Everyone has been the odd man out at some point in their life.
Personally, my odd-wheel record is seven. Third wheel's bad. Fifth wheel's rough. Seventh wheel? Uggh! I don't know how high the official world record is, though. I have a theory that after a certain point, the individual relationships start breaking down and it's impossible to have an odd wheel. I've yet to find anyone willing to test this theory for me.
I've been asking myself lately just why it is that being a third wheel is so depressing. I don't mind being alone. I actually prefer a lot of the time. But when I'm the third wheel, I feel more alone than when I'm by myself. Why?
Most people, when you ask them this question, will give you a rather simple answer. They will say that seeing other people together is a constant reminder of what you don't have. I think they're close, but not quite there. If that were the case, watching most of my favorite shows such as How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory would make me feel alone too, but they don't. What is it about being around actual people? Why is it so much worse than seeing them on TV?
For example, sitting at home, watching a movie involving a party, knowing full well that you are alone and other people are out together, is not depressing. Yet being at a party, and not interacting with anyone else, but sitting alone, is depressing.
People will again offer a simple explanation to this as well: When it's on TV, you don't have the option of being a part of it. It's the proximity that hurts so much.
As per usual, I don't think it's that simple. I do, however, think that the Third Wheel Effect can be explained in three simple words: Imagination vs. Reality. (Honestly, I think this is the summation of many issues in most people's lives.)
As a math major, I write a lot of proofs. Anytime you write a proof, you start by defining what you're working with. (In fact, a lot of the time, simply pushing definitions into one another will give you the proof.) This is essentially what I'm going to do here.
I have a large imagination. It terrifies me. The best way I have of explaining it is by comparing it to fire. If it is controlled, it can be an incredible and useful tool in limitless endeavors. However, when it gets out of control, it destroys everything in its path, and is incredibly difficult to stop. Just ask any firefighter.
Everyone has some imagination, and just about everyone has lost control of it at some point. It's what makes you see things out of the corner of your eye when you're alone in your room. It's what makes you feel like someone's watching you when there's no one around. It's what fills the darkness with terrifying images of monsters and murderers when a child is trying to sleep.
Imagination is a fire fueled by emptiness. This is why we fear the dark and the silence.
I firmly believe this. When an artist looks at an empty canvass, imagination seeks to fill it with paint. When a sculptor sees a block of clay, empty of all uniqueness, imagination is what seeks to fill it with characteristics. When a writer gets hold of a character with a blank and empty future, imagination seeks to fill it with adventure. When a musician hears the empty, echoing silence of a room, imagination seeks to fill it with music. When a child sees all the empty space in the closet, imagination seeks to fill it with monsters.
So, then, how do we control imagination? Creativity.
Some of the least imaginative people in the world come up with the most creative solutions to problems. Similarly, some of the most imaginative people in the world live boring, mundane lives because they cannot come up with a way to use it. Creativity and imagination are not the same thing. Creativity is the ability to control and wield what imagination you have. And, like any skill, it takes training.
Creativity is a much more conscious effort than the innate power of imagination. This is why things get scarier at night. You start easing your brain into doing less work, and one of the things that typically shuts down first is creativity. Without creativity, imagination runs free and unbridled, filling the dark and the silence with whatever it can.
But what does any of this have to do with being a third wheel? This is where we must jump over to the other, much uglier word: Reality.
The philosopher Descartes once tried to determine what things were undoubtedly true. In order to do this, he doubted everything. I mean EVERYTHING. Then, he threw out whatever he couldn't prove. It got to the point that he threw out the entire universe, essentially offering the idea that we could be living in the Matrix. That is, as he explained it, some demon could be manipulating his brain and making him experience things that weren't actually there. All of this, he said, made him sad. He then decided that since he was sad, he must exist. This has since led to interesting philosophical discussions and paradoxes.
We can't prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that anything is real. To be honest, as best I can tell, we typically determine whether something we're sensing is real by whether or not someone else senses it.
Think about the movie A Beautiful Mind (HUGE spoiler alert). In his reality, he was working for the government. He had this college roommate with a daughter who he watched grow up. In everyone else's reality, he was nuts, because he saw people that no one else did. Who's to say that these people didn't exist? Everyone. What makes someone crazy is if everyone else's view of reality contradicts their own.
Reality is determined by the majority.
Imagination is constantly seeking to fill the emptiness around you. Without anyone else there to deny what you are sensing, whether that be the feeling that someone's watching you or the bump you heard in the basement, who's to say what's real?
As a third wheel or the wallflower sitting at the edges of a party, you are alone. There is no one connected to you, thus you are just as alone as when there's no one around you. Where those connections should go, there is an emptiness. Imagination floods in and tries to consume the emptiness, to fill it.
When you are completely alone, there's no one else there to say that imagination isn't filling that emptiness. There's no one there to confirm that you are alone, thus who's to say you are actually alone? Without anyone else there, you're free to float on a cloud of imagination and forget the real world. On the other hand, when you are alone around other people, there is someone there to ground you in reality. They can confirm that you are alone, and you accept this reality.
It's not being alone that makes you lonely. It's accepting that you are alone.
I'm not saying that people consciously come to these conclusions. I don't think that people decide to feel lonlier because of conscious confirmation that they are alone. These things occur subconsciously with you ever realizing them. That's what makes it so scary.
Is there anything you can do about this? I don't know. All my experiments in this endeavor have failed. The only solution I've found is zoning out. That lets you escape away from even your senses. With this wide open emptiness in your mind, imagination is free to flood in and fill it with a new reality. A new world. A Whole New World. A better world.
Maybe crazy people have it right. Maybe we should all just throw out this world and let our imaginations build a new one. Maybe reality really is just for people who don't have enough imagination to come up with anything better.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
Summer Vacation
As the semester comes to a close, I want to leave you with some inspiring thoughts:
In case you're curious, all of the above can and has happened to either me or my friends while working for Cross Trails Ministry. If you like kids, love God, and any of the above appeals to you, you should spend your summer working with us at the absolute best job in the world!
Cross Trails is currently searching very hard for guys ages 18 and up and anyone 21 and up. If you're interested, visit their website:
There's a hundred and four days of summer vacation 'til school comes along just to end it.
So the annual problem for our generation is finding a good way to spend it.
Like maybe . . .
Building a robot, becoming a mummy, or racing up a climbing tower!
Discovering love you thought didn't exist or meeting folks with superpowers!
Going canoeing, hiking up a bluff, or taking a picture with Dave!
Riding on a horse, chilling in a pool, or getting a tan that's insane!
As you can see, there's a whole lot of stuff to do before school starts this fall.
So stick with us 'cause here at Cross Trails we're gonna do it all!
So stick with us 'cause here at Cross Trails we're gonna do it all!
In case you're curious, all of the above can and has happened to either me or my friends while working for Cross Trails Ministry. If you like kids, love God, and any of the above appeals to you, you should spend your summer working with us at the absolute best job in the world!
Cross Trails is currently searching very hard for guys ages 18 and up and anyone 21 and up. If you're interested, visit their website:
Cross Trails MinistryOr if you prefer to deal with a person rather than a machine, I am more than happy to answer any questions that you have. I don't have all the answers, but I do know how to find most of them. Feel free to send me an email:
veebjamn@yahoo.comTrust me when I tell you that it is by far the best job in the whole world!!!
Monday, April 30, 2012
The Hipster Bandwagon
Goodness . . . you know it's been a long time since I've posted when Blogspot isn't even in my history. I gave up trying to figure out why I'm not posting regularly, but whatever the reason, I'm fired up, so hold onto your horses.
In my speech class last year, they said that you should end persuasive papers and speeches with a call to action. I'm gonna completely disregard that and start with a "call to action" instead:
Really, though, there's a particular way of demanding superiority that ticks me off. Interestingly, it's also one of the most common forms. I know I wrote about it before, but I cannot stand the hipster movement!
As a recap for those that don't know, when I refer to a hipster, I'm referring specifically to that moment when people think they are better because they like something no one else does. This usually mutates a step further into the idea that things are naturally not as good if everyone else likes it. Thus, anything "mainstream" is COMPLETELY out of the question.
For those of you that know me, I'm being more than a little hypocritical here. But, really, I was a hipster before being a hipster was cool. Now hipsters are just WAY too mainstream!
Seriously, though, hipsters tend to reveal themselves most often in the entertainment industry. For these people, different is as good a compliment as you can give a piece of creativity. Formulaic movies suck. Music that plays on the radio is appalling. And NOBODY has good taste in books. If it's written, played, performed, or created in such a way that the majority of the population can understand and appreciate it, it really isn't worth their time.
Go ask an English prof about almost any popular book. Then ask them what their absolute favorite book of all times is and try to read it. You'll be getting pretty close to an understanding of what I'm talking about then. English profs are generally the biggest literary hipsters I've ever talked to. The "Academy" is a group of the hipsters of movies.
What scares me more than anything about the hipster movement is that so many people don't realize they're a part of it.
For example, I present the idea of a bandwagon. Literally, a bandwagon is a wagon which carries the band in a parade. Back in the 1800s, an extremely popular clown by the name of Dan Rice offered a presidential candidate the opportunity to campaign on his bandwagon. After that, many local politicians would want to ride on the bandwagon with said presidential candidate in the hopes that his popularity would rub off. People started using the term "jumping on the bandwagon" derogatorily, and it stuck.
Most people don't think about football fans as being hipsters. After all [flipping scarf over left shoulder and adjusting glasses that I don't need] football is SO mainstream! And yet, have you ever talked to a true diehard fan of a team that sucks? Those people are extremely proud that they haven't left a sinking ship. Worse than fans of awful teams, though, are fans of suddenly good teams. This "sudden" change can actually be rather slow. It could happen over several years. The point is that people who were fans back when the team sucked criticize those that became fans since the team's rise to glory. They say they're just jumping on the bandwagon.
I raise to you this question: WHO CARES?!?
