Yohannon (yohannon) wrote,

  • Location:
  • Mood:
  • Music:

What Writer's Need

Well, that's gratifying -- the flood of comments, online and off, regarding my meek return to blogging is reassuring. Writer's are an insecure and fractious bunch, terrified of the one thing:

Not being read.

Sure, people agreeing with you is all fine and great, "hurray!" for our side, and let the choir sing out "AMEN!".  Yet it's conflict and debate and emotional reaction that we really like. Of course, writers HATE being mis-interpreted, but it comes with the territory -- as long as YOU know what you said (or meant to say), then screw the critics so desperate to protect their own little fragile world view that they'll spin your truth into oblivion.

An unwillingness to compromise enough to CONSIDER arguments against a piece I've written would be another issue entirely. If someone is willing to debate points honestly, I will be happy to go toe to toe. It's the tendency on some schools thought to pretend to debate, when the real goal is to disregard and belittle the possibility that there's a place in the middle where we can meet.

Like the recent end to the criminal reign of King George the Shrub. People were somehow trying to make black and white things gray (it's NOT a "controversial technique", it's torture. And it's illegal. Period. No, really.) and shades of gray into a black and white polarity where they were always on the "right" side.

No pun intended.

The problem with rigid thinking is that it precludes epiphany. The ability to comprehend something beyond one's grasp. Or perhaps to accept... REALLY accept... that understanding must stop where understanding ends.

Hell, even grasping that understanding is not equivalent to acceptance nor agreement; I can understand your argument without agreeing with it. Really. The assumption that my lack of agreement means you just haven't explained it the right way is insulting. Like people who assume that I've never read the bible because I'm Pagan, when I've probably gotten a far better biblical education than some theologians.

Even if I preclude "law and order" as a pillar (somewhat easy to do thanks to the impossibly arcane and overwhelming realm of the law), there are things that Just Aren't Right. Like torturing people. Spying on journalists using illegal wire-taps. Influence peddling.

Even if you discount the law, there's that pesky oath of office. If getting your wall-street buddies cash for 20 billion dollars US in bonuses even as they claim not getting the money will result in financial apocalypse is, in your honest opinion, NOT a violation of their oath in office, then you're voting for the wrong people.

If you think this is reserved for Republicans, fear not: Corrupt democrats (and not just Lieberman, that non-entity from Connecticut) deserve to be accused and ejected from public office as well. Like that prime fool Blaegovich.  Bagovish. The gov of ill.

Hey, it's not my fault his name isn't in my spelling dictionary.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, being read.

There was a point to that digression -- that the worst thing you can do to any writer is to either not read them at all, or read them... and dismiss them entirely.

You know -- like Faux News. Somehow their bizarre headlines trying to reduce the Obama administration to failure within the first two weeks. Google still present these headlines as "News" (Entertainment is a more appropriate heading, as long as you get the joke).

Or the Ass. Press (AP), although I think they're more prone to protective coloration -- they'll side with whomever has the power. Opportunistic and shallow, and in all respects irrelevent in an age where newspapers are online, but at least not the the solid right-wing propaganda machine that is Faux. Fare for the unabalanced!

By the way, I would like to shout out to Michael Phelps: Don't fucking apologize for having the NERVE to actually PARTY for a change. For one thing, we're still talking about someone who has one of the strongest work ethics on the planet, at the age of *23*, daring to take some BONG hits.

"But he's a role model!" I hear the wails. What of the CHILDREN??"

Bullshit. He's an athelete and a person. I dare anyone to call pot a performance enhancing drug. The real fear is that kids will realize that smoking pot does NOT turn you into an automatic slacker. Well, maybe if you stopped lying to kids and painting broad strokes that makes Tommy Chong the poster boy for stoner life, you might be able to reach them.

And Michael has ADHD -- trust me, he NEEDS to smoke on occaision.

Anyhow, glad to be back.

* As opposed to something I DID. Like inadvertently expose a confidence.

(Note on the detected song -- Kim and I once got very toasty before listening to the Black Angels "Passover" for the first time, sub-woofer cranked to levels that caused fillings to ache in that sub-sonic itchy way as distant as Walnut Creek. I got all poetic in that slightly-stoned pseudo intellectual way: "I get it! The sniper is god, drawing a line in the clouds, intoning 'THOU SHALL NOT PASS'!!" Hey, if you heard the bass line in this song you'd agree, even when sober.)
Tags: personal
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment