.jpg)
Maybe “ugly” isn’t the right word, but everybody knows what I mean. (image via wikimedia)
It’s tough to explain the fashion sense of the 1970s to my daughters. Whenever they watch a movie from that decade, they cringe and say something like, “How could they wear that?” or “What made them think that looked good?”
Every decade has a reputation. The 1950s were cool because of Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, and a bunch of tuff cars. The 1960s had the counter cultural stuff with The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and lots of drugs. They were cool too. But the 1970s? That decade still had the drugs, but those came with ugly hair, bell bottoms, weird color combinations, and big collars. None of that is cool. And it was kind of ugly.
There was some good music from the 1970s, but you don’t look at music, at least you didn’t in the 1970s. You didn’t really start looking at music until the 1980s. There were a couple dance shows on television which played popular songs, but there weren’t many videos. There was also some great comedy in the 1970s, but ugly fashion enhances comedy instead of detracting from it.
All that ugly 1970s fashion seemed cool at the time, and that’s a problem. How could so many people get fooled into thinking something is cool when it is really very ugly? It’s important to understand these things. It may seem minor, but this kind of group think is how genocides happen.
A lot of ugly stuff was going on in the 1970s, so it makes sense that the fashions look historically ugly. The Vietnam War divided this country, and President Nixon had to resign because of the Watergate scandal, and there were lots of protests going on, gas lines, economic problems, and it ended with President Carter’s national malaise. Maybe the late 1960s were more intense, but the 1970s were pretty bad too.
Like most problems, ugly 1970s fashion starts with the kids. Kids have always had bad fashion sense. I can’t go back to ancient times and prove it, but when you give kids a choice, they’ll usually pick something stupid. That’s why adults are supposed to make decisions for kids. If kids didn’t have stupid fashion sense in ancient times, it’s because adults didn’t let them make fashion decisions. Plus, survival was so hard that they didn’t have time to be fashionable.
Sometime after World War II, parents began letting their kids make more decisions, and that’s where bad fashion (and the destruction of civilization) began. It was okay to give kids choices as long as the kids had to become adults at 18 and work. The rule in my family was when you turned 18 you got kicked out of the house. You could finish out high school if you turned 18 first, but only if you’d never been held back a grade. That forced us to turn into adults.
Sometime in the 1960s, adults tried to hold onto their adolescence for as long as they could, and part of that was hanging onto ugly fashions. 1970s fashions wouldn’t have been as bad if adults weren’t wearing the crap too. That’s why you see shows and movies from the 1970s with adults in ugly outfits and hairstyles.
The actress Mary Tyler Moore is a great example. Compare her fashion sense from The Dick Van Dyke Show in the early 1960s with that of The Mary Tyler Moore Show in the 1970s . The 1970s made Mary Tyler Moore look bad too (okay, maybe bad is too strong).
1970s fashion sense hung around for so long because culture didn’t move quite as quickly back then as it does now. If you liked news, you had to wait for a morning/evening newspaper or the evening news on one of three networks (PBS didn’t count). If you liked fashion, there were a bunch of magazines, most of which came out once a month. You could go to the movies, but most theaters had only one screen, so your selection was limited. Because everything was relatively slow, once a fashion became trendy, it took a long time to get rid of it.
Fashions don’t last as long nowadays. Today everybody stares at their phones, and fashion is so fleeting that nothing lasts long enough for anybody to care anymore. Whenever elements of the 1970s come back, they disappear quickly again too. That’s a relief to those of us who have pictures of ourselves trying to look good in the 1970s. We know it’s almost futile.
The 1970s were so ugly that even Elvis didn’t look good in it. You know a decade is ugly if Elvis looks bad too.
*****
For more “Old Things That Are Tough To Explain,” go to Old Things That Are Tough To Explain: The Home Page.
(image via wikimedia)
Of course, damn is a bad word. It’s not the worst of the profane words, but most people wouldn’t want to say it in public. It’s four letters, which is a sign that it’s a bad word, and it means that you’re cursing somebody or something to Hell. Hell is also thought of as profanity (though I disagree), and when a bad word implies another bad word, then it’s really a bad word.
