Tuesday, December 31, 2019

Ring Out, Wild Bells

Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky,
The flying cloud, the frosty light:
The year is dying in the night;
Ring out, wild bells, and let him die.

Ring out the old, ring in the new,
Ring, happy bells, across the snow:
The year is going, let him go;
Ring out the false, ring in the true.

Ring out the grief that saps the mind
For those that here we see no more;
Ring out the feud of rich and poor,
Ring in redress to all mankind.

Ring out a slowly dying cause,
And ancient forms of party strife;
Ring in the nobler modes of life,
With sweeter manners, purer laws.

Ring out the want, the care, the sin,
The faithless coldness of the times;
Ring out, ring out my mournful rhymes
But ring the fuller minstrel in.

Ring out false pride in place and blood,
The civic slander and the spite;
Ring in the love of truth and right,
Ring in the common love of good.

Ring out old shapes of foul disease;
Ring out the narrowing lust of gold;
Ring out the thousand wars of old,
Ring in the thousand years of peace.

Ring in the valiant man and free,
The larger heart, the kindlier hand;
Ring out the darkness of the land,
Ring in the Christ that is to be.

Monday, December 30, 2019

Read in 2019

2019 was not a banner year for reading. I struggled quite a bit. Got a second wind here about a month ago, but I am far short of my 1,000-pages a month goal.

Some of these books were new. And some were slogs. Some I've re-read many times. I love to go back to old favorites.

And No Birds Sang, by Farley Mowat. 250 pages.
Animals in Translation, by Temple Grandin. 359 pages.
Bomb: The Race to Build - and Steal - the World's Most Dangerous Weapon, by Steve Sheinkin. 298 pages.
Boy Scout Handbook, The; by the Boy Scouts of America. 472 pages.
Bridge at Remagen, The; by Ken Hechler. 237 pages.
Cruel Shoes, by Steve Martin. 128 pages.
Daisy Chain, The; by James O'Shea. 374 pages.
Dave Barry is Not Taking this Sitting Down, by Dave Barry. 229 pages.
Dave Barry Turns 50, by Dave Barry. 220 pages.
Demon in the Freezer, The; Richard Preston. 241 pages.
Diary of A Wimpy Kid: Wrecking Ball; by Jeff Kinney. 217 pages.
Feet of Clay, by Terry Pratchett. 249 pages.
Guardians, The; by John Christopher. 214 pages.
Hit or Myth, by Robert Asprin. 170 pages.
John Steinbeck: A Centennial Tribute. Edited by Stephen George, 205 pages.
Life Among the Lava Beds, by Leonard Stephenson. 122 pages.
Lost Race of Mars, by Robert Silverberg. 125 pages.
Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat, The; by Oliver Sacks. 242 pages.
Maskerade, by Terry Pratchett. 271 pages.
Men at Arms, by Terry Pratchett. 420 pages.
Monstrous Regiment, by Terry Pratchett. 351 pages.
Myth Directions, by Robert Asprin. 202 pages.
New Testament, The; King James Version, 405 pages.
Pyramids, by Terry Pratchett. 360 pages.
Rich Dad, Poor Dad, by Robert T. Kiyosaki and Sharon Lechter. 208 pages
Something Wicked This Way Comes, by Ray Bradbury. 293 pages.
The Importance of Being Ernest: The Life of the Actor Jim Varney; by Justin Lloyd. 290 pages.
Unseen Academicals, by Terry Pratchett. 399 pages.
Usborne Spy's Guidebook, The; illustrated by Colin King, written by Falcon Travis, et al. 192 pages.
Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art; by Madeline L'Engle. 199 pages.
Western Ghosts, edited by Frank McSherry, Jr., Charles Waugh; and Martin Greenberg. 215 pages.
Where There's A Will, There's A Way, or All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Shakespeare; by Laurie Maguire. 214 pages.
Your New Job Title is Accomplice, by Scott Adams. 127 pages.
Ze Page Total: 8,498

Saturday, December 28, 2019

Cooties

I think that’s what it comes down to: There are a lot of people out there frightened of girls.

Our local newspaper did a feature story on girl troops in the Boy Scouts of America. It was a positive article.

But because they posted the story on the Web, and because Internet comments are a cesspool of toxicity and negativity, that’s the general kind of comments the story is getting.

Which is fine. People are going to complain about anything. And everything. They probably didn’t much care for the Boy Scouts beforehand, so why should they care now? They don’t have to. It’s their right to be bitter.

But I’d still like them to show up at a Scout meeting. With the girls. And have them spew their bitterness to the girls. In person. I’ll bet good money these Internet warriors haven’t got the guts to do it.

Oh, I’ve heard it. We have a girl troop and heard some negativity when we were selling cookie dough as a fundraiser at storefronts in town. But the warriors there weren’t brave enough to complain in the girls’ faces. They had to make their snide remarks when they thought they were out of earshot. They were not.

But they’re not brave enough to say it in front of the girls. To the girls. In front of the girls, exposed to their cooties, these people are gutless wonders.

Because if they said it to the girls, they’d have to listen to the girls’ rebuttal. Not that they’d all be brave. If they said these hurtful things to my daughter, our senior patrol leader and First Class Scout, she’d probably cry. Because my daughter is a tender-heart. And I love her for it.

And as much as I hate the thought of my daughter's feelings being hurt, I'd love to see the naysayers squirm as they sat there watching. Because that's what it comes down to. It's easy to be a Big Man (or Woman) when you don't have to face the consequences of your flippant comments on the Internet. But face real-world consequences? Nah. Not so much. Although some probably would like it. Because they're that dried up inside.

But my daughter can also likely run circles around half of the boys still in Boy Scouts. This isn’t Dad-bragging. She’s that good. She’s been on camp staff for years. She’s lifeguard certified. She hikes like the wind.

And this is what, I think post people are scared of. These girls are flat out better than most of the boys.

Nevermind all of this about past abuse in the BSA, which some of these gutter-snipes bring up because hey, gotta mention something bad. But mention any organization under the sun and you’ll find people willing to bad-mouth it, and they’ll have truth on their side.

What matters is what’s happening now in these organizations. And in the BSA I see an organization that is better prepared than most others out there, simply because of the crap that’s happened in its past.

So I don’t read the comments. Much. I’m choosing to focus a lot more on the positives, because that’s what I see, working with these Scouts on a weekly basis. There’s a lot of good that can be done, naysayers be damned.

But it is amusing to see how many people out there are scared girl cooties are going to get on them.

UPDATE: I don't care if you approve of what Scouting is doing or not. I'm looking at the results for those who are still in Scouting:

What isn't being accomplished here?

I help run a girl troop in Ammon. One of them is my daughter. She loves Scouting. She also loves ballet, and has performed for years.

One of our other scouts raises cattle for 4H. She also wrestles. She loves camping.

Another girl is working on her Catholic confirmation. She's thrilled that Scouting provides additional opportunities for the service hours she needs to fulfill her religious goals.

What is being accomplished here? Girls are being given an opportunity to do what they want to do in a program that fills their needs.

2019: A Look Back in Indifference

One of the good things in having a scant blogging year is that when you do your “a look back” retrospective, you don’t have all that much to sort through. So let’s get to it.

JANUARY:

A dull month, it seems. I ponder metaphors. And wish to visit Ultima Thule. Which has been renamed.

