White-Washed Books

Apparently, this is a thing now: "Clean Reader prevents swear words in books from being displayed on your screen."

It's exactly what it sounds like.

Once upon a time, there was a couple whose daughter came home upset from school. After they asked what was wrong, she informed them that she was reading a book that she really enjoyed but was bothered by the profanity in it. The parents then began scouring the world to find something that would help their daughter. Something that would allow her to read the book without reading all those filthy words. To their shock, no such apparatus for automated censorship could be found. So they created Clean Reader.

Clean Reader is an app that scans through eBooks searching for naughty words and replaces them with a large highlight and an alternative, much less "offensive" word.

Ahem.

ACHOO.

I know many people on both sides of the whole "bad words" debacle. I know some people who refuse to use any form of profanity except under the most extreme conditions and I know some people who drop the f-bomb every other word. As in most things, I do my best to fall somewhere in the middle.

My view on profanity is pretty simple: it's language. The reason that it is considered "bad" is because someone arbitrarily made that decision, so there really is nothing wrong with using such language. The only real reason not to use it is interpersonal relationships. I personally am enough of a peacemaker that I try to censor my language around certain people so as not to make them uncomfortable. It's the same reason I don't tell people what color my poop was this morning. You will notice, however, that my self-imposed censorship on this blog presents the same idea and is in tone with my style of writing. (See ACHOO.)

There is certainly something to be said about censoring one's own language in order to make your own life easier by not alienating yourself from others. There is certainly nothing at all wrong with that. There is, however, something wrong about trying to pretend that profanity is not a part of our language.

Let's bring an author into this debate, shall we?

Fuck You, Clean Reader: Authorial Consent Matters

Mr. Wendig, who wrote the above article, is very inclined to using the language in question, so if simply reading the title of that article makes you uncomfortable, consider yourself warned about the language inside. There's nothing vulgar, just naughty words.

Here's the gist and the reason authors are upset about Clean Reader: It's putting words in other people's mouths. When an author writes a book, they are not simply trying to describe settings or characters or even relate a series of events. They are trying their hardest to perform magic. They are trying to drag you out of your body and place you in the mind-set of their protagonist. They are trying to make you feel and experience something. This is not an easy task. Profanity is a part of language and so is often used to aid in the impossible task of transporting you out of your body and into a fictional words.

Certain people in your life would never ever say "fiddle-sticks" or "gosh-darned" just like certain people in your life would never say "fuck" or "god-damned". Characters have to be treated in the same way. Certain characters have to cuss in order for the character to work.

Unfortunately, characters are merely a small part of the issue. If it simply came down to having characters saying something different, that would be nothing. The bigger problem lies in creating an atmosphere. Authors agonize over every single word they put down on paper. They debate whether they should use "the" or "a". They can't sleep at night because they're not sure if someone skipped through a field or frolicked across a meadow. Words have the power to build worlds and when you start pulling away pieces of that world, things start to unravel. Specifically, the reader's experience unravels.

In the book Wicked (not the musical. the book.), there is a scene that takes place in what I can only describe as a kinky sex club. It was weird. It was uncomfortable. It made me reevaluate everything I believe about the reproductive habits of lions and dwarfs. But that was the point. It wasn't supposed to be a part of the story that you breezed through and felt great about afterward. It came to define the lives of some of the characters because it was so disturbing. At the time, I would have just as soon preferred that the author not include the scene. Now when I look back, I realize that what Gregory Maguire (the author) did in that scene was nothing short of magic. I was in that club with those characters. I experienced something that could never happen in the real world.

He did that. Using his words.

When you start taking those words away, you strip the author of their power and hinder them. Imagine that you were offended by a particular shade of blue. Would it be right to create something that filtered out that color whenever you looked at a painting and replaced it with neon green? No. You would think that the painter was insane for using such strange colors to paint a sky. It's the same thing.

The deepest issue with this app is that it takes away the author's only power to defend themselves. It edits their work, then presents it to the masses for judgement. After you have changed the author's words, you are no longer presenting their work. You are presenting something different with their name stamped on the front.

You want to read books that don't have "bad words" in them? Fine. Go find them.

You want your kids reading books that are appropriate for their maturity? Great. Go find them.

You want to start changing books without the author's permission so that your kids don't have to deal with uncomfortable feelings? ACHOO. There is a difference between giving your kids books that are appropriate for them and altering inappropriate ones so that everyone's comfortable with them.

Beyond that, however, remember that it is OK to feel uncomfortable. That's how you grow. Shielding your children from profanity forever will not help them in the long run. It will simply leave them feeling offended and anxious when they go to their first R-rated comedy with their friends. Or set foot in New York. Rather than hiding those words, have a conversation with your children. Talk to them about when they might be appropriate. Talk to them about why those words make them uncomfortable. Give them tools to deal with it. Instead of teaching them not to go anywhere near matches, show them where the fire extinguisher is. Because one day, they just might run into an arsonist like me.

And on that day, you'll be glad they know what the fuck to do.

183 Questions

"Rehumanizing", "Writers Not-So-Anonymous", "Explosions of Nothing", "Salem Door", "Get Me In Jail", "The VeeBJamN Network". These are the names of just a few of my many projects that I began with great intentions for the future but left stranded on the side of the road.

I'm not the most reliable person, if you haven't noticed. I'm notoriously late for things. I start projects and never finish them. I forget to respond to people's texts.

There are some things that I have done a magnificent job of completing. Almost all of my school work was done by the day it was due. I may have left it until the night before to finish it, but it was turned in on time. For months, I posted almost every day on this very blog. For years I watched every episode of LOST when it came on TV. I've been questioning lately what the difference is between the things that are safe to leave in my hands and the things that aren't, and there is one major difference: consequences.

I am a very poor self-motivator. If the only consequences are that I didn't achieve my own goal, who cares? If the penalty for being late to work is that I missed ten minutes of sitting and doing nothing in a building by myself, why should I show up on time? If no one is reading my blog when I post it, who will notice if I don't post it?

I need consequences. In school, if your assignment wasn't in on time, at the very least you lost a chunk of points on it. When I first started this blog, I knew of several people who read every time I posted. If I missed an episode of LOST (back when it was first coming on), I wouldn't get to watch it until a week later after the next episode came on.

I think this is part of why so many of my projects have been left unfinished. If I don't finish them, who will notice? Who will care? I certainly won't. Most of the time, once I'm halfway through a project, my brain has already finished it and moved on to the next. There's no reason for me to finish it on my end. The only reason to finish it would be if someone else cared. This is unfortunate, because when I look back, all I can see is the long trail of half-finished ideas I've used to mark my path.

