ever they can. Protests are a natural side-effect of people trying to find common ground with those with differing opinions. We live in a land that is governed by one body and as long as we live on this soil claimed by that government we all have to follow that governments rules (i.e. taxes). Therefore, such actions are expected and necessary as a matter of course to make sure nobody is unduly repressed.
Religion is different. In religion, you either agree with and do your best to march in step with the leaders of your chosen church, or you don't actually want to be a part of that religion and you are free to leave. It's that simple. It's a choice. Welcome to America. You can live in the same house, have the same job, and be a part of any religion or no religion and it doesn't really affect your mortal life that much. If you like most aspects of a religion, but find some things fundamentally wrong with it, you either find a new one or create one that is tailored to your individual desires. This is where church's usually divide and new organizations spring up. Last I checked, it only takes six people to create a new religion in America. Yet, this is not the route the protestors have chosen. Instead they are employing political tactics of marching, sign carrying, and shouted outbursts during meetings. Why?
This is where I think I understand the protesters better than they understand themselves. Logically, it would be much simpler for dissenting LDS members of like minded opinions to gather themselves into a body and separate from the church as a whole and form their own church. They won't, because emotionally they know they'd loose too much if they did. Besides obviously loosing millions of people who believe their church was founded by God himself, they'd suddenly find themselves not among the largest bodies of Christian faithful, they would be without a prophet, they wouldn't have any buildings, institutions, or missionaries and may loose contact with many friends and family members. They would essentially have to start from scratch which would be a lot of hard work. Also, if you've deeply associated yourself with a religion long enough to connect right and truth and good with being a member of that church, but you suddenly find yourself in disagreement with it, what do you have left? If you leave, are you suddenly not good anymore? This, of course is wrong because goodness isn't exclusively religious. So these good people suddenly find themselves in a limbo world where they want to be a part of the church, but a part of them nags with increasing intensity that a part of that same church is wrong and must be fixed. When it feels like bishops or stake presidents don't handle your feelings seriously, you may feel boxed into a tight corner where the only option is to protest. It's not, but I can see why people would feel that way.
My point is that disagreements and spiritual upheavals happen all of the time and in every ward in our church. Most of them can be handle through personal study, prayer, temple attendance, and if necessary a trip to the Bishop. In the church, you don't have to go to the highest authority to get your spiritual needs met because your local leaders are acting by the prophets authority. It would be impossible for twelve guys to meet personally with every member as often as the members need council. Moses learned that from his father-in-law. Are these leaders perfect? No, but they do their best which is all any human being can ask of another. Along those same lines, all policies, procedures, and actions start at the very top. God says jump, then the prophet says jump, then the twelve say jump, then the seventy, say jump, then the stake presidents say jump, then the bishops say jump, then the teachers say jump. It's that simple. Same message, same line of authority.
This church is a hierarchy with God as the king, but it also has democratic workings threaded perfectly throughout the system. We vote, but we can't vote God or the prophet out of the system. The vote is so that the leaders know who has questions, who needs extra guidance, and rarely who knows something that makes a leader unworthy for his calling. It happens, but very rarely. I find that most people get into the trouble when they over-complicate the message or when they cross wires with "rights" and God's will. Many times the leaders have said that we tailor ourselves to God, not the other way around. So why are so many people convinced that protesting and telling the leaders to tailor gospel to what they personally believe will ever work? We don't follow scripture according to the interpretation of John from Australia. We've always followed it by the direction of God through his prophets and apostles. This is what fundamentally make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints earn that title. So why do protestors believe this will ever change?
Believe me, I'd rather people would keep their voiced dissenting opinions out of General Conference and took their questions to the Lord and their leaders. If still unsatisfied, then I'd rather they'd leave the church until they've figured out what's bothering them so much and we remain friends than to have protestors rudely disturb sacred moments for people who do believe and have deep feelings about our meetings. It's like having your annoying cousin crash your dad's funeral with obnoxious political debates. There's a time and a place. And personally, I feel like if you're trying to single handedly change the minds of thousands of people, you'd rather be their respectful relative than the obnoxious one. Bees and honey and all that.
In the last couple of years there has been an increase in news about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the member protestors who disagree with some actions of the church. In discussions with such protestors, I can understand how they get to the opinions they have and have sympathy for what they are thinking and feeling. I may not agree with them, but I can have empathy for them and understand the path that lead them to where they are. I can even follow the reasoning behind why they think it's ok to storm certain inappropriate venues so that their voices can be heard. What I don't understand, is how they so thoroughly blurred politics with religion.
In politics, it is essential that all voices be heard where ever they can. Protests are a natural side-effect of people trying to find common ground with those with differing opinions. We live in a land that is governed by one body and as long as we live on this soil claimed by that government we all have to follow that governments rules (i.e. taxes). Therefore, such actions are expected and necessary as a matter of course to make sure nobody is unduly repressed.
Religion is different. In religion, you either agree with and do your best to march in step with the leaders of your chosen church, or you don't actually want to be a part of that religion and you are free to leave. It's that simple. It's a choice. Welcome to America. You can live in the same house, have the same job, and be a part of any religion or no religion and it doesn't really affect your mortal life that much. If you like most aspects of a religion, but find some things fundamentally wrong with it, you either find a new one or create one that is tailored to your individual desires. This is where church's usually divide and new organizations spring up. Last I checked, it only takes six people to create a new religion in America. Yet, this is not the route the protestors have chosen. Instead they are employing political tactics of marching, sign carrying, and shouted outbursts during meetings. Why?