FEBRUARY:

A cold snap inspires poetry. Photos of the dogs featured in the poem are shared. And I write like Thomas S. Monson speaks.

MARCH:

I wrote something stupid.

APRIL:

Troop 1010 had its first campout. And I read a children’s book that’s a rather neat feat of technical writing.

MAY:

Albertus Mink visited Spoon River. We started replacing the back fence. Our oldest son started a service mission.

JUNE:

I’m boring. Really.

JULY:

Michelle hit a deer. I finished the fence.

AUGUST:

Troop 1010 does Scout Camp.

SEPTEMBER:

We took the dogs (and the kids) to the beach.

OCTOBER:

I was put into Facebook Jail.

NOVEMBER:

I thought a bit about Mr. Rogers, and how his words are being used as weapons these days. He wouldn’t like that.

DECEMBER:

We discovered our investment in solar panels might not be for nothing. And CNN did a really weird story on Dawn dish detergent.

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

"God Bless all of You, all of You on the Good Earth"



William Anders

We are now approaching lunar sunrise, and for all the people back on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send to you.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

James Lovell

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.[5]

Frank Borman

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas – and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth.

Monday, December 23, 2019

Good News (Maybe) about Net Metering in East Idaho

The news from Boise bodes well for those of us who have our own solar panels in Rocky Mountain Power territory.

The Idaho Public Utilities Commission denied a request from Idaho Power to lower the amount the utility pays residential solar power generators for their excess power – and, more importantly, grandfathers existing residential solar customers into their current net metering program no matter what further action Idaho Power may want to take on residential solar.

I’ll be interested to see what the commission decides on a similar request from Rocky Mountain Power, which I’ve written about before.

I don’t know how similar the situations are, particularly on whether Rocky Mountain adequately notified existing net metering customers. The utility commission faulted Idaho Power for not giving net metering customers adequate notice that the changes would adversely impact them. I’d have to look to see what advance notice Idaho Power gave their customers and compare it to what we got from Rocky Mountain. We might be on shakier ground there, because as I recall Rocky Mountain gave us a lot of information.

The grandfathering, however, is what gives me the most hope in this situation. That bodes well for us in Rocky Mountain Power territory, regardless of whether we were adequately notified or not. This grandfathering puts about 4,000 customers on the list. That’s a lot – probably more than what Rocky Mountain has in its Idaho service area.

Here’s to hoping the IPUC treats Rocky Mountain Power’s net-metering customers in the same manner.

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

[Click-baity Headline Goes Here]

The headline tells me I’m washing my dishes wrong.

But the story is – incredibly – that Procter & Gamble has developed a variant of packaging for Dawn dish detergent meant to be sprayed on dishes as they’re washed, rather than glooped into water to be turned into suds.

Yes, it’s a commercial for Dawn dish detergent. And now you’re reading a whiny critique of said commercial.

But it’s given a patina of newsworthiness by CNN business as they investigate – probably regurgitate – that Americans have changed the way they wash dishes, cleaning a few here and there as they’re cooking or whatnot, rather than washing a big round of dirty dishes all at once.*

Who does CNN business quote in this story?

Morgan Brashear, a home care senior scientist at P&G.

Kristine Decker, dish care director at P&G.

Khaled Samirah, research analyst at Euromonitor International, for, again, a patina of newsworthiness. I suppose. Though the quote comes in an odd context of analyzing why dish soap sales increased only 0.4% over the previous year. Because we should be buying MOAR SOAP every year to prop these companies up, I guess, rather than just spending about the same amount every year on cleaning supplies. You’ll be surprised to learn that this new Dawn iteration costs more than the regular stuff, so you’re really helping P&G out if you buy it. But lucky for you, you can get less expensive refills for the special spray bottle until you remember Dawn has a high viscosity and nobody has the kind of time on their hands it takes to refill the special bottle from the refill, so you just buy the special bottle at a higher cost over and over and over and over again.

Nowhere in this 894-word bylined story** is it said this is sponsored content – paid for by the company whose product is being discussed. And maybe nobody paid for it in cash. But the phrase quid pro quo is popular as of late. Maybe there’s a lot of P&G advertising about? I don’t know, as my browsers block advertising. Or at least try to. Nothing they can do with the ad comes looking like a story.

Full disclosure: We do have Dawn dish detergent in the house. It’s great as a clothing pre-wash (and Procter & Gamble, maker of Dawn, controls 46% of the dishwashing liquid market in the United States, the story tells me). But we use Palmolive (a mere 17% of the market, by the way) in the dish sink. And for this endorsement, neither Procter & Gamble nor Colgate-Palmolive have paid me a cent.



*Not at our house. We’re still warehousing dirty dishes to be washed in massive dishwashing sessions once they are gathered from the four corners of our house. If you’re not afraid the pile of clean dishes in the drainer is going to topple over and kill you, you have not washed enough dishes.

**This critique comes in at only 514 words, including footnotes.

Monday, December 9, 2019

Big Events, Little Moments

I’m currently re-reading Farley Mowat’s “And No Birds Sang,” one of my favorite memoirs of World War II.

I don’t have to tell you that World War II was huge, as the name implies. And even individual operations, individual battles, are much larger than a single person can tell.

But it’s done. Time and again.

And as I deconstruct Mowat’s story – and have done with many similar stories on topics ranging from World War II to the creation of the atomic bomb to the impeachment of Richard Nixon, I see the most effective way to tell big stories is to tell the little stories that make up the large.

I hope as you tell your stories in your personal essays that you can apply what I’m about to teach.

Mowat, for example, participated in Operation Husky, the invasion of Sicily by allied forces that started on July 10, 1943.

Wikipedia gives us the big picture. The invasion eventually involved more than 467,000 Allied troops battling against a combined force of 312,000 Italian and German troops.

That’s a big battle – and Mowat tells us successfully of his part of it, not by trying to wow us with numbers, but by telling us the little bits that happened to him.

While moving through the town of Piazza Amerina, they happened upon a public water faucet.

Says Mowat:

I nipped out of the cab to see if [the water] was drinkable; for it we hard learned one solid lesson sofar in Sicilty, it was never to miss a chance to fill one’s water bottle. When a Royal engineer sergeant assured me the water had been tested and was potable, I yelled at my section corporals to grab some water bottles form their men.

The four of us were crowded around the ornate cast-iron spigot when I became aware of the presence of a tall, dignified officer in serge dress uniform, complete with shining brass buttons and gleaming Sam Browne belt. He was as remarkable an apparition in that outfit, time and place, as a king in a chicken coop. Assuming that he must be some very senior variety of staff officer, I glanced at him nervously, expecting a reprimand for having let my men leave the truck; but when he spoke it was to quite a different point.

“I say, old man, would you mind awfully if I took your photograph?”

The question seemed so out of place that even Mitchuk grinned, and I heard Hill ask under his breath: “Have we got ourselves a movie star?” I was too nonplussed to reply, and our driver was gunning his engine as a signal that the convoy was moving on, but I must have nodded acquiescence. In any case, a picture of me, dust-caked and clad in stained and torn shorts and bush shirt that had not been changed since leaving Derbyshire, eventually graded the august pages of the London Illustrated News.

I have labored long and hard to find a copy of this photo, to no avail.

But in this short passage from his book, Mowat tells us a lot with an instance that others might not regard as important: A photo taken at a drinking fountain. Nevertheless, it’s with a series of events like this, some pedestrian, some much more Hollywood-war-movielike, that Mowat tells his story. Little things writ large make for a bigger picture than we think.