I don't like this about myself. My unreliability is at the top of the list of things I don't like about me, and I want desperately to cross it off. One of my biggest problems at this point is that I remain unconvinced that it's even possible for me to finish something without someone looking over my shoulder. With that in mind, I am going to try to prove myself wrong.

For one year, come Hell or high water, I will post one story (or piece of a story) every two days (one to write, one to edit) with a minimum length of 500 words.

A second issue: I've always had a hard time taking credit for my writing. I think this is part of why I created my pseudonym. Two reasons:

1. Stories have always come to me so readily and so naturally that I don't feel like a wrote them so much as they presented themselves to me.
2. I'm terrified of rejection.

For a longer explanation of the first reason, please see the page About B.C. Friday. I don't disagree with this reasoning behind the use of a pseudonym, but I'm afraid that reason #2 is a more accurate depiction of my continued use of "B.C. Friday". I need, if only for a time, to take ownership of my work. I need to put my name on it, put it out there, and accept what comes of that.

With that in mind, these 183 stories that I will write over the course of a year will all be written under my name. The name "Benjamin Freitag" will be prominently displayed on the site. I need to prove to myself that I really do have something to do with it and am not just a vessel.

This is going to be an incredibly difficult project for me. It is going to test my commitment, my resolve, and my ability to self-motivate. I don't want to rely on someone else to push me into doing this. This is for me.

There is something that I could use from you, however. I am going to be looking for prompts. What I want from you is questions. They can be personal questions about me, factual questions about the world, or anything else you can think of. It just doesn't matter. (BTW I love "What if" questions!) Hopefully, I will be able to pull together 183 questions and answer them in the form of a story. You can send them to me in many forms. You can message me on Facebook, email them to veebjamn@live.com with the subject line "183 Questions", tweet me on Twitter (I'm bad with this site's jargon) @VeeBJamN using #183questions, or you can tell me in person. Hopefully, once I get the site up and running, you will be able to send in questions there as well.

Due to the nature of this endeavor and the fact that it doesn't really jive with the tone of this blog (or any of the other half-dozen I've set up and abandoned), I will be starting it somewhere new. I don't know where yet. I'm going to be doing some research on that, and I will get back to you. As soon as I've made a decision, I will put an update on this post as well as a link at the top of this blog so you can start watching for the stories to come.

Look for the stories to start coming March 1st, but you can ask questions anytime from now until I'm done with the project in March 2016. (That sounds like such a long way away.)

So here's my question for you today: What are the things you would like to change about yourself and how can you start working to change those things?



Update (2/26/15): The project has a home! Head on over to 183questions.wordpress.com and start asking questions! First story will be up March 1st. 

A Mathematical Approach to Faith

The most fundamental element of mathematics is not 1. Many would argue this, but these people are ignoring the underlying ideas of math. In my opinion, the fundamental element of mathematics is "if-then". If 1+1=2 and 2+1=3 then 1+1+1=3.

Math started out with counting things and from there expanded. Every advancement in mathematics has come out of the simple idea that if one thing happens, then something else happens. If Tommy has 2 apples and Mary has 3 apples, then together they have 5 apples. If a right triangle is half of a rectangle, then the formula for the area of that triangle must be half the formula for the area of a rectangle with the same dimensions.

A lot of people don't realize this, but when you get into the "higher realms" of mathematics (for lack of a better term), it is much more like philosophy than science. In fact, some would argue that math is the purest and most internally consistent branch of philosophy that exists. Other than me (who is far too lazy to actually argue this point), I don't know who those people are, but they exist. I'm positive. Like 83%. Because that is where my background lies, math is the frame-of-reference for me when analyzing most things. So here you go:

If math is my frame-of-reference when analyzing most things and if I believe that the fundamental element of mathematics is "if-then", then I use "if-then" logic when analyzing most things.

When considering any line of thinking, I believe that one should accept a fundamental truth. I honestly don't care what that truth is, but you need to accept one.

Looking at arithmetic, you could accept "1+1=2" as your fundamental truth. (The mathematician in me is insisting that I point out that I have already assumed other things such as the definitions of "1", "+", and "=", and thus they would be more fundamentally true, but that doesn't make my point as easily for the casual reader.) If you accept "1+1=2" as your fundamental truth, you have to accept whatever follows. Thus, you have to accept that 1+1+1=2+1 and 1+1+1=1+2.

You then need to decide if these are contradictory statements. In this case, you need to know if 2+1=1+2. If for some reason they are not equal, your fundamental truth is flawed and needs to be reevaluated. In our case, the statement "2+1=1+2" is, in fact, true and so it can be accepted.

Now here's where things get interesting. Our fundamental truth (1+1=2) doesn't say anything about 2+1, so we get to get creative. We can decide, for example, that 2+1=3. We then have to accept whatever follows from that. If 2+1=3 and 1+1=2, then 1+1+1+1=2+1+1=3+1 but also 1+1+1+1=2+2. These are only true if 3+1=2+2. Thus 4 comes along, then you can get 5 and so on and so forth.

This is, in a sense, how math came to be what it is today. What if, however, we take this same idea and apply it to other areas? What if you accept a different fundamental truth and follow it to its natural conclusion? This is what I would call a mathematical approach, and what it can really teach you (beyond how to understand calculus) is empathy.

empathy: (n) the ability to understand and share the feelings of others

That's right. Math can teach you to be more compassionate.

But how?

I take you back a couple of years to when I was a much more consistent blogger and a much more impassioned human being in general; back when I got fired up about EVERYTHING.

The topic that day: Westboro Baptist Church.
The gist of the Facebook post: What they do, they do out of love.
The reaction: You are a **** for posting this and you should be ashamed of yourself.
My reaction: Shameful removal of the Facebook post.

Among most people in my social circle whenever you bring up WBC, the knee-jerk reaction is anger, mockery, and disdain. Most people feel the same about them as I once felt about the man with the Jesus scepter. (Since identified as Brother Jed.) WBC and Brother Jed are both well known for being confrontational, insulting, and, from the perspective of many, mean and offensive. The natural reaction to such qualities is anger and hate.

I think we can all agree that hate is not compassionate.

Let's look at things from their perspective.

If you believe that a person's actions can condemn them to an eternity of suffering, what follows? We'll consider two reactions: justice and mercy.

• Justice: Let them suffer! They deserve it!
• Mercy: I need to do everything in my power to help them.