Seriously, if jumping on the bandwagon gives someone the sense of satisfaction they need to get through the day, is it any of your business? If I've been particularly impressed by a team's season and want to see them succeed, should it really bother you if I root for them?
Just because you discovered something before I did, does that really make you any more appreciative of it than me?
But, as I said before, the hipster movement is just a symptom of the larger human need of finding ways to feel superior to others. Some people find it in intellect. Some people find it in physicality. Some people find it in their religion. Some people find it in their creativity. Some people find it in liking things no one else could possibly like. Some people find it in making observations about people and then generalizing them until all of humanity is culpable.
Some people find it in using words like culpable.
I challenge you this week to get over yourself. Find some way to make yourself inferior to others. Save other people the trouble of finding superiority and give it to them. You'll find a unique way to do this, but I can't think of a better way than to publicly listing reasons why people can feel superior to me:
In my speech class last year, they said that you should end persuasive papers and speeches with a call to action. I'm gonna completely disregard that and start with a "call to action" instead:
GET OVER YOURSELF!!!I mean, goodness, humanity. What's your deal? I just read the top six posts on my Facebook feed and they were all subtle (possibly subconscious) ways of gaining superiority over everyone else. And if you're paying attention, I'm doing the EXACT same thing! By realizing that people are acting superior to others, I'm setting myself up as superior to them. Thereby, I've placed myself as high on the superiority chain as I can get. BEAT THAT!!!
Really, though, there's a particular way of demanding superiority that ticks me off. Interestingly, it's also one of the most common forms. I know I wrote about it before, but I cannot stand the hipster movement!
As a recap for those that don't know, when I refer to a hipster, I'm referring specifically to that moment when people think they are better because they like something no one else does. This usually mutates a step further into the idea that things are naturally not as good if everyone else likes it. Thus, anything "mainstream" is COMPLETELY out of the question.
For those of you that know me, I'm being more than a little hypocritical here. But, really, I was a hipster before being a hipster was cool. Now hipsters are just WAY too mainstream!
Seriously, though, hipsters tend to reveal themselves most often in the entertainment industry. For these people, different is as good a compliment as you can give a piece of creativity. Formulaic movies suck. Music that plays on the radio is appalling. And NOBODY has good taste in books. If it's written, played, performed, or created in such a way that the majority of the population can understand and appreciate it, it really isn't worth their time.
Go ask an English prof about almost any popular book. Then ask them what their absolute favorite book of all times is and try to read it. You'll be getting pretty close to an understanding of what I'm talking about then. English profs are generally the biggest literary hipsters I've ever talked to. The "Academy" is a group of the hipsters of movies.
What scares me more than anything about the hipster movement is that so many people don't realize they're a part of it.
For example, I present the idea of a bandwagon. Literally, a bandwagon is a wagon which carries the band in a parade. Back in the 1800s, an extremely popular clown by the name of Dan Rice offered a presidential candidate the opportunity to campaign on his bandwagon. After that, many local politicians would want to ride on the bandwagon with said presidential candidate in the hopes that his popularity would rub off. People started using the term "jumping on the bandwagon" derogatorily, and it stuck.
Most people don't think about football fans as being hipsters. After all [flipping scarf over left shoulder and adjusting glasses that I don't need] football is SO mainstream! And yet, have you ever talked to a true diehard fan of a team that sucks? Those people are extremely proud that they haven't left a sinking ship. Worse than fans of awful teams, though, are fans of suddenly good teams. This "sudden" change can actually be rather slow. It could happen over several years. The point is that people who were fans back when the team sucked criticize those that became fans since the team's rise to glory. They say they're just jumping on the bandwagon.
I raise to you this question: WHO CARES?!?
Seriously, if jumping on the bandwagon gives someone the sense of satisfaction they need to get through the day, is it any of your business? If I've been particularly impressed by a team's season and want to see them succeed, should it really bother you if I root for them?
Just because you discovered something before I did, does that really make you any more appreciative of it than me?
But, as I said before, the hipster movement is just a symptom of the larger human need of finding ways to feel superior to others. Some people find it in intellect. Some people find it in physicality. Some people find it in their religion. Some people find it in their creativity. Some people find it in liking things no one else could possibly like. Some people find it in making observations about people and then generalizing them until all of humanity is culpable.
Some people find it in using words like culpable.
I challenge you this week to get over yourself. Find some way to make yourself inferior to others. Save other people the trouble of finding superiority and give it to them. You'll find a unique way to do this, but I can't think of a better way than to publicly listing reasons why people can feel superior to me:
- I'm EXTREMELY shy.
- I'm two-faced.
- I've spent over 19 of the last 20 years of my life single.
- I'm argumentative.
- I convince people that things are true when I have no idea what I'm talking about.
- I'm scared of failure, storms, and Bigfoot.
- High School Musical 3 makes me want to cry.
- Most people will never really realize I'm shy.
- I'm two-faced.
- I've spent over 19 of the last 20 years of my life single.
- I am NOT argumentative! (And I resent your tone!)
- I convince people that things are true when I have no idea what I'm talking about.
- I'm willing to admit I'm afraid of failure, storms, and Bigfoot, and that HSM3 made me want to cry.
- I thought of making this list before you did!
Friday, February 24, 2012
B.C. Friday
For a long time, I've written under the name B.C. Friday.
My mom (I think it was my mom) asked me about my pseudonym once. She asked me why I used it. I'm pretty sure my answer at the time was weak and probably full of "I don't know"s. I've given it thought since then and come up with a few basic reasons.
I noticed early on that the most impressive and influential writers tended to use a form of their name involving initials and a legitimate name. C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling, J.R.R. Tolkien. I had others at one point, but these were the big ones for me at the time. I'm more than a little superstitious, so I figured it couldn't hurt to emulate them. However, this isn't really a reason for why to use a pseudonym as much as a reason for why I chose the one I did.
The next reason was probably more likely the original reason why I started using it: I'm a sucker for dramatics.
I always loved theater. I loved becoming someone else. To me, by using a different name when I wrote meant temporarily becoming a different person. Since it's not so much a name as a code, it adds a distinct air of mystery to this new character I would get to portray. It's not for nothing that I was called "Drama Queen" by a group of girls for a week this summer.
However, it would be really easy to argue that using a pseudonym doesn't properly give me credit for my work. This makes sense, but interestingly leads me into the main reason why I continue to use this pseudonym.
I was having a conversation with someone earlier about story telling. We started by talking about the differences and similarities between writing a story and telling a story. We agreed that story telling required an ability to react to your audience and adapt your story accordingly and that writing required an ability to stay focused on the story long enough to get it on paper.
Personally, I've never been good at story telling. I can't sit down and weave a story in an instant and quickly craft it into a performance worth listening to. I certainly can't adapt and change my stories once they're on a course.
I think the reason I can't tell stories is because I can't come up with stories.
Don't get me wrong. I can write stories all day long if I really want to. However, my firm belief is that I have never once come up with a good story. That's not my gift. I can't sit here and give you a sequence of events off the top of my head and them both make sense and be interesting. Furthermore, if I could, I know I wouldn't be able to convert them into words that would be worth reading.
My gift is characters. I can meet a character and in an instant give you their entire backstory. If you asked me about almost any event in the life of any one of my characters, I could probably tell you about it. I like to believe that my characters are separate and individual entities with lives of their own, but I would like to point out that at the beginning of this paragraph, I used the word "meet", not "make".
The truth of the matter is, I don't really think you can "make" a good character. A truly great and believable character, is either raised, met, or a combination of the two. I can't honestly tell you which most authors use.
Raising a character means taking a character from a particular point and weaving the world around them so that they grow into the character you want them to be. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not very good at creating stories, so this doesn't really work for me. Meeting a character involves encountering a character at a particular point in their life and then learning their backstory.
I usually meet my characters. I will be going along in a story and suddenly run into a point where a character must be, and, conveniently, a character will be there. I can almost guarantee you when a story needs a character, there will be one there. The hard part is getting to know them. I can't tell you how I do that, but I do. Typically, when I write a story, I have a starting point. Usually it's a particular moment in a particular character's life. As this protagonist encounters other characters, I meet and get to know them. I typically just let these characters lose and follow them around.
I've now finally circled around to my point.
One of the main reasons I continue to use a pseudonym when I write is the fact that I don't feel like I have much more right to the story than you. The only reason I would even begin to convince myself I do is because I met the characters before you. I believe that before me, the credit for my stories should go to God and the characters. They're the ones who made the stories. They're the ones who presented themselves to me when I needed them. I just wrote the thing down.
Thus, B.C. Friday, for me, represents so much more than just me. It's my subtle way of taking the credit out of my hands. B.C. Friday is the culmination of every character that got even the briefest of cameos in one of my stories, God's generous blessing to me of a glimpse into these characters' lives, and finally, little me, translating it all into a form you people can actually read.
I'll admit, while this last reason sounds really good, I honestly started using a pseudonym because I'm a superstitious drama queen. However, that doesn't change the fact that this post ex facto reasoning is the reason I continue to use a pseudonym. I tried to quit using it, and it just felt wrong.
I felt like a traitor.
So, out of gratitude to God for giving me the opportunity to glance into someone else's life if only for a moment, and in honor of every person who ended up in a life interesting enough for me to enjoy, I will continue to write under the name B.C. Friday.
It's the least I can do.
My mom (I think it was my mom) asked me about my pseudonym once. She asked me why I used it. I'm pretty sure my answer at the time was weak and probably full of "I don't know"s. I've given it thought since then and come up with a few basic reasons.
I noticed early on that the most impressive and influential writers tended to use a form of their name involving initials and a legitimate name. C.S. Lewis, J.K. Rowling, J.R.R. Tolkien. I had others at one point, but these were the big ones for me at the time. I'm more than a little superstitious, so I figured it couldn't hurt to emulate them. However, this isn't really a reason for why to use a pseudonym as much as a reason for why I chose the one I did.