And he packs a lot of detail here too. We’re left to imagine why it’s important to have a full water bottle, unless, of course, we’ve been on long hikes, or worked in the heat, and experienced what it’s like to be doggedly thirsty.

And he contrasts his own appearance, dusty and in torn clothing, with the snappy outfit of the photographer’s.

If he were to write a shorter piece, say, like the personal essay you’re writing, he would obviously have to include more information here so you’d understand more of what’s going on, and how it fit into the bigger picture (per my announcement last week). But as this is part of a larger work, he has the luxury of leaving some information unrepeated here, since he has mentioned it earlier.

Nevertheless, we get the urgency of the moment, with the gunning engine. The war must go on, photographer or not.

Little details add up in little moments.

And little moments add up in the big picture.

Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Don't Put Your Readers into A Coma


Any kind of writing demands clarity. That's something we tend to forget when we move from something stodgy, like the argumentative synthesis, to something more fun, like our personal essay.

Nevertheless, the personal essay calls for the same kind of clarity that the argumentative synthesis calls for.

We know the story we want to tell well. And when we know a story well, we sometimes take shortcuts in telling it. Sometimes those shortcuts work, when we're talking to an audience that knows us, and can generally fill in the unintentional blanks we leave in the tales we tell.


Sometimes, however, we forget who we're talking to. And the shortcuts we take make no sense to our audience, because they don't know enough about us to fill in the blanks.

For example, I could tell the following story:

Down the street about half a block, the traffic light was red.

“We’re going through,” Joe said.

“You’ll have to slow down,” I told him.

“A little bit. They’ll just have to get out of the way.”

Joe swung the vehicle wide, around the lineup of left-turning traffic. A lady driving a mini-van in cross traffic saw him coming and gunned it. Joe stomped on the brakes, but when she passed, he immediately plowed out into traffic, most of which saw him coming and stopped or quickly got out of the way.

I could feel my heart pounding against the seatbelt.

“Thirteen more stoplights to go,” Joe said, “and we’re there.”

It’s difficult to contrive a story to illustrate the problem of clarity. It’s probably obvious what details I left out?

Or is it?

Are Joe and I driving a police car, a fire engine? Are our lights blazing, and are we legally allowed to run a red light, even cautiously?

Or are Joe and I criminals, or thrill-seekers, who just don’t want to stop at those stoplights?

Given the context I’ve offered, it could go either way.

So as you tell your stories, be aware of what details you need to include to help your readers understand the situation. The blanks you leave in your writing may not be as obvious as this – most are much more subtle than this scenario allows.

Don’t leave your readers wondering if you’re a saint or a devil.


Monday, December 2, 2019

Deconstructing Terry Pratchett: Maskerade

In my next life, I want to be Terry Pratchett. Until then, the best I can do is read and re-read the books he’s written, and marvel at them.

Today, I finished re-reading, for I don’t know how many times, his novel “Maskerade,” which on the surface appears to be a parody of “The Phantom of the Opera.” Mostly it parodies the musical. But it also parodies the book. And it parodies opera. And operatic tropes and so many other damn things re-reading it is like peeling an onion: You never quite get to the end of it and end up with fingers that smell good for days afterward.

On this reading, I learned this*:

When Greebo**, anticipating chasing the Opera Ghost, throws his bowl of fish eggs out of the box, Pratchett writes its falling resulted in someone in the stalls having a “Fortean experience.” Finally looked that up, and it let me here.

And I should have suspected it was something like this, as Pratchett spends a little time in this same book with the Almanack, where rains of curry and fish and other whatnots are predicted in a book most people use in the privy because the pages are nice and thin.

And I also connected the dot between the highly operatic discovery by Mrs. Angeline Lawsey that her long-lost lover, and father to son Henry – was indeed the famous Enrico Basilica, swearing off the stage and opera to re-become Henry Slugg of Ankh-Morpork at the end of the book, right after Mr. Salzella criticizes the loopy logic of operas that often brings long-lost lovers back together.

And DAMMIT if the character of Walter Plinge isn’t modeled after a character played by Michael Crawford. Just how much stuff did Pratchett have crammed into that glorious head of his?



So it’s parody wrapped in parody, smothered in secret sauce. And dripping with irony and the seemingly inexhaustible knowledge of trivia from the author’s head.

He writes what he knows, apparently.

I could do that.

And he’s following the advice of another excellent writer:



So the rules are, or appear to be:

1. Put a lot of stuff in your head.
2. Figure out some way to get all the stuff in your head to connect and eventually come out when needed. Some kind of journaling or note-taking is probably involved.
3. Write your brains out.

Part of me is happy that Mr. Pratchett blessed us with his work.

Another part of me is upset that this amount of writing talent couldn’t be shared with other writers. Notably me.

But I could get there, the voices say, if I’d actually write, not write about another person’s writing.

That seems grossly unfair. And also accurately operatic.

*Ironically, it came as I was reading about the hapless Henry Lawsey, who has to pause his own reading about the opera to look up words in his dictionary.

**Not going to explain all the characters. Look them up. Or better yet, read the book.

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

The Christmas Stuff Died

Maturity or apathy. I’m not sure which. Or perhaps satiation.

Nobody in our house want stuff this Christmas.

We’re toying with a vacation at Christmastime. Or saving for a vacation after Christmastime has passed. But aside from that, nobody really seems bothered.

Of course we have a house stuffed to the gills with stuff. Not bringing any more new stuff into the house would probably be a good thing.

I did get myself two new pairs of jeans after I ripped the seat out of an old pair putting insulation in the ceiling above the laundry room. And a few things have slipped into the house for us to give each other. But nobody seems to have the energy to shop, let alone come up with a list of desires.

So maybe we give stuff away this year. Or pay extra on a few bills. Money spent on Christmas could make a car payment or two. Or three. Or pay for four months’ worth of solar panels.

I’ve thought about it. The only thing I really hope I get is that candy cane filled with Sixlets. And I can buy my own Sixlets.

We’ll see how long it lasts. Maybe moods will shift. You never know.



Nobody wants a BB gun. Nobody wants a zeppelin. And nobody wants socks or a truck that raises. Or even a football.

Maybe that’s good. Maybe we should put stuff we no longer need under the tree, and give it away come Christmas morning. Our era of acquiring stuff for the sake of stuff might be over.

Which is good, considering the consignment-store look of the house.

