I recently read a survey of students,(I don’t remember the age group) where eighty per cent declared they wanted to be writers.  This number of wannabes falls into my category of little boys who want to be cowboys, policemen, astronauts and baseball players.  It seems good that one has goals.

I suspect that writing has a broad appeal because you can write anytime, anywhere.  You don’t have to do physical exercise and your teachers all said you write well.  Your teachers are not critics.  They are paid to encourage your efforts.  You may be a good writer in their view simply because you completed the assignment or because you took your time to spell check or a host of teacher related goals.

The reality of good writing centers around several activities.  In broad terms you write, and you read — a lot.  Then you critique what you read and apply that critique to your own writing.

There exists a plethora of books on how to write.  Each book gives the impression that their topic, be it character, POV, plot, time management, tension, genre, dialogue, is the most important part.  They are trying to sell books.  In that regard they are like politicians.  They want your sale.

I belong to three writing groups.  Each group claims a different purpose.  The members tend to be older, having more time, education and experience.  The younger writers write well but the writing is flat, unemotional.

You can always sell or give a work away if it is 1. short  2. gives information i.e., a travel piece, a diet, a recipe, a how to., 3.and follows a journalistic format.  It is right here that the problem of technique begins.

The local editors and publishers have a different goal than the writer.  They want to fill space to get advertisers to pay them  The work must be short because the reading attention span is limited.  It must be on a topic that the local readers can relate to. So while you are writing fiction they might be reading travel.  So your efforts are wasted. The less skilled writer who knows the game has the edge.  It helps if they don’t charge much for their work.

I had a well known professor who was a driving force in my field of psychology.  At a conference of psychologists sitting by the pool he said, ?”We have to address the feminization of our field.”

This was right in the middle of the women’s right movement and this icon said this and it sounded like he wanted to revert to earlier times.  It turned out that he referred to the statistic that female psychologists would work for less than the social worker.  He believed this occurred because the degree of doctorate for some was a hobby and they did not need the money and in effect denied the worth of the profession.  My point is I see the same in writing.

To critique.  One of my writer’s groups has very strict rules about communicating.  It seems that discussing the writer’s ideas or technique is squashed in the interest of time.  HELLO!

But that is the least of the problems.  The listeners don’t read and they don’t know how to critique.  It has the same effect as giving a monkey a loaded gun.  In fact, the original group imploded because they did not allow the safety valve of communication.

In the field of psychology one branch believes that sanity can be defined as follows.  Each of us is three people, the person you think you are, the person others see you as and the person you really are.  The closer these three people are in relation to each other the closer to self awareness you are.

Critique works the same way.  When I read a book, I read to enjoy and learn.  I hope to learn something about myself.  I do not achieve this need from a travel piece or a how to article.  I get something more tangible.

I critique a work with three elements in mind.  First I look at the STORY.  Secondly the PLOT . Finally the TECHNIQUE.  And like the personality measurement above the more equal these three things are the better the read for me.

Some might suggest that character, POV, dialogue or description are more important.  I feel those are support for the three I use.  But if you believe that is crucial then use that as a benchmark in your critique.

The problem in my critique groups is exposed.  Because the group insists on short works you cannot adequately develop a character so you best use another measurement.

But I also believe I can get something from the group.  The first thing I get is the identity of my audience.  Since most group members don’t read I am reading my work to a group that will not be my audience.  So I joined a reader’s group and find out how reader’s view various writings.

But in the critique group I expect certain responses from certain people.  You tend to get the same responses from the same people.  Some are helpful, particularly in the technique area.  If I  don’t get the usual predicted response from a certain member I look at my work to see what they took away that changed their usual “I gotta say something” response.

Certain responses are a good thing because it tends to mean that that person is focusing on something.  But since you can’t interchange, communicate it is tantamount to pissing up a rope.

So I started my own group, where these issues that I believe hold a writer back, could be remedied.  Enter new problem, possibly an extension of the former problem

I found that many people don’t write (writer’s block) because they don’t have anything to say.  Sometimes they have a thread of ideas but cannot organize them to use their writing skills.