For one thing, it’s pretty bad to curse somebody to Hell. Hell is a horrible place to go, and it’s for eternity, so that should be reserved for only a select few. If people said damn occasionally, then I wouldn’t be so concerned. But people damn each other for stuff like minor road infractions, and I don’t think anybody should suffer eternal damnation in Hell just because of a rude traffic incident.
Putting God in front of damn is the worst of the worst of profanity. I haven’t ranked profanity from worst to least offensive, but God in front of damn would be in the top one or two. It’s one thing to damn somebody yourself, but when you invoke God to damn somebody, that’s serious. I’ve done it a few times in my life, and I’ve always regretted it, and I’ve always privately asked the higher power not to take my earlier request literally. I think God understands. If not, a bunch of people are screwed.
It’s okay to damn inanimate objects. If I stub my toe on a table or hammer a nail into my thumb, it’s okay to damn the table or hammer or nail. They’re nonliving things, so they don’t care.
If a table ends up in Hell for eternity, the table doesn’t care. Maybe the tortured souls down there need tables, nails, and hammers too. Maybe part of their eternal torture is to stub their toes and hammer nails into their thumbs for all of eternity.
What do you say in Hell when you stub your toes or nail a finger? If you say “Damn!” or “Dammit,” it’s too late because everything down there is damned already. It’s probably too late to say “Heaven help me.” Then again, some religions say it’s never too late for “Heaven help me.” I hope I don’t need to find out.
Damn isn’t the most fun of the curse words to say, but it has some fun variations. Damnation is fun. Dammit is fun to say quickly. A junior high teacher years ago used to say “Hot diggety damn!” whenever he got excited, and that was fun, but I never did that in public.
Decades ago, some of my friends pronounced damn with two syllables so that it came out “day-um.” That usually meant that they were impressed with something. They could also do that with “shee-it.” Extending a four-letter swear word into two syllables is the best.
It’s easy to replace damn with a fake word that doesn’t bother anybody. It’s okay if you say “Darn it!” or “Dang it!” in public. You can even halfway invoke God by saying “Dagnabbit!” or “Goshdurnit” or “Guldernit.” Oddly enough, I’ve never heard anybody say “Durnit!” or “Nabbit!” by themselves. Maybe I was born a generation late for that.
Like most bad words, damn has been around longer than most people think. According to the dictionary, the first usage of damn can be found in the 13th century, and its Latin roots go much further than that. I’d guess that when you consider Latin roots, damn and Hell are the oldest of the English swear words.
Even though it’s not as bad as a lot of swear words, I wouldn’t say damn in front of my parents, at least, not without the word Hoover in front of it. When I was a kid, I was willing to take a chance with hell or crap or even b*tch, but not damn. If you’re a kid, don’t do it. It just isn’t worth the risk.
Somebody in this picture isn’t having fun. (image via wikimedia)
Partying does not come naturally to a lot of introverts. Getting wild and crazy in public seems easy for an extrovert, but staying in a loud, crowded environment for a long period of time can be a burden to an introvert. I should know. I’m an introvert, and I despise parties and social gatherings.
Since I don’t want to become a recluse, I’ve had to develop a game plan for parties. It’s taken time, but I can now manage going to parties without getting bored or stressed out. Keep in mind that I began developing these strategies decades ago. Things have changed since then, especially technology.
When I started going to social gatherings, it was considered weird or rude to read a book, magazine, newspaper or anything while you were at a party. If you stood alone, you were a wallflower. Now if you stand alone, you can still seem normal as long as you’re staring at your phone. It doesn’t matter what you’re staring at on our phone, as long as it’s on a phone or tablet.
If I’d had a cell phone when I was younger, I would have gone to a lot more parties. But when staring at your phone isn’t an option, here are a few tips to get you through it.
Don’t stay for long.