Monday, November 25, 2019

Brainstorming vs. Writing in Chunks

NOTE: A post for my English 101 students. But I liked it so much I'm going to share it here too.
So this week we're using two terms that are often confused: Brainstorming and writing in chunks.
Most of us are probably more familiar with brainstorming: Sitting there quietly (or loudly, per your individual preference) coming up with quick bursts of ideas. Whether you type them out on a computer keyboard or scribble them on paper, your typical brainstorming session probably goes something like this, but maybe with less shouting and fewer sideburns:
Brainstorming is where you quickly throw out on paper or on your screen as many ideas as you can think of. They don't have to be fully developed, but they should be specific.
If I were brainstorming ideas for what I'd write my personal essay about, my brainstorming session might come up with the following ideas:
1. When I heard the spirit shout "stop" when I was in the crosswalk
2. What was going through my mind as I watched my first child be born
3. How I felt in those first few moments after my firs auto accident (I still remember that ugly, ugly shirt I was wearing)
4. That day I passed out in the temple parking lot
And so on. You can see I'm not really offering a lot of detail, but I am being as specific as I can. Why be specific? Because if I brainstormed like this:
1. A mission experience
2. My first year at the University of Idaho
3. Getting married
the topics I've picked are so general when I sit down to write the essay, I have no idea where to start, where to end, and will probably come up with a pretty watery essay at the end. The more specific you are, the easier this assignment will be.
Now, let's move on to writing in chunks. And who better to teach us what writing in chunks looks like than Chunk from "The Goonies"
Chunk starts out brainstorming, but brainstorming well. He lists off a rapid-fire list of things he's done (any of which might make a fun personal essay). But when he gets to that incident in the movie theater, he starts writing in chunks. He offers more detail on one idea. It's not a good idea, but he can see the guys are warming to it.
So if I were writing in chunks as I was working on ideas for my personal essay, it might look like this:
I was headed home from the LDS Institute on campus late one night and when I was in a crosswalk on campus, I heard a voice shout "stop!" I stopped and immediately felt something brush the front of my jacket -- it was a car that had been stopped on the side of the road as I entered the crosswalk, but was suddenly there, running the stop sign, as I crossed.
Or
When I got out of the car, I felt all the blood rushing from my head. I figured I'd be okay after a few steps, but blood pressure medicine works in mysterious ways. I took two steps, then told my son "get ready to catch." He didn't catch me.
As I write in chunks, I begin to flesh out ideas from that brainstorming session. As I write, I remember more details, and I jot them down.
Brainstorming is like the spark plug in your engine that gets things started.
Writing in chunks is like shifting through the gears, getting faster and faster as you accelerate up the freeway.
Please try both experiences this week. Brainstorming starts you on the road. Writing in chunks lets you see which of those brainstormed ideas has the most memories attached to it, the most vivid imagery, and helps you get down that road. Try them both and grow some ideas in the garden of your mind.

Obscure Fan Theory #428: Ernesto Lacuna and Oswaldo Twee

Just stumbled across an obscure fan theory regarding Cul de Sac, one of my favorite comic strips, today: The characters Oswaldo Twee and Ernesto Lacuna are father and son, or at least in some way closely related.

First, background.

Ernesto Lacuna is an elementary-aged wunderkind-in-his-own mind, and “imaginary” friend of Petey Otterloop, one of the strip’s main characters. He’s characterized as a proto-adult in waiting, anxious to shed the imbecility of youth and become a take-charge kind of guy. He’s a member of Future Adults of America – he may be its founder and only member – and often has delusions that he holds vast authority over his peers, particularly the hapless Petey.

Oswaldo Twee is a children’s book author that comic strip creator Richard Thompson says he modeled after Lemony Snicket. He, like Ernesto, has his own manias, including the theory that when Petey, inline for a Twee book signing, lost a baby tooth, he was “spontaneously disassembling,” something Ernesto is very likely to believe as well.

Then there’s appearance. Both Twee and Lacuna, despite their differing last names, look like older and younger versions of each other. Behold:

First, Ernesto. In rather a quiet and bland moment for him. But note the hair, the round head, the strange speechifying.


Now on to Mr. Twee. Also black of hair, round of head, and odd of speech.


Enlarged, for both.

Really, all Ernesto needs is that Oswaldian swoop to his hair.


Why does this matter? It doesn’t really. But it’s fun.

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

“Just Don’t Make Fred Into A Saint”

The quote in the headline is from Joanne Rogers, wife of Fred, who needs no introduction.

Maybe she doesn’t want him to be regarded as a saint. And that’s probably no danger, because most of the people using his words these days are using them as weapons against those they hate, which I’m sure Fred Rogers would fine abhorrent. The same has been done with the quiet, peaceful leaders of religion or politics or thought in the past. And it will continue, as long as we remember the words as sharpened swords and arrows, not in the intent they were given.

From the article (emphasis mine):

At the luncheon, [a fundraiser, actually, for George H.W. Bush] Fred stood at the lectern between Bush and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He leaned in to the microphone.

He looked tiny.

“I know of a little girl who was drawing with crayons in school,” he said.

He kept looking tinier.

“The teachers asked her about her drawing,” he said. “And the little girl said, ‘Oh, I am making a picture of God.’ The teacher said, ‘But no one knows what God looks like.’ The little girl smiled and answered, ‘They will now.’ ”

With that he asked everyone to think of their own images of God, and he began praying. He talked about listening to the cries of despair in America and about turning those cries into rays of hope.

A hush fell over the room, and he wasn’t tiny anymore. He stepped away from the lectern and darted. He was always a darter, but this was extreme. “O.K., now where the hell is Fred?” Isler asked me. We darted. We combed the building and climbed stairs. The Secret Service guys had lost sight of him, too. “We’ve got to get out of here,” Newell said.

We found him outside, next to an oak tree, motionless and relaxed. “Fred!” Isler said, exasperated. Fred said he wanted to go back to the office.

“I wasn’t about to participate in any fund-raising or anything else,” he told me later. “But at the same time I don’t want to be an accuser. Other people may be accusers if they want to; that may be their job. I really want to be an advocate for whatever I find is healthy or good. I think people don’t change very much when all they have is a finger pointed at them. I think the only way people change is in relation to somebody who loves them.”

And they don’t change much when words are aimed at them as weapons. Even if they’re the words of Fred Rogers.


Those are Fred’s words too. Many of us sing them today. But many of us don’t mean it.

Monday, November 18, 2019

So You're A Hack Writer, Part 3

So what’s a hack writer to do?

I have to be clear.

Because it came to me Monday, November 18, 2019, during the second hour of a two-hour long technical writers’ meeting on end notes, that some aspects of my story aren’t clear at all. And without that clarity, the driving force of the story and its main character are a bit on the weak side.


Behold the notes I took on my story when I should have been thinking about end notes in technical documents (I’ve learned that when inspiration strikes you, you write it down. “Be a collector of good ideas, writes Jim Rohn, author and speaker, quoted at the blog Write Tribe. “Keep a journal. If you hear a good idea, capture it, write it down. Don’t trust your memory” (Write Tribe).

They appear simple. And they probably won’t result in much more writing, word-count wise, in my novel. But the ideas captured on this bit of paper will be essential – I hope – in fixing my story and getting it ready, once again, to send out to publishers.

Writing, I’ve learned, is a dangerous business, if I can paraphrase Bilbo Baggins. In fact, I’m going to quote him: “It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to” (Tolkien).

If I’m not clear in my storytelling, in establishing the motivation of my characters, the story wanders and much like the warning to Frodo, he who follows it will end up in places I as the author probably didn’t intend, because I was not clear enough.

And if I’m not clear enough, publishers may look at my muddled mess of a manuscript and pass on it, figuring it would be too much work to work with me to make it better.

Make it better now, and I’ve got a better chance.

Wish me luck.

Works cited (cumulative)

Benwitz, Lisa, personal interview by the author, October 2, 2019.

King, Stephen, “On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft,” Scribner, 2000.

Parker, Dorothy, “Inventory,” The Complete Poems of Dorothy Parker, Penguin Classics, April 2010.

Rhodes, Richard, “How to Write: Advice and Reflections,” William and Morrow Company, Inc., New York, 1995.