If you truly believe that a person's actions correlate with their eternal destiny (e.g. whether they go to Heaven or Hell), the merciful response is to try and save them from themselves by whatever means necessary. If that means being a jerk to get their attention, fine. If that means telling them straight up that what they're doing is wrong, fine. Thing is, in such dire situations, mercy doesn't always look "nice".

That's what I was trying to say when I posted on Facebook about WBC doing what they do out of a place of love. If you actually listen to people from the Westboro Baptist Church talk about their beliefs, they are speaking from a place of love. Tough love, but love nonetheless. You would only let someone you hate continue to live their lives in such a way that would allow them to go to a place of ETERNAL suffering. Honestly, their faith has just as much of a Biblical foundation as most other people. As they say repeatedly in an interview with Russell Brand, "We're not making this stuff up."

It brings up an interesting idea. If you believe that Hell exists, then how far are you willing to go to save someone from that fate? Would you be willing to go to Hell yourself if it meant saving someone else? Would you be willing to compromise everything about yourself to keep someone from suffering for all of eternity?

Most branches of Christianity currently teach that if you believe that Jesus Christ is your savior, then you go to Heaven. Otherwise, you go to Hell. They also teach that this is the ultimate goal of life on Earth. This is the most important thing. So what follows?

The compassionate, merciful, and loving response would be to fight tooth and nail to make sure that every person believes Jesus is their savior. If you already believe that he is yours, and belief is the only thing that gets you into Heaven, your actions that follow are rather moot as far as your own eternal destination. That means that you can lie, cheat, and steal whatever you want as long as you believe Jesus is your savior, and you will still go to Heaven. Isn't the most loving thing, then, to lie, cheat, and steal whatever you have to to convince as many people as possible that Jesus is their savior? Wouldn't the most loving thing be to con people into believing that, regardless of truth, and then have them assassinated as soon as they believe? That way, they believe, they die believing, and they go to Heaven before they change their mind.

Here's the thing: people have made other assumptions along the way. They added in ideas. Much like how earlier we added in the idea that "2+1=3", people have added in the idea that there is a "right" way to save people. The real question is, does that contradict the fundamental truth (i.e. if you die without believing Jesus is your savior, you're going to Hell)? I'll leave that one for you to think about.

Here's the more interesting question to me: If there is a single narrow path that leads to Heaven and everything else leads to Hell, what is more loving? Staying on the path that brings you to Heaven and letting others wander off or going off the path yourself to keep someone else from walking into Hell? Would you be willing to go to Hell if it meant someone else could go to Heaven?

I don't have the answer to that question, nor is that question really my point here. My point is that you may not be doing the most loving thing possible within your belief system while others may be in theirs. Who is being truly more loving: the person who believes that someone's actions condemn them to Hell and fights tooth and nail to convince people that what they are doing is wrong regardless of what society tells them or the person who believes that only belief gets people into Heaven but doesn't lie, cheat, and steal to save others?

(On a side note: I think the smartest evangelist for any religion would put all their money into ad agencies. Quit wasting time trying to figure stuff out by yourself and use those people who have devoted their lives to convincing people to do things they may not want to do.)

This is what mathematical thinking is all about. It's about coming at things from a new perspective. Throw off everything you believe, temporarily accept what someone else believes, and follow it to its conclusion. Only then can you truly understand someone else's feelings and actions.

You can try this with your own faith, too. Figure out what your fundamental truth is, then see if your other beliefs contradict with that. Do you believe that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God and that we must obey every line of it to the letter but also believe that it's alright to wear polyester or pearl earrings? Do you believe that faith must be viewed through the lens of science but also believe that all humans descended from Adam and Eve? Do you believe that Jesus is God and also believe that Jesus is the son of God? Do you believe that your faith's contradictions are acceptable but get angry when other people's faiths have contradictions in them?

More importantly, do your actions line up with the most loving implementation of your core beliefs?

You Can't Stop It

I'm thinky and procrastinatory today, so you get to read now my desperate attempt to stall as long as possible before having to call someone over something that should have already been taken care of by someone other than me.

Someone (You remain unnamed intentionally. If you want credit, claim it in the comments.) just posted this on Facebook:

Valentine's day is stupid and does not exist . . . It's called "St. Valenstine's day" [sic] and is about blood and death. Where did our culture decide to make it a day of mushy-crap?

A few things here:

1. Please tell me "Valenstine" is a typo.
2. When was it ever about blood and death?
3. Why is "mushy-crap" hyphenated?
4. The 18th Century. It was decided then. So sayeth Wikipedia. (All hail.)
5. Which horse is more important: the one that leaves the gate first or the one that finishes first?

Very little is actually known about the person(s) after whom Valentine's Day is named. In fact, the Catholic church removed Saint Valentine's Day from the list of official feasts, because all they knew about him was where and when he was buried. Not even when he died.

With that in mind, Valentine's Day has had several different associations over the centuries. One of the first associations it has was with the start of spring. In fact, in some cultures St. Valentine has been considered a patron saint of spring. (We'll just ignore all those years that it's snowed on February 14th.) In the 14th century, Geoffrey Chaucer wrote a poem that talked about birds finding their mate on St. Valentine's Day. That's still clearly an association with spring, but is considered by many to be the first association of the day with romantic love. From there, things started to spiral toward where they are now.

In the 15th century, love letters started becoming more an more common around February 14th, and there may have been an annually convened Court of Love in France that may also have been a hallucination brought on by plague. True story.

The aforementioned "mushy-crap" likely didn't fully arise until the 18th century when a publisher printed a book of verses for guys who couldn't come up with their own. Thanks to some other historicalistic things, romance and eroticism became more prominent around the same time. All that fed back into Valentine's day and by the start of the 19th century Valentines were being put together in factories.

So there you have it. Spring started around February 14th (in the pre-Gregorian calendar), birds mate in spring, thinking about mating makes people want to mate, people try to find people with whom to mate, Valentine's day. Boom.

I'm really not sure where my well-meaning friend got the idea that Valentine's Day was associated with blood and death. I mean, yes. The legends do claim that St. Valentine was martyred, but if that's the only thing he was remembered for, he'd never have such a major holiday. Heck, there's practically a feast every day of the year for someone who was martyred. It's an almost disconcertingly common trait among saints.

Now, it is entirely within the realm of possibilities that there was once a great conqueror name Valenstine. He could have slaughtered millions of people and ordered their families to dance in the blood of the fallen on February 14th. Then, somewhere around 1893, the world's governments could have united to change the day from being a solemn remembrance of the atrocities committed by Valenstine to a celebration of love in the name of the much less terrifying Valentine. They then could have relegated every use of the name Valenstine to nothing more than a typo and paid off every person on Earth to never mention Valenstine again and celebrate Valentine's day instead. If that's true, this blog will most likely get me killed. If that happens, writing pointless rants for you to read over the last few years has been a privilege and an honor. Valenstine was a monster! Never forget and never forgive!