The next reason was probably more likely the original reason why I started using it: I'm a sucker for dramatics.
I always loved theater. I loved becoming someone else. To me, by using a different name when I wrote meant temporarily becoming a different person. Since it's not so much a name as a code, it adds a distinct air of mystery to this new character I would get to portray. It's not for nothing that I was called "Drama Queen" by a group of girls for a week this summer.
However, it would be really easy to argue that using a pseudonym doesn't properly give me credit for my work. This makes sense, but interestingly leads me into the main reason why I continue to use this pseudonym.
I was having a conversation with someone earlier about story telling. We started by talking about the differences and similarities between writing a story and telling a story. We agreed that story telling required an ability to react to your audience and adapt your story accordingly and that writing required an ability to stay focused on the story long enough to get it on paper.
Personally, I've never been good at story telling. I can't sit down and weave a story in an instant and quickly craft it into a performance worth listening to. I certainly can't adapt and change my stories once they're on a course.
I think the reason I can't tell stories is because I can't come up with stories.
Don't get me wrong. I can write stories all day long if I really want to. However, my firm belief is that I have never once come up with a good story. That's not my gift. I can't sit here and give you a sequence of events off the top of my head and them both make sense and be interesting. Furthermore, if I could, I know I wouldn't be able to convert them into words that would be worth reading.
My gift is characters. I can meet a character and in an instant give you their entire backstory. If you asked me about almost any event in the life of any one of my characters, I could probably tell you about it. I like to believe that my characters are separate and individual entities with lives of their own, but I would like to point out that at the beginning of this paragraph, I used the word "meet", not "make".
The truth of the matter is, I don't really think you can "make" a good character. A truly great and believable character, is either raised, met, or a combination of the two. I can't honestly tell you which most authors use.
Raising a character means taking a character from a particular point and weaving the world around them so that they grow into the character you want them to be. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not very good at creating stories, so this doesn't really work for me. Meeting a character involves encountering a character at a particular point in their life and then learning their backstory.
I usually meet my characters. I will be going along in a story and suddenly run into a point where a character must be, and, conveniently, a character will be there. I can almost guarantee you when a story needs a character, there will be one there. The hard part is getting to know them. I can't tell you how I do that, but I do. Typically, when I write a story, I have a starting point. Usually it's a particular moment in a particular character's life. As this protagonist encounters other characters, I meet and get to know them. I typically just let these characters lose and follow them around.
I've now finally circled around to my point.
One of the main reasons I continue to use a pseudonym when I write is the fact that I don't feel like I have much more right to the story than you. The only reason I would even begin to convince myself I do is because I met the characters before you. I believe that before me, the credit for my stories should go to God and the characters. They're the ones who made the stories. They're the ones who presented themselves to me when I needed them. I just wrote the thing down.
Thus, B.C. Friday, for me, represents so much more than just me. It's my subtle way of taking the credit out of my hands. B.C. Friday is the culmination of every character that got even the briefest of cameos in one of my stories, God's generous blessing to me of a glimpse into these characters' lives, and finally, little me, translating it all into a form you people can actually read.
I'll admit, while this last reason sounds really good, I honestly started using a pseudonym because I'm a superstitious drama queen. However, that doesn't change the fact that this post ex facto reasoning is the reason I continue to use a pseudonym. I tried to quit using it, and it just felt wrong.
I felt like a traitor.
So, out of gratitude to God for giving me the opportunity to glance into someone else's life if only for a moment, and in honor of every person who ended up in a life interesting enough for me to enjoy, I will continue to write under the name B.C. Friday.
It's the least I can do.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Monophobia and Other Plagues
I just watched the movie, "He's Just Not That Into You". Not a bad movie. Incredibly cheesy but with some interesting thoughts buried in it. If I had a female around right now, I would ask her many questions thanks to this movie. I guess I'll have to wait until tomorrow.
The main question is very simple: Do girls really think like that!?! Seriously. I thought I overthink things. That question is really beside the point right now (though it does go perfectly with my "girls are crazy" theory). The bigger, more interesting, thing was slightly more subtly embedded and fits beautifully into one of the biggest theories currently running around my head: People are terrified of being alone!
I occurred to me in the movie when a girl got rejected by a guy and then stormed out triumphantly declaring that he wasn't the winner because he would always be alone. I almost died laughing at her elegant combination of projecting and hypocrisy.
Think about what she was actually saying. She was first of all implying that he was actually the loser because he would end up alone. To clear things up, the guy was perfectly happy up until this point. She wasn't happy throughout the movie until the last like five minutes. He was obviously not afraid of ending up alone. She obviously was. The implications of her comment suggested he shared this fear. Seemed like your standard case of projecting to me.
Let's take a slightly deeper look, though. She was accusing him of claiming superiority by claiming superiority. I'm doing an awful job of explaining all this, but if you watched that scene with all this in mind, it would make more sense. In fact, why don't you do that. This scene pretty much sums up everything I'm talking about with this movie:
People are convinced that the only way to become happy is to find one magical person who redefines your whole existence and becomes you're reason for leaving. This is even worse on girls. They're taught from early on that their entire existence depends on whether or not they get married. It goes all the way back to Disney princesses:
It's kinda sad really. The "Beauty and the Beast" one is particularly troubling. Did you ever notice that the geeky guy often ends up with at least a cute girl? What about the geeky girl? Unless there's a geeky guy, her ending up with someone is usually played for laughs. How sad is that?
I'm working on a clever word for this sickness that has gripped society, but nothing I've thought of seems to do it justice. For now, I'm just going with, "That right there . . . that's what's wrong with America."
I don't, however, think that movies are the cause of this fear as much as they are symptoms. So the bigger question is, why are people so afraid of ending up alone? I read a statistic once that that was the most common fear amongst single people. What is it about being alone that is so terrifying to people? Kelly Clarkson recently came out with a song that says, "Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone." Why don't more people realize this?
If I told most people that I spent both my Friday and Saturday night this weekend in my dorm alone, I would get at the very least a couple of sympathetic looks. Trust me, I've tested this. I might also possibly get a couple "Ah, I'm sorry." one or two "That sucks." and possibly an "Are you antisocial or something?" What I most likely would not get is an "Oh, that sounds like fun!"
But it is to me! I am just as entertained staying home alone doing various incarnations of nothing as I am going out with a bunch of people. I don't get lonely very easily. In fact, I usually feel the most lonely in large groups of people. Yet, for some reason, people seem to think that it's weird to have fun alone. If you enjoy having alone time you're "antisocial". I'm not always antisocial, but gorramit I need time to myself!
I can't say what the cause of the fear of being alone is. I think at this point it's simply passed on from one poor unfortunate lonely soul to the next. Some would argue that it's evolution telling us that we're more likely to survive as a pack than as individuals. Whatever it is, it's a problem.
It's a problem, because it's been known to get to me, too. Me and my antisocial self are occasionally struck with a paralyzing fear that I'm going to end up alone. Then I go off away from people and the fear goes away. Weird.
In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", one of the characters speculates that humans participate in small talk because if they stop talking, their brains start working. Maybe that's why we're afraid of being alone. We're actually afraid of finding out who we are. We're afraid that if we meet ourselves, we won't like us.
I am officially issuing a challenge: Spend an entire day away from other people. Be antisocial for a day. You can be as extreme about this as you want from not even seeing another person to not talking to people to just not spending time with people. The goal is to meet yourself. Go out with yourself for a while and see if it's a compatible match. (What d'ya know? An appropriate song!)
You might be surprised what you find.
The main question is very simple: Do girls really think like that!?! Seriously. I thought I overthink things. That question is really beside the point right now (though it does go perfectly with my "girls are crazy" theory). The bigger, more interesting, thing was slightly more subtly embedded and fits beautifully into one of the biggest theories currently running around my head: People are terrified of being alone!
I occurred to me in the movie when a girl got rejected by a guy and then stormed out triumphantly declaring that he wasn't the winner because he would always be alone. I almost died laughing at her elegant combination of projecting and hypocrisy.
Think about what she was actually saying. She was first of all implying that he was actually the loser because he would end up alone. To clear things up, the guy was perfectly happy up until this point. She wasn't happy throughout the movie until the last like five minutes. He was obviously not afraid of ending up alone. She obviously was. The implications of her comment suggested he shared this fear. Seemed like your standard case of projecting to me.
Let's take a slightly deeper look, though. She was accusing him of claiming superiority by claiming superiority. I'm doing an awful job of explaining all this, but if you watched that scene with all this in mind, it would make more sense. In fact, why don't you do that. This scene pretty much sums up everything I'm talking about with this movie:
That Scene I'm Talking AboutThe way she talks, you would think that the only thing that matters in life is finding someone. Like that's the only way to be happy. Yes, you could argue that I'm taking too much from this one little section, but that scene was pretty true to the entire movie. The girls all acted like the only way they could be happy was if they fell in love and got married. THIS is what I'm really talking about.
People are convinced that the only way to become happy is to find one magical person who redefines your whole existence and becomes you're reason for leaving. This is even worse on girls. They're taught from early on that their entire existence depends on whether or not they get married. It goes all the way back to Disney princesses:
I'm working on a clever word for this sickness that has gripped society, but nothing I've thought of seems to do it justice. For now, I'm just going with, "That right there . . . that's what's wrong with America."
I don't, however, think that movies are the cause of this fear as much as they are symptoms. So the bigger question is, why are people so afraid of ending up alone? I read a statistic once that that was the most common fear amongst single people. What is it about being alone that is so terrifying to people? Kelly Clarkson recently came out with a song that says, "Doesn't mean I'm lonely when I'm alone." Why don't more people realize this?
If I told most people that I spent both my Friday and Saturday night this weekend in my dorm alone, I would get at the very least a couple of sympathetic looks. Trust me, I've tested this. I might also possibly get a couple "Ah, I'm sorry." one or two "That sucks." and possibly an "Are you antisocial or something?" What I most likely would not get is an "Oh, that sounds like fun!"