As an introvert, I don’t have much social energy. I’m good for anywhere between 5-30 minutes, and then I feel an overwhelming need to recoup. It’s better to leave early than stand around. Whenever I’ve stood around (Donald Trump would have thought I was low energy), people would keep asking if I was having a good time. That’s a lot of pressure for an introvert.
Most people don’t understand that staring blankly is a good time for some introverts. I love to stare blankly for hours at a time. The problem with staring blankly in public is that other people think you’re weird or they’re worried you’re not having a good time.
Bring food and a vague excuse.
It might seem rude to leave after (or before) 30 minutes, but you’re doing everybody a favor. You don’t want the host to think you’re bored. All you need is a vague excuse and an expensive snack/drink. If you’ve brought a food/drink item that everybody appreciates, you can leave whenever you want.
Just make sure that your excuse for leaving is not specific enough to be verifiable. An easy excuse is that a bunch of stuff has come up unexpectedly. If anybody asks for details, just say the details are boring.
Drive yourself.
I don’t mean that you should be a designated driver. I mean, drive yourself to the party so that you can leave whenever you want. If you let an extrovert drive you to a party, you’re stuck. If you drive an extrovert to a party, however, make sure that extrovert has another way to get home, especially if that extrovert is a drunk.
Make yourself useful.
We introverts quickly lose interest in being social for the sake of being social, so having a purpose at a social gathering can help. Be the keg master (if parties have kegs anymore). When the host runs out of pizza, offer to go pick it up (that saves the host a delivery fee and tip). You don’t have to clean up the vomit or fix the toilet clog, but there’s usually something that needs to get done at a party, and the introvert is often the right person for the job.
Hang out in the quietest location.
Some introverts have quiet voices, and that makes talking extra work. I hate repeating myself at parties. It wipes out my social energy, and nothing I say comes out right the second or third time I say it. My witticisms can only be delivered properly on the first try or they fail to evoke the proper response, so I despise loud environments. If you’re like me, stand outside the loud party or in the quietest location and try your conversations there.
Act drunk.
Introverts tend to go unnoticed, but acting drunk can get you a lot of attention. You don’t need to sexually harass the gender of your choice or pick fights or throw up. Just stagger around, slur your words, and wave a drink around.
If you’re bored at a party, acting drunk is kind of fun, as long as there are no consequences. People who usually ignore you will talk about you, and you’d be surprised how differently people treat you when they think you’re drunk. Just don’t do this if acting drunk gets you fired.
If none of these tips work for you, stare at your phone. But put your back against the wall. You don’t want to get conked on the head while staring at your phone. That can happen to you anywhere, even at a party.
*****
What do you think? What advice (besides “Don’t go”) do you have for introverts at a party?
Here are more Introvert Guides!
The Introvert’s Guide To Protesting
The Introvert’s Guide To Talking Politics
The Introvert’s Guide To Reading During The Holidays
“There is nothing to writing. All you do is…” Aw, you probably know this one already. (image via wikimedia)
There are a few quotes about writing that almost everybody knows about. Stephen King (“The scariest moment is always just before you start.”), Mark Twain (“Write what you know.”), and Ernest Hemingway (“There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.”) all are given credit for famous quotes about writing that even non-writers know about.
But what about the famous writing quotes that nobody has heard of? There are plenty of useful quotes that should get more attention too. For example:
“Writing is easy. All you have to do is cross out the wrong words.” Mark Twain
Just like Ernest Hemingway’s more famous quote, this one sarcastically suggests that writing is easy. If you’re going to come up with a famous quote about writing, start off by implying it’s easy. And be a famous writer already.
“There’s no such thing as writer’s block. That was invented by people in California who couldn’t write.”– Terry Pratchett
Everybody hates writers block, but hardly anybody knows about this quote, maybe because a lot of people live in California and the quote implies they’re bad writers. If the author had made fun of Texas, then all the writers in California would have loved this quote.
“All the information you need can be given in dialogue.”- Elmore Leonard
That may be true, but some readers don’t like people (or characters) who talk too much. Plus, too much exposition through dialogue can be painful to read.
