All The Answers

The first question that I asked in this series related to the similarity of multiplication tables and compulsives. It was a particularly apt inquiry for me since I have some qualities of one of them. I can also multiply. For the things I do there is one right way, and it's important to me that things be done the correct way every time.ⁱ That's the way it has to be if the results are to be “right” and if they are to be predictable. For me, predictability goes with absolutes,ⁱⁱ structure, lists, rules, consistency, and “right,” as components of my compulsiveness.

So I was pleased when I saw my son demandingⁱⁱⁱ that his children act in accordance with the practices they had learned. What others might view as regimentation was, in fact, education. It was a structure that guided the children in their daily activities. We were all on the same page. The children learned from their parents, who had learned from theirs. And so on.

It is from the lessons of the past that a child learns, and that's how we all learn, even as adults. Santayana is reputed to have said that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”^iv Everything cannot be trial and error, so we have education. And that leads us to the future. In order to stand on the shoulders of giants, we have to know where they're standing. We may want to think outside the box, but first we have to know what's in it. Our education, including multiplication tables, provides the structure on which we can build. Even if we don't want to reinvent the wheel, we have to know of its existence. No. Especially if we don't want to reinvent the wheel. First we must avoid duplicating the ways of the past. Then we can go from there and improvise.

The reality, though, is that few of us are innovators. We guide the future generation based on what we have learned, which is what we were taught by the generation prior to ours. Sure, some things are unpredictable; there have been new events, ideas, and creations that have appeared during our lifetimes and they'll be passed on. But it's the predictable on which we rely – and for good reason. As I've indicated: in order to live orderly lives, we need order. Structure. Predictability.^v We need to know what will result from our actions.

I've emphasized absolutes as our guideposts – completely reliable standards and knowledge. It's important to know^vi that it's right to offer help to an innocent person in need because of circumstances beyond his control; and it's wrong to steal money from the cup of a blind man.

Issues of right and wrong, however, are not the only ones we face. Every day we make decisions based on some certainties^vii and some things that are less than certain. If we cross a street when we see no cars coming, it's likely we'll get to the other side safely. But if we cross the street without looking, the outcome is less predictable. Looking both ways before crossing may be a habit, but performed consistently, as was drummed into us by our parents, it helps us to negotiate this life more safely. Perhaps there are many ways to accomplish the same end. But in the end, in the interest of avoiding “analysis paralysis,” we must have a way of responding to a situation or a question – preferably in line with some standards of behavior set for us, or that we have set for ourselves in accordance with the absolutes which we accept. If we are true to our absolutes and our standards, we come to the same conclusion every time: there is one best answer, one correct response, one immediate and intuitive response. And we realize as well that the best answer is often the simple one rather than a complex answer. We've been there before. Perhaps the current situation differs from those of the past. Still there are enough similarities to allow the extrapolation of ideas and the adoption of an approach that is consistent with our previous ones. We are predictable, and, while consistency is often disparaged,^viii it provides a starting point for future development.^ix Absolutes, principles, standards, consistency, and predictability furnish a structure – comprehensibility, an understandable position from which we can move forward.

It does not matter if society's standards are in law books, textbooks or the the holy books – in fact all may hold the wisdom on which we base our lives. Whether they come from multiplication tables or holy tablets they provide the guidelines which are our starting points. The important considerations are that we accept them and we share them. Even if they're wrong, they provide common ground for all of us. And we can only address them if we know what they are. Order, structure, and predictability deflect chaos. And when they are understood and any imperfections corrected, they are the basis for living lives we can understand, and the same properties form the basis for meaningful change and progress. And we all hope that the progress will allow us to answer the ultimate question.

According to “Hitchhiker Wiki,”^x “The Ultimate Question is the actual question behind the Ultimate Answer of Life, The Universe and Everything.” It took “Deep Thought,” a super compter, seven and a half million years, and logical and orderly algorithms, to answer the question,^xi but ultimately it succeeded. Sort of. It came up with the answer 42. Apparently the original programers had not fully defined the question and the “hero” pulled out some random letters from a bag to provide the question. They spelled: “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?”

"Six by nine. Forty two."

"That's it. That's all there is."

It is an answer that, like much in life, makes no sense.^xii The sad truth is that we know neither the questions nor the answers. Indeed, the answer to all of life's questions is not straightforward. Perhaps the “answer” is meaningless, which may itself have a message and meaning. So the sad truth is that the only way to make sense of our existence is, based on life's absolutes and by the use of common sense, to set our own rules – arbitrary, perhaps, but reproducible – and work with them. Every time.

