Maug : Look Sex...we create these worlds out of NOTHING
Maug : so of course there will be times when it looks thin or contrived.
Maug : I bet God feels the same way sometimes
First, thanks to Maug and Greg for listening to me whinge on yesterday about writing and depression and the weather and the need to get hammered. You boys are the greatest and I owe you both many e-drinks.
I don't get much news--not via television anyway. I've got BBC headlines on my home page and if one catches my eye, I hit the link. Admittedly, more often I check out the Onion links instead. I keep poorly informed through NPR (no fault of theirs, I just don't get to listen as long as I'd like) and yesterday I watched the evening news during a work-out. You all know I don't watch much tv anyway.
One of the stories was about the sad state of affairs of grammar in this country. I tuned in late so I assume I missed the recounting of the day's soldier deaths. That illustrates one reason why I don't often watch the news--the diversity of the reporting. As a writer, grammar is as essential to me as breathing and good beer. But, can it claim the same impact as the death of a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan, or that wedding party in Jordan? Apparently not--the deaths lead the news while the grammar was the last bit. But still, it's difficult for me to rectify that sort of polarity in my mind, especially when only given a half-hour to do so. (All the while, I'm being told that my breath stinks, I have sleep issues, and even if he can still get it up now, it won't last nearly as long without this pill. Very distracting.)
I'm not much fun when it comes to discussing current events or politics. I'm so centrist that I'm not "on the fence", I becomethe fence. I watch debates and see everyone's side and annoy them all by saying, "Well, he's got a point... But, then, so does she..." I don't take a stand because convincing arguments are just that: convincing. I'm too easily swayed, I suppose, but I prefer the term empathetic.
Example of my seeing all sides: I believe in the Holy Catholic Church (I'm currently Presbyterian, for the record, and I believe in the Apostle's Creed despite myself) and while I don't condone their sex scandal, of course, the Catholics still have a lot of good things going for them. Still, I privately wonder, "What did they think would happen? We're sexual beings. God itself made us that way, and Fucking hardly precludes Faith." I get the notion of putting oneself above petty human orgasm, using the bigger brain (as Maug so eloquently puts it) for the noble purpose of understanding God in a reason-over-instinct way. But anyone who's had some rockin, wicked sex knows that it can take you pretty damn close to God, and the rest of you can imagine it.
My strongest opinions have to do with the Presidents. I don't like Bush, no secret there. I don't like his politics, but I always have the question lingering in the back of my mind: Could I really do any better? Well, yeah, many of you would say that a monkey could do better, or in his case a pig, since he so resembles one. My main problem with him is how his personal beliefs have so infiltrated the White House. Not because of what the beliefs are--I can hardly fault Faith, but that they are so forefront that it's caused national strife and debate. Religious Right, watch your Muslim Extremist Brethren and learn.
Take Clinton, by contrast: a smart man who did some dumb things in his personal life. But how did his (not) fucking Monica affect the world state of affairs? Did the PM or the President of Mexico give a rat's ass about cigars and blue dresses? Likely not. The only affect it had was to perhaps garner some provisional respect from other world leaders--man's club that it is. That's not quite right though. Man or woman, there's a certain allure about someone who so blatently breaks the rules and gets away with it.
I've always maintained that 9/11 wouldn't have, couldn't have, happened under Clinton's watch. Of course that administration neglected to do things that might have prevented it. But repercussion would have been swift and sure, and Al Qaida knew that. Maybe the Monica Incident served to enhance Clinton's reputation among the terrorists. After all, Muslims are hardly known for equal rights, and these suicide bombers believe they're gonna get to fuck a hundred virgins for blowing themselves up.
All sorts of polarity, not just the political sort, bothers me a great deal. It must be the source of my fence-itude. I've realized I'm exploring this in my writing, so maybe someday I'll be able to take a stand. The catch phrase of my series, The Ternion Archives, should be: No matter what they do, everyone thinks they are in the right. One bad guy is so convinced of his own righteousness that even Aidan, the telepath/psychic who can detect the merest shred of evil inside an intention, can't see how wrong he is. My latest story has a relatively likeable protag with evil goals, and a supercillious antag with noble goals. They both are utterly convinced in their own rightness. It's twisted, like the world right now.
Perhaps it's not a malaise over writing that is really bothering me, but that my fiction is so obviously in bed with my truth. I know fiction always follows in the footsteps of real life, but I'm more comfortable when their strides are identical so I can't see the divergence of their tracks.