This point is validated in my belief that much of writing deals with philosophy.  Writers in most genres are philosophers.  They put forth a STORY and the PLOT becomes their philosophy.  Each article, each entry revolves around how you view something in the world.  This even occurs in travel posts.

Write for yourself, for your own enjoyment , for your own improvement and you will see your deficits.  Hopefully you will apply this change to your PLOT  and as you improve, so will your writing.

Just a thought

I live in a foreign country outside the U.S.  I don’t have a cell phone.  i have a television but I have never plugged it in.  I don’t have a car so I don’t worry about gas, theft or car insurance.

I do keep connected through the internet.  I removed myself from FaceBook.  I breeze through my Huffington Post news line through my AOL browser daily.  I watch programs without commercials on NetFlix.  I have no bills and have a variety of things to do.  Oh yeah, I have no money, no passive income save my social security.

I live in the inner city of Cuenca, Ecuador.  I eat healthy food, actually organic produce at a cheap cost.

Recently a group of local fellow Americans were discussing the absence of stress.  They attributed this feeling to the absence of a 24 hour a day news pounding from the television and radio.  I have some of their feelings.  I do go through the newsfeed and skip all the divorces, affairs, cat photos and bizarre news unless it captures my attention.

The way the news captures my attention is through the headlines.  I now can tell when the headline is false.  I saw a headline citing a politician bad mouthing another politician.  I watched the video and the politician didn’t even mention a name let alone bad mouth anybody. It simply proved a spin to get you to read the headline and associate the negative comment to the politician that HP does not support.

I began to notice that the headlines were misleading — big time. The news person also showed displeasure in certain people and I noticed that they favored or disliked people and reported with that slant.  No big deal,  I am not sure if the talking heads can be called reporters, entertainers or newscasters because they make snarky comments when they report the news.  Their comments show displeasure or agreement depending on whose agenda they agree with.  The bottom line is there is no news just a one sided opinion disguised as news.

After hearing my friends talk about not listening to the news and having their stress reduced,, I thought I would leave the Huffington Post news twist and get rid of all stress.  The insanity in the U.S., and it is insanity, is best viewed from outside, from a different culture, from a different perspective.  So I thought I’d look at another news feed from a known real news program.

I went to the Drudge Report which gives news and has every major pundit on the site.  Every opinion separate from the actual news.  What a unique concept.  (sarcasm inserted here)

I got stressed.  Not with the news.  Rather with the realization that what I had been viewing on Huffington Post could only be considered propaganda.  For example, the articles in the Drudge Report on Hillary Clinton gave detailed information.  I flipped back to HP and read Hillary’s view, but never saw the raw information.  Hmmmm.

This scenario played over and over as I compared the propaganda with the news.  I will never read a Huffington Post article except to use as an example of propaganda.  The Drudge report had detailed, bland headlines.  But the article supported the headline.

This cross comparison made me understand why my friends seem to have limited understanding of world events.

I will challenge the stress that the news gives me but I will do it with REAL news.  I will make up my own mind.  Because of where I live I can view the happenings in a less stressful manner because I now know the facts.

“Mr Decency, What is your conceptual display?” asked Finch.

“I reflect and hold to the values of social propriety, modesty and display,”

“I am not sure the jury understands.  Could you add to that definition?”

“Sure,  I take a picture of all the people and the clothes they wear and I discover and them formulate a model of dress that the populous feels appropriate.”

“I see.  Are you saying that some people living in some areas dress in a manner that is not decent?”

“Yes, that happens.”

“Is decency dependent upon location?”

“To some extent.  Take for example Hollywood California.  They can dress very indecently.”

“In your research, is there a reason that indecency centers in a certain area?”

“Our factor analysis clearly points to the financial profit that is gained for clothing designers, personal exposure as in performers or actors and people who would like to be the center of attention.”

“Can indecency be more than clothing?”

“Yes, language, music, human interaction are the most common.”

“Can you give and example of each?

“I can combine them all in one example.  The word nigger is considered not decent to be expressed in any form.  Despite this decency standard, black music artists and comedians use the word regularly because the shock value increases their revenue.”

