*

What is the truth? Is it sometimes just the latest opinion? Is it changeable? (By the way, that's an asterisk. Not an asterik or an asterix, which are common mispronunciations. But more on the symbol can be found in the dictionary. You probably have one somewhere around.)

What is history? Is it simply the testimony of the victor or the view of the best writer? Where does mythology end and a true representation of the past begin? Can we change the past if we don't find it agreeable? How can we indicate any differences we may have, or any changes that may have occurred?

One of the biggest arguments in baseball, though it's obviously of no consequence when considering all of the world's real problems, regards the record for home runs in a single season. For a long time the record was held by Babe Ruth who, in 1927, hit sixty. The record held for quite a while and was revered by those who saw the Babe as the greatest hitter baseball had ever known. Then came Roger Maris, who hit sixty-one in 1961. (This all happened in the “old days,” before Mark McGwire hit seventy in 1998 and Barry Bonds hit seventy-three in 2001 – but we'll hold that discussion for now.) Ruth, however, hit his homers in a 154 game season, while the season, by 1961, had been extended to 162 games and it wasn't until after game number 154 that Maris hit his sixtieth and sixty-first.

Although the achievement was great (albeit fleeting – Maris soon disappeared from the scene), some sources chose to put an asterisk in their records to indicate that Maris didn't ”really” break the Babe's record. He just had more time. (Actually he hit sixty in fewer at-bats than Ruth.) The asterisk and explanation added some context to the information however, though it didn't affect the accomplishment. And that is the value of the footnote – however it is indicated. It offers the opportunity to comment on what is written without directly interrupting the flow of the text – and that can clarify what is written. For not everything written as history can be accepted at face value.

It's said that “History is written by the victors.” The concept is old, and the origin of the words uncertain. Some attribute it to Machiavelli, some to Nehru, some to Churchill, and others to a variety of authors. What it indicates, however, is that history is made by the one whose book you read. It's certain that Churchill said “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” It would reflect his views and not those of someone with whom he disagreed. And that presents another reason for the inclusion of footnotes. In addition to context, such notes can offer some perspective on the reliability of the source and, perhaps, alternative understandings of the events portrayed, and why they are described as they are.

The stories about George Washington that Parson Mason Weems wrote in his Life of Washington weren't meant to be taken as the truth. They were “intended to provide a morally instructive tale for the youth of the young nation.” They still do. They are the fables we teach our children even today. But any reference on the subject will ensure that they are understood as “instructive tales” rather than fact. They're wonderful for “the youth of [our not so] young nation” as morality tales that would prove inspiring. But, though created from whole cloth (Parson Weems was a man of the whole cloth), fortunately their allegorical nature is well known.

Not so the work of Alex Haley. Only when his work on the origin of his family as slaves in the American south – a “history” that became a television mini-series – was shown to be a fabrication did he fess up. As Edward Kosner reported in the Wall Street Journal (December 27, 2015), when confronted about his work “Haley staged a dignified retreat. 'I was just trying to give my people a myth to live by,' he took to saying.” The “truth” may be more than a set of facts, but the reader is entitled to know what's “true,” and what's true.

How much of the history we “know” to be true should be foot-noted? How much is reported by someone with an ax to grind? The problem is less that particular views may be favored and considered as truth, but that other views are not always preserved. The Talmud, the compendium of Jewish law, was careful to preserve the arguments and minority opinions on the subjects it discusses, giving future generations an understanding of the various views and possibilities. Some of what were considered minority views have survived as traditions of particular groups and others, after further discussion by more recent sages, have been accepted as normative. The views of the “losers” were not suppressed by the “victors,” but preserved as intercalated “footnotes.”

Though short lived, the asterisk provided such additional information. Who remembers that what was once a “dead” baseball was livened when, in 1911, there was a shift to cork centers for the balls, and that Home Run Baker, who played primarily before the “jackrabbit” ball was introduced, never hit more than twelve homers in a season? (Or, for that matter, that tennis rackets used to be made of wood.) Who considers the fact that Josh Gibson hit over eighty home runs while playing in the Negro Leagues because he was excluded from the white man's domain? Who entertains the notion that home run numbers have been affected by changes in stadium sizes and shapes to increase their likelihood and the profits of the owners? None of this information changes the past, but it gives us the opportunity to view it with added perspective.

