All bundled up and ready for summer. Happy solstice from Faux Social!
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Favorite
I like that the word partner is replacing gender specific spouse names (i.e. husband or wife). Partner is gender and marriage neutral, which is a step in the correct direction, but I dislike the over-use of the word. While partner is neutral in many ways, it is not commitment neutral. Partner implies both emotional commitment and interdependence.
The emotional bond with a partner is one that implies the relationship has planned longevity. Some relationships last a short time period, others have longevity with no vision, no plan. Neither of these are partnerships. A partner is someone you plan to emotionally commit to for a long period of time. This applies to business partners as well as romantic partners (sexual partners, like lawn badminton partners would not fit this description). In both cases, the people are bound by the belief that their relationship will be positive for their desired foreseeable future. This is not to say that planning for something makes it happen. Businesses and relationships often fail before the partners want them to fail, but partners are bound in the emotional belief that the relationship (or business) will last. Some partners are more pragmatic, and may be bound in the thought that their relationship will work, but most people jump to belief, not wanting to logically analyze.
Next, partners are interdependent by free choice. If two people are in a situation where their lives intertwine by situations out of their control, they may not be partners. Those people may choose to become partners, but they are not necessarily partners. Partners, choose to cohabitate, share bank accounts, or own cars or pets together. These dependencies make undoing the partnership complex. While a legal system may not be involved in the dissolution of a partnership, they often are. Friendships are often strained or broken., and negotiations are always part of the end of a partnership.
Think about other uses of the word partner. Police officers have partners. I imagine that certain soldiers have partners (snipers and spotters?). Even roommates who have planned to live together for long periods of time (forgive the reference, but were Joey and Chandler not partners?). All of these people would probably not easily walk away from the relationship, and walking away may be complex owing the intricacies (interdependence) of the relationship.
When someone asks you about your partner, they are accepting that you may not be married, and they may even be accepting that you could be with someone of the same sex. They are assuming (and expecting), however, that you meet a minimum level of commitment and interdependence. When someone asks that not assuming a level of commitment, e.g. a plus one at a wedding, what they are really talking about is a significant other (SO). A SO is anyone with a romantic interest (though I have known people who have taken platonic friends to weddings). This spans the entire relationship spectrum from first date to elderly married couple. SO applies to every type of relationship at every level of commitment, and every romantic situation.
For many people, this does not matter. When I was with Heidi, we experimented a bit with partner, but found that it rarely helped elucidate the nature of our relationship for others (too soon maybe). While I would correct people who assumed we were married, it never really bothered me. With Corinne, our relationship followed a more regular trajectory, but it never bothered me (though I would usually correct) when our relationship status was incorrectly described. Now though, as a divorcee, I find that it is all the more trying to describe my relationship status.
If, for example, Sarah is in town, and there is a work function open to partners, is Sarah welcome? What if the function is open to partners, but not friends? What if I had a business partner, or a very close (platonic) roommate, would they be welcome? No, because these people actually probably mean romantic partner as spouse devoid of legal marital status. People see "partner" used in this context, get lazy, and start using it as a synonym for SO. Confusing their question by not using the proper terminology (i.e. SO). If there was an invite where friends were welcome, Sarah would be welcome. An invite where SOs were welcome, Sarah would be welcome. More specific than this, and the situation gets confused.
Expanding beyond SO is tricky because post-divorce is also post-standard relationship. Relationship status is a like a pyramid. In a lifetime, one may have many girl/boyfriends, not many fiance-level relationships, and only one spouse. At the pinnacle of my pyramid though is the foundation to another pyramid. What do I call these people now? Eventually they will be friend-level, and some of those may become partners. However, I am not really looking to start a new pyramid, I am in a land of love beyond geometry. Frankly, I like this new world better. Had I begun my relationship life with this knowledge, it would have been better. Alas, I have discovered this new world through experience. The problem with the new world I have worked myself into is that it is complicated to tell people about it who have not themselves gotten here.
Often times, in situations where geometric relationship description fails, people describe their relationships as "it's complicated." I do not really like describing those who are special to me as it's complicated. Further, for many people I talk to, it's complicated does not make sense. They continue to probe. In fact, the only person that it's complicated really worked for was a coworker who, according to scuttlebutt, has a level of complication rarely achieved by humans. Everyone else wants a pigeon hole for every relationship status.
In my desire to clearly communicate my meaning with people I think I have thought of the ideal word to describe a new relationship status. A relationship status beyond the elementary, traditional descriptions. It is neutral in every aspect but preference. It is also modifiable as needed. I introduce to the world the relationship status of "Favorite" (capitalized for clarity).
