One Year Down…

How do you like the shirt I got for Christmas?

Well! It’s been a year, hasn’t it?

We started with DOGE, and Liberation Day, and tariffs that were on and then off and then on and then off. We did not start with the Day One promises to end the war in Ukraine, nor the war in Gaza, nor to reduce the price of groceries and the cost of living. We have moved on to the Department of War attacking boats in the Caribbean without any evidence (so far as we know) that they even have drugs; certainly there is no evidence that they are “narco-terrorists,” as they are not, even if they are transporting narcotics, as they are not people who are using unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. And, if they are transporting narcotics, they are not moving fentanyl to the US, as fentanyl comes from China through Mexico, and not through Venezuela; if they are moving drugs (and there is no evidence that has been presented which says that they are, which means, according to our own concept of justice, that they are innocent, not having been proven guilty) then they are sending cocaine to Europe. Not great, but not the justification used for their slaughter: and there is, of course, no justification for the order to kill two men on a sinking shipwreck, which was an illegal order that the military followed – even though when our elected Congresspeople made a public service announcement to encourage the military not to follow unlawful orders, the administration freaked the fuck out and acted like that was sedition: entirely ignoring the clearly unlawful order that had been issued, and followed. Now the man who followed the order is doing fine, and the man (one of them) who reminded him to follow his oath is being stripped of his rank and pension.

Hegseth is scrutinized by Congress over boat strikes | AP News
These guys say that THAT guy shouldn’t have his rank.
Integrity has defined my brother's service to our nation, as a combat  veteran, astronaut, and US Senator. Any effort to undermine that is an  abuse of power.

It has been a fucking year.

A year with a shutdown, and a tax cut for billionaires, and increased health insurance costs for the rest of us. A year of dissent being squashed in clear violation of freedom of speech, with university students being arrested and jailed and deported for their speech, even while the administration promotes the same genocide the students were speaking out against: it’s almost like we have traded the right to speak our minds, for the opportunity to slaughter innocents, and then steal their homeland and make money from it. A year of our National Guard being weaponized against us in order to stop peaceful protests, while actual insurrectionists were pardoned en masse: almost like our right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances has been traded for the freedom of loyal brownshirts. A year of deportations: starting with sending innocent people, both legal immigrants and US citizens, to torture prisons in El Salvador (along with millions of dollars in recompense for the considerate acquiescence and collaboration of the Salvadoran administration), continuing through shocking raids on homes and assaults on children, finally culminating in the recorded murder of an innocent American citizen, and the subsequent shielding of the murderer by the federal government, which continues to lie and accuse everyone who is not one of their murderous thugs. And again, the administration is cracking down on free speech, sending federal troops, and cruelly assaulting anyone and everyone they can.

It’s been a year, now, that we still have not gotten the Epstein files. Only about 1% has been released, and that 1% includes absurd redactions and previously-released information.

Happy Anniversary, President Trump. One year ago you took the oath of office for a second time: and you immediately set about destroying the country that elected you, in every way that matters: most often to increase your own wealth and power, sometimes for no good reason that I can discern – why, for instance, do you want to remove the ACA? You don’t give a shit; you don’t have that many employees. You do not profit directly from health care costs going up for individual citizens. I recognize that the likely reason is you have some billionaire whispering in your ear, like fucking Wormtongue only slimier, telling you that the ACA is unAmerican and that removing it will make America great again, and just as you expect your followers to do, you are absolutely willing to get on board without a single second of questioning “Wait – why is government-subsidized health care bad?” I also recognize that there is a certain amount of traditional Republican posturing in your political stances as well; like, you also don’t give a shit about abortion, or about gun rights, but your base expects you to remove the one and protect the other, so you do, because you are yourself entirely indifferent to anything that doesn’t affect you directly; and I know that the right hates all things resembling socialized health care (Except for the Medicaid and Medicare that they and their families use; but I’m not going to get into the hypocrisies of Americans: that blade always cuts both ways, and I’m not interested in yet another round of Whataboutism, which is rapidly becoming our national pastime): but why have you decided that this is the thing you’re so set on destroying? Your congressional delegation is clearly not on your side with this one, not all of them; so why didn’t you give up and let people keep their goddamn subsidies, and just take credit for it like you do with everything else? Why do you feel this burning need to destroy people’s lives?

Is it really just because Barack Obama got the ACA passed into law? And you hate him so much, and you are so profoundly jealous of all of the ways that he is better than you (which is, in fact, every single way imaginable except in the Shithead Championships, which you win walking away), that you want to do everything you can to destroy his signature accomplishments? I mean, that would certainly explain you destroying the JCPOA and fucking up our actually effective strategy in Iran, but I assume another benefit there for you is the potential war, which you’d clearly love to have because then you could claim Iran’s oil to go with Venezuela’s; but the ACA and the subsidies that keep people insured have nothing to do with oil. I honestly don’t get it. I get the drug price thing, because you intend to force the drug companies into making sweetheart deals with you so you can sell medications to Americans through your new Trump Rx company; but again, that has nothing to do with insurance or the cost or health care in general.

Mitt Romney And Super PAC Attack Obama's 'Cool' Factor: Will it Work? |  IBTimes
Haters gonna hate, I guess

Are you really just that much of an asshole? Based on how you respond to questions from reporters with insults like “Quiet piggy,” and criticism from random passersby by saying “Fuck you” and flipping them off, it might just be that. But while I can easily accept that you do so much damage to my country and my fellow Americans because you are an evil, greedy fuck, I still struggle with you doing this much harm just because you’re a fucking prick. Maybe in honor of this august occasion, I will make this my gift to you: I will accept that your vile nastiness is on its own enough to explain your actions. Though really, that’s a gift to me. It will make it easier.

Note to self: Shit flinging gibbon.

And I need to make this easier: because the actual task is going to be very, very hard. And the longer we focus on the wrong thing, the more harm will be done, and the harder it will be to solve the problem and complete the actual task that lies before us.

Here’s the truth, which I want to put before you all now, on this anniversary of the second inauguration of this vile warthog of a man: Trump is not the right thing to focus on. He is not the problem. I don’t say that to delegitimize or devalue everything that we have all done to oppose the slimeball: it was necessary, and to some extent it still is. The thing is, Trump could have been the problem, and to some extent he still can be the problem: because it is still possible that Trump could actually destroy this country. He could do it in two ways: he can start a nuclear war, and he can overthrow the legitimate government based on the Constitution and become an actual dictator. The nuclear war option remains, and will for as long as Trump is in power; the best we can hope for there is that his own self-interest will not be served by the death of the planet. We can also hope that the military will not follow an arbitrary and capricious order to launch nuclear death at the world; this hope that the military will not obey Trump’s most deranged and destructive orders is also what we can count on for the second threat, that of a coup and Trump’s elevation to Emperor – and frankly, I had a lot more confidence in that bulwark keeping us safe before Pete Hegseth told soldiers to murder drowning men, and they fucking did it. And then invaded a sovereign nation to kidnap their president. And they’re proud of it. So I dunno any more if this is something we can feel safe and secure about: would the military actually rise up and betray their oaths, and destroy their own way of life, in order to put Trump onto a throne? I really want to say no. But I can’t be sure.

So: Trump is still an existential threat, and so everything we can do to remove him, personally, specifically, from office is a good thing to do. His actions are doing real harm to real people, so everything we can do to oppose the specific actions of this administration are genuinely good things to do, whether the intent is to prevent the harm, ameliorate the harm, or provide a balancing benefit to offset the harm: all good. All righteous, all positive, all beneficial. Keep doing all those things.

But recognize, too, that so long as Trump doesn’t overthrow the government or set the world on fire, he will have to leave office. And we will still have to live in this country that he fucked up. And the real issue, of course, is that Trump isn’t the one who fucked it up: we did. Because we voted him in.

Okay, not “We.” I don’t think the people reading this mostly voted for Trump, and I don’t believe we are all equally to blame for his election, including those who didn’t vote for him. So “They” did vote him in. But we still have to live with them, in the same country; and if we don’t want to make this country an evil, unjust tyranny, we still have to let them vote. That’s the fight. That’s the work we have to do. Healing.