“I see. But how does this show indecent human behavior?”

“The indecent human behavior is the end result.  The President regularly entertains and shows himself with these performers giving them credibility and again increasing their revenue.”

“Are you saying that people who do these things are not decent?”

“Oh my yes.  That is the very definition of indecency.”

“In your studied opinion how do they get away with this indecent behavior?”

“They disguise it as free expression and art forms.”

“But isn’t that an accurate description?”

“It is accurate but the purpose is not decent.”

“The free expression by a black rap artist does not have a decent agenda?”

“Precisely.  The end game is money.  But the result is a double standard, hatred, decisiveness and ultimately civil unrest.”

“I am confused.  Are you saying that using indecent words as a free art form is indecent?”

“In these times,yes.  You see a black artist or person can say nigger but a white person cannot because it is considered a racial slur.  But to a black performer it is revenue.”

“Isn’t civil unrest good when a group of people are being treated unfairly?”

“Yes.”

“Are you saying the current civil disturbances are not justified as decent claims for justice?”

“How can you claim indecent behavior when your culture thrives on the very indecent behaviors you are claiming to be fighting against?”

“Mr. Decency, Mr. Finch asks the questions, ” interrupted Judge Lynch preventing the standing Mr. Howe from objecting.

“What do you mean that a culture, I assume you mean black culture,is creating a double standard by their behavior?”

“If you want everyone to be equal, you don’t designate days and months promoting your differences.  All one needs to do is look at, not even study, just look at the black on black crime statistics.  Look at the poverty that  starts with an absent deadbeat father.  Then start a campaign saying that black lives matter.  Apparently not to other black citizens.  This is a revenue construction by and for certain people.”

“Who benefits financially from these activities?”

“Certainly not the black business owners who lost their life efforts.  But there are leaches, people whose only function is to promote disparity in order that they can gain power and money.  They leave the people angrier and with no restitution for the harm they tacitly encouraged.”

“But if a white policeman shoots an unarmed  civilian, isn’t this anger justified?”

“Yes the anger is justified so long as shooting a policeman in the back of the head does not occur.  We are a nation of laws.  We can end the career of people who commit these injustices.  At the same time we must end the careers of people who want and need this discord to get elected. re-elected, have power and make money.”

“So what is your solution?”

“There is a need for three things to occur to make decency exist in this situation.  They are logic, fair play and time.”

“Could you elaborate on each?”

“The first two, logic and fair play, work together.  Logically don’t separate yourself or your behavior and then demand togetherness and understanding.  This works on both sides of the equation. Certainly don’t reward bad behavior by paying tax dollars to repair damages.  Here time plays a major role.  The injured parties will come to see the players and put the responsibility on the community.  Yes more will die.  But when the black community shows respect for their people they can more easily enter into a larger community without  the illogic.”

“Your Honor, I stand down,” said Fonch

“Mr Finch, do you wish to redirect Mr. Honesty?” ask Judge Lynch.

“Yes, Your Honor,” said Finch.

“Good afternoon, Mr. Honesty,” said Finch.  “Mr. Howe asked you a question that he tried to have stricken.”

“Objection Your Honor.  Mr. Finch is not allowed to impugn trial rules,” said Howe.

“I haven’t heard anything impugning yet and but I am interested if a question follows. Overruled, the question needs to come first,”  Lynch glared at Howe then looked at Finch with a look that meant he needs to ask a question.

“If  a person is not honest or  is dishonest once, does that person tend to be dishonest in the future?” asked Finch.

“As in most cases, that depends on the desired outcome or goal.  For example, if a person believes the only way they can hide their past is through covering up their responsibilities and past deeds and they use dishonest means to achieve that end, then yes you will see a pattern of dishonesty,” said Honesty.

“I am not sure I understand that fully.  Are you saying that dishonesty is a tool in human endeavors?”

“Yes.  In politics it is the wrench in the toolbox.  If you get away with small lies repeatedly you will use that method again and use bigger lies.  If the media and the public allow ,it the person will corrupt everything they touch.”