Whatever the subject, context and perspective are valuable. You can ignore them if you choose, but their absence cheats you. It robs you of the opportunity to understand what you are considering. It's a shame they're not used more often, and that they're often ignored when present.ⁱ

I        Aye, there's the rub. I used to footnote liberally but, fearing that the notes were never read, I switched to inserting some of the information into the text by the use of parentheses, quotation marks, and other devices.

Time Out

There's nothing new under the sun. You know that. I've cited King Solomon on several occasions since the words were his, having appeared in Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), thousands of years ago. They probably weren't new then, but I don't propose to look into them any further. However old the idea, it is always true. “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Every now and again I interrupt the egotistical publishing of my thoughts and embark on the even more egotistical exercise of evaluating the process of their writing. The usual result is that I am struck by the frequency of my own repetitions. My essays fall into three categories. The first of them is try to convince others of the truth of my own thoughts – thoughts that I know to be valid. (Since I know more than anyone else, I'm convinced that everyone would benefit from my wisdom.) They include my own political philosophy – relatively conservative – which glorifies the past while bemoaning the changes that have taken place over the years. I'm patriotic (chauvinistic?) and I admire greatly the contributions of the Founding Fathers. Such a stance is bound to be critical of those who promote change, and of the changes they have promoted. I also belittle modern technology (though composing this on my computer, I reject “smart” 'phones and similar devices) and modern culture.

I also castigate those people, nations, and organizations that substitute “pragmatic” for “honorable.” Surely they consider their views and their actions to be the appropriate ones to achieve their ends – and that may be the case – but they don't see “right” and “wrong” as relevant factors when deciding on the means. They either don't recognize, or don't care about their own biases.

The second category of my ramblings relates to those areas in which I am less certain. I originally described this effort as one that gave me the opportunity to work out ideas that were confusing to me or troubling – ideas that left me unsettled; ideas that had not gelled into “knowledge.” Most prominent among these were those relating to belief. Since belief is, virtually by definition, non-rational, there is no likelihood that I will ever reach a firm conclusion about it, since when I do it will cease to be “belief” and will become “knowledge.”

Everything else, irrespective of concept or format, falls into the third category. That applies, among other things, to subjects chosen because they interest me even if they're of no consequence to anyone else, pure fiction, and my personal blather. By now I suspect that you've accommodated yourself to all of these.

You may view today's message as an example of personal blather, but I consider it to be an update on the style of these essays. I have, in the past, relied on the use of footnotes to convey my thoughts. Sometimes these served to advise the reader of the source of a quotation or fact that I included; sometimes they served as a site for the presentation of an idea that didn't fit conveniently in the primary text. This kind of format seemed obvious to me since most of what I read is heavily-footnoted non-fiction, where it serves a useful purpose. I need time to consider what I have just read, and the footnote provides the “time-out” that caters to this need.

I recently read a non-fiction book, however, that eschewed such devices, and I found it to be delightful, and much easier to digest than my other “reads.” Clearly the nature of the subject material was receptive to such a presentation, and the author's ability to convey information interestingly had more to do with the success of the venture than the lack of footnotes, but it became clear to me that my future essays should lack such “aids”so I shall never use them again.ⁱ As it says in Pirke Avot, though the context is different, the “loss disappears in [the] gain.”

So when I return with the next episode, don't look for any help in identifying the source of my ideas – and I probably stole them anyway. Don't ask, and I won't tell. As for my other thoughts, you probably don't care.

Next episode: “All Men (And Women)” – And anyone who doesn't feel “himself” covered by those designations.

I        Never say “never.” There will be rare occasions when I might throw in a footnote because I feel I can't avoid it, but I'll try to limit those occurrences. You're on your own.

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.