I don’t know how to do it. I think about that a lot: how can we prevent this from happening again? I think about it most often in specific terms of trying to rebuild the international alliances and cooperations that Trump is setting on fire; like, if he really does break NATO by making more and more absurd demands for Greenland or what have you – I will not assume that owning Greenland is the last or the stupidest idea he will have; this is only the FIRST year of FOUR – how could we convince the other members of the treaty organization that, after Trump is gone, we will never allow another piece of shit like him to take over our country and fuck it up the same way?

What laws could we put in place? What safeguards to ensure that this shit won’t happen again? I mean, we can certainly (in theory) pass a law to rescind the Supreme Court’s absurd decision that presidents are not criminally liable for their actions in office; that would require a congress that were not members of a cult, and a President willing to hold himself or herself to an actual moral and ethical standard; but I can imagine that happening. But so long as the President retains the immunity of the office, which I don’t think should or could be removed, we can’t really guarantee our allies (soon to be our former allies) that they can trust this country: this country that was willing to elect this fucking guy.

Trump rewrote foreign policy as president. If he wins in 2024, he wants to  go further : NPR

Twice.

Honestly, I don’t think we can; I don’t think we will ever be able to heal the rift that we are creating, that Trump is creating, right now. Partly because it is our fault, as a nation: we have never actually healed our own racist and biased culture and institutions, and so this could quite easily happen again. It would look different, but to think that there would never be another Republican demagogue who could tap into the resentment on the right, or a liberal demagogue who could create even worse conflict by actually persecuting the right the way they like to pretend they have been persecuted, is to ignore what gave rise to Trump’s initial success. It was not his brilliance. It was not his charisma. It was not Trump at all, though he did bring enough to the table to make it happen. He was the match, and he started the fire: but the fuel was already there, and it will remain after this match is snuffed out.

I think we have made progress, over time, towards healing the wounds that underlie this country’s dysfunctions. I think that because a hundred years ago, I would not have thought I was racist at all, and today I know that I harbor some prejudices, mostly unconscious, and that I once had some quite serious biases. I know that I live a privileged life, largely built on the privilege of my upbringing, which was at least partly due to my race and my socially-accepted gender identity. A hundred years ago, I would have just thought I was – normal. Natural. So: progress. Now I can work to identify the problems in myself, and get better; and that, multiplied by 330 million, is how we can make this into a country and a culture we can all be proud of, from end to end, rather than only in pieces, and with exceptions and excuses. Just like the fights against Trump himself, all of the work we have done and are doing towards being better people in a better world is all good work, and should continue.

But it’s slow work, and as long as it continues unfinished – and resisted and denied by millions and millions of us – there are openings for evil people to exploit. That’s how we got Trump. And it’s how we’ll get the next one. I am hopeful that this current shitshow will swing the pendulum in the correct direction, and our next few years will be better and more productive; but as long as the system stays the same, the pendulum will always keep swinging, and it will swing back this way again: and then we’ll have to do this shit all over again. And considering that Trump is worse than Bush who was (in some ways) worse than Reagan, who was (in many ways but not all) worse than Nixon, I’m afraid of who the next swing will bring us. And I’m also afraid that the swing away from Trump will not go far enough, as Biden did not go far enough, as Obama did not go far enough, as Clinton…actually, Clinton should be in the list of evil swings, because his predecessor, George HW Bush, did an honestly better job of adhering at least to the status quo and therefore not committing evil acts, though neither of them did good things. The worse the bad ones get, the lower our standards become for the “lesser evil” we are willing to accept. And that’s not good.

I’ll tell you right now, the one bright spot I can see in the fact that this administration is only one year through its four-year run is that the horror show going on in front of us, and including too many of us, is far and away the most effective mirror we could ever hold up to our own faces, our own flaws. The worse it gets, the more we recognize how bad we let it get, how deep and how dark the problems are that gave rise to this.

Please. I beg you. Recognize that the first problem is the determination not to fix the real issues, but rather to slap a bandaid on them and pretend that everything is fine. If you think that electing a moderate centrist who will do the same things Biden did – sign new executive orders that rescind Trump’s, pass a different kind of budget – that may have good things in it, as the Inflation Reduction Act did, and all the rest of Biden’s quite real and positive accomplishments – but that does not change any of the underlying structural problems (Just as Obama’s ACA did not solve any of the larger issues with health care in this country, even though it was genuinely good to make insurance more widely available and to end lifetime maximums and denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions – and I would be much more interested in the Republican congress’s claims to want to fix the problems instead of just extending subsidies that mainly enrich insurance companies if they weren’t currently in a cult enthralled to the guy who released the Great Health Care “Plan”), then I guarantee you that the pendulum will swing back sooner than you like, and maybe go farther than you can stand.

Just imagine, for a moment, President Joe Rogan. Or President Nick Fuentes.

And then think about what we can do to solve the larger problems, and to do it quicker than we currently are.

Here, just so I don’t name all these issues and sound all these warnings and offer absolutely no solutions: the two most important things I have learned in the last decade are the incredible amount of money that gets spent on politics, and the deep ignorance of so much of this country’s populace. The two are linked: because the wealthy who buy politicians are more powerful if the populace is ignorant – and that does include those who buy Democratic politicians, because while they generally don’t have the same sociocultural goals, they sure as fuck benefit from the same economic policies, which is why the Democratic party doesn’t change the basic economic structure of this country, and somehow opposes Bernie Sanders even if the other option is Donald Trump – and the more ignorant the populace is, the more effective the control mechanisms of the wealthy become. So while I don’t ever want to become a politician directly, and while I am not good at taking actual political action myself, I am exceptionally good at one of the other critical solutions to the larger underlying issues: education. I am a damn good teacher, and also a decent content creator. So that’s my task, and I am doing it, and I will continue doing it, to the best of my ability and the limits of my capacity. And that will make things better.

Especially if we can all do the same.

One year down, everybody. Look forward. Keep moving. Don’t give up.

2025 Wrapped

It’s been a year.

I want to write “It’s been a hell of a year,” but I hear that in a positive sense – “WOO, that was one hell of a ride! Let’s go again!” or, in a more personal and more specific reference, Spike telling Buffy, “You’re a hell of a woman” with that remarkable sincerity that James Marsters can summon despite playing a bleach-blonde British Victorian romantic poet/Sex Pistols punk vampire with a soul, a chip, AND a trigger (If you’ve watched BTVS, then you know; if you haven’t, don’t ask – but also, here it is) – and this has not been a positive year. You can tell because Toni and I finished re-watching the Buffy and Angel series (Serieses? What is the plural of “series?”), which we only do when the television shows we prefer, which tends to be mostly serious dramas like Breaking Bad and You and Dexter and Stranger Things, are too dark and depressing to deal with. Though we did finish the whole Walking Dead series this year; and then moved straight into watching The Great British Baking Show. Which we will probably rewatch, along with our beloved old episodes of Naked and Afraid and Chopped. And the neverending stream of Househunters, which we are now going to intersperse with old Simpsons episodes.

Maybe that’s the right descriptor: this has been a year to watch and rewatch old favorite shows. It has been a year to hide our heads in the sands of nostalgia, and in the moments when I have to look up and move around and do things, to wish that I was still stuck head-down neck-deep in the silt. And since I just read Long Live the Pumpkin Queen, in which Sally, after marrying Jack Skellington and becoming the Queen of Halloween, deals with the Sandman, I think this metaphor is even more appropriate. Except, of course, the Sandman makes me think of Neil Gaiman, and I guess I can’t be a fan of his any more. And I say “I guess” only because the accusations against him are currently unproven; but they are multifarious and choral, and therefore likely true; and in his Sandman series there is one of the most disturbing stories I’ve ever read, about an author who holds an immortal Muse from ancient Greece captive, and gains inspiration for his art by raping her: a story I always admired because it so beautifully captured the corruption of ambition; but now I think it was based on the author’s actual thoughts and feelings, and so I hate that. I so hate that.