“Thank you.  I am finished with this witness, Your Honor,” said Finch.

“The brevity of the questions felt suspicious to Howe but he did not want the jury to think that Finch scored points.

“Any Recross, Mr. Howe?”

“Yes Your Honor.”  Howe continued, “Mr Honesty are you suggesting a person cannot change?”

Honesty paused as he weighed the question.  The pause took enough time that everyone stared in anticipation.

“Generally, people don’t change their core concepts.  Take for example a politician generally does not show change unless removed from office and then they talk of the change they have experienced.  Then they go into another field that indicates that no change took place.”

“That’s harsh.  How would you classify a field of work as indicating no change?”

“A former Congress member becomes a lobbyist is the most poignant example.  Everyone knows that that field is paid to reap profits for a constituency, yet it exists as an integral part of the U.S. process.”

Howe thought to himself how cross examinations are supposed to bring the witness down but these concepts seemed to score more points under cross examination.  Still he had to end with some sense of victory.

“You mean to say that if these jury members,” he pointed to the jury.”can’t change their core being?”

“Precisely,” said Honesty with a tone of definitive sincerity.

“No more questions, Your Honor,”  Howe almost scooted like a dog avoiding a broom as he sat down.

“You may call the next witness, Mr. Finch,” said the judge.

“We call Decency to the stand, Your Honor.”

Mr. Howe stood and asked, “Mr. Honesty, if honesty does not garner votes, and I assume support, how is it that Mr. Trump in his arrogance and self aggrandizement, has so much support?”

“Objection to the characterization of Mr. Trump,” said Finch.

“Mr. Howe, you have been a trial attorney for years and you go make a bone head comment like that.  What is your reasoning?  Sustained.  Ask the question without your opinion,” said Judge Lynch.

“I beg the court’s pardon, I was not trying to impugn Mr. Trump, I was only trying to give a good example of blunt in your face honesty,”  said Howe.

“I believe the press uses similar descriptions for their reasons,” said Lynch.

“Mr. Honesty, what is your expert opinion on Mr. Trump’s success before voters?”

“Mr. Trump has everything working for him.  He is in your face, without teleprompter honest.  In his honesty he reveals many flaws and flaws are an honest part of being human.  His honesty is unique because he is surrounded by people who lie.  Even though they speak nicely the contrast between honesty and deceit becomes dramatized.” said the witness.

“Are you suggesting that my clients, distinguished members of Congress and International business leaders are not honest?” asked the defense attorney expecting a very specific response.  Finch closed his eyes and got ready to object when Honesty replied.

“Honesty is not a suggestion it is a real concept.  A concept formed in the minds of people.  The rating of people’s approval of Congress shows that the American public thinks they are not honest.”

Howe wanted to object but he had asked the question.  He thought he might say non responsive but that response was honest. “More to the point then, if my clients plead the Fifth does that make them dishonest?”

“By not telling what they know, regardless the reason, that behavior fits the definition of dishonesty.”

“Surely you are not saying my clients should be denied their rights under the constitution to exercise their Fifth amendment rights?”  Howe asked hoping to show are very right leaning personality.

“The Fifth amendment needs a different terminology than exercised rights.  I understand that it means that they have the right to remain quiet in order to not be incriminated or show responsibility for their acts.”

“Your Honor I ask that the last response be stricken as argumentative and not responsive,” said Howe.

“Your Honor the response from Honesty was just as he described.  He said an Honest response tends to be confrontational,” argued Finch.

“Darn, I honestly agree with both of you.  This Honesty is contagious,  I will over rule, Was there more to your response Mr. Honesty?” asked Judge Lynch.

“Yes, I thought I might add that possibly instead of the Fifth amendment the people involved might exercise the Seventh Commandment,” said Honesty.

“Same objection Your Honor,” said Howe.

“Sustained.  The entire statement will be stricken from the record,” said Lynch.  The mere mention of religion seemed a warning shot to all legal proceedings.  Howe got the religious component mentioned in court but stricken if appealed.  He said, “No further questions of this witness.”