This is where I think I understand the protesters better than they understand themselves. Logically, it would be much simpler for dissenting LDS members of like minded opinions to gather themselves into a body and separate from the church as a whole and form their own church. They won't, because emotionally they know they'd loose too much if they did. Besides obviously loosing millions of people who believe their church was founded by God himself, they'd suddenly find themselves not among the largest bodies of Christian faithful, they would be without a prophet, they wouldn't have any buildings, institutions, or missionaries and may loose contact with many friends and family members. They would essentially have to start from scratch which would be a lot of hard work. Also, if you've deeply associated yourself with a religion long enough to connect right and truth and good with being a member of that church, but you suddenly find yourself in disagreement with it, what do you have left? If you leave, are you suddenly not good anymore? This, of course is wrong because goodness isn't exclusively religious. So these good people suddenly find themselves in a limbo world where they want to be a part of the church, but a part of them nags with increasing intensity that a part of that same church is wrong and must be fixed. When it feels like bishops or stake presidents don't handle your feelings seriously, you may feel boxed into a tight corner where the only option is to protest. It's not, but I can see why people would feel that way.
My point is that disagreements and spiritual upheavals happen all of the time and in every ward in our church. Most of them can be handle through personal study, prayer, temple attendance, and if necessary a trip to the Bishop. In the church, you don't have to go to the highest authority to get your spiritual needs met because your local leaders are acting by the prophets authority. It would be impossible for twelve guys to meet personally with every member as often as the members need council. Moses learned that from his father-in-law. Are these leaders perfect? No, but they do their best which is all any human being can ask of another. Along those same lines, all policies, procedures, and actions start at the very top. God says jump, then the prophet says jump, then the twelve say jump, then the seventy, say jump, then the stake presidents say jump, then the bishops say jump, then the teachers say jump. It's that simple. Same message, same line of authority.
This church is a hierarchy with God as the king, but it also has democratic workings threaded perfectly throughout the system. We vote, but we can't vote God or the prophet out of the system. The vote is so that the leaders know who has questions, who needs extra guidance, and rarely who knows something that makes a leader unworthy for his calling. It happens, but very rarely. I find that most people get into the trouble when they over-complicate the message or when they cross wires with "rights" and God's will. Many times the leaders have said that we tailor ourselves to God, not the other way around. So why are so many people convinced that protesting and telling the leaders to tailor gospel to what they personally believe will ever work? We don't follow scripture according to the interpretation of John from Australia. We've always followed it by the direction of God through his prophets and apostles. This is what fundamentally make the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints earn that title. So why do protestors believe this will ever change?
Believe me, I'd rather people would keep their voiced dissenting opinions out of General Conference and took their questions to the Lord and their leaders. If still unsatisfied, then I'd rather they'd leave the church until they've figured out what's bothering them so much and we remain friends than to have protestors rudely disturb sacred moments for people who do believe and have deep feelings about our meetings. It's like having your annoying cousin crash your dad's funeral with obnoxious political debates. There's a time and a place. And personally, I feel like if you're trying to single handedly change the minds of thousands of people, you'd rather be their respectful relative than the obnoxious one. Bees and honey and all that.
Mar 30 2015 God's Not Dead a Netflix Review
I've heard whispers of this film and now it has finally made it onto Netflix. When I first started it my mother showed signs of concern that this would be a bible bashing, faith rending movie. I am happy to say that it is not a bible bashing movie. Instead, it is a movie that delivers exactly what every peace loving Christian has always wanted to see, the absolutely logical and nearly irrefutable smack down of antitheism. AKA, the day Christians weren't intellectually ground down into humiliating dust for believing in God.
So, without further ado, this is God's Not Dead......and there will be spoilers, duh.
What do I have to say about this movie? Despite my problems with it, I really enjoyed it. The main characters have decent acting and are strengthened by a story line that is surprisingly intriguing and more open philosophy-wise than you usually see in a Christian movie. They even kept the miracle factor to simple engine trouble. All in all, it's a movie that's intended to make you think and when you take it like that, you'll leave pretty happy.
In the movie you follow several story lines that circle the main dilemma of a Christian freshman college student with dreams of going into law. He suddenly finds himself facing down his philosophy teacher who basically says, "If you do not deny your faith for the purpose of opening your mind to my lectures you will not pass my class." Jerk. Yet, we've all heard several versions of this story before both fact and fictionally and we're excited for the smack down that's about to happen anyway.
Even though it is pointed out early that our hero could rearrange his entire schedule and avoid the teachers class, pass with good grades, and keep his girlfriend happy, our hero instead decides to take on the dragon that is Professor Radisson because he feels that God would want him to. The rather overly hostile professor challenges our hero, Josh Wheaton, to present before the class three twenty minute lectures to prove that God isn't dead, by which time if the class isn't convinced, Josh would fail and his dreams of law school would run dry. Super nice of this cocky professor to give the kid time to prepare and three whole chances to save his future.