Think of anything that is your favorite. It could be a trail, an ice cream flavor, band, or song. Literally anything that you have preference in, you probably have a favorite. Think of that thing. What is your relationship to that thing? It is, your favorite. It is not easy to describe why that thing is your favorite, it just is. My favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate. Chocolate ice cream can be improved by adding peanut butter cups. Roger Clyne (for the sake of this argument) is my favorite musician. I have gone months without listening to his music, but when I come back to one of his songs that I enjoy, or am emotionally invested in, my relationship resumes with that music as if there was never a lull. At Bootleg Canyon, I had my favorite series of trails to ride. Those trails were my favorite because of the varied aspects of the trails, maybe the personality of the trails. Whatever favorite thing comes to mind, there are aspects that you like, and maybe those you do not. Some favorites are what you always choose because they are all you want, and sometimes you have other things to better appreciate your favorite. Your favorite may change over time, or it may stay with you for life. Some people may even have multiple favorites (would a parent of two children be unlikely to claim that they have two favorite children?).
All of these things are true of your Favorite. Favorite is marriage and gender neutral. It is also free of expectations. The only thing Favorite conveys is preference. A spouse, partner, fiance, boyfriend or girlfriend is probably a Favorite. Then again, a spouse may not be a Favorite, and we can avoid the emotional response to words like mistress. In fact, Favorite even eliminates expectation of love and romance. I have had friends who were definitely each other's Favorite, but they were simply friends. Do we really care if our friends are sleeping with the people whose company they most prefer? Do we need recently divorced people to fall in love to have companionship? Do we need to deny people the pleasure of spending time with the person they most enjoy because they do not fit into an arbitrary relationship pigeonhole? No.
Favorite is also easy to modify! My friends whose favorites were friends will likely eventually fall in love. Their friends may no longer be their Favorite, but will likely remain a Favorite friend (best friend). People who deal with long distance relationships could have a local Favorite (which may or may not be romantic), and their favorite Favorite. Favorite is so easy, so straightforward, and so elegant. It can be modified, or not, as the user sees fit. It conveys all the information that others need, and probing for more information is really just being nosy. Nosy is of course fine, because people's lives are interesting. However, sometimes it is best to take the polite approach, letting people live their private lives with their Favorite, whatever that means to them.
Whatever that means to them is the key to it all. Friend, SO, partner, fiance, and spouse all have external meanings. They all have meanings that others apply to the relationship. Favorite, on the other had, has only what has been defined by the people in the relationship. I would be unlikely to call one of my friends my Favorite. That said, I definitely have had best friends, and have had friends that were, for periods of time, my Favorite. Favorite is not meant to displace SO. SO, partner, spouse and all other relationship terminology should be used correctly. Failing to use them is lazy on the part of the speaker, and thus confusing for the listener. Favorite is simply the easiest way for me to communicate with the world what my relationship status is. I do not need to share messy details with anyone (everyone). I do not need to describe the nature of my relationship with coworkers. I do not need to do any of these things. Why? Because, I do not necessarily know the answers to their questions. I know one thing.
I have a Favorite.
The emotional bond with a partner is one that implies the relationship has planned longevity. Some relationships last a short time period, others have longevity with no vision, no plan. Neither of these are partnerships. A partner is someone you plan to emotionally commit to for a long period of time. This applies to business partners as well as romantic partners (sexual partners, like lawn badminton partners would not fit this description). In both cases, the people are bound by the belief that their relationship will be positive for their desired foreseeable future. This is not to say that planning for something makes it happen. Businesses and relationships often fail before the partners want them to fail, but partners are bound in the emotional belief that the relationship (or business) will last. Some partners are more pragmatic, and may be bound in the thought that their relationship will work, but most people jump to belief, not wanting to logically analyze.
Next, partners are interdependent by free choice. If two people are in a situation where their lives intertwine by situations out of their control, they may not be partners. Those people may choose to become partners, but they are not necessarily partners. Partners, choose to cohabitate, share bank accounts, or own cars or pets together. These dependencies make undoing the partnership complex. While a legal system may not be involved in the dissolution of a partnership, they often are. Friendships are often strained or broken., and negotiations are always part of the end of a partnership.
Think about other uses of the word partner. Police officers have partners. I imagine that certain soldiers have partners (snipers and spotters?). Even roommates who have planned to live together for long periods of time (forgive the reference, but were Joey and Chandler not partners?). All of these people would probably not easily walk away from the relationship, and walking away may be complex owing the intricacies (interdependence) of the relationship.
When someone asks you about your partner, they are accepting that you may not be married, and they may even be accepting that you could be with someone of the same sex. They are assuming (and expecting), however, that you meet a minimum level of commitment and interdependence. When someone asks that not assuming a level of commitment, e.g. a plus one at a wedding, what they are really talking about is a significant other (SO). A SO is anyone with a romantic interest (though I have known people who have taken platonic friends to weddings). This spans the entire relationship spectrum from first date to elderly married couple. SO applies to every type of relationship at every level of commitment, and every romantic situation.