Let's suppose for a moment that either of these two theories on the origin of Valentine's Day is true. Or, for that matter, whatever origin you want to believe about Valentine's Day. Suppose that it has somehow changed from its original purpose.

There's nothing you can do about it. Nothing. If there were, no one would ever have to spend thousands of dollars on an engagement ring. Seriously. Watch this: Why Engagement Rings Are a Scam.

But sadly, as the video says at the end, you can't get away with getting engaged without a ring, because the idea has become too deeply wedged into our culture. You can't get away with pretending Valentine's Day isn't about love, because now it is! It doesn't matter which horse gets out of the gate first. The only thing that matters is which horse crossed the finish line first.

Knowing where Valentine's day comes from doesn't change what it is now. It is about "mushy-crap" now. Accept it.

Or don't.

Either way, you're just going to annoy someone.

And speaking of annoying, didn't you like that video ruining everything you ever believed about engagement rings? Here are some more you might like:

• Purebred Dogs Aren't Better
• Tipping Is A Bad Thing
• Einstein Didn't Fail Math (And Other Misconceptions)
• America Isn't As Great As You Think

And the best part about all of these? Thanks to society, there's virtually NOTHING you can do about any of it! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

But here's something you can do something about!

Seriously. We can all agree on this.

(I promise this wasn't a propaganda piece when I started writing it.)

I'm Not Ignoring You

There is a distinction I think I need to make.

I love you. I care about you deeply. I think you are a fantastic person and want to talk to you and spend time with you.

But it hurts.

Being with you is great. I love it. It's infinitely better than spending time alone. If I thought that us spending time together would happen regularly, I would commit to that. Unfortunately, life sucks and you're far away. Once we're done hanging out for whatever period of time, I get to go right back to my little world all by myself. That's what's so painful.

Every time I get put back in the toy box, it hurts a little more than the last.

I've been alone for quite a while now, and experience during that time has taught me that we will be together for a short time, then go right back to not acknowledging each other's existence except with the occasional like on Facebook.

It hurts a little less to just stay in the box.

What's worse? A prison you're convinced you won't escape from that has no view of the outside world or a prison you're convinced you won't escape from with a single tiny window just out of view.

You're not unique here. Everyone's getting the same reaction from me right now.

I'm not ignoring you.

I'm ignoring everyone.

I'm sorry.





Please don't give up on me yet.

A Beginner's Guide to the Friendzone

I read an article a while back that at the time I thought I agreed with. Unfortunately, because my stupid brain holds everything deep down inside only to allow them to resurface at inconvenient time, I have spent the entire morning thinking about this article that I read nearly two months ago. I now cannot believe how much I disagree with the article and by extension myself at the time. It just goes to show that if something is well-written enough, anyone will buy it. (But that, dear reader, is a discussion for another time.)

The article was about the friendzone.

Let's start with one of the biggest myths there is: The friendzone doesn't exist. ACHOO! If you can claim that the friendzone doesn't exist, you fall into one of the following three categories:

1. You have never been there.
2. You managed to "get out" of it.
3. It has been so long since you were there and you were there so few times that you no longer remember it.

If you fall into any one of those three categories, good for you! Seriously, good for you. For once, I'm being genuine. If you are in a place in your life where you are comfortable saying that the friendzone doesn't exist, I envy you. I really do. I truly wish that I could believe that.

The biggest problem is in defining the friendzone. Some will say that it is when you do all the work of being a significant other without getting any of the benefits. Honestly, not a terrible definition, but there is some problematic language when people start trying to work out exactly what you mean by "work" and "benefits". An urban dictionary definition simply said that it was the worst thing a girl can do to a guy. This, however, ignores the fact that girls can end up in the friendzone too. You don't hear about it as often, but we'll get to that in a bit. The more important issue here is that it puts the blame on someone. The friendzone is not anyone's fault. It just . . . is.

Here's a healthier definition of the friendzone:

Friendzone: (n) a symbolic place representing an imbalance in a relationship wherein one person, the one in the friendzone, has romantic feelings while the other considers the relationship platonic.

That exists. And it hurts.

Now let's look back at the definitions I mentioned earlier and consider them in light of this new definition.

The worst thing a girl can do to a guy.

As I have already said, this is sexist. While the friendzone is stereotypically inhabited by guys (I promise I will get to that.), girls can be there too. If the girl in a relationship has romantic feelings for a guy and he simply doesn't feel the same way, she's in the friendzone. Let's get to the bigger issue with this definition: the friendzone is not something anyone does to anyone else. It's not someone's fault that they don't feel the same toward someone else anymore than it's someone's fault that they like ketchup. You may never want to speak to that person again, but you don't have a right to blame them.

The next one brings us back around to the article that I read a couple of months ago.

Doing all of the work of being a significant other without any of the benefits.

Let me start this by saying that I absolutely agree with this definition, just not with most people's interpretation of it.

The article that I read used a similar definition to this and was talking about how sexist and misogynistic the friendzone is. It basically pointed out how wrong it is to look at women as vending machines: you put good deeds in, you get sex out. At the time, I seriously reevaluated the idea of the friendzone and really truly thought I agreed with this man. Until this morning.

First off, the analysis of the friendzone as being sexist is, in itself sexist. It implies that women cannot have that feeling of imbalance. Having talked directly to at least one girl who did and having heard stories of girls who have been there, I feel confident in saying that the friendzone can apply just as much to girls as to guys. (I promise you're very close to the reason why you hear about it more often with guys.)

Secondly, the analysis of the friendzone suggesting a vending machine system for sex in turn suggests a naive understanding of relationships. If you think that the only "benefits" someone in the friendzone wants from the other person are sex, you are severely mistaken. I talked with a couple guys recently who both independently shared there friendzone experiences with me. Neither of them ever mentioned sex. Or kissing. Or holding hands. Or anything physical at all. The "benefits" that these guys, and myself when I have been locked in the friendzone, really want are emotional. They want to be close to someone in a way that only a romantic relationship allows. They want to have an exclusive connection with that person that only they get to have. They want to feel special.

Let's face it, that's the really painful thing about the friendzone. What your presence there suggests is that for whatever reason, you weren't special enough for that person to single out.

You are just like every other friend they have.