Next episode: “Nota Bene 6” – Your turn.

I        I haven't skinned any cats recently. And if I did I expect that I wouldn't vary my approach no matter how often I did it. In any event, you know my orientation by now.

ii       And you know which system of absolutes I favor. But that's not the point.

iii      “Demanding” is rather a strong word. Perhaps “expecting” is more descriptive of what I saw. His children knew the rules and followed them. No loud voices were necessary – only a soft-spoken correction of any deviation from the way things were done. The ground work, though, has to be the establishment of rules and a structure.

iv       The Life of Reason, 1905, Scribner's.  There were other versions as well, including one by Edmund Burke.

v        Don't you hate it when you arrive at an appointment on time – you do, don't you – and the other party comes late? But that's really predictable. Too many people don't feel bound by the rules. At least some of us respect our fellows and fulfill our obligations. We do our part in preventing chaos.

vi       And everyone should know. There's nothing cultural about it. It's absolute. You disagree? You're wrong.

vii      Actually nothing is absolutely certain. Even the multiplication tables have their limits and have to be used correctly. Seven times nine does not equal fifty-eight except in base eleven. But an apparent exception does not disprove an assumed rule. It may only indicate that a different rule should be used.

viii     For example, Emerson and his hobgoblin, of which I've spoken in the past.

ix       “We need consistency and predictability, and a sense of proper placement. We need these things before we can mold the world into what we know it can be.” – Allan Dare Pearce in “Hitler Burns Detroit” –2013, iUniverse.

x        http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Ultimate_Question

xi       It also required a sequel to the “Hitchhiker' Guide. “

xii      Actually it works in base 13. But Douglas Adams denied that he was aware of that when he wrote. The number was arbitrary with the intent that it be funny. In a way, that's a lot like life.

Writer's Bl …

 

I don't recall what I was going to write about, but it can't have been very important. I probably have nothing to say about it anyway. It's a job-related hazardⁱ that, I'm told, we all must endure. But the more I consider it, the more I believe that teaching to be erroneous. I suspect it's the excuse used by those who are stuck, to justify to themselves their inability to pursue their craft. It also rationalizes a vacation from work. So it's not all bad.

I'm aware that such a stand may seem arrogant. But it's a malady from which I don't suffer. I don't know if the key word in that sentence is “suffer.” Perhaps I don't care enough about my writing, so I can ignore the results of failure. Perhaps I tolerate writer's block because I don't make my living from writing, so time away is tolerable and a situation with no significant repercussions. After all, I have nothing to lose if I devote my time to other things. I can get back to writing when the muse strikes me.

If you enjoy writing, though, that may not be good enough.ⁱⁱ The income, however important, isn't your only reason. You have something to say. There's a passion to feed, and the act of writing, the catharsis, takes precedence over other activities. You feel anxiety until you get your words down. You many forget them. Ideally your work will be of topnotch quality, but even if it isn't, it's your work, and you can improve on it later. So because I enjoy writing, I have some thoughts about ways to write and ways to avoid writer's block. And because I have something to say – and because I'm always right – I won't hesitate to list my suggestions in this message to others who may also glory in the art. But first I'd like to deal with some of what I consider the myths (in Bold) of writing.

------------------------------------------------------------

1. Write what you know about. – Why?ⁱⁱⁱ It certainly won't be interesting for you. If you're at all creative – a fiction writer, for example – the world you create should come from your imagination, not your experience. I suspect that J. K. Rowling never experienced Harry Potter's world, nor did Homer romp with the gods.^iv Your personal world may be too boring and restrictive. I know mine is. The problem with too many blogs,^v as I see it, is that they're all about the author and his experiences. Who cares? Things are tough for all of us. We read fiction to be transported away from reality,^vi not to get more of it. We have problems of our own.

Non-fiction writers would be doomed if all they could write about was their own experience. How much can you say about yourself before people start looking elsewhere? And how much will you learn? No, it's more fun to write about whatever strikes your fancy, doing whatever research is necessary. So learn and write. And write and learn. If you find something interesting, and your writing is good, the reader will find it interesting too. And if not, that's his loss. In the meantime, you've enjoyed yourself.