For many people, this does not matter. When I was with Heidi, we experimented a bit with partner, but found that it rarely helped elucidate the nature of our relationship for others (too soon maybe). While I would correct people who assumed we were married, it never really bothered me. With Corinne, our relationship followed a more regular trajectory, but it never bothered me (though I would usually correct) when our relationship status was incorrectly described. Now though, as a divorcee, I find that it is all the more trying to describe my relationship status.
If, for example, Sarah is in town, and there is a work function open to partners, is Sarah welcome? What if the function is open to partners, but not friends? What if I had a business partner, or a very close (platonic) roommate, would they be welcome? No, because these people actually probably mean romantic partner as spouse devoid of legal marital status. People see "partner" used in this context, get lazy, and start using it as a synonym for SO. Confusing their question by not using the proper terminology (i.e. SO). If there was an invite where friends were welcome, Sarah would be welcome. An invite where SOs were welcome, Sarah would be welcome. More specific than this, and the situation gets confused.
Expanding beyond SO is tricky because post-divorce is also post-standard relationship. Relationship status is a like a pyramid. In a lifetime, one may have many girl/boyfriends, not many fiance-level relationships, and only one spouse. At the pinnacle of my pyramid though is the foundation to another pyramid. What do I call these people now? Eventually they will be friend-level, and some of those may become partners. However, I am not really looking to start a new pyramid, I am in a land of love beyond geometry. Frankly, I like this new world better. Had I begun my relationship life with this knowledge, it would have been better. Alas, I have discovered this new world through experience. The problem with the new world I have worked myself into is that it is complicated to tell people about it who have not themselves gotten here.
Often times, in situations where geometric relationship description fails, people describe their relationships as "it's complicated." I do not really like describing those who are special to me as it's complicated. Further, for many people I talk to, it's complicated does not make sense. They continue to probe. In fact, the only person that it's complicated really worked for was a coworker who, according to scuttlebutt, has a level of complication rarely achieved by humans. Everyone else wants a pigeon hole for every relationship status.
In my desire to clearly communicate my meaning with people I think I have thought of the ideal word to describe a new relationship status. A relationship status beyond the elementary, traditional descriptions. It is neutral in every aspect but preference. It is also modifiable as needed. I introduce to the world the relationship status of "Favorite" (capitalized for clarity).
Think of anything that is your favorite. It could be a trail, an ice cream flavor, band, or song. Literally anything that you have preference in, you probably have a favorite. Think of that thing. What is your relationship to that thing? It is, your favorite. It is not easy to describe why that thing is your favorite, it just is. My favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate. Chocolate ice cream can be improved by adding peanut butter cups. Roger Clyne (for the sake of this argument) is my favorite musician. I have gone months without listening to his music, but when I come back to one of his songs that I enjoy, or am emotionally invested in, my relationship resumes with that music as if there was never a lull. At Bootleg Canyon, I had my favorite series of trails to ride. Those trails were my favorite because of the varied aspects of the trails, maybe the personality of the trails. Whatever favorite thing comes to mind, there are aspects that you like, and maybe those you do not. Some favorites are what you always choose because they are all you want, and sometimes you have other things to better appreciate your favorite. Your favorite may change over time, or it may stay with you for life. Some people may even have multiple favorites (would a parent of two children be unlikely to claim that they have two favorite children?).
All of these things are true of your Favorite. Favorite is marriage and gender neutral. It is also free of expectations. The only thing Favorite conveys is preference. A spouse, partner, fiance, boyfriend or girlfriend is probably a Favorite. Then again, a spouse may not be a Favorite, and we can avoid the emotional response to words like mistress. In fact, Favorite even eliminates expectation of love and romance. I have had friends who were definitely each other's Favorite, but they were simply friends. Do we really care if our friends are sleeping with the people whose company they most prefer? Do we need recently divorced people to fall in love to have companionship? Do we need to deny people the pleasure of spending time with the person they most enjoy because they do not fit into an arbitrary relationship pigeonhole? No.
Favorite is also easy to modify! My friends whose favorites were friends will likely eventually fall in love. Their friends may no longer be their Favorite, but will likely remain a Favorite friend (best friend). People who deal with long distance relationships could have a local Favorite (which may or may not be romantic), and their favorite Favorite. Favorite is so easy, so straightforward, and so elegant. It can be modified, or not, as the user sees fit. It conveys all the information that others need, and probing for more information is really just being nosy. Nosy is of course fine, because people's lives are interesting. However, sometimes it is best to take the polite approach, letting people live their private lives with their Favorite, whatever that means to them.