Rodrigues, Corinne, “Capturing and Storing Ideas When Inspiration Strikes,” Write Tribe, Nov. 18, 2017; writetribe.com/capturing-and-storing-ideas-when-inspiration-strikes/ .

Schultz, Robert, personal interview by the author, September 30, 2019.

The Rescuers, directed by John Lounsbery, Wolfgang Reitherman, and Art Stevens; Buena Vista Distribution, 1977, flim.

Tolkein, J.R.R., “The Fellowship of the Ring,” Allen & Unwin, 1954.

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Ignorance is Bliss. Especially About Epstein

“I am an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, and smothered in secret sauce.”

~ Jimmy James, NewsRadio

I have to grapple with one fact: Some of my Facebook associates could appear on Spot the Looney.

I have to be careful saying this, because they’re otherwise amiable people, easy to get along with and reasonably funny, intelligent people.

But let me also say this: Hoooooo baby.

I have friends of varying political stripes. Some whose only Facebook purpose, it seems is to berate others for not being as holy as they are. Others suddenly take dives into extremist territory (right and left) that make me want to press the buzzer, because, you know. . .


I am somewhat left of center. Getting moreso as I get older. Yet I also despair at the disrespect for the office of president when occupied by a person I didn’t elect and don’t think much of. I also despair at a do-nothing-but-politics legislative branch. And a politico-media complex that would give Dwight David Eisenhower a fit of the dry-heave heebie-jeebies.

It’s tempting at time to take the stand of one Homer J. Simpson when he’s busy drinking new Lemon-Time dish soap:



I’d like to see an end to the Jeffrey Epstein memes, is what I’m saying.

Yes, yes. Head in the sand as She Who Shall Not Be Named roams the countryside, killing opponents and other ne’er-do-wells with impunity. The memes seem to imply some magical power, that saying them will make She into a puppet, like Count Bloodcount, at the mercy of Bugs Bunny’s “magic woids and phrases.”



What matters most, of course, is not the truth. Because both extremes are acutely allergic to it. What matters is the dischord, the knowing that we may not necessarily be right but the others are CERTAINLY wrong.

I won’t engage in any popular Two Minute Hate unless it’s against slow drivers.

But that’s easy to say. Less easy to practice, as Orwell says:

“The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in.”



Not that I think any of my Facebook associates are Nazis. Just that some tunes are pretty catchy.

What keeps me from joining in?

Blissful ignorance.

Friday, November 8, 2019

Don't Lie to Me [Politicians of Every Stripe Writhe in Pain]

Going to say two things here:

1. I’m in favor of nationalized health care, or Medicare for all, or whatever else you want to call it.
2. Anyone who believes this can be paid for without a middle-class tax hike that will exceed the amount the middle class is currently paying for private- or employer-supported health insurance is selling you something.

I’ve read the reports and studies, saying Medicare for all would cost this nation between $15 trillion to $40 trillion over the first ten years. I tend to believe the numbers will be on the higher end.

Those telling you otherwise are selling something.

Or they’re just bad at math.

By all means, the current medical system in this country is trash. But don’t try to fix it by telling lies. Or producing some kind of magical unicorn math that says I’m going to get a bigger something by paying less for it. Because when you tell lies you tell me you’re more worried about getting elected than fixing the problem. And if you’re more worried about getting elected than fixing the problem, when it comes time, after the election, that you get to fix the problem and have to backtrack on the lies you’ve told, well, you’re a lying liar whose lying pants are on fire.

And do not, for the love of Michael Scott, tell me I’m going to get “a raise” if your version of Medicare for all is approved. That’s a bigger whopper than telling me my taxes aren’t going to go up. Because some way or another, no matter how innocent or misdirected your motives are, taxing “other people” to pay for my healthcare just isn’t going to work.

Single-payer healthcare works in other countries. And their middle-class taxes are higher than our middle-class taxes. If your magical unicorn thinking worked, they’d be doing the same magical unicorn thinking elsewhere. They are not doing that.



Thursday, November 7, 2019

What Would Mr. Rogers Do?

For a hard-bitten journalist like Junod to come out with a story like this speaks to the power of Fred Rogers. And it makes me weep to think as a nation we've looked at Fred Rogers' message, deified it, and put it on the shelf to be brought out as a cudgel rather than used in kindness.

From the article:

"It isn’t that [Fred Rogers] is revered but not followed so much as he is revered because he is not followed—because remembering him as a nice man is easier than thinking of him as a demanding one. He spoke most clearly through his example, but our culture consoles itself with the simple fact that he once existed. There is no use asking further questions of him, only of ourselves. We know what Mister Rogers would do, but even now we don’t know what to do with the lessons of Mister Rogers."

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Argumentative Synthesis Clarity


I feel a sudden onset of clarity, Bartok.

In English 101, we’re dealing with vague instructions for the argumentative synthesis paper. To help clarify things, I send out an announcement just before class begins, and post it again the first week, explaining what I expect to see in their essay.

This is complicated by two factors:
  1.        Students don’t always remember that announcement, or don’t bother to read it to begin with.   
  2.        The instructions for the paper are vague.
The vague instructions, the course designers say, are on purpose, allowing us as teachers to custom-teach the essay in ways we think work the best. The problem is for this to work, we have to overcommunicate. And even with overcommunication, students get to the assignment, particularly for part two, and read the vague instructions and figure they’ve got a handle on things, when truth be told the instructions don’t follow the clarifications I offered them earlier in the semester.

So rather than fight against the system, I’m going to modify my expectations.

Part of the vagueness has to do with semantics. The instructions call for students to write about three “positions” on the problem or issue they’ve decided to concentrate on. Since many don’t know what a “position” is in this sense, they’ve asked for clarification. I’ve said positions=solutions, and even provide a custom worksheet for them to use to construct their part two outline so their outcome meets my expectations.

But I have to make the worksheet optional. And since it’s optional and not mentioned in the worksheet where the students have to describe the “positions,” it’s not always helpful.

So the epiphany today, reached while conferencing with a student: I will accept discussion of three solutions or three positions. Solutions may take them in one direction, while positions may take them another. I’m going to stop trying to shoehorn them into thinking the paper has to be exactly as I want it, and allow for this dual path to completion. One caveat: At the end, they either have to explain which solution is  best, or which position is best. That’s still fitting with the overall philosophy of the assignment, I think, and will lead to fewer headaches with the instructions.

ADDENDUM FROM DEC. 5.

I've had additional time to think about this subject, and had an enlightening conversation with an individual in the know, particularly about teaching and teaching internationally, which is what we're doing.

We have to break any molds me might have about expected outcomes. Students are coming into BYUI through a wide variety of backgrounds and academic experiences. It's come to my mind that my expectations have been exceptionally American since I started teaching this course. I believe I can maintain high love and high expectations while loosening the constraints I put on my students when it comes to the Argumentative Synthesis paper. Students can succeed without having to conform to my narrow interpretation of the assignment. If I allow a broader interpretation but still maintain high expectations, both I and my students will be happier with the outcomes.

This post shows a rudimentary new approach to this essay. I'm going to think about it some more between semesters and see what goals I can come up with to help my students have better success with this paper.

Should I Eat Potatoes While I Run?


Should I eat potatoes while I run?
Should I nibble on the sun?
Should I run, should I run
‘til pudding comes out my bum?

Leave potatoes on the shelf, on the shelf, on the shelf
Leave the sun to shine
And do not run, do not run
With any stuff coming out your bum.