That's what hurts. It's not being told, "You don't get to have sex with this person!" It's being told that someone you adore and think is special enough to spend your nights thinking about, to spend your days trying to make happy, to spend your precious emotional energy on doesn't think you are any more valuable than anyone else in there life. It's not that person's fault, but it doesn't make it suck any less. It doesn't make you feel any less lonely.

Going to the friendzone can be a defense mechanism. It's an easily defensible location against the onslaught of self-doubt that follows rejection. Which finally brings us to why the friendzone is more common in guys than girls.

Society is sexist, and within that sexism lies the idea that the guy is supposed to make the first move. Despite all the progress that the feminism movement has made, guys are still generally expected to be the one to approach the girl, to ask for her number, to make the date. Guys are the ones who are expected to put themselves out there.

Whenever a guy puts himself out there, his ego is on the line. His confidence, his reputation, and everything he believes about himself is being presented to another person for evaluation. Being told that the other person is not interested in that is embarrassing. As I mentioned, the friendzone is really a defensive idea. It's a place where you can put up walls of explanation the save yourself from all the terrible explanations thinkers come up with for themselves.

Here's a thought process that is more true than I care to admit:

• I like her. A lot.
• Maybe she likes me.
• She's treating me really nice, that's a good sign.
• Alright, I'm gonna go for it.
• I told her. Now for the most agonizing few seconds of waiting ever.
• ...
• She doesn't like me.
• Ok, she likes me, but not like that.
• Why doesn't she like me like that?
• What's wrong with me?
• It's because I'm ugly, isn't it?
• That's not true. Ugly guys get pretty girls all the time.
• I should just try harder.
• That's it! I'll try harder!
• ...
• Maybe she likes me now.
• She's treating me really nice, that's a good sign.
• Alright, I'm gonna go for it.
• I told her. Now for the most agonizing few seconds of waiting ever.
• ...
• She doesn't like me.
• Ok, she likes me, but not like that.
• Why doesn't she like me like that?
• What's wrong with me?
• It's because I'm ugly, isn't it?
• That's not true. Ugly guys get pretty girls all the time.
• It must be because she doesn't want to risk losing our friendship.
• At least it's not my fault.

Please note that "It's because I'm ugly" can be substituted for just about anything that the friendzone-inhabitant-to-be is self-conscious about and that the cycle can be repeated as many times as necessary before one decides that they are in the friendzone.

I can't speak for girls on this front, but guys are told by society through movies, TV, and word of mouth that they can end up with anyone they want. If they try hard enough, if they're sweet enough, if they're charming enough, if they're romantic enough, if they're funny enough, they can "get" any girl they want. The only reason you can't get the girl you want is because you aren't trying hard enough. So they keep trying. They keep getting rejected. They keep getting embarrassed. They keep failing.

At some point, acceptance of the friendzone becomes the only way out.

I have given you several definitions of the friendzone that are all valid in their own ways. None of them, however, reflect what I feel the true essence of the friendzone to be. You see, the friendzone isn't what makes you feel lonely. The friendzone isn't what makes you feel embarrassed. Rejection is.

Rejection leaves you feeling worthless and alone. You offered yourself, mind, body and soul, to a person and they said that they weren't interested. You allowed yourself to hope that you were about to become closer to this incredible person and now you're further from them than ever. It's lonely. It's embarrassing, and it hurts. Who you gonna call?

Friendzone: (n) an imagined fortress built of explanations to protect yourself from the onslaught of doubt and feelings of worthlessness that result from finding out that you are not as special to someone else as they are to you.

Saying that Washington D.C. doesn't exist isn't going to fix the American government. Saying that the friendzone doesn't exist isn't going to make people in it feel any better. On the contrary, you are stripping them of their defenses and leaving them subject to the terrors of their own mind.

It's not about sex. It's about self-esteem.

Masculism and Other Evils

Let me start off by saying that I am 100% prepared for the angry comments, so bring them on.

(Ok, I'm actually only about 60% prepared, so maybe go a little easy on me.)

Masculism (n): political, cultural, and economic movements aimed at establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and participation in society for men and boys. (Wikipedia)

The very idea of masculism in our current society is ridiculous. Most people (not the least of whom being whoever programmed the spellchecker on my computer) don't even recognize it as a word. If you bring up issues that men face, one of two things happen:

1. You are laughed at. "You're joking, right?"
2. You are told to shut up and quit whining. "Guys don't have it that bad!"

The first of the two responses usually comes up if you try to bring up such issues with no context. If you start talking about issues that concern men and boys without any kind of prompting, you are ignored or mocked.

The second response usually occurs if feminism is ever mentioned. I will grant you that the second of the two quoted phrases is true. Guys in developed countries don't have it that bad when compared to people in other situations. However, that same logic can be applied to women in developed countries. If you are reading this, you probably don't have it that bad compared to someone else. However, if we all give in to that "logic", you will inevitably have one person on Earth who is allowed to suffer, and everyone else just has to feel guilty about feeling bad about things. I suspect that one suffering person has one of the names on this list: The 100 Most Unfortunate Names in Human History.

My current favorite example of the second response came alongside this article:

HeForShe is Rotten for Men

The person who originally posted this link on Facebook for my reading pleasure did so with commentary that ridiculed the author and talked about how shocked they were that a woman would write it, completely ignoring any of the points the author brought up. I encourage you to read the article. If you are very in favor of HeForShe, try not to get angry, but instead look for the issues that affect men.

You see, the author screwed up.

She tried, she really tried, to bring up male-oriented issues in a way that would put them in the public eye. Unfortunately, she did so by attacking a rather large and powerful feminist movement. The saddest part about the whole thing is that she raised some very important points. Some were even brought up by Emma Watson when she originally introduced the HeForShe campaign. I'll lay them out here in case you couldn't get past the mildly "anti-feminist" (achoo) comments made therein:

• Divorced fathers' roles as parents being valued less than mothers'.
• Male victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence being virtually ignored.
• Wrongful accusations of rape.
• Sexual harassment policies that selectively penalize men.
• Lack of options to avoid unwanted parenthood once conception has occurred.
• Men not being allowed to bring up any of the above topics.