I can’t think back over this year without getting depressed: maybe that’s the best way to say it. That makes me want to hide, to disappear, to sleep and not think about everything. That is, by the way, why I haven’t been writing; and I hate that I’m far enough out of practice that my typing now sucks. Which is just another thing for me to be mad at myself about, along with the times I have lost my temper, and the habits I have built and the ones I have let lapse. And maybe the best way to see this sand-concealing metaphor, this desire to sleep and escape, is just to recognize that I have spent the year getting less and less sleep, as I lie awake in insomnia and think about things I didn’t think about during my waking hours. So it’s been a year of emotional assault and subsequent exhaustion. Like I’m being beaten with sandbags.

I don’t intend this to be just an emotional dumping of everything on my mind; but my guess is that I’m not alone in feeling this way. (Spoiler: I already know that I’m not alone in feeling this way.) I don’t need to enumerate all of my reasons: you have your own. Mine are similar enough for us to lock gazes and nod in mutual recognition. Game recognizes game: except the game we’re playing is not in any way a game – so maybe it is despair recognizes despair.

I don’t want it to be that. I used to be optimistic, and my wife sometimes bemoans the fact that I have lost that cheerfulness – not in any accusatory way, the emotional equivalent of “You really let yourself go!” It’s that she is concerned for me, saddened that my joy seems to have been rasped away. It hasn’t all been: I am sitting here in my new gaming chair in my office, and within arm’s reach are: my new dog-shaped Bluetooth speaker (called, of course, the SubWoofer); my foam Minecraft sword, propped up against my dragon clock and currently adorned with the Christmas ornament that my friend gave me a few years ago that says “You are my People, you’ll always be my people” and then has our names on it (Lisa, Dusty, and Danielle); the mini-blackboard that has “You are AMAZING” written on it in my wife’s handwriting; on the wall hangs the original Fahrenheit 451-inspired painting that one of my former students just gave me, and outside the window I can see the Christmas lights still hanging on our house – and all of those things make me happy. As does the music I’m listening to, the remarkable band Soul Coughing, which I have recently discovered even though they were alternative in the 90s and I have no idea how I managed to miss these guys because they are amazing: in fact, my Spotify Wrapped this past year was almost nothing but Soul Coughing – all five top songs were theirs, and I was in the top 0.3% of their fans worldwide – and almost every time I listen to them, it brings me joy. The same with listening to my other favorite music, watching my favorite movies and shows, playing my favorite video games, and especially, every time I see my wife or my pets. I have a lot of joy in my life.

It’s just that the joy doesn’t last.

Because the world outside of my life is not filled with joy.

The world is filled with war: in Gaza, in Ukraine, in Sudan; and then of course there are the wars that Trump has claimed he has stopped (And I’ll give him credit for helping end the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the tensions between Serbia and Kosovo … though that one was in 2020 … but Rwanda and the DRC are still fighting, as are Israel and Hamas, and tensions remain high between Cambodia and Thailand, and India and Pakistan; and Iran and Israel are hardly at peace, even apart from the fact that you can’t get credit for ending a conflict you participated in by bombing one side — and Egypt and Ethiopia were hardly at war, but the source of the conflict remains intact): and those should certainly be balanced by the wars Trump has tried to start, in Canada and Greenland (And the Canada thing is just a war of words, maybe even just a joke before he started in with the tariffs, sure, but Greenland? Not so much.), and with the wars he is trying to start, in Venezuela and now in Nigeria, apparently.

And here at home, where we apparently put America first, the government is being broken into pieces by greedy kleptocrats who want there to be no education, no medicine, and no social safety net: nothing but corporations and billionaires extracting more and ever more wealth from the working class, while telling us that affordability is a Democrat hoax. I don’t even have the energy to find links to the stories supporting all of that: as I doubt any of you would have the energy to click on the links and read the articles. It’s okay, that’s not a dig: it’s the sand, the sleep sand blown in our eyes, the piles of sand we want to bury our heads in, the sandblown wastes that will be all that remains after climate change devastates human civilization…

Yeah. Hard to hold onto joy.

It’s all hard. It’s hard to accept that this was only the first year of four of this administration. I am at least a little hopeful that the Democrats will take back the House and maybe even the Senate (though I’m pretty confident that they will find some way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with the “upper” chamber, if there is even any hope with the Republican advantage in the Senate and the gerrymandering of red states), but even if they do, it won’t do anything to change the makeup of the Supreme Court, which is waging their own war against this country and everything we are supposed to stand for. That’s hard to even follow or understand; I’ve been listening to the brilliant podcast Strict Scrutiny, which I highly recommend; but I made the mistake of going back to the beginning when I started listening to it, which took me all the way back to 2018, and I’ve been listening to these intelligent, erudite, well-spoken experts talk about what they foresee coming, and I just keep saying, “Just wait. It’s going to get worse,” from my perspective on the other side of the COVID pandemic, and the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the installation of the 6-3 conservative supermajority, and the overturning of Roe, and the new Presidential immunity doctrine which these thieves and liars have inflicted on us, which has led to Trump stealing THREE BILLION dollars in just one year.

But you know what? I’m actually going to take that as a positive: because if Trump just robs us, if he just uses his position to gain money, instead of using it to install himself as a permanent dictator and destroy our entire country, I’m fine with that. He can have the fucking money. He won’t have long to enjoy it, even if he does live out the term: and if stealing all of that can also satisfy his troglodytic children, so that they don’t continue to infect our politics in Daddy Donald’s name for the next four or five decades, I will consider that a win.

But yeah. Hard to stay positive. And I haven’t even gotten to my personal life — which I am not going to detail, as it is not only my life. Suffice it to say that work has been very difficult, and home has been wonderful but also difficult, and sleep has been difficult, and I just spend so much time and energy worrying about everything and everyone I care about (including myself) that I don’t have anything left to fight against fascism, or the devastation of our country’s economy — and then I feel terrible about that. Which doesn’t help.

But. It’s December 30th. Tomorrow is New Year’s Eve, and the day after that is 2026. Which is bizarre, of course, because I’m not really fully out of the 2010s mentally; but the important thing is that this year is ending. It will be over. 2025 will be done. I don’t really like thinking that way, because I don’t like the idea of being happy to watch time go by, being happy to get through something: every year that goes by is one fewer I have left, is — not necessarily a missed opportunity to accomplish things, because I have accomplished things in this year, just not everything I wanted to accomplish. But celebrating the passage of time is not appreciating the present moment, nor feeling hope for the future, and those are much more how I want to live my life. I want to enjoy it. I want to look forward to it: not long for it to pass.

But (And this is four paragraphs in a row I have started with that contradictory conjunction, which maybe shows something about the conflict I am living through, as we all are — nothing but a series of buts. Or butts, maybe.) whether I like thinking this way or not, it is the truth. 2025 is almost over. 2026 has not happened yet. That is an opportunity. It is another chance, a new one; and though we humans are terrible at understanding probability, the truth is this: it is a good chance. It is a fresh chance. It is not doomed by the last year, or even the last few years.

I want to take this chance to do more that will make me happy. I can’t control the things that are making me unhappy, but I can turn away from them and look to things that will actually make me happy. I did that this last year, and I’m actually quite happy with those choices as I made them; the one thing I do regret is that too many of my choices were for only short-term happiness and not long-term. That felt like the easier thing to do, most of the time, but now I’m regretting that: and so I want to try to do better in this coming year. I want to end it with less regret. I want to live it with more joy. I truly think this is how we fight back most effectively against all of the forces arrayed against us: with joy. Finding it, breathing it in, and then sharing it: because if I can find a way to share some joy with those around me, that spares them from having to work to find it themselves; and maybe they will have just that much more energy to do something more active, more intentional, more directed towards the fight for a better world, a better future. The most important thing we have to know and believe and remember is that: it is we. We are not alone, we are not isolated, we are not the only ones fighting this fight. Not even my small, personal fights, which are shared in my case always by my wife, and nearly always by my family and friends.