Whatever that means to them is the key to it all. Friend, SO, partner, fiance, and spouse all have external meanings. They all have meanings that others apply to the relationship. Favorite, on the other had, has only what has been defined by the people in the relationship. I would be unlikely to call one of my friends my Favorite. That said, I definitely have had best friends, and have had friends that were, for periods of time, my Favorite. Favorite is not meant to displace SO. SO, partner, spouse and all other relationship terminology should be used correctly. Failing to use them is lazy on the part of the speaker, and thus confusing for the listener. Favorite is simply the easiest way for me to communicate with the world what my relationship status is. I do not need to share messy details with anyone (everyone). I do not need to describe the nature of my relationship with coworkers. I do not need to do any of these things. Why? Because, I do not necessarily know the answers to their questions. I know one thing.
I have a Favorite.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Product Reviews
Two brief reviews of products, that are not much of reviews.
HTC Sensation
HTC Sensation
I have minor complaints about HTC. For example, I do not like that HTC locks their phones to their port of Android, but in all honesty, I was not going to load anything else. Much of the competition does this too (e.g. Apple goes so far as to have the proprietary iOS). So, I accepted these issues when I purchased my HTC, as Telecom was offering the Sensation for free, and was not stocking the Samsung Galaxy S II (the phone I wanted, that had I waited one day, I could have gotten instead, bummer). I cannot really complain about the OS, or the functionality of the phone. However, I can gripe with the battery. HTC put a 1520 mAh battery in the Sensation, enough to get through 6-10 hours of the day, in what I call normal use. HTC recommends that you not stay logged into email and such to save battery, but is that not the point of a smartphone? Amazon sells a replacement 1900 mAh battery for $20. Would it have actually changed the price of the phone for HTC to have sprung for the bigger capacity battery? I probably will not get an HTC as my next phone, and I would discourage others from supporting HTC as long as they ship phones with inadequate batteries. Then again, I have not spent any time with the Galaxy S II, so hard to say if it is better.
As a prebuttal to the iPhone loyalists, my Sensation's screen is way bigger than your precious iPhone's.
Toshiba NB205
I am emotionally attached to my netbook. Her name is Penelope, she is beautiful, and she has been a loyal and helpful companion for three years. Penelope is my second Toshiba, and her predecessor kept me computing for six years. His hard drive failed after about 18 months, but other than that was a solid machine until his power board stopped working (a $500 part on the old machine). Penny, has had no major issues. The track pad has grown finicky with time, and she has been dropped/had things dropped on her chipping and damaging various parts of her case. A bit of paint has also been marred on the palm rests, but these are just the signs of age that we grow to love and find comfort in as relationships build with cherished items. Penny though, has a new issue emerging, that is making me investigate new computers.
Penelope is not starting up. When I try to start her up, the status lights come on, the back-light comes one, and the BIOS screen appears, then... Nothing. At first, I thought this might be an issue with a loose connection to the hard drive. I took out the drive, and noted some wear patterns on the chassis, and the back of the keyboard. I put the drive back in, and Penny started right up. I began devising ways to make a shim to hold the drive in place, but the problem grew worse. After constructing various aluminum foil shims, I determined that it was not a problem to be solved with shims, and looked to the internet.
There seems to be some consensus that this issue is the result of insufficient heat paste between the processor and the heat sink. When Toshibas of this age and model start up, they supposedly put out a pulse of heat, then measure the dissipation of the heat (well, they probably actually measure the resistance in a temperature probe over a short period of time, but heat dissipation will do). If, the processor is not well attached to the heat sink with heat paste, this pulse of heat stays in the processor, and to protect the components, the machine does not start. The fix becomes tricking the computer into thinking that heat will dissipate sufficiently (it seems to), even though it fails the test. There are two methods to address this problem.
The internets have decided that the more desirable method is the "G-spot Method." Whereby, pressure is applied to the housing between the palm rest and the keyboard on the left side. From looking at Penelope's motherboard, it seems like the back left would be better, but there really is not any spot to push there. I tried it, and she booted right up. The next day, I applied pressure to Penny's spot, and she hummed to life. Today though, I could not seem to hit Penny's spot right. After trying several times, I resorted to the second method.
The problem is heat-flow (or lack thereof). It follows that the heat can be transmitted away from the processor at room temperature, or the processor can be cooled to the point that the heat generated in the test is insufficient to heat the temperature probe to the cut-off value. How does one cool a netbook? Chuck it in the freezer. Thus, Penny was placed in the freezer for two hours while I ran errands, then when I returned home, she started right up.
Once running, Penelope does not seem to get hot enough to damage her, and she wakes up from sleep without any issue. Thus, I can just never turn her off, and when I do I know I need a freezer, or to find her g-spot, or I can start shopping for a replacement.