Those don't even get into higher conviction rates and harsher penalties for men as compared to women or any of the "small things" affecting younger boys. The whole idea of HeForShe is that Watson is encouraging men to be a part of the feminist movement and join in the discussion of gender equality. Unfortunately, as one particular paragraph in the article points out, that isn't really an option much of the time:

Men must, indeed, "feel welcome to participate in the conversation" about gender issues. But very few will do so if that "conversation" amounts to being told to "shut up and listen" while women talk about the horrible things men do to women, and being labeled misogynist for daring to point out that bad things happen to men too and that women are not always innocent victims in gender conflicts. A real conversation must let men talk not only about feminist-approved topics such as gender stereotypes that keep them from expressing their feelings, but about more controversial concerns . . . Such a conversation would also acknowledge that pressures on men to be successful come not only from "the patriarchy" but, often, from women as well. And it would include an honest discussion of parenthood, including many women's reluctance to give up or share the primary caregiver role.

If you want men to join in the discussion of gender equality, quit shutting them down for bringing up issues of gender inequality. The feminist movement is getting better about moving away from man-hating/blaming, but there is still no forum for us to discuss issues that men face. We're still just supposed to shut up about those.

All anyone can really do is call things the way they see them, so here's what I see on a near-daily basis at my job where I teach children about bicycle safety.

As part of the classes that we teach, the kids get an opportunity to ride our bikes through a course designed to allow them to learn and practice rules of the road to keep them . . . you know . . . not dead. We go through the process of making sure that every child has a helmet and bike that is the right size for them. Unfortunately, not all of our bikes are "gender neutral".

We work very hard to ensure that no child is made fun of for the bike that they are on, but here is what I still see far more regularly than I'd like: Because I have to put kids on bikes and in helmets based on size rather than gender, sometimes boys end up on pink or purple bikes or with pink or purple helmets. It happens. Sometimes those are the only ones I have available that fit them. The sad part is that even if they are not mocked openly at the time, you can see on their faces that they are concerned, knowing that, whether they are ever openly made fun of, they are being silently laughed at for riding on a "girl's bike" or wearing a "girl's helmet".

On a daily basis, I hear some comment about "girl's bikes". Only three times in the last year that I've worked there have I heard any complaints about "boy's bikes". Furthermore, two of those complaints were essentially jokes and none of the three girls who raised concerns were even noticed as out of the ordinary by their peers.

How I wish I could say the same about the boys.

You see, when you're younger, girls are allowed to do or play with whatever they want regardless of their gender. Girls can be into sports and cars and cooking and princesses and dolls. Girls can wear dresses, pants, shorts, and however many sparkles they do or don't want. They are encouraged to explore their interests. Boys, however, don't have those options. Boys, once they are into the years where people notice differences between boys and girls, are mocked (even if it is just silent laughter) when they play with dolls. We think that guys wearing dresses are hilarious. To boys, having makeup put on them is torture. Boys are encouraged to "man up".

Guys can have one of several labels in their youngest years. Sadly, these labels never completely leave them. They can be fairly easily condensed, however, into three basic ranks:

• Cool: The boys that fit into the mold of what is expected of young men. They like sports, cars, fighting, and are ambitious and express only the emotions of happiness and anger.
• Nerd: The boys that aren't exactly feminine, but don't like the things boys are expected to like. They include basically everyone that isn't into the things "cool" boys are into, but haven't received the dreaded lowest ranking . . . yet.
• Gay: The boys that at some point did or liked something feminine or showed emotions such as sadness or fear and are now forever pariahs that should not be trusted under any circumstances.

Why does this matter? Because there is a clear descending order of respect through those ranks and no easy way to move back up without changing your personality and/or completely lying about who you are. To learn more about this issue, please read this Ben approved article:

Why Straight Men Are Right to Be Afraid of Homosexuality

My point in all of this is not to diminish the suffering of women or any other social group in any way. My point is that there are issues that apply to men. There are certainly areas in which society still values women less than men, but there are also areas in which society values men less than women. While the feminist movement claims to be working toward gender equality, its very name and definition exclude men's issues from the conversation.

Feminism (n): a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. (Wikipedia)

I am not much of a feminist. I'm sorry, but I'm not. This isn't a political statement. This isn't an endorsement of any idea contrary to feminism. It's simply a statement of fact. I do not consider myself to be a feminist, because I simply don't see it as a movement that needs my support. There are enough feminists out there already. You don't need me.

I am a bit of a masculist. I clearly see issues of gender inequality that lean in women's favor on a daily basis. I'm not a huge advocate. Again, this is simply a statement of fact. To be perfectly honest, I don't think of myself in this regard much either, because masculism simply isn't recognized as a genuine movement.

Honestly, I don't think either of these terms suggest someone that is truly interested in complete gender equality. Both ideas are focused on the "equality" of one gender in particular (which to me is a bit contradictory at this point). I think it's time we quit pretending to work toward complete gender equality. If we as a society are going to work toward that, great! Let's quit playing make-believe and what-if and actually do the work! If a man and a woman both want a position and both are equally qualified for it, they should have an equal shot. This means everywhere: in business, politics, and in the home. Women should be able to run for president without being considered crazy or power hungry. Men should be allowed to be a stay-at-home parent without being called lazy or unambitious.

Pari passu is a Latin phrase that essentially means "on equal footing". This is what we are actually all wanting to work toward, isn't it? Let's ditch feminism and masculism. Let's quit contradicting ourselves by making things "equal" for just one sex. Let's start working toward genuine gender equality.

I'm not a feminist.

I'm not a masculist.

I'm a paripassist.

(Or whatever word someone more clever than me comes up with.)

Writers Not-So-Anonymous: Day 23

Hi. My name is Benjamin, and I'm a writer. It's been 23 days since my last writer's block.
If you haven't already, please read Writers Not-So-Anonymous: Day 1.

I got frustrated after I scrapped and restarted chapter 3 and started looking for something else that I can do during my writing time. I really just needed a break. I started looking at some collaborative writing projects going on around the web.

The best that has ever happened is clearly The Salem Door Project. That one was a pet project of mine that unfortunately lost its momentum and died after chapter 13, leaving the story unfinished. There were 16 of us writing it and each would write one chapter before passing it on to the next. No edits except for grammar or continuity errors. If any of you guys who were working on it still remember the password, I haven't changed it. We can still finish this thing! I think the problem with it was that people underestimated the time commitment it could take in order to participate.

I felt a bit better about that project when I realized that most collaborative writing projects seem to die off rather than end. One of the most interesting collaborative writing projects I discovered followed basically the same idea as "Salem Door", but each author was only allowed to write three words. You can check that out here: 3-Word Story.

I never found a collaborative writing site that really caught my interest.

I've had the idea for a while now of doing something similar to the VlogBrothers. The idea would be that you would have two (maybe three) people who are essentially digital penpals whose letters can be read by anyone. I just haven't been motivated enough to find someone crazy and bored enough to do this with me. If you're interested, please your audition in the form of a fun-to-read letter to veebjamn@yahoo.com or to me as a message on Facebook. I can't promise by the time you send it to me I'll still be interested, but it never hurts to try!