We the People. In order to form a more perfect union. Establish justice. Insure domestic tranquility. Provide for the common defense. Promote the general welfare. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Do.

(Soul Coughing may be my newest favorite: but this will always be one of my longest lasting musical loves. And this song always brings me joy.)

We are spirit bound to this flesh
We go round one foot nailed down
But bound to reach out and beyond this flesh
Become Pneuma

We are will and wonder
Bound to recall, remember
We are born of one breath, one word
We are all one spark, sun becoming

Child, wake up
Child, release the light
Wake up now
Child, wake up
Child, release the light
Wake up now, child
(Spirit)
(Spirit)
(Spirit)
(Spirit)
Bound to this flesh
This guise, this mask
This dream

Wake up remember
We are born of one breath, one word
We are all one spark, sun becoming

Pneuma
Reach out and beyond
Wake up remember
We are born of one breath, one word
We are all one spark, eyes full of wonder

The Most Important Lesson

So this is how I started my English 10 classes this year. I first had my students write an essay about what they want, and what they need. Then I showed them this, and asked them first to discuss what I had to say here about wants and needs, and I asked them to write a second draft of their essay. Then we read a short story — “The Bet” by Anton Chekhov — and talked about how that story said something about wants and needs, because the goal of the class, in part, is to get them to think about what literature has to say about life and about the human condition, and how it relates to them personally and directly. Then I asked them to add another piece to their essay about that short story, which I also did with mine.

So here is my essay, on the most important lesson anyone can learn.

***

When I was learning how to be a teacher, we had a presentation from a guy who had been a teacher for a long time. He came in talking fast and loud, brimming with confidence: his opener was something like “What I’m about to show you is the most important lesson you’re ever going to see!” He was saying that on two levels: he was talking both to us, a group of university students on the way to becoming teachers, and to the students we would eventually have, because this was how he started the lesson he was presenting to us, which was the way he started his own classes as a teacher, and he was telling us what he thought we should say to our future students. He was saying this was the most important lesson we were going to learn, that would make all the difference for us as future teachers, and telling us that we needed to take advantage of it: and he was telling us how to pitch his lesson to our students, the way he pitched it to his, as the most important thing they would ever learn. And then his lesson was on the difference between wants and needs.

Here’s how it went. He would start his class by asking his students what they needed. Right then, in school or out, whatever: he wanted them to say what they needed. He would call on some, get some volunteers, and make a list of things on the board that they said they needed. “A job” was one. “A car” was another. “A girlfriend” was the one he put down as a joke, but I don’t doubt that he got that response many times over his years of teaching this lesson this way. “Sleep” might be another example, or “McDonald’s.” 

Once he got this list, he would then ask: Okay, what happens if you don’t get this? He would pick out the students who gave the different answers, and ask them: what will happen if you don’t get a job? If you don’t get a car? If you don’t get a girlfriend? The students would joke about it, maybe – “It would suck!” “I’d have to rob banks for money!” – and then get down to the answer, the truth: nothing would happen, really. If that student didn’t get the car, they would just continue getting rides from other people, or riding the bus or walking, or however they got around. They would be able to continue on just as they had been up until that point, because of course they did not have a car (Imagine if someone who had something said that they needed it? How ridiculous! You don’t need things you already have!), and they had been able to get to that point in their lives just fine.

“Okay,” the teacher would say. “Then you don’t need that. Right? You don’t need that job, that car, that girlfriend. You just want those things.”

Then he would go to one of the other examples given: like sleep. Or McDonald’s. And he would focus on those: what happens if you don’t get sleep? Is that the same as not getting a car, or a girlfriend? Or McDonald’s: okay, maybe you don’t actually need a Big Mac and fries – but if you don’t have any food at all… you would not be able to keep living.

That was different from not getting a car, or a girlfriend. Without food, without sleep, we cannot live.

“So those,” he would tell his students, “are needs. Things you can’t live without. Everything else is just a want.”

That lesson, that conversation, has stuck with me – obviously – for a long time: more than a quarter century. I’ve never actually used his lesson, because the want/need discussion went on to a different topic, which was his actual point: he would then talk about control. We all want control, he would say to his students, but we don’t need it. His point was that those students did not get to have a lot of control over their own lives – as you do not – and that they wanted it, as you probably do; and it was his belief that much of the misbehavior that students carried out in his class was an attempt to take control: teenager gets bored of doing what the teacher wants, which is really being tired of being controlled, so they yell out something disruptive or do something distracting, because they want to take control of the class. They don’t necessarily want to focus on the distracting thing they say or do: they just want to remove the teacher’s ability to control the class, and to control the time and attention of that particular student who was being disruptive. Who was trying to take control of themselves, and coincidentally, of the class. And he said that he would ask his students to allow him to have control over the class, so that the class could get through the work they needed to do: and that was why he talked about wants and needs, because while the student may want control, what they needed was to learn; and so while he as the teacher may not want control, he needed it if they were going to learn anything. He needed them to let him have control over them, to choose to let him take control. On days when they might be struggling with being controlled, he would take the disruptive students out into the hall and ask them if they could let him take control over them temporarily, and they generally would let him – or, if they just couldn’t stand to let him be in charge of them right then, he would accept that and just ask them to go to the principal’s office, where they would not be under his control, but they also wouldn’t be taking control of the class away from him. And when he gave them that choice, they usually were able to choose one or the other: accept his control over the class, or accept leaving the class for that day.

He said it was the best method he had ever heard of or seen for maintaining discipline in a class. He actually told us that we were not allowed to use his lesson if we ended up teaching in the same school where he taught, because he wanted to be the one to use it and he didn’t think it would work if two teachers used it with the same students. I remember being impressed by that. Because most of the people we learned from were not actually teachers, not in high schools or middle schools; they taught teachers, they didn’t teach teenagers. But this guy did teach teenagers, and this was a lesson that was actually important to him: not just an idea he had that he thought might work, maybe, which was my impression of most of the rest of the examples I was being given.

But I never taught that lesson to my classes. Because I hate the idea of taking control. I like the idea of being allowed to have control, of asking people to consent to my temporary control, because I recognize that I need to have some control to teach the class; but I hate the idea of taking it. I hate telling people what to do. Which is maybe something I shouldn’t be saying to you. Because what if you now think that you can take control away from me, and I won’t do anything to take it back?

See, the thing of it is, I may not want to take control. But if I need to, I can. And I will.

What I would rather do, though, is get you all to understand what you want, and what you need – and what I can do to help you get what you want, and what you need. So let’s get back to that.

The reason that teacher started his lesson about control with a discussion of wants and needs was that he wanted his students to recognize that they did not need to take control of the class, because they already had control over the only part of the class that really mattered: themselves. The teacher was telling his students – and us, his potential future co-workers – that we had control over ourselves, all of us, because we have choice. His students could choose to let him take control over them, or they could choose to leave. If they chose to leave, and go to the principal’s office, there would be consequences, of course – just like if you all choose not to come to school at all, or if I chose to quit my job – but the truth is, there are consequences of every choice: choosing to come to school and sit in class and let the teacher be in charge means you are choosing to be bored, at least some of the time. Choosing to sit through things that you already know, or do not need to know, or do not want to know. Choosing to be uncomfortable, to not have the things you want, right now, like sleep, or McDonald’s.

I never taught the lesson that teacher showed me (Which was titled “EVERYONE IS TRYING TO CONTROL ME AND I CAN’T MAKE THEM STOP!”) because I do not want to take control. I don’t like the idea of telling my students that I need to take control over them. (His explanation of how he proved to the students how they chose to come to school was “Nobody is holding a gun to your head!” And I do not like that, do not like the idea of a want being anything that is not literally a risk to the continuation of your life, do not like the idea that the need I am providing for is, therefore, someone holding a gun to the heads of my students.) I do, however, like the idea of helping my students to see that they already have control, because they have choice: you have choice. You can choose to be here, or you can choose to not be here. Both choices have consequences, of course, but both are possible. There are, in fact, several ways you could achieve your goal, if your goal is to not be here; and all of those ways have consequences, and all of those ways have steps you would need to take to get to where you wanted to be (Not here). For instance, you would not be here if you went to a different school; and there are ways you could try to achieve that. You would not be here if you graduated early; and there are ways you could achieve that – even at your young age, though you would have to have already started on that path to have achieved it by this current moment. Still: you could have achieved that. You could achieve not being here by ditching class, and maybe you could even avoid those consequences; but probably not for long. But hey, maybe your consequences for ditching would be a suspension – and then you wouldn’t be here!