“The adjective is the enemy of the noun.”– Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire
Authors always complain about the overuse of something, but it’s usually adverbs or exclamation points. I don’t get it. What’s the point of having a part of speech and then not use it again and again?
“Literature is all, or mostly, about sex.” – Anthony Burgess
This is why the public thinks writers are a bunch of perverts.
Literature is about relationships. Sex is merely one part of a relationship. And even if literature is mostly about sex, authors should never admit it.
“If you write one story, it may be bad; if you write a hundred, you have the odds in your favor.” – Edgar Rice Burroughs
This sounds like something James Patterson might say.
Putting potential readers through 100 bad stories just to get to one good one seems wrong, but I see a lot of writers try it. Edgar Rice Burroughs managed to get a bunches and bunches of stories published in the days before Amazon. Today, anybody can self-publish a bunch of bad stories if they want and hope one becomes popular, but I wouldn’t try it.
“Do not hoard what seems good for a later place in the book, or for another book; give it, give it all, give it now.”—Annie Dillard
This quote was probably written before the age of the sequel, trilogy, and series.
“Write garbage… as long as you edit brilliantly.”- C.J. Cherryh
This is an awesome quote! When we write a piece of junk, we can just claim we haven’t finished editing yet. In fact, I don’t think I have finished editing anything yet… ever.
“Substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write ‘very’; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.”- Mark Twain
Applying this advice to a writing assignment is a good way to get kicked out of school, but at least you can sound like Holden Caulfield.
“Easy reading is damned hard writing”- Nathaniel Hawthorne
The original quote was “Easy reading is very hard writing” until Hawthorne read Mark Twain.
*****
These are a few famous quotes, but there are definitely more out there. What famous writing quotes do you think don’t get enough credit?
Blog posts aren’t like kids; you’re allowed to say which one’s your favorite. (image via wikimedia)
After writing a blog for a while, it’s natural to go back and reread old posts. Some are so embarrassingly bad (from the author’s point of view) that it’s tempting to delete them. I rarely do that because bad writing is part of the process, and it’s important to see how writing style and quality progress over time.
I have a few posts that are my favorites. I return to them every once in a while just to read them for enjoyment. I hope I’m not the only person who does this. I mean, I don’t spend hours every day reading old stuff of mine. I just do it every once in a while, and I think right now…
This blog post is my favorite!
It isn’t my best or most well-written post. It’s not my most popular. Nobody has read this post in months, but it’s still my favorite. When I read it, I always find some words and phrases that I want to change, but I don’t mess with it. I think it catches the feeling and tone of that particular moment, and it makes my point.
*****
What’s your favorite post or article on your own blog? Post it in the comments below and explain why it’s your favorite.
Authors never know who is going to read their books. (image via wikimedia)
Sensitivity reader is a term that seems appropriate for our time. A lot of people get offended quickly nowadays, so book publishers have been using what are called sensitivity readers to try to get rid of stuff in future books that might tick off readers.
According to the Chicago Tribune, a sensitivity reader is:
“a person who, for a nominal fee, will scan the book for racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content. These readers give feedback based on self-ascribed areas of expertise such as “dealing with terminal illness,” “racial dynamics in Muslim communities within families” or “transgender issues.”
In a way, this makes sense. Boycotts happen quickly, and very few books make substantial profits anymore. Why would a book publisher want to get stuck with an unintentionally offensive book (especially in a children’s or YA book) that could hurt sales for the rest of the company?
Even though authors can be empathetic and imaginative, everybody has astonishing gaps in their knowledge, and our perspectives are limited by our experiences. For example, I’m not the most worldly person in the world, so I try to stick to stuff that I’ve had personal experience with.
As an aspiring author (I might not be considered a real author yet), if I were writing about a subject that I didn’t know much about, I’d do research first. I wouldn’t want to put a publishing company in a position where it felt like it had to hire a sensitivity reader. I should be able to document my research and interviews to show that I have some background to back up what I write, even if it’s fiction.
If a publisher feels like it needs a sensitivity reader, either the author didn’t do his/her job or the publisher might be too sensitive to readers’ potential sensitivity. Fiction and literature are supposed to evoke emotions, and some people are going to be offended, no matter what.