Should I fill my boots with dirt?
Should my cauliflower hurt?
Should the dirt, should the dirt
Be rubbed right into my shirt?

Fill your boots with feet, with your feet, with some feet
And cauliflower hurts
If with it you are beat.
And that shirt? Also hurts.

Should I sing a silly song
As I’m dancing in my thong?
And is it wrong, is it wrong
To feel like I don’t belong?

Sing your silly song, silly song, silly song
But cover up the thong
Because it’s very, very wrong.
It’s clear you really don’t belong.

Writing Lessons: Robert Asprin

I know I have problems with my writing. One of those problems is prevarication. Another is hooptedoodle. And when prevarication and hooptedoodle combine, it’s not a good thing.
So I’m turning to successful writers to see what they do.

Robert Asprin, author of the popular Myth series, is not a prevaricator. He gets you right into the story. Even if you’re not familiar with the Myth world.

Here, as an example, is his how he introduces readers new to the series to the stories’ basic premise in Myth Directions, Book 3 in the series:


“I lose my powers to a stupid practical joker, and instead of concentrating on getting them back, I take on some twit of an apprentice who doesn’t have any aspirations higher than being a thief, train him, groom him, and get him a job paying more than he could spend in two lifetimes, and what happens? He complains! I suppose you think you could have done better on your own?”

This is all shouted by the character Ahaz on page 1 – page 1 – of the novel, and you get right away that he’s a prickly number to deal with as well. And you know enough about the story to get into it, without having read the first two books (there are enough hints scattered throughout the book to indicate that if you like this one, you should go back to read the others, just so you understand some of the references made. But there’s enough here to get you into the story.

I’m amazed at this. I mean it’s basic skill of the craft. But to see it when you know it’s what you need to do is helpful. (Caveat: My writing style is not the same as Asprin’s style; ergo I may naturally want to leave more prevarication and hooptedoodle than he does. But I can still learn about moving a story forward.)

Maybe Doleful Creatures prevaricates because I’m new to the story myself. And maybe that’s a sign I need to get more familiar with the story and my characters.

More on moving forward:

Asprin uses the Louis L’Amour method of writing – ending every chapter on some kind of cliffhanger. He does this in Myth Directions by bringing a new character into the story right after setting the stage for SKeeve – the main character – and his desire to go wandering through the dimensions.

I don’t do that in particular. And maybe I should. But it’s not my style of writing, so I have to wonder if that’s a tool I need to add to the toolbox.

But it does help Asprin keep the story moving. He may introduce a little hooptedoodle here and there, but he sets the goal of making sure the story is moving again and again and again. So that could be a good thing. Although it smacks me as hokey.

Monday, October 28, 2019

The Oaf

The Oaf went lumbering down the street
Spitting out two-by-fours.
He cursed the clouds and cursed the cold
That hindered his autumn chores.

The leaves they crunched beneath his feet
A littering he abhors.

No dragon to slay, no beast to best
Yet anxiety kills the Oaf.
He plunks away at a tiny desk
Sweating to earn his loaf.

The cold it seeps into his brain
The fingers to work are loth.

The knight has set, the sun has died
The Oaf cries a-standing there.
November chill it seeps in deep
Right through its thinning hair.

But demons laugh a laugh so deep
Chuckling, they do not care.

“Now go away, O demon Cold!”
He shouts to the sky so drear.
Demons laugh and demons fly
Whispering hatred in his ear.

The Oaf by demons deep beset
Scratches his shaggy rear.

Saturday, October 26, 2019

So You're A Hack Writer, Part 2

In talking with my writer friends, and in re-reading some of the many books on writing that I’ve read, I see three areas in which I know I can improve.

First, I have to get past being pleased with my own writing and concentrate more on keeping the story moving and the reader interested. Let’s call that keeping the ball rolling.

Second, I need to make sure I’m clear. I might know what part of my story means, but if I haven’t communicated that to the reader, they’ll come up with meanings of their own which may make other things less clear. Let’s call this being clear.

Third, I need to kill those doubts.

In his book “On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft,” author Stephen King writes “In many cases when a reader puts a story aside because it ‘got boring,’ the boredom arose because the writer grew enchanted with his powers of description and lost sight of his priority which is to keep the ball rolling.” There’s where I stole the phrase.

I’ve been there with books. I recall reading – or at least attempting to read – “Little, Big,” by John Crowley. I gave up by about page 120 of this 800-page novel because by that time, the following had happened: A lady sat in her quiet bedroom looking at pictures and drinking tea. Another character had driven around the property in an old Ford car. I was promised the book was full of fairy magic and wonder. I got tea and road dust. I’d like to say I’m exaggerating. But I’m not.

So I need to read the story from the point of view of the reader, King says, so I can see where I might be stalling the story to the point readers won’t want to continue.

Benwitz advises sending the book on to beta readers – fellow writers or fans of the genre you’re writing in who are willing to read your story and offer you advice on it. They can point out when they’re getting bored, when they’re confused, or what they love and what they’d like more of. That can be risky, leading to re-writing just for the sake of individual readers. “You have to take the ‘take what you need and leave the rest’ approach,” she says (Benwitz).What are the disadvantages of this solution? Knowing when to stop, for one. I know not everything I write is golden. But when you get to the point you're second-guessing everything you do, Benwitz says, you risk losing the story. "Sometimes our first instincts turn out to be our best," she says.

For clarity, I love to look to the writing of Richard Rhodes, who wrote “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” in a style that’s historically accurate but also reads like a novel. Rhodes, in his book “How to Write,” emphasizes clarity of meaning when he edits.“

A physicist who escaped to the United States from Nazi Germany in the 1930s was disturbed on the train from New York to Princeton [New Jersey] to see all the wooden houses – in Europe, he writes, wooden houses ‘are looked down upon as cheap substitutes which do not, like brick, resist the attack of passing time.’ In Princeton on a Saturday afternoon, the physicist found the streets empty of students. He inquired at his hotel where all the students had gone. Perhaps to see Notre Dame, the clerk told him. ‘Was I crazy?’ the physicist asked himself. ‘Notre Dame is in Paris. Here is Princeton with its empty streets. What does it all mean?’”

The confused physicist, Rhodes goes on to say, needed meaning that the context of his world was not providing. Because he did not have context, he had to fill it in with his own experience. Only later he learned that many houses in the United States are wooden because wood is plentiful, unlike in Europe, and that the Notre Dame referred to was in this case the visiting football team from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.“If you don’t say what you mean,” he concludes, “your readers will fill in meaning willy-nilly” (Rhodes).Can there be a disadvantage to clarity? Readers unsure of meaning are angry readers. They could be bored readers. They won’t be your readers forever.

I know what my story is about. But are there times I’m confusing my readers? If so, I need to fix that.
Then there’s that doubt.

One of my favorite Disney films is “The Rescuers” from 1977. In the film, two mice named Bernard and Bianca must fly from New York to the Devil’s Bayou on the back of an albatross to rescue a kidnapped girl. Bernard is uncomfortable with most aspects of the journey, and is called on by the albatross Orville to read his pre-flight checklist, which includes the following: “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” The joke is that albatrosses, built for long flights, aren't the best at takeoffs and landings, so a little extra effort is needed.


That’s what I need to do with my doubt.