Josh's presentations absolutely blew my mind. If the professor wasn't drawn as such an egotist, he might have given the kid an 'A' just for the professional effort. Seriously, it was bordering unbelievable. I mean, I know they have several scenes of him going through the library and even worrying about being able to keep up with his other classes because of this challenge, but come on. The guy is like a golden freshman. He pulled off three well researched and quality debates in under a week. The way he was presenting the arguments you would think he had started taking debate classes when he was in kindergarten. Not to mention advanced presentation skills with serious graphic design that most seniors would need a month to put together. Seriously, did this kid even sleep between the three class periods?
The main case of arguments between Christian and atheist beliefs are smart, balanced, well researched, and come with a broad range of references from credible sources. Thereby, in the end, leaving the audience free to decide for themselves whether or not God is actually dead. Though every other part of the movie screams "God is real!" the main part of the story surrounding the debates at least leaves it up to choice and leaves Christians feeling like they've been finally fairly heard. The debates feature the kind of dream arguments you wish could happen in real life where each side is represented fairly and nobody is interrupted or shouted down. True to character, the professor was overly aggressive in his counter arguments, but even he stayed well behaved enough for each argument to be presented fully. I'm glad the writers chose to give his character very strong rebuttals because that just made the whole thing feel a lot richer. These arguments, by far, were my favorite part of the movie. Unrealistic in presentation, but still awesome in and of themselves.
There's a few side stories and these were my least favorite. First annoyance was the fact that you had two characters who could have been twin sisters. It made it hard to tell who you were looking at in the movie. One was named Aiysha, a former Muslim who had been hiding her conversion to Christianity for over a year and eventually becomes a possible love interest for Josh. The other awkward character, Mina, had the wonderful role of being the young Christian student who was dating the seriously old looking in comparison Professor Radisson. Three kinds of wrong right there. Both women have long dark hair, almond eyes, eastern skin tones, slim forms, and similar fashion senses and make up trends. Unless they were in the same shot, which they never were, it was really hard to tell them apart and that muddled the story for me a bit. Another side character, red head Amy Ryan, had a well played side story, but it was more of a nice filler that illustrated an old Christian trope than was strictly necessary to the plot. Her jerk ex-boyfriend Mark had a similar problem with his story, but the part where his sick mother suddenly had a moment of clear thinking and told him off for his wicked perspective was pretty cool.
Pet peeve number two, the non-supportive girlfriend. For writing that was otherwise really strong, I'm amazed they wrote her character the way they did. Her sole purpose for existing was to create the classic love or God dilemma that felt as cheesy as most Christian movies are. As if publicly putting deeply personal feelings about faith on the line while your "respectable" professor eviscerated and threatened your academic future wasn't reason enough for Josh to feel conflicted about it, they had to add this charming character. I'm glad they bluntly told us about how they'd been together for six years, because that was all the chemistry these two had. Putting aside my personal feeling about starting romantic relationships at the ripe old age of twelve (assuming that like most freshmen, they are currently 18) knowing this fact actually helps me to believe her reactions a bit more. As anyone who has officially achieved adulthood will tell you, teenagers are incredibly self-focused. So having a girlfriend telling her guy that it's her way or the high way isn't that far fetched, but having a professed Christian girl tell her Christian guy that standing up for God isn't worth risking a wealthy future and then dumping him for it is too Tele Novela. They even threw in a, "My mother was right about you!" line. Her entire character was about manipulative control and selfish gain. Really dumb and really cliché. In other words, totally not necessary.
Pet peeve number three and the biggest spoiler, the professor dies. Before he can die though, he has a quick series of events that rapidly melts his god-hating heart. Talk about convenient. You have a change of heart and then don't live long enough for it to make a real worldly difference? How is this powerful or even a good thing? I know I've said he was a jerk throughout this review, but he was still a likable and believable character with mostly good lines and good acting. Except the elevator scene. That was just extremely awkward. Still, after building the whole movie up on the idea that he was a former Christian which makes him the worst kind of atheist, it could be easily said that he last minute converted precisely because he was distressed and in pain. He'd just lost the debate to a freshman, his Christian girlfriend had rightly dumped him in front of his colleagues because it turns out he's a jerk to everyone, he was revisiting old feelings about his mom dying, and then he gets' hit by a freaking hit and run car. The fact that it was raining just added salt to the injuries this guy was going through, though maybe the director was going for a weird symbolic rebaptism thing, who can say. Anyway, to me, it would have been far more powerful for him to live with the change rather than conveniently die right after. However, on the other hand if he dies then he can't fail our hero. Choices, choices.
If you don't mind over the top girlfriends and awkward Duck Dynasty cameos, it's not a bad Sunday movie and will leave Christians with little glowing fuzzies once you're done. Cuz, who doesn't like a good old theology smack down where the Christians actually win? Not the best movie, but not really deserving of the really low scores either.
So, without further ado, this is God's Not Dead......and there will be spoilers, duh.
What do I have to say about this movie? Despite my problems with it, I really enjoyed it. The main characters have decent acting and are strengthened by a story line that is surprisingly intriguing and more open philosophy-wise than you usually see in a Christian movie. They even kept the miracle factor to simple engine trouble. All in all, it's a movie that's intended to make you think and when you take it like that, you'll leave pretty happy.