But it is to me! I am just as entertained staying home alone doing various incarnations of nothing as I am going out with a bunch of people. I don't get lonely very easily. In fact, I usually feel the most lonely in large groups of people. Yet, for some reason, people seem to think that it's weird to have fun alone. If you enjoy having alone time you're "antisocial". I'm not always antisocial, but gorramit I need time to myself!
I can't say what the cause of the fear of being alone is. I think at this point it's simply passed on from one poor unfortunate lonely soul to the next. Some would argue that it's evolution telling us that we're more likely to survive as a pack than as individuals. Whatever it is, it's a problem.
It's a problem, because it's been known to get to me, too. Me and my antisocial self are occasionally struck with a paralyzing fear that I'm going to end up alone. Then I go off away from people and the fear goes away. Weird.
In "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", one of the characters speculates that humans participate in small talk because if they stop talking, their brains start working. Maybe that's why we're afraid of being alone. We're actually afraid of finding out who we are. We're afraid that if we meet ourselves, we won't like us.
I am officially issuing a challenge: Spend an entire day away from other people. Be antisocial for a day. You can be as extreme about this as you want from not even seeing another person to not talking to people to just not spending time with people. The goal is to meet yourself. Go out with yourself for a while and see if it's a compatible match. (What d'ya know? An appropriate song!)
You might be surprised what you find.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
"Here I am. Send me."
For Christmas this year, one of the best presents I got was a guitar. I tried to learn guitar a few years ago (I think it may have been in middle school?), almost convinced myself that I had learned one song, then became disinterested in it. Over the summer at camp, I wanted to learn again and almost convinced myself I had learned a few chords, but I didn't have a guitar of my own and was far too lazy to ask someone else to borrow theirs every time I wanted to play. My hope was that if I owned a guitar, I would be more motivated to learn to play it.
It seems I was right. I guess even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.
Since Christmas, I have fairly effectively convinced myself that I can play several songs on it and can pull off most of the chords needed to play camp songs. As I was flipping through the little book I've been using to teach myself (the green camp book with such winners as "Muff the Tragic Wagon" and "Somebody Touched Me"), I came across my all-time favorite hymn.
It's one of those songs where the people who compile these books are never entirely sure what to call it. I know it as "Here I Am, Lord", but I've also seen it as "I the Lord of Sea and Sky", and something else that made no sense to me so I didn't take the time to remember it. Whatever you call it, I love it. I looked around on YouTube for quite a while listening to different versions of this song and, interestingly, decided I like it a lot more when sung in a group rather than as an individual. After listening to nearly a dozen that I didn't think did it justice, I heard this one. LOVED IT!
In my thoughts about this song, I've considered many aspects of it. The first is the correlation between it and my confirmation verse:
(Side Note: Apparently I'm not the only one who's mad this connection, because according to my sources, the author of "Here I Am, Lord" based it on both of these.)
Through my analysis of the song, I came across some other choice quotes that stuck out:
God's comments are very interesting throughout the song. He says repeatedly, "I will do this." He says that he will make their darkness bright, break their hearts of stone, and give his life to them. However, he follows up all these grand statements of what he will do rather quickly with questions of "Who will bear my light to them?" and "Whom shall I send?" Wait a minute. I thought God was planning on doing all of this? As a kangaroo in an odd little video would say, "WTF, mate?"
This is really where things got interesting to me. God makes such grand statements about what he's going to do, but then he starts asking for volunteers. I was then bashed upside the head with the ELCA's (what's the word? Motto? Slogan? I'm gonna go with slogan) slogan, "God's Work. Our Hands." Paul said in one of his oh so many letters that we are the body of Christ. God's taking volunteers because we're his hands, feet, and mouth out here in the world. He may be making their darkness bright, but we're the ones who are supposed to bear his light. He may be breaking their hearts of stone, but he sends us in after to pick up the pieces for him. Heck, we may be the ones wielding the sledge hammers to bash open their hearts. He needs us.
But for what?
Because of the story of Samuel, I've always associated this song with calling a prophet. Samuel spoke to God when he was alone in his room and was called to be God's voice. This is similar to so many prophet's calls. They are called to hold God's people in their hearts. Since pastors are the closest thing we have to prophets today, I've also always associated this song with being called into ministry. Again, that's an easy stretch. However, prophets were generally loners. They wouldn't be singing this song in a group.
So why do I find it more powerful and meaningful when sung by a group? For that matter, why do so many people who aren't in the ministry field moved by it? It must relate to them somehow.
I spent more time than I care to admit thinking about that little problem. How does this relate to everyone? When it finally came to me, it seemed so obvious that I put myself in timeout for an hour. Jesus said straight up how this relates to everyone. Yeah. I said Jesus.
The last line of the chorus was simultaneously the source of my frustration and the key to finding the solution. It says, "I will hold your people in my heart." Just before putting myself in timeout, it became obvious to me that this was actually a very simple phrase that had poetically worded. Translated it simply means, "I will love your people." To you that picked up on this a long time ago, I know. I can hear you cries of, "Well, duh!" through time and space, and that's precisely why I put myself in timeout.
When asked which of the commandments is the greatest, he wisely responded:
Ok. But love is a weird word, isn't it? I mean, is it an emotion? Is it an action? Is it romantic? Is it fraternal? How many people can you love at once? How do I know if I love someone? How do I know if someone loves me?
This can mostly be chalked up to limitations in the English language. English has one word for these things. Greek has three. It has one for romantic or erotic love, one for brotherly love, and one called Agape that people have only ever described to me as the love God has for us. Some people call it unconditional love, but I haven't taken enough time to consider the ramifications of that phrase. I think the truth is that we don't really have sufficient language in this area to say what is really meant. That's why the Greeks came up with a word for it.
I would like you to notice that in the verses love is a verb. It's not just something you feel or something that's there. It's something you do. Combine this with Agape and you've really got something.
My personal definition of this kind of love actually comes from the movie Robots. In this movie, there's an inventor. He says that the best way to come up with an invention is to look for a need and then start trying to think of ways to fill that need. It kinda becomes an ongoing motto in the movie:
Are you a teacher? Love people by educating them. Are you a pastor? Love people by helping them to become spiritually filled. Are you a fry cook? Love people by helping them to get fed. Are you a lawyer? Love people by helping them get justice. Are you a parent? Love people by raising them well. Are you a mechanic? Love people by helping them transport themselves. Are you a doctor? Love people by helping them stay healthy. Are you a student? Love people by working hard to learn how to love people in whatever your future profession may be.
Here we are. Send us.
It seems I was right. I guess even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.
Since Christmas, I have fairly effectively convinced myself that I can play several songs on it and can pull off most of the chords needed to play camp songs. As I was flipping through the little book I've been using to teach myself (the green camp book with such winners as "Muff the Tragic Wagon" and "Somebody Touched Me"), I came across my all-time favorite hymn.
It's one of those songs where the people who compile these books are never entirely sure what to call it. I know it as "Here I Am, Lord", but I've also seen it as "I the Lord of Sea and Sky", and something else that made no sense to me so I didn't take the time to remember it. Whatever you call it, I love it. I looked around on YouTube for quite a while listening to different versions of this song and, interestingly, decided I like it a lot more when sung in a group rather than as an individual. After listening to nearly a dozen that I didn't think did it justice, I heard this one. LOVED IT!
Here I Am, Lord arr. Craig CourtneySince I learned it and it's my favorite, I've spent a lot of time playing it. Since I've spent a lot of time playing it, I've, of course, spent a lot of time thinking about it. I say that it's interesting that I like it better when sung by a group because it's a very VERY personal and intimate song . . . at least I thought. We'll come back to that.
In my thoughts about this song, I've considered many aspects of it. The first is the correlation between it and my confirmation verse:
"I heard the voice of the Lord say, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' Then I said, 'Here I am. Send me." Isaiah 6:8My wonderful confirmation teacher was kind enough to let us choose our confirmation verses for ourselves rather than picking them for us. I had loved this verse for a long time and have since used it to try and look at my life. It's become something of a personal mission statement for me. I've also always loved the story I associate with the verse (even though they don't necessarily go together). That's the story of Samuel's call. You can read it in 1st Samuel 3 if you're interested. This was the obvious standout from the song. Kind of the, "Duh!" I didn't stop there.
(Side Note: Apparently I'm not the only one who's mad this connection, because according to my sources, the author of "Here I Am, Lord" based it on both of these.)
Through my analysis of the song, I came across some other choice quotes that stuck out:
- All who dwell in dark and sin, my hand will save.
- I will make their darkness bright. Who will bear my light to them?
- I will break their hearts of stone, give them hearts for love alone.
- Finest bread I will provide till their hearts be satisfied.
- I will give my life to them.
- Whom shall I send?
- I will go, Lord, if you lead me.
- I will hold your people in my heart.
God's comments are very interesting throughout the song. He says repeatedly, "I will do this." He says that he will make their darkness bright, break their hearts of stone, and give his life to them. However, he follows up all these grand statements of what he will do rather quickly with questions of "Who will bear my light to them?" and "Whom shall I send?" Wait a minute. I thought God was planning on doing all of this? As a kangaroo in an odd little video would say, "WTF, mate?"
This is really where things got interesting to me. God makes such grand statements about what he's going to do, but then he starts asking for volunteers. I was then bashed upside the head with the ELCA's (what's the word? Motto? Slogan? I'm gonna go with slogan) slogan, "God's Work. Our Hands." Paul said in one of his oh so many letters that we are the body of Christ. God's taking volunteers because we're his hands, feet, and mouth out here in the world. He may be making their darkness bright, but we're the ones who are supposed to bear his light. He may be breaking their hearts of stone, but he sends us in after to pick up the pieces for him. Heck, we may be the ones wielding the sledge hammers to bash open their hearts. He needs us.
But for what?