Here is the product review side of it. Many of those who posted to message boards where these solutions were found vowed to never purchase another Toshiba, but I have to ask myself, why? Both my Toshibas have been pretty good, lasted pretty well, and were affordable. I could purchase an Apple, with their legendary longevity, but for the price of the least expensive apple laptop I can get three to four similar Windows machines. For three-quarters of the price of the cheapest Apple, I can get a pretty flash Windows machine with a USB3 port, a graphics card, and a blu-ray optical drive. For the same price as an Apple, I can get a machine with a quad-core processor, a 7200 rpm hard drive and 12 gigs of memory (plus the USB3, graphics card and blu-ray). So, forget Apple. Other competitors are Asus, Acer, Fujitsu and Lenovo. Lenovos are fine machines, but rarely seem to distinguish themselves, as with Asus and Acer. You buy those three, in my opinion, based on which one has the best deal that day. As for Fujitsu, their legendary longevity comes at similar cost to Apple machines (though they do have some sub $500 models, which seem to be on par with the competition). All that said, I have been totally happy with my Toshibas, and I would happily replace Penelope with a new Toshiba. At this point, it just comes down to which company has the best product, for the best price, on the day that Penelope finally needs to be replaced.
As a prebuttal to the iPhone loyalists, my Sensation's screen is way bigger than your precious iPhone's.
Toshiba NB205
I am emotionally attached to my netbook. Her name is Penelope, she is beautiful, and she has been a loyal and helpful companion for three years. Penelope is my second Toshiba, and her predecessor kept me computing for six years. His hard drive failed after about 18 months, but other than that was a solid machine until his power board stopped working (a $500 part on the old machine). Penny, has had no major issues. The track pad has grown finicky with time, and she has been dropped/had things dropped on her chipping and damaging various parts of her case. A bit of paint has also been marred on the palm rests, but these are just the signs of age that we grow to love and find comfort in as relationships build with cherished items. Penny though, has a new issue emerging, that is making me investigate new computers.
Penelope is not starting up. When I try to start her up, the status lights come on, the back-light comes one, and the BIOS screen appears, then... Nothing. At first, I thought this might be an issue with a loose connection to the hard drive. I took out the drive, and noted some wear patterns on the chassis, and the back of the keyboard. I put the drive back in, and Penny started right up. I began devising ways to make a shim to hold the drive in place, but the problem grew worse. After constructing various aluminum foil shims, I determined that it was not a problem to be solved with shims, and looked to the internet.
There seems to be some consensus that this issue is the result of insufficient heat paste between the processor and the heat sink. When Toshibas of this age and model start up, they supposedly put out a pulse of heat, then measure the dissipation of the heat (well, they probably actually measure the resistance in a temperature probe over a short period of time, but heat dissipation will do). If, the processor is not well attached to the heat sink with heat paste, this pulse of heat stays in the processor, and to protect the components, the machine does not start. The fix becomes tricking the computer into thinking that heat will dissipate sufficiently (it seems to), even though it fails the test. There are two methods to address this problem.
The internets have decided that the more desirable method is the "G-spot Method." Whereby, pressure is applied to the housing between the palm rest and the keyboard on the left side. From looking at Penelope's motherboard, it seems like the back left would be better, but there really is not any spot to push there. I tried it, and she booted right up. The next day, I applied pressure to Penny's spot, and she hummed to life. Today though, I could not seem to hit Penny's spot right. After trying several times, I resorted to the second method.
The problem is heat-flow (or lack thereof). It follows that the heat can be transmitted away from the processor at room temperature, or the processor can be cooled to the point that the heat generated in the test is insufficient to heat the temperature probe to the cut-off value. How does one cool a netbook? Chuck it in the freezer. Thus, Penny was placed in the freezer for two hours while I ran errands, then when I returned home, she started right up.
Once running, Penelope does not seem to get hot enough to damage her, and she wakes up from sleep without any issue. Thus, I can just never turn her off, and when I do I know I need a freezer, or to find her g-spot, or I can start shopping for a replacement.
Here is the product review side of it. Many of those who posted to message boards where these solutions were found vowed to never purchase another Toshiba, but I have to ask myself, why? Both my Toshibas have been pretty good, lasted pretty well, and were affordable. I could purchase an Apple, with their legendary longevity, but for the price of the least expensive apple laptop I can get three to four similar Windows machines. For three-quarters of the price of the cheapest Apple, I can get a pretty flash Windows machine with a USB3 port, a graphics card, and a blu-ray optical drive. For the same price as an Apple, I can get a machine with a quad-core processor, a 7200 rpm hard drive and 12 gigs of memory (plus the USB3, graphics card and blu-ray). So, forget Apple. Other competitors are Asus, Acer, Fujitsu and Lenovo. Lenovos are fine machines, but rarely seem to distinguish themselves, as with Asus and Acer. You buy those three, in my opinion, based on which one has the best deal that day. As for Fujitsu, their legendary longevity comes at similar cost to Apple machines (though they do have some sub $500 models, which seem to be on par with the competition). All that said, I have been totally happy with my Toshibas, and I would happily replace Penelope with a new Toshiba. At this point, it just comes down to which company has the best product, for the best price, on the day that Penelope finally needs to be replaced.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
It's Time
A well made commercial supporting equal marriage rights. I fully support that everyone has the right to experience the life they dream of. (The video can also be found here: http://ww
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The Sedaris Conundrum
One of the most frightening things about writing is sharing it with others. Yet, writing not shared often seems pointless. I have a journal, and sometimes I write in it, but I cannot seem to make a regular habit of it. At the end of the day, if no one reads what I am writing, I do not care so much to write. This, in addition to taking the burden of my rants off of people who spend time with me, was one of the reasons to share my writing via a blog. I had hoped that I would become more comfortable with sharing my writing, and develop an audience to share my writing with.