At least one sensitivity reader seems to have a bad attitude about the job. According to the Chicago Tribune article, one sensitivity reader said:
“It feels like I’m supplying the seeds and the gems and the jewels from our culture, and it creates cultural thievery. Why am I going to give you all those little things that make my culture so interesting so that you can go use it when you don’t understand it?”
My advice to this person (if this quote is accurate) is to maybe not be a sensitivity reader. And the term “cultural thievery” seems a bit strong. For one thing, that sensitivity reader was paid, so it’s not quite thievery if you get paid. Plus, one complaint about society today is that too many people live in a metaphorical bubble and aren’t exposing themselves to new ideas and cultures. How can people appreciate diversity when it’s given such a negative term as “cultural thievery”?
If I were the author whose book was corrected by this particular sensitivity reader, I might have some doubts about the suggestions I received.
I avoided a potential sensitivity issue a few years ago when I wrote a blog serial about an ex-girlfriend of mine who wasn’t white (I’m a white male, by the way). I didn’t want it to be an issue in the story, so I simply never mentioned which demographic group(s) she belonged to.
I thought about clarifying her non-whiteness a couple times, but the ex-girlfriend did a few things that are seen as stereotypical and I didn’t want to be accused of stereotyping, but she also did things that are seen as the opposite of what (some) people might expect and I didn’t want readers telling me about how somebody of her demographic persuasion wouldn’t behave like that when I know she did because I saw it for myself. I left clues about her non-whiteness, but I never specified it.
Maybe that was a cop-out. And it’s about as tame as an example as I’ve dealt with as a writer because I usually write about my own thoughts and experiences. If I were writing about (as the Chicago Tribune says), “racial dynamics in Muslim communities within families” or “transgender issues,” I’d definitely do some research myself or interview some people who know more than I do before I had it published. I wouldn’t want the publisher to have to do it for me and hire a sensitivity reader.
There you go. I hope nobody got offended with my thoughts about sensitivity readers. I’d feel bad if readers got offended because of my opinion about sensitivity readers. I don’t like to be insensitive.
*****
What do you think? Whose responsibility is it to make sure readers aren’t offended?
(image via wikimedia)
My daughter didn’t really punch out James Patterson. She punched out a life-sized cardboard figure of James Patterson. The James Patterson had been placed near the entrance of B&M Booksellers next to a table with several of Patterson’s new books (I don’t remember which books they were because he has so many of them at any given moment).
Even if my daughter doesn’t like James Patterson, it wasn’t her life-sized cardboard figure to punch out. It was the book store’s. And that’s what caused the problem.
I saw part of the violent act from the corner of my eye as we entered the store. I intentionally was avoiding the Patterson cut-out when my youngest daughter blurred past me and knocked it down with her fist. It must have been a solid punch. She didn’t get that from me. I punch like a girl, but I guess that (punching like a girl) doesn’t mean anything anymore because evidently my daughter can cause some damage.
Anyway, that’s not the whole story. After the punch, she stumbled forward and butted a YA book display next to her, knocking the stack to the floor. They weren’t even James Patterson books.
My daughter’s face turned red as she stood over the pile of books at her feet. If she hadn’t had a conscience, she could have made a run for it. I thought about running. I considered fleeing the store without her, but that would have been wrong. I wasn’t sure what to, so I slowly picked up the James Patterson.
I felt embarrassed until my older daughter laughed. She has a funny laugh that makes other people laugh too, so several onlookers were given permission to look on with levity. A young sales associate (young from my point-of-view) approached. I thought we were going to get banned from B&M Booksellers forever, so I apologized for my daughter. I apologized for the mess. I apologized for the damage to James Patterson. I think I even apologized for all the business Amazon was taking away from them.
I don’t condone violence, even towards inanimate objects. Beating up inanimate objects is the gateway to violence against living creatures, and I don’t want my daughters to be violent. Even though I’m not a fan of James Patterson, I would never do anything to harm him or his business. I wouldn’t block customers from entering a book store where he’s speaking. I wouldn’t call for a boycott, even though I personally don’t buy his books. And I would never punch out his cardboard cut-out.