Because of the story of Samuel, I've always associated this song with calling a prophet. Samuel spoke to God when he was alone in his room and was called to be God's voice. This is similar to so many prophet's calls. They are called to hold God's people in their hearts. Since pastors are the closest thing we have to prophets today, I've also always associated this song with being called into ministry. Again, that's an easy stretch. However, prophets were generally loners. They wouldn't be singing this song in a group.
So why do I find it more powerful and meaningful when sung by a group? For that matter, why do so many people who aren't in the ministry field moved by it? It must relate to them somehow.
I spent more time than I care to admit thinking about that little problem. How does this relate to everyone? When it finally came to me, it seemed so obvious that I put myself in timeout for an hour. Jesus said straight up how this relates to everyone. Yeah. I said Jesus.
The last line of the chorus was simultaneously the source of my frustration and the key to finding the solution. It says, "I will hold your people in my heart." Just before putting myself in timeout, it became obvious to me that this was actually a very simple phrase that had poetically worded. Translated it simply means, "I will love your people." To you that picked up on this a long time ago, I know. I can hear you cries of, "Well, duh!" through time and space, and that's precisely why I put myself in timeout.
When asked which of the commandments is the greatest, he wisely responded:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" Matthew 22:37-39 (NIV)Great, so it makes sense, right? We're all called to love, and that's what the song is saying.
Ok. But love is a weird word, isn't it? I mean, is it an emotion? Is it an action? Is it romantic? Is it fraternal? How many people can you love at once? How do I know if I love someone? How do I know if someone loves me?
This can mostly be chalked up to limitations in the English language. English has one word for these things. Greek has three. It has one for romantic or erotic love, one for brotherly love, and one called Agape that people have only ever described to me as the love God has for us. Some people call it unconditional love, but I haven't taken enough time to consider the ramifications of that phrase. I think the truth is that we don't really have sufficient language in this area to say what is really meant. That's why the Greeks came up with a word for it.
I would like you to notice that in the verses love is a verb. It's not just something you feel or something that's there. It's something you do. Combine this with Agape and you've really got something.
My personal definition of this kind of love actually comes from the movie Robots. In this movie, there's an inventor. He says that the best way to come up with an invention is to look for a need and then start trying to think of ways to fill that need. It kinda becomes an ongoing motto in the movie:
"See a need, fill a need."This is what love is. You have to see what needs other people have, then work to fill them. So does that mean that I should walk up to everyone I meet, ask them what they need and then spend the rest of my day catering to their every whim? No. Interestingly, humans are very good at this kind of love already, they just don't realize it. You probably could be doing it every day.
Are you a teacher? Love people by educating them. Are you a pastor? Love people by helping them to become spiritually filled. Are you a fry cook? Love people by helping them to get fed. Are you a lawyer? Love people by helping them get justice. Are you a parent? Love people by raising them well. Are you a mechanic? Love people by helping them transport themselves. Are you a doctor? Love people by helping them stay healthy. Are you a student? Love people by working hard to learn how to love people in whatever your future profession may be.
"Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men." Colossians 3:23 (NIV)Whatever it is you do, find your own way to show people you love them. I think there's another song in there, actually:
That's How You KnowIgnoring the awesomeness that is old men dancing, and the fact that I love this movie and desperately want everyone in my left to burst into coordinated song and dance one day, this song has some good points. You can find your own way to show people you love them with everything you do. The grand gesture like planing a picnic are great, but sometimes it's wearing someone's favorite color that could show them the love they need. Ask yourself regularly, "Who am I loving by doing this?" If you answer yourself with, "No one." then why are you doing it?
"Whom shall I send. Who will go for us?"You aren't alone in this.
Here we are. Send us.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
FUS RO DAH
At this moment, college students nationwide are charging headlong into finals. Personally, I'm sitting here at the end of dead day. For most people, this is a day of intense studying and preparation for these extremely difficult tests that . . . ACHOO!!! Wow, I got farther through that sentence than I thought I would.
Let's be honest, whatever the intention of dead day, studying is boring and even when we're studying, we're looking for a distraction. I am even now finding distractions from things I should be doing. Specifically, I'm not writing a paper for my Ancient Technology class. Throughout the second half of this semester, I've found one of the most effective means of distracting myself that has possibly ever existed (as if I actually needed help getting distracted). Skyrim.
Skyrim is a role-play game for the Xbox. Generally RPGs have a general story line and a few side quests that effectively distract you from the main quest (that way you can be distracted from your distraction). This particular game is INSANE!!! There are so many side quests and changeable features that you can play several different times with several different results. There's a huge map that is entirely explorable. You can just walk around the world of Syrim for hours even days and still discover things you've never seen. It makes it incredibly easy to get distracted over and over again.
I was first told about this game by my bestestest friend in the entire world, DJ. He first told me about it quite a while ago and then let me comendere his Xbox the weekend it came out and start my first character. Unfortunately for me, my roommate also has the game. I have made two more characters since that weekend. I love my first one to death. I would hate to meet my second one down a dark alley. I hate my third one.
For the next few paragraphs to make any sense, you're going to need some background on the story of the game. In order for the background of the story to make much sense, there are some things you need to know. There are several species of playable characters in the game. There are the cat-like Khajiit, the lizard-looking Argonians, Orcs, a few species of Elves, and several breeds of humans. The only playable race native to Skyrim are the Nords, a race of humans very similar to the Norse of our world.
Skyrim is a province of a continent called Tamriel. Tamriel is governed by an empire. Skyrim is ruled over by a high king who is generally allowed to rule by the Emperor. Sometime before the start of the game, a man called Ulfric killed the high king and instigated a civil war between his followers, known as Stormcloaks, and the Imperial Legion. The Stormcloaks' goal (ignoring the political issue of whether or not Ulfric wants to be high king) is to reclaim Skyrim for the Nords. They view all other races as inferior. At the start of the game, the player's character is about to be executed by the Empire when a dragon attacks (dragons were thought to be extinct). Through the course of the main quest, the player's character finds out that they are "Dragonborn," which means that they can use the power of dragons to convert their voice into various attacks and abilities and that it is their destiny to destroy the dragons.
FUS RO DAH is a shout the Dragonborn learns along the way. Each shout is made of three words and FUS is the first word the Dragonborn will generally learn. As you learn the other words it gets more powerful. FUS RO DAH has the effect of sending out a blast that staggers your enemy (and anyone else in your way). Here's a perfect example:
The things I really want to talk about, though, are my characters.
My first character was a Khajiit. As I worked with him, I realized that I preferred using magic or summoning something else to fight for me. Because of this and the fact that I insisted on wearing the strongest armor I could find, DJ deemed him a "battle mage". That term just made me love him more. Naturally, with him, I joined the mage's college to improve my magic. However, despite being my first and most loved character, he is on DJ's console and I haven't gotten to play much with him.
My second character is the one I've played with the most. He's an Argonian and with him, I've travelled through time, been to the other side of death, become leader of a fighting group, joined up with an assassin's guild that tried to kill him three times, bought a house, gotten married, and saved the world. We've been busy. I have also gained an in-game (an often out-of-game) obsession through him with a race called the Daedra (demon-like creatures). This is mostly because they have really cool weapons and gear. Because of all that Daedric gear, he looks terrifying.
An interesting tidbit to remember about him: Despite being an Argonian, his tale is his only feature that would let you distinguish him from human. This is because he rarely if ever takes off a mask that he got from a Daedric prince. I'll circle back to this later.
My third character is an Orc. I dealt with him differently. With him, I tried to define a character and then work with what that left me. I have found that this severely limits my options with him. About the only interesting thing I've done with him is join the imperial legion.
These characters have led me to some interesting discoveries that have less to do with Skyrim and more to do with you and me. Brace yourselves.
FUS
I started thinking about why I like my first two characters so much and hate my third one. By all rights, I should like the third one better. After all, he's the one I deliberately had the most control over as I played because I wasn't as swept up in the story line.
Did you catch the end of that paragraph? I wasn't swept up in the story line.
With my first two characters, I simply played the game and let my experiences therein define the character. With my third one, I worked very hard to impose this character upon the world rather than let the world make the character. As you go through quests and help (or hurt) people, you are given skills and weapons and apparel that help to make your character who they are. By trying to impose my character upon this world, I found so much of the things that happened to simply be a waste.
Now let's flip it around. Have you ever tried to force yourself into being someone? How'd it work out for you?
Very rarely have I ever met someone who entered the world knowing who they were going to be. Besides that, even when those people did know, they generally found themselves changing along the way and becoming something different. If you try to force this character you've created upon the world, you may find many of your experiences to be wasted and a frustrating waste of time. Instead if you let yourself get swept up in the story that is your life and allow all of your experiences to become a part of who you are, you'll find yourself to be a much richer character and you may enjoy your life more.
If you thought that was good, I'm just getting started.
RO
As I mentioned earlier, my second character is a bit of a Daedric enthusiast and as part of one of those quests, he received a mask. Before I got the mask, I was fine with the way my character looked. I could rock a helmet pretty well, but that mask changed everything. Since then, he has worn some kind of mask at all times (unless the game forced me to do otherwise).
This led me to an interesting revelation about the character: He hates the fact that he's an Argonian.
I've realized that this character has worked very hard to cover up every sign he can that he's an Argonian. Up until I realized this, I hadn't touched the civil war. My character went ahead and saved the world after leading what most people in this world would consider a full life, but the war raged on. With the revelation of this twinge of self-loathing (which I have since decided my character doesn't even realize about himself), I decided that he should join with the Stormcloaks (who also have a hatred for all non-Nords), because he would identify with them.
Now, some of you are saying that I did with this character exactly what I said I hated about my first character. Wrong! The truth is that this situation is very different. You see, I didn't try to force characteristics upon my character, but identified characteristics the story had forced upon him and acted on them. Balance.