In the movie you follow several story lines that circle the main dilemma of a Christian freshman college student with dreams of going into law. He suddenly finds himself facing down his philosophy teacher who basically says, "If you do not deny your faith for the purpose of opening your mind to my lectures you will not pass my class." Jerk. Yet, we've all heard several versions of this story before both fact and fictionally and we're excited for the smack down that's about to happen anyway.
Even though it is pointed out early that our hero could rearrange his entire schedule and avoid the teachers class, pass with good grades, and keep his girlfriend happy, our hero instead decides to take on the dragon that is Professor Radisson because he feels that God would want him to. The rather overly hostile professor challenges our hero, Josh Wheaton, to present before the class three twenty minute lectures to prove that God isn't dead, by which time if the class isn't convinced, Josh would fail and his dreams of law school would run dry. Super nice of this cocky professor to give the kid time to prepare and three whole chances to save his future.
Josh's presentations absolutely blew my mind. If the professor wasn't drawn as such an egotist, he might have given the kid an 'A' just for the professional effort. Seriously, it was bordering unbelievable. I mean, I know they have several scenes of him going through the library and even worrying about being able to keep up with his other classes because of this challenge, but come on. The guy is like a golden freshman. He pulled off three well researched and quality debates in under a week. The way he was presenting the arguments you would think he had started taking debate classes when he was in kindergarten. Not to mention advanced presentation skills with serious graphic design that most seniors would need a month to put together. Seriously, did this kid even sleep between the three class periods?
The main case of arguments between Christian and atheist beliefs are smart, balanced, well researched, and come with a broad range of references from credible sources. Thereby, in the end, leaving the audience free to decide for themselves whether or not God is actually dead. Though every other part of the movie screams "God is real!" the main part of the story surrounding the debates at least leaves it up to choice and leaves Christians feeling like they've been finally fairly heard. The debates feature the kind of dream arguments you wish could happen in real life where each side is represented fairly and nobody is interrupted or shouted down. True to character, the professor was overly aggressive in his counter arguments, but even he stayed well behaved enough for each argument to be presented fully. I'm glad the writers chose to give his character very strong rebuttals because that just made the whole thing feel a lot richer. These arguments, by far, were my favorite part of the movie. Unrealistic in presentation, but still awesome in and of themselves.
There's a few side stories and these were my least favorite. First annoyance was the fact that you had two characters who could have been twin sisters. It made it hard to tell who you were looking at in the movie. One was named Aiysha, a former Muslim who had been hiding her conversion to Christianity for over a year and eventually becomes a possible love interest for Josh. The other awkward character, Mina, had the wonderful role of being the young Christian student who was dating the seriously old looking in comparison Professor Radisson. Three kinds of wrong right there. Both women have long dark hair, almond eyes, eastern skin tones, slim forms, and similar fashion senses and make up trends. Unless they were in the same shot, which they never were, it was really hard to tell them apart and that muddled the story for me a bit. Another side character, red head Amy Ryan, had a well played side story, but it was more of a nice filler that illustrated an old Christian trope than was strictly necessary to the plot. Her jerk ex-boyfriend Mark had a similar problem with his story, but the part where his sick mother suddenly had a moment of clear thinking and told him off for his wicked perspective was pretty cool.
Pet peeve number two, the non-supportive girlfriend. For writing that was otherwise really strong, I'm amazed they wrote her character the way they did. Her sole purpose for existing was to create the classic love or God dilemma that felt as cheesy as most Christian movies are. As if publicly putting deeply personal feelings about faith on the line while your "respectable" professor eviscerated and threatened your academic future wasn't reason enough for Josh to feel conflicted about it, they had to add this charming character. I'm glad they bluntly told us about how they'd been together for six years, because that was all the chemistry these two had. Putting aside my personal feeling about starting romantic relationships at the ripe old age of twelve (assuming that like most freshmen, they are currently 18) knowing this fact actually helps me to believe her reactions a bit more. As anyone who has officially achieved adulthood will tell you, teenagers are incredibly self-focused. So having a girlfriend telling her guy that it's her way or the high way isn't that far fetched, but having a professed Christian girl tell her Christian guy that standing up for God isn't worth risking a wealthy future and then dumping him for it is too Tele Novela. They even threw in a, "My mother was right about you!" line. Her entire character was about manipulative control and selfish gain. Really dumb and really cliché. In other words, totally not necessary.
Pet peeve number three and the biggest spoiler, the professor dies. Before he can die though, he has a quick series of events that rapidly melts his god-hating heart. Talk about convenient. You have a change of heart and then don't live long enough for it to make a real worldly difference? How is this powerful or even a good thing? I know I've said he was a jerk throughout this review, but he was still a likable and believable character with mostly good lines and good acting. Except the elevator scene. That was just extremely awkward. Still, after building the whole movie up on the idea that he was a former Christian which makes him the worst kind of atheist, it could be easily said that he last minute converted precisely because he was distressed and in pain. He'd just lost the debate to a freshman, his Christian girlfriend had rightly dumped him in front of his colleagues because it turns out he's a jerk to everyone, he was revisiting old feelings about his mom dying, and then he gets' hit by a freaking hit and run car. The fact that it was raining just added salt to the injuries this guy was going through, though maybe the director was going for a weird symbolic rebaptism thing, who can say. Anyway, to me, it would have been far more powerful for him to live with the change rather than conveniently die right after. However, on the other hand if he dies then he can't fail our hero. Choices, choices.