Ok, occasionally, there are things that it hurts to try. Punting a bowling ball comes to mind.

I finally found a website that I'm happy with. In fact, I may be a little too happy with it.

It's called Scribophile, and the basic idea of the site is that you post your work and other writers critique it. They have a system set up where you earn points for critiquing other people and spend those points to post your own work. They also have articles on different ways to improve your writing, how to get stuff published, and other stuff about writing as a career. It also has a forum to talk about whatever. If you did decide to join, I would suggest that you not bother wasting your time trying to find me, because unless you know my work or the way I think really well, you're going to have a hard time. I'm under a different name and my profile picture is a composite of Robin Williams, Jim Belushi, a couple other dudes who shall remain nameless for my protection. I'm not sure why, but I really want to stay anonymous on there.

I've posted one work and gotten pretty good reviews so far. They like me! They really like me!

One of my critiques pointed out a current formatting standard that I have been doing wrong. (I'm a skeptic, so I didn't just take their word for it. I looked into it, and their story holds up.) The standard several years ago used to be that at the end of a sentence, you hit spacebar twice. I think this may go back to typewriter days, and I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. I got into the habit, though, because I felt like it made things look nicer. The current industry standard, however, is to only hit spacebar once. It's a disgustingly difficult habit to break. I've been double-spacing for YEARS now!

I've spent the last few days on and off the site. For a couple of days, reading and reviewing on there was part of my hour of writing. I've had to change my standard on that, however, because I noticed that it is already so addictive that I spend large chunks of my day doing it anyway. While it may improve my writing (time will tell), it isn't actively pushing me toward my other goals. So, it no longer counts. Since I did do it consciously for a set hour during those days, however, I'm counting it for them.

Someone once told me that they like when my blogs have a final thought or question that ties the whole post together, something to take home with you and think about. Unfortunately, when I'm just babbling about my life like today, that's hard to do. So I will, instead, leave you with this song that has been stuck in my head since I heard it:

Shake It Off

Personally, I think the video's adorable.  I also leave you with this question that you should answer in the comments: While she's shaking off the haters, what do you need to just shake off?

I need to shake off using double spaces. Seriously, I think I had to backspace after at least every other sentence in this post.

My name is Benjamin, and I'm a writer.  It's been 23 days since my last writer's block.
Today I wrote from 9:50-10:50pm.

Writers Not-So-Anonymous: Day 18

Hi.  My name is Benjamin, and I'm a writer.  It's been 18 days since my last writer's block.
If you haven't already, please read Writers Not-So-Anonymous: Day 1.

I feel a desperate need today to point out that while it has been 18 days since the last day where I didn't write something, not all of those days involved writing anything GOOD.  I have also discovered that my chapter-a-week goal may be a little unrealistic.  Just a little.

Last week, I diligently made sure that Chapter 3 was written by my self-imposed deadline of Sunday night.  I really was never quite happy with it, though.  Things happened that were driven neither by events in the story nor the narrative process.  Characters acted completely out of character.  I had a girl in an all boys school.  It was a mess.  I hit all of the plot points I wanted to for the chapter, but I got there inelegantly.  And if there is one things I am not a fan of and will tear other authors apart for, it is inelegant plotting.  (Here's looking at you, J.J. Abrams's Star Trek reboot!)

Luckily (and I use this word hesitantly) for me, no one will ever read that chapter, because on a whim last night during my writing hour, I deleted every trace of the former Chapter 3 and started from scratch.  I knew that if I tried to use bits and pieces of it that I liked, I would end up forcing the same worthless plot upon myself, and I didn't want that to happen.

The new Chapter 3 is already much better.

There's another odd thing that I've found myself dealing with a lot lately.  People in my life are slowly either realizing or accepting that I am writing a book and am very serious about doing so.  Of course, the first question that anyone asks when they find out you're writing a book is either, "What kind of book?" or "What's it about?"

I find both questions hard to answer.

From a technical definition, I would file my book under the heading of 'low fantasy', but I think it would be almost as accurate to consider it 'high fantasy' or 'urban fantasy'.  (For explanations of what those terms actually mean, click on them and skim the Wikipedia articles.  If you're feeling really ambitious, actually read them.  I don't recommend it, though.  It's a dangerous and time-consuming habit to get into.)  Usually, I just say fantasy, but I feel like that leaves an unfortunate impression.  My book doesn't take place in a Dungeons and Dragons or LOTR sort of world, which I feel like is what most people expect when you say 'fantasy'.  It does, however, involve some weirdness and supernatural aspects.  Since I don't offer much explanation for the weirdness, I can't personally consider it sci-fi.

So, for now, my answer to "What kind of book?" is "Fantasy.  But probably not the kind you just thought of."

The other question is infinitely more difficult.

When I write, especially when I'm writing good stuff, I don't really know exactly what's going to happen.  I'm not sure of what plot points are important yet and I don't know if what I think the book is about is the same thing that you would think the book is about.  I'm not sure what's teaser material and what's spoilers.  Unfortunately, that means that at least for now, I have to stay very VERY vague.

Plot-wise (which I believe most people actually want to know about), my book is about a boy who gets someone in trouble and eventually finds out the world isn't quite what it seems.  So, you know, half the books on most people's shelves.  Is that vague enough for you?  Thematically (which is really kind of where this one all started), the book is about the power of words and the human imagination and how one person's decisions can affect other people.  That, however, makes the book sound WAY too high-minded for what it is.

Hopefully, one day I'll be able to tell people what it's is about without ruining it for them.

Hopefully.

In the meantime, I'll just continue to write it one day at a time.

The other day, I was thinking about people who do "Novel in November" or National Novel Writing Month or NaNoWriMo or whatever you want to call it.  The idea is that you are supposed to write 50,000 words between November 1st and November 30th.  That averages out to just under 1700 words a day.  Some people round it out to 2000 words a day for a total of 60,000 words by the end of the month.

From what I've read, most publishers would consider this a short novel.  Also, the movement focuses less on quality and more on quantity, believing that you can always go back and edit it later.  At least you have the first draft down.  For some, this is a good strategy.  For me, however, I don't think it would work.  Because of the way my fickle bitch of a muse works, I have to edit as I go.  If I just trudge forward telling myself that I'll do edits and rewrites later, they simply won't happen.