You see, acting on your characteristics is not a bad thing. I know that I'm a sucker for characters and stories, so I read and watch movies and write and play ridiculous video games like Skyrim. I never sat down and said, "I'm going to like stories." No, I realized that for some reason, I like them, so I act on that.
This is where you meet the world. Up to a point, the world is going to define you. There's nothing wrong with letting it do so. Despite what many people are saying these days, It's completely natural to allow the world to define you. However, you must have some balance. It's important to realize what the world has made you into so that you can either choose to act on or avoid certain characteristics. If the world has turned you into a dark and hateful person, that's no excuse. You have a responsibility to discover what the world has done to you and see yourself for who you are. If you don't like what you see, you have a right to change things.
To review, we've seen two ends of the scale: trying to force yourself upon the world and letting the world rule you. Balance between the two is the key.
So what's the trick to balance?
In Bible studies with Preach'rman, he often talks about the characters involved in the stories. We have spent large amounts of time trying to find those characters in us. He refers to this as letting the Bible interpret us, or "meeting ourselves". It's a very interesting concept, because I think so very few people have met themselves. Very few people have identified who they are. If you don't identify who you are, you're no better than those people that try to force themselves to be something they're not.
The trick to balance with my Argonian was identifying his self-hatred. Had I not come to that realization, I probably wouldn't have taken a side in the civil war at all and missed out on a very interesting quest line.
The trick to balance in your life is living in between the ever-changing character the world has made you into and the ever-changing character you hope to become.
DAH
Today, I'm hoping to push you into living in that gray area. Somewhere between who you planned to be and who you plan to be lies who you are. So ask yourself this:
Let's be honest, whatever the intention of dead day, studying is boring and even when we're studying, we're looking for a distraction. I am even now finding distractions from things I should be doing. Specifically, I'm not writing a paper for my Ancient Technology class. Throughout the second half of this semester, I've found one of the most effective means of distracting myself that has possibly ever existed (as if I actually needed help getting distracted). Skyrim.
Skyrim is a role-play game for the Xbox. Generally RPGs have a general story line and a few side quests that effectively distract you from the main quest (that way you can be distracted from your distraction). This particular game is INSANE!!! There are so many side quests and changeable features that you can play several different times with several different results. There's a huge map that is entirely explorable. You can just walk around the world of Syrim for hours even days and still discover things you've never seen. It makes it incredibly easy to get distracted over and over again.
I was first told about this game by my bestestest friend in the entire world, DJ. He first told me about it quite a while ago and then let me comendere his Xbox the weekend it came out and start my first character. Unfortunately for me, my roommate also has the game. I have made two more characters since that weekend. I love my first one to death. I would hate to meet my second one down a dark alley. I hate my third one.
For the next few paragraphs to make any sense, you're going to need some background on the story of the game. In order for the background of the story to make much sense, there are some things you need to know. There are several species of playable characters in the game. There are the cat-like Khajiit, the lizard-looking Argonians, Orcs, a few species of Elves, and several breeds of humans. The only playable race native to Skyrim are the Nords, a race of humans very similar to the Norse of our world.
Skyrim is a province of a continent called Tamriel. Tamriel is governed by an empire. Skyrim is ruled over by a high king who is generally allowed to rule by the Emperor. Sometime before the start of the game, a man called Ulfric killed the high king and instigated a civil war between his followers, known as Stormcloaks, and the Imperial Legion. The Stormcloaks' goal (ignoring the political issue of whether or not Ulfric wants to be high king) is to reclaim Skyrim for the Nords. They view all other races as inferior. At the start of the game, the player's character is about to be executed by the Empire when a dragon attacks (dragons were thought to be extinct). Through the course of the main quest, the player's character finds out that they are "Dragonborn," which means that they can use the power of dragons to convert their voice into various attacks and abilities and that it is their destiny to destroy the dragons.
FUS RO DAH is a shout the Dragonborn learns along the way. Each shout is made of three words and FUS is the first word the Dragonborn will generally learn. As you learn the other words it gets more powerful. FUS RO DAH has the effect of sending out a blast that staggers your enemy (and anyone else in your way). Here's a perfect example:
FUS RO DAH!!!So there's the main quest line to destroy the dragons, the civil war (in which you can join either side or simply let them fight for eternity), and any other quest lines you feel like getting involved with. That's about as summed up as I can make it. If you think that sounds nerdy and complicated, try actually playing the game. I really only got you up to the beginning of the game with that little summary.
The things I really want to talk about, though, are my characters.
My first character was a Khajiit. As I worked with him, I realized that I preferred using magic or summoning something else to fight for me. Because of this and the fact that I insisted on wearing the strongest armor I could find, DJ deemed him a "battle mage". That term just made me love him more. Naturally, with him, I joined the mage's college to improve my magic. However, despite being my first and most loved character, he is on DJ's console and I haven't gotten to play much with him.
My second character is the one I've played with the most. He's an Argonian and with him, I've travelled through time, been to the other side of death, become leader of a fighting group, joined up with an assassin's guild that tried to kill him three times, bought a house, gotten married, and saved the world. We've been busy. I have also gained an in-game (an often out-of-game) obsession through him with a race called the Daedra (demon-like creatures). This is mostly because they have really cool weapons and gear. Because of all that Daedric gear, he looks terrifying.
An interesting tidbit to remember about him: Despite being an Argonian, his tale is his only feature that would let you distinguish him from human. This is because he rarely if ever takes off a mask that he got from a Daedric prince. I'll circle back to this later.
My third character is an Orc. I dealt with him differently. With him, I tried to define a character and then work with what that left me. I have found that this severely limits my options with him. About the only interesting thing I've done with him is join the imperial legion.
These characters have led me to some interesting discoveries that have less to do with Skyrim and more to do with you and me. Brace yourselves.
FUS
I started thinking about why I like my first two characters so much and hate my third one. By all rights, I should like the third one better. After all, he's the one I deliberately had the most control over as I played because I wasn't as swept up in the story line.
Did you catch the end of that paragraph? I wasn't swept up in the story line.
With my first two characters, I simply played the game and let my experiences therein define the character. With my third one, I worked very hard to impose this character upon the world rather than let the world make the character. As you go through quests and help (or hurt) people, you are given skills and weapons and apparel that help to make your character who they are. By trying to impose my character upon this world, I found so much of the things that happened to simply be a waste.
Now let's flip it around. Have you ever tried to force yourself into being someone? How'd it work out for you?
Very rarely have I ever met someone who entered the world knowing who they were going to be. Besides that, even when those people did know, they generally found themselves changing along the way and becoming something different. If you try to force this character you've created upon the world, you may find many of your experiences to be wasted and a frustrating waste of time. Instead if you let yourself get swept up in the story that is your life and allow all of your experiences to become a part of who you are, you'll find yourself to be a much richer character and you may enjoy your life more.
If you thought that was good, I'm just getting started.
RO
As I mentioned earlier, my second character is a bit of a Daedric enthusiast and as part of one of those quests, he received a mask. Before I got the mask, I was fine with the way my character looked. I could rock a helmet pretty well, but that mask changed everything. Since then, he has worn some kind of mask at all times (unless the game forced me to do otherwise).
This led me to an interesting revelation about the character: He hates the fact that he's an Argonian.
I've realized that this character has worked very hard to cover up every sign he can that he's an Argonian. Up until I realized this, I hadn't touched the civil war. My character went ahead and saved the world after leading what most people in this world would consider a full life, but the war raged on. With the revelation of this twinge of self-loathing (which I have since decided my character doesn't even realize about himself), I decided that he should join with the Stormcloaks (who also have a hatred for all non-Nords), because he would identify with them.
Now, some of you are saying that I did with this character exactly what I said I hated about my first character. Wrong! The truth is that this situation is very different. You see, I didn't try to force characteristics upon my character, but identified characteristics the story had forced upon him and acted on them. Balance.
You see, acting on your characteristics is not a bad thing. I know that I'm a sucker for characters and stories, so I read and watch movies and write and play ridiculous video games like Skyrim. I never sat down and said, "I'm going to like stories." No, I realized that for some reason, I like them, so I act on that.
This is where you meet the world. Up to a point, the world is going to define you. There's nothing wrong with letting it do so. Despite what many people are saying these days, It's completely natural to allow the world to define you. However, you must have some balance. It's important to realize what the world has made you into so that you can either choose to act on or avoid certain characteristics. If the world has turned you into a dark and hateful person, that's no excuse. You have a responsibility to discover what the world has done to you and see yourself for who you are. If you don't like what you see, you have a right to change things.
To review, we've seen two ends of the scale: trying to force yourself upon the world and letting the world rule you. Balance between the two is the key.
So what's the trick to balance?
In Bible studies with Preach'rman, he often talks about the characters involved in the stories. We have spent large amounts of time trying to find those characters in us. He refers to this as letting the Bible interpret us, or "meeting ourselves". It's a very interesting concept, because I think so very few people have met themselves. Very few people have identified who they are. If you don't identify who you are, you're no better than those people that try to force themselves to be something they're not.
The trick to balance with my Argonian was identifying his self-hatred. Had I not come to that realization, I probably wouldn't have taken a side in the civil war at all and missed out on a very interesting quest line.
The trick to balance in your life is living in between the ever-changing character the world has made you into and the ever-changing character you hope to become.
DAH
Today, I'm hoping to push you into living in that gray area. Somewhere between who you planned to be and who you plan to be lies who you are. So ask yourself this:
Where are you on the scale? Is the world ruling you? Are you trying to force yourself into being a character you're not?Who are you?
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Christ's Mass
Christmas is coming up faster than any of us would like to admit and with that comes the ever infamous debate over what Christmas is all about.
Personally, I'm sick of said debate.
We can argue for days on end over whether or not Christmas has become completely commercialized, but I, like so many others, am completely sick of the argument. It feels like you can't follow any Christmas tradition these days without someone pointing out how commercialized the holiday has gotten. I must admit, I've fallen prey to this trend as well. I have, sadly, caught myself griping about the true meaning of Christmas being lost to the world, but has it?