But listening to doubt and doubt only can be self-destructive. "At some point, you have to sit back and stop second-guessing yourself, trust what you've written, and just move ahead," Benwitz says.

Works cited (cumulative)

Benwitz, Lisa, personal interview by the author, October 2, 2019.

King, Stephen, “On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft,” Scribner, 2000.

Parker, Dorothy, “Inventory,” The Complete Poems of Dorothy Parker, Penguin Classics, April 2010.

Rhodes, Richard, “How to Write: Advice and Reflections,” William and Morrow Company, Inc., New York, 1995.

Schultz, Robert, personal interview by the author, September 30, 2019.

The Rescuers, directed by John Lounsbery, Wolfgang Reitherman, and Art Stevens; Buena Vista Distribution, 1977, flim.

Be Clear.

In Lewis Carroll’s poem “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” there is nothing but ambiguity. We don’t know, for example, whether it’s day or night:

The sun was shining on the sea
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright –
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done –
“It’s very rude of him,” she said,
“To come and spoil the fun.”

Though this confusion works well for Carroll’s famous bit of “nonsense verse,” a reader looking for a straightforward answer as to whether it’s night or day is going to leave confused.

Some might leave insisting it’s the middle of the night. “It says so, right at the end of the first verse!”

Others will rightly point out, though, that the sun is up in the first verse as well, and in the second verse, the moon is complaining about the sun’s presence. And since both moon and sun can appear together in the daytime, it’s logical to assume that since both are in the sky, it’s daytime, no matter what the first stanza declares.

Nobody’s all that satisfied with what these first verses mean – and Carroll likes it that way.

When you’re writing an essay, though, you need to be as clear as you can possibly be.

How to achieve that clarity?

You have to look at your writing through the eyes of the reader. Don’t assume what’s in your head is in the reader’s head as well.

Here’s an example:

My Grandpa Spiers smoked a pipe, worked on the railroad, and knew how to play the harmonica, mouth harp, and the musical saw. Because of that, he developed cancer of the jaw and died before he turned fifty.

Before you move on, pause for a moment. Re-read that example. And see if you can spot the ambiguity.

I have two purposes in this sentence, but one of them is muddled. I want, first of all, for you to get to know my Grandpa Spiers. He did indeed work on the railroad, and knew how to play a variety of unusual musical instruments. But the second purpose in that sentence – that his pipe smoking led to his death from cancer of the jaw – is muddled. I know what I mean. And it’s possible a few of you picked up on what I meant as well. But I’ll wager a fair number of you were wondering what the connection is between the railroad and the musical instruments he payed and his premature death from cancer.

Part of me wants to say, “give your readers the benefit of the doubt. They’re smart enough to make the connection between the pipe-smoking and the cancer.” But part of me knows there are some who are going to be confused by those two sentences and miss the connection. Or they’ll see the connection after they think about it for a bit. Even if they see the connection after a little while, I’ve not done my job as a writer. My job is to help readers see those connections right away.

So here goes.

My Grandpa Spiers worked on the railroad and knew how to paly the harmonica, mouth harp, and the musical saw. He also smoked a pipe – and that led to him developing cancer of the jaw and dying before he turned fifty.

You don’t have to re-read those sentences to understand the meaning or the connection, because I helped make the connection for you.

This is not you talking down to your readers. This is you helping your readers understand you more quickly.

Another example:

When my brother finished laying the last bricks on the chimney, I used the rake to finish the joints.

I know exactly what I mean, because I worked as a hod carrier – or bricklayer’s assistant – for many years. I’m sure some of you are wondering what I’m doing with a garden or leaf rake. Some of you are probably wondering what “joints” are in this context.

This is an example of ambiguity stemming from jargon and specialized experience. To make this useful to my readers, I have to slow down and explain a few things.

So here goes.

When my brother finished laying the last bricks on the chimney, I used the rake to finish the joints. A rake is a hand-held tool that has two small wheels on it. In the center is an adjustable nail that removes, or rakes out, mortar from between the bricks to give those mortar joints a more finished look.

I did have to add another sentence for clarity, but I hope that addition helped some of you get a better picture of what I’m writing about. I might even, if raking mortar joints is essential to the story I’m telling, provide photos or video, like this:



It’s important as you write – and as you offer feedback – to note where you or another writer needs to be more clear. If you don’t understand what someone has written, it’s a fair bet you’re not the only one who won’t understand. Help each other by pointing out ambiguity.

And if you’re an oyster and the walrus and the carpenter ask you to follow them for a beachside stroll, be like the old and wise oyster and stay put.

Monday, October 14, 2019

Steal the River

The above is a Terry Pratchett novel in utero. Below, a very feeble attempt at a start. . .


“They are digging,” he said.

“No!” whispered the other.

“For the past four months, yes. I have seen it.”

The second picked up his cup, drained it. “They are fools.”

“Fools, yes. But they are digging nonetheless.”

“Bruno, you’re –”

“A liar. Yes, I know. I am. But I tell you, I have seen it.”

“Where do they dig?”

“I cannot tell you that. It is a secret.”

“A secret? A thousand men moving all that dirt and rock!” he shouted.

“Yes, a secret, even here,” he said quietly, reaching up, grabbing the man by the front of his shirt and pulling him back down into his seat.

“They cannot possibly hide it. All that dirt!”

“You think they plan to do this without a plan for the dirt? Lucca will have more hills to hide its ugly women! The dirt is the least of their problems! They need men. Men to dig and men to haul and men to hold the water back until the idiots in Pisa look out their windows and see nothing but mud!”

“You’re shouting,” the other said. “I thought it was a secret.”

“Oh, it is,” he said, tapping the side of his nose.

“Everyone in the bar heard your shouting.”

“Bah,” he said. “That’s bar shouting. Two drunken fools at a table talking as other drunken fools drink or play darts or eat questionable sausage or run off suddenly to puke. Bar shouting.”

“Yours too. But let us test a few of them. You! Old man!”

The old man sitting at the table next to them – the old man who had up until that point quietly sipped his wine and whittled on a bit of a stick – smiled blindly in their direction.

“You, old man. You have heard our conversation?”

“I heard about digging,” he said slowly. “And dirt that’s moving. And water that’s holding back. And about the idiots in Pisa. I have a grandson in Pisa.”

“You’ve heard of Luchesi?”

The old man coughed up some wine, dribbling some down his chin.

“You know Luchesi?” he repeated.

The old man nodded. “The one who –“

“—cuts off –”

“Yes. I know him.”

“He wants this digging kept a secret.”

The chattering in the bar – lowered with each sentence and outburst of the two men at the table so they could hear the secrets – died, but for one word, a name, whispered and written on bits of paper passed back and forth and in the spilled wine on the further tables.

“You know of any digging?”

“No,” the old man said.

“Not even for the idiots in Pisa to crap in?”

“No, nothing,” he said.

“No hole for that grandson of yours?”

“No, please.”

He reached across the table and patted his companion on the shoulder. “See?” he said to the other.

“It’s a secret.”

“Ah, but threats? The name of Luchesi? Now you go into the realm of rumors.”

“Rumors,” he said. “As long as the name of Luchesi is in those rumors, I do not fear them. Pisa can send spies. They can send diggers for all I care. You think we’ve not let the idiot diggers from Pisa go back home? And paid?”

“But –”

“But always with the name of Luchesi. And you know what happens if you say the name Luchesi too often.”