The associate didn’t seem to care that much. When I stood up the cut-out, it seemed undamaged (but I wasn’t looking that closely). My youngest daughter was already setting up the books and doing a good job. She can design and arrange things (she didn’t get that from my side of the family). My oldest daughter’s laugh had put onlookers in a good mood. Once the display was finished, I would have a stern talk with my youngest.
“What were you thinking?” I asked in a forced exasperated tone.
She stood silent, eyes focused on the display she had restacked. I knew I wasn’t going to be too harsh with her though.
“She just brain glitched, Dad,” my oldest said. My oldest should know. She has just entered high school and a couple years ago was an expert at brain glitching.
My youngest, in the meantime, is still at that junior high age where kids brain glitch a lot. A brain glitch is when you do something really stupid and afterwards you can’t explain why. When you ask kids why they just did something stupid, they stare open-mouthed. If a kid says “I don’t know,” he/she is probably telling the truth.
My oldest daughter held up her phone, aiming the screen at her sister. “The next time you’re going to brain glitch, tell me.”
“So you can prevent her from doing something stupid?” I said.
My oldest looked me dead in the eye. “Yeah, that’s why.”
Then she went back to staring at her phone. Staring at a phone in a bookstore always aggravates me.
After we left the store, I felt a little better about things. I was proud that my daughter doesn’t like James Patterson. Sometimes a child will take the opposite beliefs of a parent, such as when liberal parents accidentally raise a conservative child (or vice-versa). That has to be frustrating. A few years ago, I was concerned because my youngest daughter read a couple James Patterson YA books, but then she stopped. Now she doesn’t think he really writes his own books and she doesn’t read them out of principal. I was proud. My youngest daughter has principals, and she was standing up for them.
“If you’re going to punch out a cardboard display, it might as well be James Patterson,” I said, patting her on the shoulder.
My daughter took a few more steps and then said, “I just wanted to knock down a cardboard guy.”
I paused. “You… didn’t knock it down because it was James Patterson?”
“I’ve always wanted to punch one of those things.” Then she looked up at me. “Don’t you?”
“So… it had nothing to do with James Patterson.”
She looked perplexed. “No.”
Sometimes I wonder if there’s something wrong with my daughter.
*****
When I was a kid, I was punished for saying the word crap.
It ticked me off so much that I wrote this ebook, Crap Is NOT a Bad Word!
And here is the true story of my one moment of high school glory!
Now only 99 cents each on the Amazon Kindle!
(image via wikimedia)
If you’re writing a blog, it’s easy to find basic tips all over the internet. Leave comments on other blogs. Promote yourself with other kinds of social media. Use key words that show up on search engines. Become a credible source in a specific niche. Those tips can be useful, but some of them are time-consuming and can take the fun out of blogging.
I’ve been blogging for a little over 5 years, and I’ve noticed that a lot of writers who had blogs 5 years ago have either slowed down or no longer blog at all. I think some of them burned out because they were trying too hard to follow the usual guidelines, and doing all of that isn’t very fun. Self-promotion is time-consuming when you just want to write.
In my five years of blogging, I’ve accumulated lots of writing. I’m embarrassed by some of it, but that’s part of the process. I’m not famous, and I haven’t made much money, but it’s fun, and that’s why I keep blogging.
I have a few disadvantages as a blogger. I haven’t told anybody I know about my blog, so I can’t get readers that way. When I put out an e-book, I can’t get friends/family to buy it (except Mom sometimes). I have a full-time job and a family, so the blog is a low priority.
My writing goal is 15 minutes each weeknight, and two hours a day on weekends, but none of that is always possible. Even though I can’t follow all my tips all the time, here are my basic rules to blogging without burning out:
* Be ready to be ignored.
Being ignored isn’t fun, but it’s easier when you’re emotionally prepared for it. It’s tough to write something and then realize a week later nobody has read it. During my first year of blogging, hardly anybody read what I wrote.