Or, you can choose to be here. Which then leads to several more choices: you can choose to pay attention, or not; you can choose to participate actively, or not; you can choose to disrupt the class, or not. All of those choices have consequences, some good and some bad – though all I mean by that is that some are consequences that you may want and some are consequences that you would not want. (Choices also have moral consequences that make them good or bad, but that’s WAY too big a topic to get into in this conversation.) – but all of them are choices you can make. Because you have control over yourself. Unless you give me control, unless you choose to give me control, I don’t have control over you. Which is good, because I don’t want it. 

Why don’t I want control? Especially when so many other teachers do? Let me put it this way. There’s a part in a story I teach in one of my classes (“The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin) where the main character realizes that she is now free, that no one will be able to control her any longer; and she thinks “There would be no powerful will bending hers in that blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature. A kind intention or a cruel intention made the act seem no less a crime as she looked upon it in that brief moment of illumination.” That last part, when I read it and thought about it, hit me hard: controlling someone else – imposing my private will on them – is a crime, whether it is done with a kind intention or a cruel intention. That’s why I don’t want to take control of you: because I don’t want to commit a crime.

Please notice, though, that when I do take control as a teacher, it is not me imposing my private will on you: it is done because it is my job to be in control of this class, and it is justified by the fact that you personally are not the only person here. There is a public need which overrides private will. But this is beside the point. The point is that I do not want to impose my private will on you. Ever. I want you to choose to work with me.

So that’s why I wanted to write about this, and to share it with you. That’s why I wanted you to write about what you want and what you need, and why I want you now to think about it more – and talk about it more, if you want to do that. Because while that other teacher focused his lesson on control, I want to focus on wants and needs; I think those are much more interesting, and important, to talk about, and think about, and then write about. (If you want to talk about why wants and needs are more interesting than control, we can talk about that.)

I think his distinction, the difference that he described, between wants and needs – that needs are things you can’t live without, and wants are everything else, which you can choose to have or not – is much too simple. I mean, you could get everything you need, and you would survive, but if you never got anything you wanted – would you want to keep living that way? And even in terms of getting what you need to live: how much of it do you need? Are there things we need more than other things we need? We need food and water and shelter, because without them we cannot live; but we also need sleep. But we can live without sleep: just not in any way we would want to live. The same with social interaction, with relationships with other people: we CAN live without any of that at all; but not any kind of full, healthy, satisfying life. And then, for me personally, I don’t just eat because I need to live, I eat because I want to. I love food. (Not McDonald’s, though.) So much, in fact, that I eat more food than I should, and that will at some point lead to me having medical problems that might make it harder for me to live; so, too much of what I need, as much as I want, becomes something I can’t have. 

His claim that, if you didn’t get what you wanted, then nothing would happen, nothing would change, is not true. There are consequences to both getting and not getting anything, wants or needs. And the idea that someone who had a car would not say they needed a car, because you don’t need something you already have, is clearly not true: we say that we need food even when we have food: because the need is ongoing. When we eat the food we have, we will need more food. Having it doesn’t mean we don’t need it any more. In some cases, having something might even mean we need it more, because we get used to having something – like a car, or a girlfriend – and we would suffer without it. Once we have it, and get used to it, we need it more than we did before we ever had it: so even a want can become a need, maybe. 

It’s complicated. But I also think it’s incredibly important. And also pretty interesting.

There’s a story about this, which I think comes at it in an interesting manner: Anton Chekhov’s “The Bet.” The story is about two men, in 1870, who make a bet about – well, actually, it’s not clear what it’s really about, or what their motivations are; it seems fairly clear that the bet is really just an example of how foolish these two men are, in different ways and for different reasons. The bet arises during a dinner party conversation about the death penalty: the participants discuss whether capital punishment is more or less moral than life imprisonment. Uninterested in actually considering what the meaning of “justice” might be, or the purpose of the criminal justice system in our society, a banker gets irritated at a lawyer who claims that life imprisonment is not so bad, and he bets the lawyer two million (he never mentions the units, but maybe “pounds” makes sense – which translates to something like $400 million in modern money) that the lawyer can’t stay voluntarily imprisoned for five years. The lawyer, apparently so incredibly arrogant in his opinions that he cares about nothing more than proving he’s better, ups that time to fifteen years, and the two agree. The lawyer then goes into confinement in a wing of the banker’s house for fifteen years. He actually goes through with it: he spends the next fifteen years trapped in a single room, without talking to a single person, without seeing the sun once. In that time he is given as many books as he wants, and he reads extensively – of course, having not much else to do – and then by the end of his confinement, he has changed. The banker has changed as well: since he is careless with his wealth (As is pretty obvious when a man is willing to bet 2 million pounds for – what? For winning an argument? He says later that this bet doesn’t prove either side, not that capital punishment is better nor that life imprisonment is better. Is it for the thrill of winning? Why didn’t he insist that the lawyer put up stakes? The banker stands to profit exactly nothing from this bet even if he wins it. That’s not a good money manager. So actually, I guess he has not changed.) he has lost much of it, and if he now has to pay out the 2 million pounds, he will be ruined. So, as one does, he decides to sneak into the locked room the night before he loses the bet, and kill the lawyer. However, he finds a letter beside the sleeping lawyer; he reads it and finds out that the lawyer has decided that nothing in this life matters, that he doesn’t want anything, not freedom, not money, not life; and so he will intentionally lose the bet to show that he doesn’t need the money. Saved from destitution, the banker leaves; then the lawyer leaves, losing the bet – and then the banker conceals the lawyer’s letter.

The interesting element of the story, for me, is the choices these two characters make, and the motivations behind them. Why does this bet happen? What are the characters after? In other words: what do they want? It’s definitely not a need – no one needs to bet anything, really. The original bet happens because both men are bluffing: they each want the other to give up. They both go through with the bet because they want to prove that they are men of their word: even when their word is foolish. It makes me realize that I want to be a man of my word, as well; though I think I need to not make foolish promises like “I will stay in one room for fifteen years just to prove that I can.” By the end of the story, the lawyer, after years spent alone reading and studying everything from natural science to philosophy to religion, comes to the personal revelation that Heaven’s value far outweighs everything on Earth, and therefore he does not want the money for the bet – but he also does not care if he has his freedom, or even his life. He stays in the prison voluntarily (as he has all along) to show that he doesn’t need freedom or health or anything on this Earth; he leaves just minutes before he would win the bet to show that he doesn’t need the money, either. I’ll agree with him that money is not something we need, not something of great value: but I could not disagree more that life on this Earth is without any value whatsoever. I need my life, on this Earth, and I need it to have value and purpose, while I am alive. Whether there is a heaven or not at the end of this life is irrelevant to this life, because we do not know anything other than this life exists: therefore this life is, for now, everything.

But in the story, both men’s choices are interesting to me. Among other impressions I get from this, I think it shows that more of our needs are really only wants than we actually think; when the lawyer deprives himself of things we see as critical to our lives, primarily human company, he realizes that he does not actually need those things at all. But I think the story also shows that we do need an audience for the important things we have to say – more often than we probably realize – and that sometimes we need to keep other people from having an audience, which is why the banker hides the lawyer’s letter at the end of the story. The narration claims it was to “avoid unnecessary rumors,” but it does not identify what rumors the letter will start; I have to wonder if it is the “rumor” that maybe two millions – or even $400 million – is not anything of great importance, if you choose to think of it that way. The banker’s decision to murder for that same amount shows that, for some people, that money is certainly important.