If you don't mind over the top girlfriends and awkward Duck Dynasty cameos, it's not a bad Sunday movie and will leave Christians with little glowing fuzzies once you're done. Cuz, who doesn't like a good old theology smack down where the Christians actually win? Not the best movie, but not really deserving of the really low scores either.
Jul 26th 2014 Reaping the Seeds of "Twilight" aka Why a Movie Called "50 Shades of Grey" is Exactly What We Deserve
(Editor's note: I will not be including excerpts or gross allusions in this critique. Your choice to ingest it elsewhere, my choice to keep it out.)
The only reason I am taking this on (because I could have honestly gone my whole life without acknowledging this books' existence) is because everybody seemed really concerned about it, but not necessarily for all the right reasons. Good and moral reasons to be sure, but let me paint for you the true travesty that books such as Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey have brought upon the literary world.
In 2005, Stephanie Meyer released her first installment of the Twilight series. Featuring a young malleable female protagonist whom, "all girls could relate to because she is so blank" and a young looking old vampire with stalking tendencies as this vampire will casually lets himself into her room, at night, while she's sleeping, and without her permission. The story started the engine in 50 Shades of Grey author, E. L. James' mind that created the now well known conflicted relationship between Christian, a millionaire, a victim, and an abuser, and Anastasia, yet another somewhat blank in easily molded female character.
Stephanie Meyer started Twilight with some good and moral intentions that she managed to keep. She wanted to make it a big deal that Bella and Edward had a pure love because they did not have sex until after marriage, however, her book failed to carry this message to the world at large. All anyone seemed to care about was the sexual tension in the series.
The soft pornographic nature and the possessive style relationships featured in this series combined with a young impressionable fan base that accepted it as credible mainstream material gave this work unprecedented power for the wrong reasons. Young girls were swooning at the idea of being wanted so much by powerful hot vampires and young boys were trying to figure out how they could emulate those vampires so they could attract the girls they liked. Scary right?
In short, Twilight became a series that didn't quite carry the message that its author wanted because of the louder sensational elements of the book. It is a tragedy when the author can't keep an audience focused on their point.
50 Shades of Grey, originally inspired by Twilight, also had a good premise.
Don't stop reading. Hear me out. The story is rubbish, but the premise isn't. At it's core, all it is, is Beauty and the Beast all over again.
The story does deal with certain human truths which is what we do want in our literature. Like most abusers, the male protagonist was abused as a child and perpetuates that abuse in his future relationships. This does happen in the world. It doesn't have to be discussed explicitly, but it does happen and it is a topic that can and should be discussed in some literature. Our female protagonist even becomes the hero by exercising an old trope where the pure virgin tames the brute and turns him into a well adjusted human being and defeats his abuser in the process. She doesn't manage to stay a virgin, but it's still based on that trope. It's a very Faustian story at it's core and there is a story there that can be told well.
However, like I said, only the premise in 50 Shades of Grey is a great idea. The topic of having an abused underdog overcoming the cycle of abuse is totally a story worth having.
Yet, this book, just like Twilight, has way to much in it that distracts from that potential message and I can honestly say that the author never intended to focus on anything moral at all. The only acknowledged theme here is sex, sex, sex, and more sex. Yet another great opportunity is lost in the literary world for a real story to be brought to light and relished. Sex can be a theme if it shows how it affects society, history, human psychology etc. Otherwise its just a thing people do. No meaning whatsoever.
This is horrible to those of us who seek out books to discover new perspectives and meaning in a chaotic world. Instead we're being drowned in sensationalist garbage that means absolutely nothing. Where are the philosophers? Where is Socrates, Shakespeare, Milton, and the unknown authors of Beowulf? Where is Ernest Hemingway, Harper Lee, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, or Thomas Jefferson? Where is Gandalf for crying out loud! Books aren't just about entertainment, they're about presenting new perspectives on timeless ideas in this multifaceted world of ours. Trash books like these make us forget that.
Worse, people who don't take the time to read good literature and discuss it make us forget that.
We only have our illiterate selves to blame that books like these gain more conversation than Paradise Lost, because we decided long ago as a society that big old books are just too hard to understand.
I've always said that a true story teller can engage a large audience without having to fall back on shock factors like foulness, sex, or depravity. A genius, can keep an audience focused on a toothbrush for an hour without falling back on those easy paths.
This is the discussion that should be happening concerning this movie that's coming out. Let's talk about abuse. Let's talk about women's and men's rights. Let's talk about real relationships. Most of all let's beg the story tellers to give us more then sensation. Give us truth. Give us universal, deep meaning about the world and a new creative way on how to perceive it.
Only then will be able to regain some humanity in our words.
The only reason I am taking this on (because I could have honestly gone my whole life without acknowledging this books' existence) is because everybody seemed really concerned about it, but not necessarily for all the right reasons. Good and moral reasons to be sure, but let me paint for you the true travesty that books such as Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey have brought upon the literary world.
In 2005, Stephanie Meyer released her first installment of the Twilight series. Featuring a young malleable female protagonist whom, "all girls could relate to because she is so blank" and a young looking old vampire with stalking tendencies as this vampire will casually lets himself into her room, at night, while she's sleeping, and without her permission. The story started the engine in 50 Shades of Grey author, E. L. James' mind that created the now well known conflicted relationship between Christian, a millionaire, a victim, and an abuser, and Anastasia, yet another somewhat blank in easily molded female character.