I even wrote a blog post that was completely unread for three years. The only reason anybody eventually read it was because I wrote about it, mocking the blog post that nobody reads. Then several people found it. Somebody even “pity liked” it. I’ll take a “pity like,” but I don’t like it.
* Don’t stress yourself.
It’s true that new content is important, but it’s just a blog. If you don’t post something that particular day/week/month, nobody really cares. I don’t think anybody who reads this blog notices when I take a vacation. It’s just a blog.
*Write about a variety of stuff.
Most blogging advice suggests that you stick to a niche, but that bored me when I tried it. Once I branched out into anything I wanted, I began writing more. Sometimes I write about books and writing. Sometimes I write about pop culture. Sometimes I write about my family. I even wrote a 60-episode blog serial about an ex-girlfriend called “The Literary Girlfriend.”
Writing a variety of stuff stimulates my brain and keeps my creativity going, and I rarely get in a rut. If anything, I usually have too much to write about and can’t find the time to get to it.
* Write short posts.
Some bloggers start off by writing stuff that’s thousands of words long. Then they get frustrated when nobody reads it. If there’s the possibility of being ignored, you’d rather rather be ignored at 600 words than 3500.
Plus, readers appreciate shorter posts. If you have a topic that requires thousands of words, split it up into several posts and link them. You increase the chances of being read, and when people enjoy your thoughts, they can read your other blog posts.
*Ignore social media when you’re writing.
Since I’m a blogger, I try to stick to blogging. The other stuff (Twitter, Instagram, YouTube) is okay, but they can end up wasting a lot of time. If I had more time, maybe I’d spend more of it on Twitter or Instagram. If I didn’t need to be kind of anonymous (or if I was more attractive and had a better voice), I’d try a YouTube channel. But doing too much other stuff can drain your writing energy, and if you’re a blogger, then writing is probably your thing.
When I use other forms of social media, I give myself a time limit (usually five minutes). Anything more is a time waste.
*****
Following these tips probably won’t make you wealthy from blogging, and you might not get a huge number of followers. But if you just want to blog and see what happens, these tips may help you to enjoy your blogging experience for a long time, and that might help you keep blogging for a long time.
*****
What do you think? What tips do you have to make blogging an enjoyable experience?
Even the cover looks a little awkward.
A normal sex scene between two characters in fiction can go wrong for a lot of reasons, but a solo sex scene is automatically awkward. Self-gratification is awkward. There’s a stigma to it, even though it’s normal behavior for most guys. Any guy who doesn’t engage in it will be miserable, but it’s also forbidden to talk about. If a guy admits to this behavior, he gets mocked.
If a woman admits to it, it can be seen as empowering. It’s one of the few double standards where women have the advantage. A woman engaging in self-gratification can be portrayed artistically. With a guy, it’s going to be gross, no matter what.
The following excerpt from Here I am by Jonathon Safran Foer didn’t make the final cut in 2015’s Literary Review Bad Sex in Fiction Award, but it earned a mention, partially because of the subject matter. It’s a sentence describing self-gratification.
‘He jerked off with the determination of someone within sight of Everest’s summit, having lost all his friends and Sherpas, having run out of supplemental oxygen, but preferring death to failure.’
In this case, I disagree with The Literary Review that this is a bad sex scene (except for two words that I’ll discuss later). I believe this excerpt was meant to be humorous, intentionally exaggerating the intensity of a male’s efforts while gratifying himself, and the Literary Review might be missing the point.
Sometimes humor doesn’t come across in the written word. If a writer expresses an idea in a tongue-in-cheek fashion and readers take it literally, the author can’t slap the reader across the head and yell “I WAS BEING FUNNY!” The reader can just hit back and yell “I COULDN’T TELL!” There are no facial expressions or vocal inflections to add to the audience’s interpretations of the words. That’s what makes writing humor so difficult.
The author’s problem here was the long metaphor. When a writer has to use to start a description or metaphor with the word “someone who…,” the expression is probably going to be awkward. The words “someone who” automatically stops the flow of the sentence.