2. Always write in the morning. – Or afternoon. Or evening. Writing isn't a punishment. I've always operated with the philosophy that you do what you have to before what you want to, but the writing should be what you want to do, not something mandatory, so it can be put off until you have something you want to say. Forcing yourself to write at a particular time may be helpful in ensuring that you write, but not that you write anything of interest. So it's a waste of the morning if you sentence yourself to write then.

3. Write a thousand words a day. – I never knew if that was a minimum or a maximum. Either would be silly. From my perspective, the basic rule should be: Write what you have to say. Don't buy into magic numbers. If you don't have anything worth writing, don't write. If you have more than a thousand words that you want to write, write them.

4. Write for your audience. – That's fine if your audience is you. If you force your writing into a mold to suit some target group, the writing will be moldy.^vii And, as is noted below in the footnotes, it is belittling to the audience if you write what you think they would like. Of course, that may be the way to get readers and for you to earn a living.^viii People like to have their preconceived notions validated. I'm glad I don't have to cater to them.

5. It is helpful to start many different kinds of projects for future development, though this works better in non-fiction than fiction.^ix If you seem to be hitting a wall in whatever you're writing, don't force yourself. Switch to another project. If you do this enough times, sooner or later you'll find one about which you have something to say. Fiction writers, however, can certainly start several stories and only develop them when it makes sense. With enough beginnings, it's likely that one of them will rate continuation or an ending at any particular time. But don't continue just so you can keep writing.

6. I was just about to make an important point, but I can't remember what it was. I didn't write it down. Ideas come and go, and you should be ready for them wherever you are. Some form of recording device – pocket recorder or other electronic device, or pencil and paper – should always be available.^x Well, almost always.

7. I'm an inveterate letter writer. To the media, that is. Whenever I find something in a news or opinion column that is either wrong or debatable, I find a way to say so. The value of this kind of exercise is that it gives me the opportunity to work through a subject – often one with which I'm only marginally familiar – and, because I mostly write non-fiction (essays and the like), the result of thinking about a topic of interest is often the basis for a longer work. And if there is a moral dilemma involved, there may even be the basis for a short story, or the issue I'm considering may be worth incorporating into one that I'm writing already.

8. Consistency is not required.^xi Times and opinions change, and you should never feel you're stuck in a rut.

9. Notwithstanding the cautions against writing when you lack a message,^xii it's worth writing down whatever you think will eventually lead somewhere – even if you know you're not saying what you want as well as you want. It doesn't matter how bad it is. You can't do the second draft without the first.^xiii

(And don't forget footnotes.^xiv)

Obviously it's much easier if you're writing for your own enjoyment rather than for a living. Then, if you run out of what to say, you can walk away and get on with something else. The heat's not on. Not so if you have to earn a living.

It all boils down to pressure. Stress. If you can avoid pressure you have a better chance of avoiding whatever it is I'm talking about. I think it's writer's blog.

Next episode: “Best In Show” – Schrödinger's cat strikes back.

i     Writer's block, that is.

ii    Which is why I'm glad I don't have the problem.

iii    Apart from correcting the terminal preposition in the previous statement.

iv    Similarly, Tolkien, Juster, Golding and Dodgson created the worlds in which their characters lived.

v     Including this one.

vi    That's why “reality” shows have to be so heavily scripted. People are looking for entertainment, not reality.

vii    Melinda Wagner, Pulitzer Prize winning composer said: “... to try to second-guess them [the audience] to figure out what they're going to like, and write that, would be an insult to them.” The same is true of writing prose.

viii   Because I don't write for a living, I needn't be commercial nor meet any deadlines. I can write what I want and when I want. And since I have no expectations that people will be reading my work, I don't have to please anyone but myself.

ix    But, as I already suggested, fiction writers also have many stories they want to tell, so they, too, can have many balls in the air.

x     Vincent Persichetti, a prolific composer of keyboard, chamber and orchestra pieces, once claimed that since musical ideas often came to him in his car, he liked to tape a piece of music paper to his steering wheel, so he could jot down ideas and keep his eyes on the road at the same time. He didn't kill anyone, but that's carrying this concept too far. Like telephoning or texting while driving.

xi    Forget Emerson. “Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are dead.” Aldous Huxley. And Bernard Berenson: “Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago.”

xii    Actually there was a suggestion that you write about whatever you want to say, as well as a caution against writing if you've nothing to say.

xiii    Or, for that matter, a tenth without a ninth.

xiv    Footnotes give the illusion that you know what you're talking about.