“Yes,” he said. “He appears.”

“And not in the best of moods.”

A waiter walked to the table and deposited another bottle of wine. He slipped the waiter a coin with a nod.

“And all they know is, we dig. And they do not dig channels. They dig wells. They dig pits. They dig graves – some of those are filled in, yes – or they dig cesspits. No big channels. No hole within sight of another. They are not stupid, those planning the dig. One knows the hole one digs. Nothing more. And they feed them the dirt for breakfast.”

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

The Peter Principle, or I Don’t Care How We Do References As Long As We’re Consistent and As Long As they Work for those Who Have to Read Them.

I could probably tighten up that title.

But It’s not important.

Which is why I don’t want to even apply for the supervisory position where I work.

The supervisor is supposed to care* whether we put the document title before or after the document ID. And about all I could do in the nearly two-hour meeting where this and other matters were discussed was make an occasional point but mostly try not to fall asleep.

Enter the Peter Principle.

I’ve written about this before, but for the uninitiated, the Peter Principle is thus:

“Members of a hierarchy are promoted until they reach the level at which they are no longer competent.”

I’ve been on that level before. And it’s not pleasant. My current job allows me the occasional frisson of competence, so why rock the boat? More money? Sure. But money isn’t everything. Or so I hear, says the guy with a side-gig teaching online English classes. Which kinda takes money out of the equation.

I know this does not computer in some minds. Let us refresh the thought that not all minds think the same, not every person is filled to the brim with sloshing ambition and talent and leave it at that. Besides, you uber-talented and motivated people need people like me to step out of the way and not mind getting bossed around, right?

Thing is, aside from the occasional twinges of anxiety, annoyance, and paranoia (which are going to come with whatever job I might take on) I’m happy where I am and what I’m doing there. Could I learn to be more excited about reference ordering? Probably. It’s not outside my skill set or the realm of possibility. But there are other aspects of the job that add to the unsavoriness. It’s a job that needs doing, so be it. But it doesn’t have to be done by me. There are people with more experience who can take the job. And I’m good with that.

*I should care too. And I do. I’m just not all that hot up about being involved in the process that gets us from speculation on what form the references will take to the finished product. Which is probably why I was so terrible at algebra.

Monday, October 7, 2019

"Some Days You Just Can't Get Rid of A Bomb."

So when I left work Thursday, it was under a growing cloud of concern that my professionalism was being called into question.

There was nothing I could do before I left to ease the concern, so I knew it was going to follow me all weekend long. Why did I know this? Because we Davidsons have a streak of paranoia that LIVES for stuff like this.

So indeed, all weekend long, I’d be trucking along and then KABLAM the paranoia would checking saying, “Hey, remember when you get back to work on Monday you’re gonna have to deal with professionalism, called into question! Have fun with that!”

We Davidsons also don’t like Sunday evenings as a rule because they mean the weekend is over and we have to head back to work so the paranoia really settles in and starts chewing like some hungry caterpillar meaning I can’t focus on any task that’s going to take longer than thirty seconds unless it’s dish-washing, my go-to for consuming nervous energy and thanks be to my children who left a LOT of dirty dishes that needed to be taken care of.



I also listened to Christmas music. Lots of Christmas music minus most of the modern stuff and the stuff that came out of Motown. Because that also sorta calms me down.

So I’m washing dishes and testily yelling at Alexa – I have to have the volume loud so I can hear the music over the clatter of dishes – and none of that is really helping the stress/paranoia fade. Good thing I had a Diet Pepsi so the calming effects of caffeine could kick in as well.

Nevertheless, as I went to bed that night, I said a little prayer, adding in the request that my back would be strengthened to bear the burdens that would be placed up on it.

Then the dogs whined a lot that night. Michelle took one of them out at one point. But then that same dog was concerned/upset I wasn’t getting up at the regular time (nevermind that I was getting up at the regular time for a Monday) so I sneaked in another 20 minutes of sleep on the couch after putting the dogs out.

Then I get to work and the first email I see is from the fella who was calling my professionalism in question. And it was:

Nothing.

Nothing.



Just a few comments on stuff. Stuff he should be commenting on, not the stuff that would have brought my professionalism into question. None of that.

Good thing I didn’t pack that around with me all weekend.


Which leads me to wondering: I’m pretty sure autism, at various points on the spectrum, gallops in my family. As does this paranoia/depression thing. If any Davidson tells you otherwise, we’re probably lying. What can be done about it? Clinically, I’m Schultz on this: I know nothing. I’m being treated for high blood pressure, and that’s about it. The rest? Who needs the doctor bills to discover what’s already obvious and likely?

And will I remember to get the under-sink supply lines and the Drano on the way home from work tonight? I certainly hope so.

To summarize: Me, trying to get rid of those paranoid thoughts:



Sunday, October 6, 2019

So, You're A Hack Writer

NOTE: This is another sample argumentative synthesis essay I'm working on for the English classes I teach. Part One. I'm also using it to help jump-start my brain into finishing the novel I'm working on.

So, you’re a hack writer.

Worse yet, a hack writer on the seventeenth – yes, seventeenth – revision of your first novel, the genesis of which you wrote for National Novel Writing Month in, oh, it doesn’t matter. Mid-aughts. And you’ve “won” a few times since then. But nothing’s published.

What matters is you’re stuck.

Or I’m stuck.

Or I suck.

Because you may not be a hack writer, or on your seventeenth revision. But I am. And that’s a problem.

It’s a problem of ego. A friend of mine has published three novels in the time it’s taken me to get to the seventeenth revision. Not that I should be comparing myself to my friends. Because I don’t know how many revisions he made to his books.

It’s a problem of organization. I am, in the parlance of writers, a “pantser,” meaning I do not outline, but write by the seat of my pants. Hence the mess of a novel I’ve got.

It’s a problem of self-doubt. Writer and critic Dorothy Parker was right when she wrote the immortal words: “Four be the things I'd have been better without: Love, curiosity, freckles, and doubt” (Parker). Doubt can be crippling for writers new and old, or so I’m learning and so I’ve been told.

“I have gone as high as 18 revisions, did so on Starbird II,” says Robert Schultz, the aforementioned three-noveled friend. “There is nothing wrong with that many revisions. The problem comes from how deep those revisions are. If you’ve been at the novel for ten years, then you’re taking too long to do your revisions and it’s time to accept the fact that your children have flaws, and they’re always going to have flaws” (Schultz).

I have to believe he’s right. He’s published three novels, all science fiction.

Then there’s the advice offered by Lisa Benwitz, a self-employed scopist, which is an editor who also has a flair for looking at a story as a whole and seeing what works and what doesn’t.

“The number of times you edit, in large part, depends upon your particular process,” she says. “There are so many things to look for. Some writers agonize over every word in every sentence; others prefer to go through for style first and then again for substance. So I think the answer to that question is different for everyone. I think, as writers, we also know when we're growing too obsessive about it! However, that being said, 17 times is definitely too many. You're at great risk of turning your book into something entirely different. Sometimes our first instincts turn out to be our best.”

So my problem might be: I need to get off my duff and figure out what the next step is.

Works Cited

Parker, Dorothy, “Inventory,” The Complete Poems of Dorothy Parker, Penguin Classics, April 2010.

Schultz, Robert, personal interview by the author, September 30, 2019.

Benwitz, Lisa, personal interview by the author, October 2, 2019.