My audience is slowly growing, which is encouraging. Gradually, people are leaving more comments (commenting should now be easier to leave as well). All this, is highly encouraging. Yet, I feel that I have encountered a conundrum that I imagine every writer faces. I am calling this conundrum the Sedaris Conundrum.
Anyone who has read David Sedaris probably needs no further explanation. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, I will try to paint the picture. David Sedaris writes wicked funny, autobiographical satire. Much of it is self-deprecating. That self-deprecation often incriminates strangers, friends and family. At some point Sedaris had to think to himself, "I do not really care who reads it, this is damn funny," and went ahead and told a story that may have hurt someone's feelings. Or been shocking to people who felt close to him. Or, any number of negative reactions. This, if I recall an interview correctly, caused tension in the Sedaris Family. Regardless, Sedaris keeps telling stories.
I post blogs. Usually, they have a low risk of offending readers. Some have elevated risk. Those with high risk are often censored, stashed away for another project, or never make it past the loose ideas, scribbles in a note book, or a rough couple of paragraphs. Some of these subjects are easy to guess, and can be pretty easily worked around. Parents and siblings are easy targets for humor, as are ex-partners. While Corinne may not always be painted in the best light, I love her, her frustrating and often hurtful faults and all. So, I use material that teases these people because I know that they know me well enough that if they did not want to be part of my occasionally cynical view of the world, they would have gotten out long before now (or when they did).
The other is much more difficult in open forums. How does one avoid hurting feels based on exclusion? Most people will find out new information about me when they read my blog. I find out new things about myself when I write. My previous blog post was mentally outlined to be funny and light from start to finish. Something happened, and I revealed information about myself that I had not intended to when I started. When I edited it, I liked what it said. So I posted it. The content was a surprise, even for me. Albeit, a small surprise.
When writing about the big surprises, difficult topics, or personal information, how does an author not hurt people? This, is the essence of the Sedaris Conundrum. I have spoken with other people who write, and they have the same concerns. We all worry about hurting people, and therefore censor ourselves. My issue with this is that one of the reasons my marriage ended was that I was tired of censoring myself. I was tired of presenting the person that I felt like other people wanted me to be. So, I stopped. I started telling Corinne who I was. I started being honest with people close to me. I started being honest with people I was just meeting. For the first time, I was living a life where the big surprises, difficult topics and personal information were not hurting me.
One of the ways I was able to do this was remove myself from the people and places that made me censor myself. I have never been great at keeping in touch, so it is pretty easy for me to walk away and start fresh. When old people pop back into my life, they may stay for a while, but usually fade out pretty quickly. This way of living seems pretty common among my peers (to the baby boomers reading, fear not, this is just a different way of living).
Unfortunately, I have begun to build myself a life where anything goes, and I realize that when I sit down to write about it, I must be mindful of my audience. I imagine some people come to this line and shy away forever. Others probably vault across it consequences be damned. I am shooting for something in the middle. I will do my best to ease people into an unapologetic Faux Social, but I imagine that one of the draws of Faux Social is the crazy and unconventional thinking of brian.
My audience is slowly growing, which is encouraging. Gradually, people are leaving more comments (commenting should now be easier to leave as well). All this, is highly encouraging. Yet, I feel that I have encountered a conundrum that I imagine every writer faces. I am calling this conundrum the Sedaris Conundrum.
Anyone who has read David Sedaris probably needs no further explanation. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, I will try to paint the picture. David Sedaris writes wicked funny, autobiographical satire. Much of it is self-deprecating. That self-deprecation often incriminates strangers, friends and family. At some point Sedaris had to think to himself, "I do not really care who reads it, this is damn funny," and went ahead and told a story that may have hurt someone's feelings. Or been shocking to people who felt close to him. Or, any number of negative reactions. This, if I recall an interview correctly, caused tension in the Sedaris Family. Regardless, Sedaris keeps telling stories.
I post blogs. Usually, they have a low risk of offending readers. Some have elevated risk. Those with high risk are often censored, stashed away for another project, or never make it past the loose ideas, scribbles in a note book, or a rough couple of paragraphs. Some of these subjects are easy to guess, and can be pretty easily worked around. Parents and siblings are easy targets for humor, as are ex-partners. While Corinne may not always be painted in the best light, I love her, her frustrating and often hurtful faults and all. So, I use material that teases these people because I know that they know me well enough that if they did not want to be part of my occasionally cynical view of the world, they would have gotten out long before now (or when they did).