I would say that the actually important thing here is choice. 

So now you have a choice, which I am giving you because I don’t want to take control and tell you what to do. (Though I am limiting your choices within the boundaries of what I can control, and I am requiring you to make this choice; so in some ways I remain in control. Though you still, of course, have the choice to pay attention or not, to participate or not. As you always do. With consequences no matter what you choose.) We can talk, as a whole class or in small groups you will choose, about the difference between wants and needs, what it means to want something and what it means to need something; or you can each think about it on your own. In either case you will write about it, expanding on what you wrote before, because I want you to learn that writing about something is an excellent way to help you understand it, as long as you actually think about what you are writing about, especially after you already thought about it and wrote about it a little, and then read something about it and think about it some more.

No matter what you choose, you will eventually need to figure some of this out. You need to know what you need, and what you want, in your life. You need to figure out how you want to get what you need and what you want in your life. Not right now, not all at once – but eventually, you need to know.

Or else you won’t get it.  

And that’s the most important lesson you will ever learn.

***

Unfortunately, my students did not seem to learn this lesson. Their first essays about what they want and need were (mostly) incoherent, because they (mostly) do not think about what they write: they write to complete a task, to get finished and turn something in so they can get a grade. Their second essays were the same: because they (mostly) don’t re-think what they have already done; the task was accomplished without thought, what good would it do to think about it afterwards? Their third attempts, after we read “The Bet,” were confused in two ways: first because they didn’t really understand the story, they just thought it was weird and really dumb that the lawyer would choose fifteen years when he could have gotten the money for five, and they were pretty sure they would have done five years for millions of dollars, because money is (clearly) the most important thing in life; and then they were confused about how to include those weird ideas in their essays, which were about different things, things they want and need, not what some old guy in 1870 wanted and needed.

I’m exaggerating a bit (and leaving out the examples that were from students who really did think about this stuff, and really did have some insights and some interesting thoughts), but basically, my students did not see the need to think very much about any of this. They just wanted to get the task done. And when they found out that they would get a 100% for completing the essay, no matter what they wrote or how, they decided not to think, because it was easier to just do nothing. And while they accept that they need to do schoolwork and get good grades, so they can graduate and get good jobs, so they can make money (because money is the most important thing in the world), they don’t want to do anything other than fun stuff like talk to their friends and play video games. Which, okay, valid.

And I don’t want to control them.

I think I need to find a new career.

Day of Hope

Yesterday was my birthday. I had a great day: my wife and I went out for an incredible brunch at a restaurant in Tucson called Blue Willow – HIGHLY recommend the breakfast burrito, if you go – and then went home and had presents – I got two awesome t-shirts and a video game, Skyrim for my Nintendo Switch, which is a lovely thing mainly because Skyrim was one of those games I avoided when it was new, since I knew it was exactly the kind of video game I love most (sandbox swords and sorcery) and would therefore consume all of my waking hours once I opened Pandora’s Box and started playing it, and as I told all of my students at the time when they asked if I was going to play Skyrim, I have a job; which means that now I have been given permission to go ahead and let my free time be consumed, partly because I deserve and need nice things, and partly because the truth is that I will not actually allow ALL of my free time to be consumed, that I can be trusted to do what is necessary even if I would rather just dive back into the video game (Hold on, the t-shirts reminded me: I need to cull my collection. Be right back. [Got rid of seven shirts. Good progress.]) – and then we went to an arcade with friends, where I got to play pinball and a car racing game and a pirate shooting game and the BIGGEST SPACE INVADERS IN NORTH AMERICA, and then we came home and ordered Chinese food in and then had huge slices of an AMAZING cake. It was a great day.

Yesterday in Washington D.C., the Republican party passed Donald Trump’s “Death to the Poors” bill (I will neither call it the B.B.B. as that shitmouth named it – though honestly I appreciate the bald hypocrisy of that, coming from the party that has been loudly and repeatedly criticizing large omnibus bills for years if not decades, until said omnibus comes from President Turdtongue – nor talk about it as a tax cut bill as the news outlets insist on calling it, while they also name it as a Asslips’s “most significant accomplishment,” which is a wild phrase: just imagine talking that way about, say, Auschwitz, or the Night of the Long Knives, or the invasion of Poland, as Hitler’s “biggest achievements” to date. I will come back to hypocrisy.), which Pres. Butt-Teeth will be signing today, in a continuation of his efforts to taint and corrupt every single piece of American culture so that nobody can ever enjoy anything ever again in this country.

Not that this is my favorite holiday: I’m a vegetarian, and I live in Tucson, Arizona, so barbecues at the park are out on both meat-related and heat-related grounds; plus my dog is terrified of fireworks, and I personally dislike the strong possibility of wildfires being started by an idiot with a bottle rocket and a match. But there are, nonetheless, reasons why I want to celebrate this holiday, and hold onto it in the face of ol’ Colon-Throat’s attempted appropriation. And I want to write about it today because I realized that the reasons for me, for us, to hold tight to the Fourth of July are the very same ideas that I want and need to write about.

I wasn’t sure what I wanted to write about. Part of me doesn’t want to write at all: I just want to curl up on my couch, pet my dog, and play video games. (And not only because I just got Skyrim, though that is definitely part of the draw… I can hear it calling to me right now… No, wait, that’s my cockatiel Duncan screaming because he’s upset about something.) And while I want to rant about Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court, and the Congress, because all three branches of government have been captured by the proto-fascists who want to turn America into a white Christian ethnostate with a patriarchal dictatorship that is decidedly unChristian, I don’t know what the value would be in ranting: the people who would read it already agree with me, and it would just make them sadder than they already are because the horror is relentless and it’s hard to remain so ourselves; and the people who might read it who don’t agree would find it tiresome to just hear more ranting; and the people who are on the opposite side of these issues (who don’t read, but just hypothetically) would be giddy with Schadenfreudish glee, cackling about how angry I am and signing up for WordPress accounts just so they can comment “Cry more!” and throw down some of the memes I’ve been getting hit with because I have (foolishly) been commenting on news stories on Facebook. And I don’t want to create any of those responses.

I recognize that the most important thing we can do is spread good information, and so that makes me want to become a journalist, and share correct information, and – I mean, maybe I should do that. But I already have a job. And it’s a hard job, and I work hard at it. And I have a family which I love, but which, like all families, requires a lot of time and energy – and not that I begrudge that, I do not, I would spend all of my time and energy on my family if I didn’t have to work, and I look forward to the day when that happens; I’m just saying that I will not take time and energy away from my family in order to become a journalist. There are already better journalists, trained and professional journalists, out there doing that work, so I shouldn’t have to. Clearly my fight against misinformation is in my teaching, and I will continue to do my very best there, in every way I can.

But that leaves me with nothing to write about.

It is summer, and so that makes me want to write, because over the school year I am often too tired and burnt out and frustrated to write; but I have been facing this conundrum about what to write about, and I haven’t been writing much. (Also my summer has not been all that restful, but it’s mostly been family stuff, so I don’t resent it.) As I haven’t been writing, however, I have been trying to get back into my other great passion that I haven’t been able to spend enough time on: I’ve been reading. And one of the things I’ve been reading has been these:

These are my great-grandmother’s novels, published in the late 50s, when she had retired from teaching. (Have I mentioned that I come from a line of teachers and writers on  my mother’s side? This is part of that line.) I’ve never read them before, partly because I never knew my great-grandmother; for most of my life I didn’t even know that she had written books or published them or that we had copies. So I’m reading them now, and they have shown me a couple of things. First, because these are young adult books, and historical/regional fiction (They are all set in western Washington, where the Mitchells lived and where both my grandmother and then my mother were born and raised, during the frontier times between about 1970 and 1890, when the Mitchells did not live there – Faye and her husband Burt emigrated from Kansas), they are not great literature in a canonical sense: but they are good stories. And this helps to settle in me something I have always struggled with, because I am not a writer of great literature, and though I don’t want to be, I always think I should be; but I think that in truth I am, like my great-grandmother, a storyteller, not a literary giant. And I would rather be that. Second, these books, because they are set where they are and because the main character, Abby Conner, is a young woman who wants to become a teacher and a writer and who talks about what it means to be a teacher and a writer, are helping me to be prouder of the teacher and the writer that I am, because I think that my great-grandmother would probably be proud of me, and I like that – and my Nonna, whom I loved and respected but who passed before I had even decided to become a teacher, would definitely be proud of me, and I love that. And third, because my great-grandmother clearly wrote about what he knew, I have been thinking about how I need to do that. Not with my novels, which are almost certainly going to stay fantastic and more about vampires and time-traveling pirates and magical dreams that change reality; but with these blogs, and with the things that I write every day: I need to write about what I know.