2000 words a day is pretty intense.  I've been shooting for around 2500 words for each of my chapters (No.  I don't know how many there will be.), so 2000 words a day would be about a chapter a day.

And I'm having trouble with a chapter a week!

I don't mean to scare people off of NaNoWriMo or suggest that it's a bad idea.  For some people, it could be a great starting point.  It's just not for me.

How could I write the entire book in a month when I can't even figure out what it's about?

My name is Benjamin, and I'm a writer.  It has been 18 days since my last writer's block.
Today I wrote from 11:05pm-12:05.

A Friend Like Me

If for some strange reason, my blog is the only website on the internet that you visit that contains anything remotely related to news, you might want to make sure you're sitting down.  Today, the world lost a truly wonderful man.  Today, many people around the globe lost someone they didn't realize was important to them.  Today, the world is short one Robin Williams.

I have long claimed myself to be a cold-hearted monster.  I heard stories of presidents being assassinated and people crying and mourning their death, and I never understood.  Why would you mourn someone you never met?  Why would you cry over the death of someone that was basically a stranger to you?

Today, I understand.

I have never before been upset by hearing that a celebrity died, but today's news shocked me to my core.  Robin Williams has long been a sort of role-model for me.  He was goofy, charismatic, quick-witted, and fearless but simultaneously deep, emotional, and passionate.  He was probably the first actor I knew by name and has almost always been one of the first additions to any list I ever made of my favorite actors.

Many years back, I decided to cast the Greek gods using all A-List actors.  The first time I did this, I cast him as Dionysus.  At the time, my thoughts were that both were essentially big goofballs.  Things didn't stay that way.

As early as I can remember, my favorite movie was always Aladdin.  There are many fantastic characters in that movie including Jafar, one of the greatest villains of all time; Abu, probably the coolest pet anyone could own; Raja, animalkind's best hope of rivaling Abu for the title of coolest pet; and Jasmine, by far the most attractive Disney princess.  But all of that would still only add up to a really good movie.  Aladdin, however, is a GREAT movie because of one, simple, brilliant casting choice:  Robin Williams as Genie.

Genie was a fantastic character for the same reason that all of Robin Williams's characters were:  there was more to him than just a goofy demeanor.  When I was a kid, I loved watching and listening to Genie because he was rambunctious, wild, and fun.  As I've grown up, I love watching and listening to Genie because he's layered, emotional, and believable.  The same can be said for all the roles I knew him in as a child:  Mrs. Doubtfire, Professor Brainard, Peter Pan, Alan Parrish, and Patch Adams.  In all those roles, I feel in love with him as a kid because he related to me.  He was essentially a living cartoon character.  Then, as I grew up, I stayed in love with him because those roles continued to relate to me.  Those characters dealt with heartbreak, rejection, loneliness, and being held down by society's expectations.

It wasn't until many years later that I started to see Robin Williams as more than a goofball.  The first time it really stuck out at me was the movie Bicentennial Man.  That movie really isn't funny.  It is still one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen, but it really isn't funny.  I was shocked, but it opened my eyes to a whole new world (yes, I meant to) of Robin Williams's talent.

I recently recast the Greek pantheon using actors that weren't necessarily A-List, but were definitely some of my favorites.  More importantly, they were actors I felt best fit the character I cast them as.  Robin Williams, of course, made the list once again.  This time, however, as I was looking through pictures trying to decide who to cast him as, I came across a shot of him from August Rush and immediately recognized who I wanted him cast as:  Apollo.

As time has progressed from my original casting, my interpretation of Dionysus (at least in the context of this dream casting) has gotten much darker and more malicious, and Robin Williams just didn't fit the part for me.  Apollo, on the other hand, is kind of an odd god.  He is, historically, one of the oldest gods in the Greek pantheon, but part of the second generation in the context of the mythology.  This leaves him with the odd position of being both an old and young god.  To me, that is Robin Williams.

When I was in High School, I was into competitive One-Act-Play pretty intensely.  It gave me an opportunity to shed my skin and be someone else for a little while.  My sophomore year, we did a play called The Day Room.  It is a very strange play about people that are most likely living in an insane asylum and living multiple lives.  It is, however, very confusing and I'm only mostly sure that that's what it's actually about.  We didn't advance with that play past the first level of competition, but, in a twist that I had never seen before and have never seen since, a cast member from our non-advancing play won one of the most coveted individual awards given at these competitions:  Best Actor.

Yes.  It was me.  I was awesome.

My part in The Day Room was, for the first half of the play, a guy at a hospital who is just there for a check-up, but turned out he was part of the psych ward (or something like that).  The second half of the play, however, took place in a collective delusion.  Everyone from the psych ward believed themselves to be at a hotel room, many of whom were planning on going to a play later.  I spent most of that half of the play sitting in a straight jacket in a rolly chair staring at a spot on the floor about three feet in front of me.  Every once in a while, someone else would point a remote at me, turn on the "TV" (me), and flip through the channels.

I was, so I'm told, rather hilarious, because I had a different voice for each channel that they flipped to and all our timing was perfect so that they clicked the button, I clicked on, changed channels, or turned off.  Our judge told us that she kept looking over at me expecting to see me moving during the interludes between channel surfs, but never caught me.

Then she gave me the single greatest compliment I ever received in my acting career.  She said that when she first read the play, she envisioned Robin Williams in that part and that he couldn't have done it any better.  That comment left me flabbergasted.  I didn't even know how to react to that.  Robin Williams was my idol and I had just been compared to him.  (Granted, my cynical self has analyzed the performance and maintains that he would have found a way to add more subtext, but oh well.)

For someone that grew up with as many (if not more) fictional friends as real ones, someone who could create as wonderfully entertaining, deep, and believable characters as Robin Williams is a godsend.  His characters were as much my friends as anyone I knew in real life.  As I said, I have never before felt much about the death of any celebrity, but I have also never had to deal with the death of someone I believe in so strongly.

It wasn't until this last year that I finally saw Dead Poet's Society (I know.  You can burn me at the stake later.), and to be perfectly honest, the reason I finally looked it up was because of an Apple commercial.  The passage that Robin Williams speaks over that commercial, however, touched me deeply, and his delivery of it was simply so powerful.  It was one of the things that pushed me deeper into me writing, because it sums up a piece of my philosophy on writing:

We don't read and write poetry because it's cute.  We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race, and the human race is filled with passion.  Medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love:  these are what we stay alive for.  To quote from Whitman, "O me! O life!... of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless... of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?"  Answer: that you are here; that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse.  That the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?

Robin Williams was my idol.

His characters were my friends.

And none of us will ever have a friend like him.