The word Christmas quite simply comes from words meaning "Christ's Mass". Very clever. The Christ part is obvious. Duh. The mass part is pretty simple too. It's the mass we've all heard of from the Catholic church. In my opinion, you could even go a little more broad and say that "mass" simply refers to a group of people such as the group of people that gathered on the night of Christ's birth. Thus, the "real meaning" of Christmas is a group of people gathering in the name of the messiah.
I have been avoiding making my Christmas list for several weeks now. I was asked for it back before Halloween and refused on principle. I did, however, promise that I would "turn one in" before I went back to school this weekend. The last couple of years, I've found it difficult to make a Christmas list because once I do, I realize well over half of my list is movies. To me, that's not a bad thing. I love movies! However, I know I don't like buying people clothes for Christmas. I think they're boring, and I have no fashion sense. I'm sure there are probably other people who feel similarly about movies.
Because of this whole situation, I found myself falling back to the old standby: Google.
You'd be amazed how many people across the Internet have asked the question, "What do I want for Christmas?" You may be less surprised to learn that more often than not there's at least one smart alec (not my first choice of word) that pipes off some answer about being selfish and not caring about the real meaning of Christmas. I read several of these simply because they got me annoyed (which more often than not seems to lead to some of my best blog posts).
As I was reading annoying people quoting the Bible and blubbering on and on about our self-centered society and blah blah blah, I realized that Christmas lists are not necessarily a sign of a selfish society.
What is the basis of Christmas lists? Christmas presents. How is giving someone a gift a sign of selfishness? In fact, gift giving has become a major gathering point during the holiday season.
By giving gifts, you're showing love. If you're gathering together to show love, is there anything closer to gathering in Christ's name? If two people gather together to show love, are they not fully buying into the true meaning of Christmas? Has Christmas been commercialized? Probably, but no more than any other holiday. Really, from what I can tell, "commercialized" to most people simply means wrapped in tradition.
Gift giving isn't commercialization. It's gathering together in show love. Gathering in Christ's name. Being part of Christ's Mass. Christmas.
Personally, I'm sick of said debate.
We can argue for days on end over whether or not Christmas has become completely commercialized, but I, like so many others, am completely sick of the argument. It feels like you can't follow any Christmas tradition these days without someone pointing out how commercialized the holiday has gotten. I must admit, I've fallen prey to this trend as well. I have, sadly, caught myself griping about the true meaning of Christmas being lost to the world, but has it?
The word Christmas quite simply comes from words meaning "Christ's Mass". Very clever. The Christ part is obvious. Duh. The mass part is pretty simple too. It's the mass we've all heard of from the Catholic church. In my opinion, you could even go a little more broad and say that "mass" simply refers to a group of people such as the group of people that gathered on the night of Christ's birth. Thus, the "real meaning" of Christmas is a group of people gathering in the name of the messiah.
"For where two or three gather in my name, there I am with them." Matthew 18:20 (NIV)Christmas has developed a large group of traditions. These range from Christmas trees to going to church to eating Chinese food to creepy old guys watching you and sneaking into your house at night. Not the least of these traditions is gift giving. This is also the one that draws the most criticism.
I have been avoiding making my Christmas list for several weeks now. I was asked for it back before Halloween and refused on principle. I did, however, promise that I would "turn one in" before I went back to school this weekend. The last couple of years, I've found it difficult to make a Christmas list because once I do, I realize well over half of my list is movies. To me, that's not a bad thing. I love movies! However, I know I don't like buying people clothes for Christmas. I think they're boring, and I have no fashion sense. I'm sure there are probably other people who feel similarly about movies.
Because of this whole situation, I found myself falling back to the old standby: Google.
You'd be amazed how many people across the Internet have asked the question, "What do I want for Christmas?" You may be less surprised to learn that more often than not there's at least one smart alec (not my first choice of word) that pipes off some answer about being selfish and not caring about the real meaning of Christmas. I read several of these simply because they got me annoyed (which more often than not seems to lead to some of my best blog posts).
As I was reading annoying people quoting the Bible and blubbering on and on about our self-centered society and blah blah blah, I realized that Christmas lists are not necessarily a sign of a selfish society.
What is the basis of Christmas lists? Christmas presents. How is giving someone a gift a sign of selfishness? In fact, gift giving has become a major gathering point during the holiday season.
"For where two or three gather in my name, there I am with them." Matthew 18:20 (NIV)If you've learned anything about Love Languages, you'll know that one of them is gifts. Gifts show that you care enough to think about a person in advance and get them something. Sometimes, people think about a person in advance and would love to get them a gift, but they don't know what to get them. That's where Christmas lists come in. Who knows what you want better than you do?
By giving gifts, you're showing love. If you're gathering together to show love, is there anything closer to gathering in Christ's name? If two people gather together to show love, are they not fully buying into the true meaning of Christmas? Has Christmas been commercialized? Probably, but no more than any other holiday. Really, from what I can tell, "commercialized" to most people simply means wrapped in tradition.
Gift giving isn't commercialization. It's gathering together in show love. Gathering in Christ's name. Being part of Christ's Mass. Christmas.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
You'll Be Gone and I'll Notice
Whatever part of my brain that is responsible for rational productive thinking seems to have been murdered this week by the part of my brain responsible for overthinking and complete ridiculocity. Thankfully, I haven't had much homework to worry about. Not so thankfully, I haven't had much homework to worry about.
I say thankfully because if I did have a ton of homework, I'm not so sure I could successfully finish it. On the other hand, since I don't have hardly any homework, I'm left with a ton of time to indulge that murderous irrational piece of my brain that has staged one of the most successful coups in history and is in complete control. I've tried to fill up the murder's time with story writing (as that is its typical function), but that seems unsuccessful. The only thing that seems to keep it at bay and prevent it from going complete serial killer on my vital functions is indulging its persistent endless trains of thought.
Guess what? Since you're reading this, you're now trapped on a high speed train with the previously mentioned serial killer. Choo-choo!
I have thought for years that I am a heartless monster. Those that know me best are saying, "No! You're sweet and loving!" While those that know me best are saying, "Yup. That's about right." Thanks to the seditious Overthought (which I have now decided to call him), I have decided otherwise.
My first hint that I am not a heartless monster came along with the thoughts associated with yesterday's post. I thought for the longest time that I was a heartless monster because I couldn't write love stories, I had no heart. When I discovered that this had nothing to do with the love involved and more to do with boredom, I was satisfied and decided that I might have a heart.
But there were other arguments involved.
Unfortunately, my body requires sleep which means that I can't stay up all night writing here. That means that I don't have enough time to discuss all of the many reasons and examples as to my theory of heartlessness. I do, however, have time to debunk one.
This summer I revealed to a group of people just how heartless of a monster I am by pointing out that other than my family, I had only ever missed four people. You may now fight amongst yourselves as to who those people are. When you're done trying to figure out if you're one of those special few, I'll continue and make the world make sense again. No, no. It's ok. Take your time.
. . .
. . .
Are you done crying yet? Thank goodness. I don't really feel like dealing with that while talking about how I'm not a heartless monster. That's just too much work.
I only just recently realized why "I don't miss people" while other people do. It's really a very simple solution. Other people don't miss people either! I'll now give you some time to have your little hissy fit about how so-and-so does too miss you and how you really miss so-and-so. Go on. Have your tantrum.
. . .
. . .
Finished? Great.
My firm belief is that people don't know what it means to miss someone. No one has ever, in my opinion, explained society's view of the phrase "I'm going to miss you" better than The Big Bang Theory. If you've never seen The Big Bang Theory, you should immediately stop reading, go to the mirror, look yourself in the eye and inform your brain that you have been depriving it, return to your computer and Google it. You will eventually discover more than one website where you can watch full episodes online. Come back when you're done.
In one episode (the season two finale if I recall correctly (which I normally do)), Leonard goes to tell Penny that he will be taking a trip to the North Pole for a scientific expedition. When he tells her, one of her responses is "Oh, I'm gonna miss you." Later in the episode, Leonard returns to ask Penny what she meant by that. Her response was "I don't know. You'll be gone and I'll notice."
That about sums up what I can only figure is most people's view of the phrase "I miss you." To most people most of the time it means "I noticed you weren't around." In all actuality, they're perfectly accurate with the definition:
I, having a brain that doesn't exactly work in the same way as most people, tend to reserve the word "miss" for the definition "to regret the loss of." When I say "I miss so-and-so" I am taking note of a legitimate feeling of loss in my life. I legitimately feel like something important is missing when that person is not around. Those four people that I said earlier I missed were people that at various times were crucial pillars of my emotional stability for one reason or another, and, without them, I felt like something deep inside me was not being properly supported.
Suddenly the word "miss" is a little less frivolous. Don't you think?
There's a reason why I say I don't miss people. I used to think that other people understood "miss" the same way I did. It was not until very recently that I realized I'm not a heartless monster. It's not that I miss people less than others. It's simply that I put a lot more value on the word. Do I notice people's absence? Yes. Does my mind immediately jump to "I miss that person"? No.
Now, as usual, it's time to turn this train around a little bit. You've ridden this long with Overthought and now it's time to turn the reins over to you. (Don't ask why the train has reins) Who in your life do you really miss? I'm not talking about "discover the absence of". I'm talking about "regret the loss of".
Who are those people in your life that, when they aren't around, leave a gaping human-shaped hole in your life that it seems only they can fill?
I say thankfully because if I did have a ton of homework, I'm not so sure I could successfully finish it. On the other hand, since I don't have hardly any homework, I'm left with a ton of time to indulge that murderous irrational piece of my brain that has staged one of the most successful coups in history and is in complete control. I've tried to fill up the murder's time with story writing (as that is its typical function), but that seems unsuccessful. The only thing that seems to keep it at bay and prevent it from going complete serial killer on my vital functions is indulging its persistent endless trains of thought.