So this is what I’m going to do: I’m going to write about what I know.

So. What the hell do I know?

I used to be optimistic.

My wife talks about it, about how I used to be much more cheerful, and much more calm, and much more positive. She doesn’t make it sound as bad as I just did: she doesn’t say all those things at once, and she doesn’t say it with any kind of accusation or disappointment or anything – never “You used to be a lot more fun!” or anything like that. She has taken note of it out of concern for me: because my general demeanor has become darker and angrier over the last decade or so. And it’s coming out in ways and in places that I don’t like: I have had a hard time keeping myself from losing my temper with my students, and I have failed at that, and lost my temper, several times in the last few years, sometimes to my real regret. I am also having a hard time keeping my spirits up in order to push back against my wife’s occasional depressing outlook, which is sometimes something she needs me to do (Don’t we all?), and which I have not been doing as well as I used to.

I suspect this happens to a lot of people, if not to all of us. We lose our idealism, and our hopefulness – those of us who ever had it, that is, which is not everyone. But I think as time goes on, and life gets harder, and as people just keep on disappointing us, over and over again – say, by re-electing an orange-tinted fascist would-be dictator even after he tried to overthrow our government the first time: it’s hard to look down the road and think that it actually goes to a better place. And while Trump certainly wasn’t inevitable, the difficult and sad things that happen as we get older are inevitable: we lose people we love, and eventually we lose ourselves, and there is often a great deal of suffering on the way to that. As that happens to us more, and as we are shielded from it less, our lives become sadder in many ways, and it makes sense that we would do the same.

I do also think the last few years have been rough on people in this country. Trump’s two electoral wins and two administrations, the pandemic, the various economic and global crises: it’s been tough to keep looking on the bright side of this pile of shit. I certainly haven’t been immune to that. In fact, it has been directly detrimental to my optimism: because I keep thinking, and saying, and arguing, and preaching, that things are going to work out the right way: and I keep being wrong. I said that Trump was going to lose in 2016, both in the primary and then in the election, and I thought that he would go to trial for his crimes and that he would get convicted, and I thought he would lose in 2024. Wrong, every time. (Okay, he was convicted, but only of the least important one, and it didn’t affect his political ambitions in any way at all, which I also thought it would. Still: he is a fucking convicted felon, and anyone who claims it was only a politically motivated prosecution, you’re goddamn right, and it was a successful one, and it should have kept people from voting for him, and it was therefore the right thing to do – but I think we can see that, even though it was a politically motivated prosecution, that didn’t affect the general populace very much: the election is evidence that the jury was honest and sincere.) That record makes me not want to keep my hopes up: not mainly because I hate being wrong and looking dumb (though I do, both), but mainly because I don’t want to give people false hope and then have them fall farther and harder when my false hope is proven wrong. Again.

But okay: now let’s talk about the Fourth of July. (See, this is why I’m so goddamn wordy and circuitous in my writing, even though the only way to write great literature is to keep it short and simple, as much as possible, to edit even more than you write: because I’m not a great literary mastermind, I’m a storyteller, and this is how stories get told. Thanks, Great-grandmother. Actually, since I called her daughter Nonna, I’m just gonna call Mrs. Mitchell Grandnonna. I hope she would like that. And let me note that, as wordy and circuitous as I am, I get back to where I want to go. Eventually.)

The Fourth of July is a convergence of three of my heroes. Three of the greatest writers in American history, because all three were three of the greatest thinkers and idealists in American history. Not all the best people, but I generally think the art, and the truth, can transcend the people who discover it or create it. If you look at science, for instance, there is not and never has been a scientist who was worthy of the power of what they discovered: not Newton, not Darwin, not Einstein… maybe Carl Sagan. I don’t know if Galileo was a good man, honestly, but how could he possibly be good enough to live up to what he did for our understanding of the universe, for what he made possible? He couldn’t. The same with great artists: the people who affect the lives of millions and even billions of other humans in positive ways couldn’t possibly be good enough in and of themselves to really be seen as deserving of the praise that their impact deserves. Martin Luther King, Jr., could not possibly be good enough as a person to actually deserve the honor that he rightfully gets as the civil rights leader and genius communicator that he was, even if he hadn’t been an egotist who cheated on his wife. But his impact, his positive impact on the world, is beyond measuring: is beyond what one person could contain. So I am willing to praise the work, and the words, and the ideas, even if the person who created those things was worse than their impact.

This does not excuse J.K. Rowling, by the way, though I do also think the criticism of Harry Potter is lazy and vicious and incorrect; but Rowling is, it turns out, a terrible person who should absolutely be canceled entirely. While we all keep reading Harry Potter. Don’t worry, it will get easier when she is dead.

So: the three people who are connected by the Fourth of July and whom I find inspiring are Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln. (See what I mean about not the best people? Douglass was a saint, but I only say that because I don’t know enough about him to know the bad stuff; Lincoln was a racist egotist, and Jefferson owned his own children. But the point here is that we need to look at the work, and the ideas, and the words.) Thomas Jefferson, of course, wrote this:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Those two paragraphs might be the best argument ever written: because the words are perfect, the logic is perfect, and the idea was so much better than the people who formulated it that it has led to better outcomes and a better world for hundreds of millions of people, for two and a half centuries. We hold these truths to be self-evident.

All men are created equal.

(Which also means that we all suck. Just sayin’.)

And I think we know why this idea, these words, and this man are connected to this day, for me. For all of us.

Lincoln, on the Fourth of July in 1863, said this:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

This is sometimes described as the perfect speech – partly because it is so short, and therefore nothing that I ever could have produced – and there’s an argument to be made for that. I find it inspiring because I think it translates some of Jefferson’s ideals, which were intentionally more universal, into something more personal, more grounded: this is how the idea that all men are created equal comes to be an American ideal instead of a human one – though it is still, and always should be, a human ideal. Still, Lincoln and this address are why we as Americans should consider this to be something personal, something we own, not simply a truth that exists in the world. Jefferson and the Founding Fathers are part of that as well, because the Declaration of Independence was not just a statement of ideals, but also a political and pragmatic document (which is why I include the first paragraph in the quotation from it, and in what I describe as the perfect argument: that sets the purpose for the second paragraph, where all the intellectual brilliance is. But as a rhetoric teacher, purpose matters, so the first paragraph is part of that, and part of what Jefferson and the rest of them were committed to, like Lincoln.); but because the Founding Fathers were patriarchal slaveowners who didn’t want to pay taxes, their purpose doesn’t rise to the level of their ideals. Which makes them fascinating, really, because slaveowners who didn’t want to pay taxes somehow managed to formulate and then enact one of the greatest ideals in human history, that all men are created equal and that government should be based on that fact and all of the logical consequences of that fact, such as the necessity of consent; but Lincoln’s purpose in saying his words was, first, to honor the sacrifice of people who died for those ideals, which is one of the most important and perhaps most abused elements of recognizing the worth of all humans (and not something expressly focused on in the Declaration, not even in its lists of abuses and usurpations), and second, to maintain the existence of the nation based on that fact, and to help bring it closer to being a nation that lives up to its own purpose, a nation governed by a system based on the fact that all men are created equal. Those purposes are worthy of those words, of the ideas they express, as the words and the ideas are worthy of the purpose. Probably not so with Jefferson.