This problem is easily fixed. Replace “someone who” with a noun, and the reader can continue with ease. Maybe “someone who…” can be replaced with “…an explorer” or “…mountain climber.” I’m sure an author like Foer (or an editor) could come up with a better replacement.
As long as the sentence is, the rest of the excerpt is spot-on. It might seem over-the-top, but that’s Foer’s writing style. And if an author is going to engage in hyperbole, then self-gratification is the perfect topic.
The Literary Review probably chose this excerpt because it made them laugh uncomfortably. Self-gratification often makes people laugh uncomfortably. It’s like farting or the title Moby Dick. Even Mark Twain wrote a book On Masturbation. Yes, the original title of Twain’s speech was The Science of Onanism, but nobody today knows what that means. Sometimes humor goes over the audience’s head.
Everybody laughs at the title On Masturbation, but nobody has read it. At least, nobody has admitted to reading it. More people have read Tom Sawyer Detective than On Masturbation (I’m actually making that up, so I could be wrong).
I’m tempted to buy a copy of On Masturbation and walk around with it just to see people’s reactions. It’s something Mark Twain might have appreciated. I could also walk around with a copy of Here I Am, but it’s not as obvious. With humor, sometimes you have to be obvious.
This might be a short article. (image via wikimedia)
President Donald Trump doesn’t read books. At least that’s what everybody says. I don’t trust what everybody says anymore because everybody seems to be wrong all the time. Everybody said that Donald Trump would never be president, but everybody was wrong about that.
That’s one thing I’ve learned recently; everybody is an expert, but nobody really knows what they’re talking about.
Maybe President Trump reads all the time and just doesn’t tell anybody. That sounds like something he might do. He might read a lot of books but doesn’t tell anybody because he doesn’t want his opposition to know what he’s thinking. That sounds like Donald Trump.
Donald Trump tweets a lot too, but nobody knows if he reads anybody else’s tweets. You can write and send tweets out without reading anybody else’s, but that’s rude, and that also sounds like something Donald Trump might do.
President Trump writes a bunch of executive orders. I hope he reads everything that he writes. That’s kind of important. Sometimes the executive orders are unclear, so maybe he needs to read what he writes more clearly. I understand that. I make mistakes on my blog all the time. But if I make a mistake on my blog, it doesn’t change anybody’s life. It doesn’t even change my life.
Even if President Trump doesn’t read books, I’m not bashing him for it. When President Obama put out his summer reading list , I accused him of being pretentious. His book list included a bunch of literary fiction that people usually aspire to read to but can’t quite get to. There weren’t any Stephen King or JK Rowling books on his reading list (at least not on the list I saw), so I don’t trust the authenticity of a summer reading list that doesn’t have anything mainstream.
President Trump should put out a reading list just to make authors angry. Authors don’t like him, and they would probably be offended if Donald Trump recommended any of their books. They’d probably be afraid of being lumped in with white nationalists and alt-right and would freak out. Authors with books on Trump’s reading list would have to publicly disavow President Trump more than they already do. I’m not sure how they could do that. You can write only so many open letters.
President Obama used to fill out an NCAA Tournament bracket every year, but I don’t think President Trump is going to do that either. Filling out brackets of 64 requires a lot of time, and he might not be done with his executive orders by tournament time. Then again, the way he writes executive orders, he could fill out a bracket in under five minutes. And if his bracket doesn’t win, he could say the system is rigged. If his bracket DOES win, his opponents can blame the Russians (or the officiating).
That’s one thing Trump supporters and Trump opponents can agree on; the officiating sucks. Basketball officiating always sucks.
Donald Trump says he likes reading All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque. It’s a classic, and it’s an anti-war book, so if you’re worried about President Trump starting World War III, maybe you can take comfort that he reads an anti-war novel about World War I. It might not be much, but it’s a start.
President Trump’s Reading List:
The Bible– by God
All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque
More pending?
*****
What do you think? How many books should be on a presidential reading list? If President Trump put your novel on his reading list, would you disavow it?