Stephanie Meyer started Twilight with some good and moral intentions that she managed to keep. She wanted to make it a big deal that Bella and Edward had a pure love because they did not have sex until after marriage, however, her book failed to carry this message to the world at large. All anyone seemed to care about was the sexual tension in the series.
The soft pornographic nature and the possessive style relationships featured in this series combined with a young impressionable fan base that accepted it as credible mainstream material gave this work unprecedented power for the wrong reasons. Young girls were swooning at the idea of being wanted so much by powerful hot vampires and young boys were trying to figure out how they could emulate those vampires so they could attract the girls they liked. Scary right?
In short, Twilight became a series that didn't quite carry the message that its author wanted because of the louder sensational elements of the book. It is a tragedy when the author can't keep an audience focused on their point.
50 Shades of Grey, originally inspired by Twilight, also had a good premise.
Don't stop reading. Hear me out. The story is rubbish, but the premise isn't. At it's core, all it is, is Beauty and the Beast all over again.
The story does deal with certain human truths which is what we do want in our literature. Like most abusers, the male protagonist was abused as a child and perpetuates that abuse in his future relationships. This does happen in the world. It doesn't have to be discussed explicitly, but it does happen and it is a topic that can and should be discussed in some literature. Our female protagonist even becomes the hero by exercising an old trope where the pure virgin tames the brute and turns him into a well adjusted human being and defeats his abuser in the process. She doesn't manage to stay a virgin, but it's still based on that trope. It's a very Faustian story at it's core and there is a story there that can be told well.
However, like I said, only the premise in 50 Shades of Grey is a great idea. The topic of having an abused underdog overcoming the cycle of abuse is totally a story worth having.
Yet, this book, just like Twilight, has way to much in it that distracts from that potential message and I can honestly say that the author never intended to focus on anything moral at all. The only acknowledged theme here is sex, sex, sex, and more sex. Yet another great opportunity is lost in the literary world for a real story to be brought to light and relished. Sex can be a theme if it shows how it affects society, history, human psychology etc. Otherwise its just a thing people do. No meaning whatsoever.
This is horrible to those of us who seek out books to discover new perspectives and meaning in a chaotic world. Instead we're being drowned in sensationalist garbage that means absolutely nothing. Where are the philosophers? Where is Socrates, Shakespeare, Milton, and the unknown authors of Beowulf? Where is Ernest Hemingway, Harper Lee, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, or Thomas Jefferson? Where is Gandalf for crying out loud! Books aren't just about entertainment, they're about presenting new perspectives on timeless ideas in this multifaceted world of ours. Trash books like these make us forget that.
Worse, people who don't take the time to read good literature and discuss it make us forget that.
We only have our illiterate selves to blame that books like these gain more conversation than Paradise Lost, because we decided long ago as a society that big old books are just too hard to understand.
I've always said that a true story teller can engage a large audience without having to fall back on shock factors like foulness, sex, or depravity. A genius, can keep an audience focused on a toothbrush for an hour without falling back on those easy paths.
This is the discussion that should be happening concerning this movie that's coming out. Let's talk about abuse. Let's talk about women's and men's rights. Let's talk about real relationships. Most of all let's beg the story tellers to give us more then sensation. Give us truth. Give us universal, deep meaning about the world and a new creative way on how to perceive it.
Only then will be able to regain some humanity in our words.
Jan 9th 2015 Art and Why Sia is the Bravest Woman Alive
These two songs are part of series of songs by the music artist Sia called 1000 Forms of Fear.
Chandelier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vjPBrBU-TM
Elastic Heart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWZGAExj-es
Meaning in art is highly based on individual interpretation. The only requirement to be a correct interpretation is that you must be able to convincingly prove your perspective on any given piece with only that piece.
I found this subject online today and I had to write about it for various reasons. First I want to start out by saying the "Elastic Heart" music video is an amazing piece of art that's tackling a difficult subject. Internal struggles are hard to display on screen, in song, or in dance because they are so personal and people often misinterpret it because they're coming from a different experience than the artist who made it. This is basically why I think there is an uproar about Sia's latest video, "Elastic Heart." In this video you have 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl in flesh colored outfits interpretative dancing in a cage. Feel free to widen your eyes at this point because the gut reaction is, "Whoa, hang on now, is this going to be about child abuse?" This is a valid fear since 98% of music videos are about romantic (or a better word cupidic) relationships with dances and symbols to match. If you add the age gap and then the creep-o-meter shoots off the charts. As a society, we universally oppose pedophilia and child abuse in every respect and are willing to go to arms over it if even a wiff of it is present. I mean, even convicts are rumored to beat up fellow inmates for pedo-related crimes as a form of justice. This is all a valid interpretation of "Elastic Heart", except for the fact that it's wrong.