Guess what? Since you're reading this, you're now trapped on a high speed train with the previously mentioned serial killer. Choo-choo!
I have thought for years that I am a heartless monster. Those that know me best are saying, "No! You're sweet and loving!" While those that know me best are saying, "Yup. That's about right." Thanks to the seditious Overthought (which I have now decided to call him), I have decided otherwise.
My first hint that I am not a heartless monster came along with the thoughts associated with yesterday's post. I thought for the longest time that I was a heartless monster because I couldn't write love stories, I had no heart. When I discovered that this had nothing to do with the love involved and more to do with boredom, I was satisfied and decided that I might have a heart.
But there were other arguments involved.
Unfortunately, my body requires sleep which means that I can't stay up all night writing here. That means that I don't have enough time to discuss all of the many reasons and examples as to my theory of heartlessness. I do, however, have time to debunk one.
This summer I revealed to a group of people just how heartless of a monster I am by pointing out that other than my family, I had only ever missed four people. You may now fight amongst yourselves as to who those people are. When you're done trying to figure out if you're one of those special few, I'll continue and make the world make sense again. No, no. It's ok. Take your time.
. . .
. . .
Are you done crying yet? Thank goodness. I don't really feel like dealing with that while talking about how I'm not a heartless monster. That's just too much work.
I only just recently realized why "I don't miss people" while other people do. It's really a very simple solution. Other people don't miss people either! I'll now give you some time to have your little hissy fit about how so-and-so does too miss you and how you really miss so-and-so. Go on. Have your tantrum.
. . .
. . .
Finished? Great.
My firm belief is that people don't know what it means to miss someone. No one has ever, in my opinion, explained society's view of the phrase "I'm going to miss you" better than The Big Bang Theory. If you've never seen The Big Bang Theory, you should immediately stop reading, go to the mirror, look yourself in the eye and inform your brain that you have been depriving it, return to your computer and Google it. You will eventually discover more than one website where you can watch full episodes online. Come back when you're done.
In one episode (the season two finale if I recall correctly (which I normally do)), Leonard goes to tell Penny that he will be taking a trip to the North Pole for a scientific expedition. When he tells her, one of her responses is "Oh, I'm gonna miss you." Later in the episode, Leonard returns to ask Penny what she meant by that. Her response was "I don't know. You'll be gone and I'll notice."
That about sums up what I can only figure is most people's view of the phrase "I miss you." To most people most of the time it means "I noticed you weren't around." In all actuality, they're perfectly accurate with the definition:
"To discover or regret the loss or absence of," World English DictionaryThe "miss" in "I miss you" is, most of the time, "to discover the absence of." In that respect, I miss my million dollars. I miss my wings. I miss my nine-foot-tall labradoodle, Crackers.
I, having a brain that doesn't exactly work in the same way as most people, tend to reserve the word "miss" for the definition "to regret the loss of." When I say "I miss so-and-so" I am taking note of a legitimate feeling of loss in my life. I legitimately feel like something important is missing when that person is not around. Those four people that I said earlier I missed were people that at various times were crucial pillars of my emotional stability for one reason or another, and, without them, I felt like something deep inside me was not being properly supported.
Suddenly the word "miss" is a little less frivolous. Don't you think?
There's a reason why I say I don't miss people. I used to think that other people understood "miss" the same way I did. It was not until very recently that I realized I'm not a heartless monster. It's not that I miss people less than others. It's simply that I put a lot more value on the word. Do I notice people's absence? Yes. Does my mind immediately jump to "I miss that person"? No.
Now, as usual, it's time to turn this train around a little bit. You've ridden this long with Overthought and now it's time to turn the reins over to you. (Don't ask why the train has reins) Who in your life do you really miss? I'm not talking about "discover the absence of". I'm talking about "regret the loss of".
Who are those people in your life that, when they aren't around, leave a gaping human-shaped hole in your life that it seems only they can fill?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Love in Literature
This week, my brain's been in overdrive. I can't yet give you a reason as to why, though spend enough time thinking about why you're thinking and you'll come to some interesting conclusions.
My brain forcing me to spend unhealthy amounts of time thinking about everything in my life wouldn't be such a bad thing if it were letting me follow these extremely long trains of thought to something that I can actually post here. Unfortunately, my brain is train hopping. Before it gets to a depot, it hops onto a passing train and heads off in a different direction. It's very disorienting.
One of the things my brain finally settled on was an unfortunate almost promise I made to someone this summer. I said that I would attempt to write a love story. Oh. My. Gosh. It should not be this difficult! Unfortunately, love itself has basically become a cliche in our society and is so expected in stories that I can't abide it. When we meet a guy and a girl in a story, we immediately start trying to figure out how they're going to end up together. You can try to subvert expectations in so many ways, but love in literature is as disgustingly predictable as a dog peeing on a fire hydrant. It's just what you expect.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some people have very unpredictable lives and need escape from that in the stability of a cliched story line with stock characters you already know. This is why there is a genre of movies called the chick flick and a genre of literature known as "the marriage plot" which, unfortunately, I took an entire semester studying. Trust me. It's cliched and boring.
Before you scream at your computer screen and say that just because something is cliched doesn't mean it's boring, I completely agree with you. I am not suggesting causation, merely correlation. In this case, romance stories are not only cliched and not only boring, but cliched AND boring.
I finally came to the realization today that this is exactly why I have so much trouble writing love stories. They're predictable. I don't like writing predictable. I have been desperately working today to try and find a way to make the story unpredictable (particularly the ending) but as soon as I introduce a guy and a girl, the first thought of everyone who read love stories is, "O-M-G! They would be SOOOOO cute together!" (Insert wrist flick here.) I honestly thought for a while about doing a guy-guy or girl-girl love story for the pure unpredictability of it, but I just couldn't bring myself to write it.
Giving up on the possibility of being unpredictable, I went for intentionally cliched. That ended up not being much better. I got so bored with it that my narrator ended up doing a linguistic commentary on the phrase "once upon a time" which, despite being very interesting, did nothing to move the story along and was really rather boring and pointless when I reread it.
I haven't given up yet. I still think it's possible for me to write a love story, it'll just take some time and lots of tries. To the person that I said would get it as a birthday present: Sorry. I know I missed it a while ago, but you're going to have to wait for Christmas . . . possibly Christmas NEXT year!
I'm open to suggestions on a way to go about ways to make a romance unpredictable. If I ever come up with a love story that I'm happy with, my readers here will be among the first to know.
In the interest of leaving you with something other than my frustrations (and instead leaving you with frustrations of you own), ask yourself this: Is there something in your life that has become so predictable it's boring? Are you ok with that? Can you change it? Should you change it?
P.S. I got an email today from my Cyberstalker that had an attachment on it with the first submissions for the challenge I submitted a little while ago. For those of you that forgot, I'm looking for writings about writer's block. It can be poems, stories, prose, or anything else you can think of. I'm working on a page for my website on which I intend to include any and all submissions I get. It's not too late to submit (especially seeing as how I only just got my first submissions).
My brain forcing me to spend unhealthy amounts of time thinking about everything in my life wouldn't be such a bad thing if it were letting me follow these extremely long trains of thought to something that I can actually post here. Unfortunately, my brain is train hopping. Before it gets to a depot, it hops onto a passing train and heads off in a different direction. It's very disorienting.
One of the things my brain finally settled on was an unfortunate almost promise I made to someone this summer. I said that I would attempt to write a love story. Oh. My. Gosh. It should not be this difficult! Unfortunately, love itself has basically become a cliche in our society and is so expected in stories that I can't abide it. When we meet a guy and a girl in a story, we immediately start trying to figure out how they're going to end up together. You can try to subvert expectations in so many ways, but love in literature is as disgustingly predictable as a dog peeing on a fire hydrant. It's just what you expect.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some people have very unpredictable lives and need escape from that in the stability of a cliched story line with stock characters you already know. This is why there is a genre of movies called the chick flick and a genre of literature known as "the marriage plot" which, unfortunately, I took an entire semester studying. Trust me. It's cliched and boring.
Before you scream at your computer screen and say that just because something is cliched doesn't mean it's boring, I completely agree with you. I am not suggesting causation, merely correlation. In this case, romance stories are not only cliched and not only boring, but cliched AND boring.
I finally came to the realization today that this is exactly why I have so much trouble writing love stories. They're predictable. I don't like writing predictable. I have been desperately working today to try and find a way to make the story unpredictable (particularly the ending) but as soon as I introduce a guy and a girl, the first thought of everyone who read love stories is, "O-M-G! They would be SOOOOO cute together!" (Insert wrist flick here.) I honestly thought for a while about doing a guy-guy or girl-girl love story for the pure unpredictability of it, but I just couldn't bring myself to write it.
Giving up on the possibility of being unpredictable, I went for intentionally cliched. That ended up not being much better. I got so bored with it that my narrator ended up doing a linguistic commentary on the phrase "once upon a time" which, despite being very interesting, did nothing to move the story along and was really rather boring and pointless when I reread it.
I haven't given up yet. I still think it's possible for me to write a love story, it'll just take some time and lots of tries. To the person that I said would get it as a birthday present: Sorry. I know I missed it a while ago, but you're going to have to wait for Christmas . . . possibly Christmas NEXT year!
I'm open to suggestions on a way to go about ways to make a romance unpredictable. If I ever come up with a love story that I'm happy with, my readers here will be among the first to know.
In the interest of leaving you with something other than my frustrations (and instead leaving you with frustrations of you own), ask yourself this: Is there something in your life that has become so predictable it's boring? Are you ok with that? Can you change it? Should you change it?
P.S. I got an email today from my Cyberstalker that had an attachment on it with the first submissions for the challenge I submitted a little while ago. For those of you that forgot, I'm looking for writings about writer's block. It can be poems, stories, prose, or anything else you can think of. I'm working on a page for my website on which I intend to include any and all submissions I get. It's not too late to submit (especially seeing as how I only just got my first submissions).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)