The other is much more difficult in open forums. How does one avoid hurting feels based on exclusion? Most people will find out new information about me when they read my blog. I find out new things about myself when I write. My previous blog post was mentally outlined to be funny and light from start to finish. Something happened, and I revealed information about myself that I had not intended to when I started. When I edited it, I liked what it said. So I posted it. The content was a surprise, even for me. Albeit, a small surprise.
When writing about the big surprises, difficult topics, or personal information, how does an author not hurt people? This, is the essence of the Sedaris Conundrum. I have spoken with other people who write, and they have the same concerns. We all worry about hurting people, and therefore censor ourselves. My issue with this is that one of the reasons my marriage ended was that I was tired of censoring myself. I was tired of presenting the person that I felt like other people wanted me to be. So, I stopped. I started telling Corinne who I was. I started being honest with people close to me. I started being honest with people I was just meeting. For the first time, I was living a life where the big surprises, difficult topics and personal information were not hurting me.
One of the ways I was able to do this was remove myself from the people and places that made me censor myself. I have never been great at keeping in touch, so it is pretty easy for me to walk away and start fresh. When old people pop back into my life, they may stay for a while, but usually fade out pretty quickly. This way of living seems pretty common among my peers (to the baby boomers reading, fear not, this is just a different way of living).
Unfortunately, I have begun to build myself a life where anything goes, and I realize that when I sit down to write about it, I must be mindful of my audience. I imagine some people come to this line and shy away forever. Others probably vault across it consequences be damned. I am shooting for something in the middle. I will do my best to ease people into an unapologetic Faux Social, but I imagine that one of the draws of Faux Social is the crazy and unconventional thinking of brian.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Seals Can Do That
I sit on an exercise ball when I write. They are cheaper than chairs, they supposedly work your core, they discourage slouching (though I manage), and they are super fun. One day I was sitting on my ball, with writer's block, and I thought to myself, "I think seals can walk on balls. Seals have flippers. Legs are better at walking than flippers. I should be able to walk on my ball well enough to move around the room." Figuring that bipedal walking may be a tall order, I endeavored to crawl on my exercise ball to move around the room.
One of the tricks to this hobby is that you move in the opposite direction as you crawl, i.e. crawling forwards makes the ball roll backwards. Obviously, rolling in the direction you are looking is easier, but crawling backwards is actually quite cumbersome, especially on top of an exercise ball. While practicing, cursing my horrible balance, I realized that seals do not walk on balls, but balance balls on their noses. While this seems more reasonable, it also seems boring, so I persevered with the crawling.
I can now roll forwards, backwards and side-to-side with reasonable grace. I am having a difficult time with turning, but I think it will come with practice. Unfortunately, crawling around my living room on a ball is only fun for so long, and I had reached that point. Luckily, Sarah showed up with her exercise ball, that she sits on to write. Rolling evolved to battles.
Battling on a ball is a short lived game, where the objective is to knock the other from their ball. After a great deal of giggling, postulating rules and objectives, and comically falling off of balls, I was reminded of an xkcd where a stick figure fills her(?) apartment with play-pen balls (http://xkcd.com/150/). The idea in this comic is that as "grown-ups" we get to decide what it means to be grown-ups.
It seems that I should start deciding what it means to be grown-up. I look at the traditional model; marriage, house, car, dog, kids, etc., and while there are certainly aspects of that life that are at times appealing (owning a home), I don't want it, and I don't know if I ever did. Many of the decisions I have made in my life have been based on what other people define as being an adult. For example, my brother and his wife have a house, steady jobs, and a cat. I am thankful for their stability (and generosity), as I relied on them for support during my divorce. The stability they have, and I do not, often makes me feel like I am not grown-up. That I have a facade of age, but I am unchanging, repeating the same mistakes, and an ever bigger fraud.
Obviously, I need to redefine what it means to be a grown-up for me. The life I most want is not the life of a "grown-up," but is the life that suits me. I want a ball-pit (actually I don't, but metaphorically) because it will be fun for me. I want to live life without a track, and I do not want the interview-question cliched five-year plan. Where do I see myself in five years? Hopefully doing something interesting and fun, and that is it. Maybe I will start answering interview questions that way. Even if I do not, I can plan to not-plan my life.
How does a not-plan work in the marriage model, it did not seem to. When I look back at my marriage, we (I?) never really seemed to like the forever concept. Our wedding bands were two small bands side-by-side to represent that we were two people, living two lives, that touched closely and always. While some may view this as a poor take on marriage, it should be noted that many works of science fiction have marriage as fixed-term contracts, and Mexico City is, apparently, considering adopting some form of this to curb divorce rates. In the end, Corinne wanted more than two lives touching, with a stable future, with kids and white picket fences separating her from the world. I wanted the world (and her as my partner to explore it).