I wasn't nearly as disturbed as some people were by Sia's choices in this video. While some interpreted the cage as a giant bird cage I saw a tiger cage and many of the first dance moves were feline in nature and supported that interpretation. Thanks to these images, when I first watched the video, I already viewed the dancers as representing something other than the people they actually were. While some parts can be interpreted as pedophilia, I feel like this is disproven with the fact that its the little girl who in charge of most of the video. Throughout the video she is far more energetic and aggressive than the exhausted and torn up grown man she's chasing around the cage. On top of that there was no inappropriate touching, gyrations, or anything similar to the more "sexy" dance videos we're used to seeing. The reason why I think people are missing the point here, I believe, is because of two major fallacies: one, all buff men are sex objects; two, all little blonde girls are vulnerable and defenseless. I've never seen a buff grown man get beat around so much by a little girl as I did in this video. She scratches, hits, kicks, and scares him into corners. Her face is often turned downward which in most art is an interpretation of determined control, not tilted back, which is a more vulnerable and weaker pose. She even openly laughs in his face at points. However, they are still a grown man and a little girl in minimal nude clothing dancing in a cage. Again, I can see the other point, but I highly doubt Sia was going for that.
Remember, this exact same little girl character in this exact same costume represented addiction in the last video, "Chandelier." In that video, she was the embodiment of what happens inside someone when they are addicted to something that is typically socially acceptable. Sia had revealed in an interview that she has had her own struggles with wanting to be a fun party girl who is accepted while dealing with the realities alcoholism. Since the little girl is the exact same in "Elastic Heart" and both songs are meant to be in a series, we can safely interpret her as that same struggle or more specifically alcoholism itself. Sia tweeted after the released of "Elastic Heart" that Shia LaBeouf and Maddie Ziegler were playing two parts of the same person. If that is the case, then we can consider dirty, buff, glove wearing Shia as the persona that has been fighting to get away from his past, but is still drawn to it as alcoholics also deal with lifetime attractions to alcohol. I think its the acting "drawn to" factor that set off most pedophilia antennas, but lets be honest that in a culture that accepts homosexuality you would get the same feeling if it was acted as well by a grown woman. If you took out the "drawn to" factor all together, you'd be lying about how powerful addiction really is and it wouldn't be as strong of a video. In short; good art makes comfortable men uncomfortable, and uncomfortable men comfortable. This qualifies.
This theoretical interpretation I have is supported by the fact that the little girl is in control most of the time and its all Shia can do to be in control even in the littlest sense. There's a point in the new video where Shia gets as far away as he can from Ziegler by climbing to the top of the cage. Then Ziegler seems to go to sleep. If we are to take Ziegler as alcoholism this picture is brilliant. Shia is still tempted to come closer when Ziegler appears innocently asleep, when she wakes up she even comes to him innocently before biting him. Which addiction does. Once you get away from something that's bad, looking back at it may make it seem less harmful, but get too close and it will always bite you and laugh in your face. The whole dance is basically the war between addiction, temptation, and the struggle that comes from that experience. After a few close examinations, I realized the cage could be interpreted as the boundaries an addict has to put up in their lives to keep from falling off the wagon, that doesn't mean that the temptation can't get in, it just means its harder to get out. This proven when the girl easily slips in and out of the cage as Shia, while he could leave, stays inside. The fact that she can get out of the cage at all again disproves the pedophilia theory. The alcoholism theory is further proven when Shia is carrying Zielger on his back like a heavy load and later she hits him on the head four times, changing his face from sick, to silly, to angry, to subdued, which are common personality switches alcohol can cause. Ziegler also reacts to his breath as if it stunk, which is another side affect of alcohol. I felt like the choreography showed the struggle of addiction beautifully. It was tragic and powerful to watch and I don't think people who have always felt in complete control of themselves would get it.
I can see where people would have misinterpreted this as child molestation. We are dealing with abstract concepts of desire, need, want, right, wrong, temptation, and the common and often seen interpretation of these things in the media is sexual in nature. This is why Sia is the bravest woman alive. She's willing to risk the wrong and socially despised interpretation in order to show a new perspective on a different internal struggle. Sex is talked about all of the time. The destructive internal wars of alcohol and other temptations on the other hand, are barely represented at all in art. If they are, its very blunt or poorly done. When you look at the lyrics they are even more vague and subject to interpretation. In an art form that only seems to be concerned with talking about love between two people, its easy to just jump to weird conclusions, but when you look at the lyrics from the perspective that I've spent way too much time describing, it's even more powerful than the typical cliché relationship. Remember, the center stage is all about what is going on inside a single person. Then again, my interpretation can also be completely wrong. I just know that it has more proof than the pedophilia argument.
Chandelier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vjPBrBU-TM
Elastic Heart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWZGAExj-es
Meaning in art is highly based on individual interpretation. The only requirement to be a correct interpretation is that you must be able to convincingly prove your perspective on any given piece with only that piece.
I found this subject online today and I had to write about it for various reasons. First I want to start out by saying the "Elastic Heart" music video is an amazing piece of art that's tackling a difficult subject. Internal struggles are hard to display on screen, in song, or in dance because they are so personal and people often misinterpret it because they're coming from a different experience than the artist who made it. This is basically why I think there is an uproar about Sia's latest video, "Elastic Heart." In this video you have 28 year old man and a 12 year old girl in flesh colored outfits interpretative dancing in a cage. Feel free to widen your eyes at this point because the gut reaction is, "Whoa, hang on now, is this going to be about child abuse?" This is a valid fear since 98% of music videos are about romantic (or a better word cupidic) relationships with dances and symbols to match. If you add the age gap and then the creep-o-meter shoots off the charts. As a society, we universally oppose pedophilia and child abuse in every respect and are willing to go to arms over it if even a wiff of it is present. I mean, even convicts are rumored to beat up fellow inmates for pedo-related crimes as a form of justice. This is all a valid interpretation of "Elastic Heart", except for the fact that it's wrong.
I wasn't nearly as disturbed as some people were by Sia's choices in this video. While some interpreted the cage as a giant bird cage I saw a tiger cage and many of the first dance moves were feline in nature and supported that interpretation. Thanks to these images, when I first watched the video, I already viewed the dancers as representing something other than the people they actually were. While some parts can be interpreted as pedophilia, I feel like this is disproven with the fact that its the little girl who in charge of most of the video. Throughout the video she is far more energetic and aggressive than the exhausted and torn up grown man she's chasing around the cage. On top of that there was no inappropriate touching, gyrations, or anything similar to the more "sexy" dance videos we're used to seeing. The reason why I think people are missing the point here, I believe, is because of two major fallacies: one, all buff men are sex objects; two, all little blonde girls are vulnerable and defenseless. I've never seen a buff grown man get beat around so much by a little girl as I did in this video. She scratches, hits, kicks, and scares him into corners. Her face is often turned downward which in most art is an interpretation of determined control, not tilted back, which is a more vulnerable and weaker pose. She even openly laughs in his face at points. However, they are still a grown man and a little girl in minimal nude clothing dancing in a cage. Again, I can see the other point, but I highly doubt Sia was going for that.
Remember, this exact same little girl character in this exact same costume represented addiction in the last video, "Chandelier." In that video, she was the embodiment of what happens inside someone when they are addicted to something that is typically socially acceptable. Sia had revealed in an interview that she has had her own struggles with wanting to be a fun party girl who is accepted while dealing with the realities alcoholism. Since the little girl is the exact same in "Elastic Heart" and both songs are meant to be in a series, we can safely interpret her as that same struggle or more specifically alcoholism itself. Sia tweeted after the released of "Elastic Heart" that Shia LaBeouf and Maddie Ziegler were playing two parts of the same person. If that is the case, then we can consider dirty, buff, glove wearing Shia as the persona that has been fighting to get away from his past, but is still drawn to it as alcoholics also deal with lifetime attractions to alcohol. I think its the acting "drawn to" factor that set off most pedophilia antennas, but lets be honest that in a culture that accepts homosexuality you would get the same feeling if it was acted as well by a grown woman. If you took out the "drawn to" factor all together, you'd be lying about how powerful addiction really is and it wouldn't be as strong of a video. In short; good art makes comfortable men uncomfortable, and uncomfortable men comfortable. This qualifies.
This theoretical interpretation I have is supported by the fact that the little girl is in control most of the time and its all Shia can do to be in control even in the littlest sense. There's a point in the new video where Shia gets as far away as he can from Ziegler by climbing to the top of the cage. Then Ziegler seems to go to sleep. If we are to take Ziegler as alcoholism this picture is brilliant. Shia is still tempted to come closer when Ziegler appears innocently asleep, when she wakes up she even comes to him innocently before biting him. Which addiction does. Once you get away from something that's bad, looking back at it may make it seem less harmful, but get too close and it will always bite you and laugh in your face. The whole dance is basically the war between addiction, temptation, and the struggle that comes from that experience. After a few close examinations, I realized the cage could be interpreted as the boundaries an addict has to put up in their lives to keep from falling off the wagon, that doesn't mean that the temptation can't get in, it just means its harder to get out. This proven when the girl easily slips in and out of the cage as Shia, while he could leave, stays inside. The fact that she can get out of the cage at all again disproves the pedophilia theory. The alcoholism theory is further proven when Shia is carrying Zielger on his back like a heavy load and later she hits him on the head four times, changing his face from sick, to silly, to angry, to subdued, which are common personality switches alcohol can cause. Ziegler also reacts to his breath as if it stunk, which is another side affect of alcohol. I felt like the choreography showed the struggle of addiction beautifully. It was tragic and powerful to watch and I don't think people who have always felt in complete control of themselves would get it.
I can see where people would have misinterpreted this as child molestation. We are dealing with abstract concepts of desire, need, want, right, wrong, temptation, and the common and often seen interpretation of these things in the media is sexual in nature. This is why Sia is the bravest woman alive. She's willing to risk the wrong and socially despised interpretation in order to show a new perspective on a different internal struggle. Sex is talked about all of the time. The destructive internal wars of alcohol and other temptations on the other hand, are barely represented at all in art. If they are, its very blunt or poorly done. When you look at the lyrics they are even more vague and subject to interpretation. In an art form that only seems to be concerned with talking about love between two people, its easy to just jump to weird conclusions, but when you look at the lyrics from the perspective that I've spent way too much time describing, it's even more powerful than the typical cliché relationship. Remember, the center stage is all about what is going on inside a single person. Then again, my interpretation can also be completely wrong. I just know that it has more proof than the pedophilia argument.
Why Blogger is Better
Simply put, I got sucked into doing all of my word-smithing on Facebook Notes. That particular function in the last few months has suddenly decided that paragraph breaks for online reading aren't important. Time to move the shop back here. Meanwhile, enjoy random posts from thoughts I'd been having over the past year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)