I was recently asked if coming to New Zealand was a way for me to heal from my divorce. Maybe it was. Maybe though, my divorce was a way to heal from my marriage. Maybe my definition of being a grown-up is living the life that comes to me, experiencing love and loss, and following the whims of my wandering mind.
In this, I am reminded of Dr. Who. The Doctor does not plan his voyages through time and space (in fact it seems he cannot). While some writers suggest that this is The Doctor's choice, it often seems like chaos is the nature of the fabric of space and time that the TARDIS travels upon. While The Doctor is frequently haunted by lonely spells, and guilt over the risk he exposes his companions to, he does choose to continue to experience whatever lies outside his blue box.
In my definition of being a grown-up, I will decide that it means knowing the consequences of experiencing an awfully big world, with companions that may come and go, but will always be a part of you. I will loose people who are close to me as they grow-up more traditional ways, but they probably have not ever battled for the infinite glory of finding brief happiness in an exercise ball battle...
And, even a seal can do that.
One of the tricks to this hobby is that you move in the opposite direction as you crawl, i.e. crawling forwards makes the ball roll backwards. Obviously, rolling in the direction you are looking is easier, but crawling backwards is actually quite cumbersome, especially on top of an exercise ball. While practicing, cursing my horrible balance, I realized that seals do not walk on balls, but balance balls on their noses. While this seems more reasonable, it also seems boring, so I persevered with the crawling.
I can now roll forwards, backwards and side-to-side with reasonable grace. I am having a difficult time with turning, but I think it will come with practice. Unfortunately, crawling around my living room on a ball is only fun for so long, and I had reached that point. Luckily, Sarah showed up with her exercise ball, that she sits on to write. Rolling evolved to battles.
Battling on a ball is a short lived game, where the objective is to knock the other from their ball. After a great deal of giggling, postulating rules and objectives, and comically falling off of balls, I was reminded of an xkcd where a stick figure fills her(?) apartment with play-pen balls (http://xkcd.com/150/). The idea in this comic is that as "grown-ups" we get to decide what it means to be grown-ups.
It seems that I should start deciding what it means to be grown-up. I look at the traditional model; marriage, house, car, dog, kids, etc., and while there are certainly aspects of that life that are at times appealing (owning a home), I don't want it, and I don't know if I ever did. Many of the decisions I have made in my life have been based on what other people define as being an adult. For example, my brother and his wife have a house, steady jobs, and a cat. I am thankful for their stability (and generosity), as I relied on them for support during my divorce. The stability they have, and I do not, often makes me feel like I am not grown-up. That I have a facade of age, but I am unchanging, repeating the same mistakes, and an ever bigger fraud.
Obviously, I need to redefine what it means to be a grown-up for me. The life I most want is not the life of a "grown-up," but is the life that suits me. I want a ball-pit (actually I don't, but metaphorically) because it will be fun for me. I want to live life without a track, and I do not want the interview-question cliched five-year plan. Where do I see myself in five years? Hopefully doing something interesting and fun, and that is it. Maybe I will start answering interview questions that way. Even if I do not, I can plan to not-plan my life.
How does a not-plan work in the marriage model, it did not seem to. When I look back at my marriage, we (I?) never really seemed to like the forever concept. Our wedding bands were two small bands side-by-side to represent that we were two people, living two lives, that touched closely and always. While some may view this as a poor take on marriage, it should be noted that many works of science fiction have marriage as fixed-term contracts, and Mexico City is, apparently, considering adopting some form of this to curb divorce rates. In the end, Corinne wanted more than two lives touching, with a stable future, with kids and white picket fences separating her from the world. I wanted the world (and her as my partner to explore it).
I was recently asked if coming to New Zealand was a way for me to heal from my divorce. Maybe it was. Maybe though, my divorce was a way to heal from my marriage. Maybe my definition of being a grown-up is living the life that comes to me, experiencing love and loss, and following the whims of my wandering mind.
In this, I am reminded of Dr. Who. The Doctor does not plan his voyages through time and space (in fact it seems he cannot). While some writers suggest that this is The Doctor's choice, it often seems like chaos is the nature of the fabric of space and time that the TARDIS travels upon. While The Doctor is frequently haunted by lonely spells, and guilt over the risk he exposes his companions to, he does choose to continue to experience whatever lies outside his blue box.
In my definition of being a grown-up, I will decide that it means knowing the consequences of experiencing an awfully big world, with companions that may come and go, but will always be a part of you. I will loose people who are close to me as they grow-up more traditional ways, but they probably have not ever battled for the infinite glory of finding brief happiness in an exercise ball battle...
And, even a seal can do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)