And then Douglass. I wish I could have heard Douglass speak, because unlike the other two, Douglass was a great speaker as well as a great writer; but at least we have the words he wrote down, and the story he told with them, the story of his own life. And if you don’t know why Frederick Douglass is connected to the Fourth of July, it’s because of this:

(1852) Frederick Douglass, “What, To The Slave, Is The Fourth Of July”

Frederick Douglass

Daguerreotype photo by Samuel J. Miller

That whole speech is worth reading. But let me focus on this:

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation’s sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation’s jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been tom from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the “lame man leap as an hart.”

But, such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.

Here we see Douglass’s purpose, and the reason he also needs to be included in this list of great writers connected to the Fourth of July: because Douglass held this country to account for its hypocrisy. (Told you I’d come back to it.) Douglass showed, more clearly than anyone else, that the United States has never lived up to its ideals.

He said this:

I remember also that as a people Americans are remarkably familiar with all facts which make in their own favor. This is esteemed by some as a national trait—perhaps a national weakness. It is a fact, that whatever makes for the wealth or for the reputation of Americans, and can be had cheap will be found by Americans. I shall not be charged with slandering Americans if I say I think the American side of any question may be safely left in American hands.

I leave, therefore, the great deeds of your fathers to other gentlemen whose claim to have been regularly descended will be less likely to be disputed than mine!

My business, if I have any here to-day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and his cause is the ever-living now.

Trust no future, however pleasant, Let the dead past bury its dead; Act, act in the living present, Heart within, and God overhead.

We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and to the future. To all inspiring motives, to noble deeds which can be gained from the past, we are welcome. But now is the time, the important time. Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. You have no right to enjoy a child’s share in the labor of your fathers, unless your children are to be blest by your labors. You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have “Abraham to our father,” when they had long lost Abraham’s faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham’s great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchres of the righteous? Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men, shout —”We have Washington to our father.”—Alas! that it should be so; yet so it is.

The evil that men do, lives after them, The good is oft’ interred with their bones.

And this:

At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.

What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Douglass said a lot that could apply to us today, which is why it is worth reading the whole speech. (And I’m thinking now I may teach it next year. We’ll see.)

But, since I have now gone on for far too long (Not gonna feel bad. Storyteller. Also, I was quoting.), let me get to my purpose: the reason why I wanted to talk about these three men and their writings on this day, the Fourth of July.

Because all three of these men represent hope.

If they did not believe that this nation could exist in its ideal state, or at least that it could come closer and that approaching that ideal would be better than moving away from it, they would never have said what they did. None of them lived in this nation in its ideal state, and probably none of them thought they ever would live in that nation: but they all believed it (or something close to it) could exist, and that that wonderful reality was worth fighting for. I know because all three fought to achieve it, for essentially all of their adult lives, with all of the considerable powers at their disposal. They fought, for years, for decades, in the face of insurmountable odds, of endless trudging through swamps of opposition, the stinking mud sticking to them and tainting everything they did and everything they saw, making absolutely no progress, for longer than some people have to live their whole lives.

But they kept fighting. Because they believed they could succeed. They did not give up. No matter what.

That’s what optimism is. It’s determination, and belief. It is hope. It doesn’t have to be based on reality and an understanding of the truth and the terrible odds stacked against us: but when it is based on that, it is that much stronger, that much more potent. That much more indomitable.

I don’t know if I’m indomitable. But I do know I’m stubborn as fuck. And maybe that’s the same thing.

I don’t know if I have that kind of optimism. But I hope I do: and so I’m going to keep fighting, and keep trying, and keep writing. Because I think that my purpose, and my ideals, are worth all of that effort, and all of that fight, and all of that struggle. And because I believe that the world I dream of is possible. Even if I never see it.

But I hope I do. And I hope you will, too.

Happy Independence Day.

What a Weekend!

WOW! That was… amazing.

This last weekend was the Tucson Festival of Books. And for the fourth year, I had a booth, and I offered my pirate books, the three volumes of The Adventures of Damnation Kane, for sale to anyone who: 1) Saw my tri-corner hat and pirate-themed shirt; 2) Noticed the name of the booth, or 3) Paused to look at the INCREDIBLE art that my wife Toni DeBiasi created for all three Volumes of the series.

And that was a LOT of people.

I went there with, I think, about 65 books.

The first day, Saturday, I sold 42 of them. (The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything!) I sold every copy of Volume I I had with me. I went home, got the four other copies of Volume I at my house, also grabbed my VERY FIRST copy, the first printed copy of any book I have ever written, and brought that on Sunday. I used the very first copy (which was NOT for sale) as a display copy.

I sold the other four. And six more copies of Volume II and Volume III. And I unfortunately had to turn away a few other people because I didn’t have a copy of Volume I to sell them, at the end of the day, or else I would have had at least two or three more sales.

I now have 13 copies left of the 69 copies I brought with me to the Festival.

I have never done that well. The Festival has always been pretty good to me: I have a good book (Three of them, I think), I have a good hook — “Can I tell you about my time-traveling Irish pirate?” — and the aforementioned three attention-grabbers (sign, cover art, and stylish chapeau) brings people close enough to get drawn in by my elevator pitch. But my previous record was, if I remember right, 29 books sold. So I almost doubled that.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, to everyone who came and bought my books. I am honored beyond belief. And now I am anxious as hell that you all won’t like the books, or that you won’t like the third book, or — I dunno, something. So if you could see your way clear to tell me if you do like the books: go to the Contact link at the top of the page (Under the three lines, on mobile), or click on the Feedback link that should be floating in the bottom left corner of the page, and send me a message. Send me a Facebook message or Instagram message — @TheodenHumphrey, in both cases. (Also the same handle on X, if you are a glutton for punishment — or Threads, if you’re a glutton for social media.) Or if you’re really feeling good about my work, post a review somewhere — Amazon, or Goodreads, or Lulu.com where the books are produced — and then let me know that you did so. Thank you.

Thank you, as well, to my fantastic booth partner Amanda Cetas, who stood with me on a patch of sole-stabbing gravel for eighteen hours over two days, who covered me when I wanted to take a break (And made sales for me, too), who directed people to my side of the booth when they seemed more interested in fantasy than in historical fiction, and who stayed positive and energetic all the way through. Thank you, also, to all the people who bought Amanda’s books — she said she did better this year than she has before, too, so it wasn’t just the Pirate who made out like a bandit.

Amanda also shared my confusion over our nearest neighbors, who were… intactivists. Anti-circumcision activists. With whole books. About… circumcision. Now, I actually know the arguments against circumcision, and — how do you fill an entire book with them? Let alone TWO?!?

Needless to say, they did not send many customers over our way, and we didn’t send any their way, either. I didn’t have any people come to my booth and say, “Pirates, huh? You wouldn’t have anything about foreskins, by any chance?”

(I would have sent them over if they did. But they didn’t. The people over there still had people at their booth all weekend, so I think they did fine, too.)

If you didn’t get the book or books you wanted, or you now want more books, then please use the links on this page to Contact me or to order yourself a copy from Lulu.com. (If you Contact me, I will sign the book for you before I ship it.) If you didn’t make it to the Festival this year, then come to next year’s — Amanda and I will be there (Hopefully with our partner, the Poet, Lisa Watson, who wasn’t well enough to attend this year), and I will have all of the Adventures and at least one new book, as well. Amanda will probably have nine new projects, all of them as wonderful as the ones she has right now.

And if you bought books, two things: thank you for reading. You, along with the rest of the literate people, are the bulwark holding back the tide of Fahrenheit 451. You are giving my world meaning. You are joining me in this weird sort of slow-motion conversation that is a novel.

And also: get off the internet and go read. Like I’m about to do.

(If you’re wondering, I only bought two books this year. But that’s because this is my TBR pile.

No, I’m not kidding.)

Here are the two books, anyway.

Happy Reading, all.

Pride Goeth Before… Something Something

I got stopped by a fellow teacher this past week and asked a question I had never thought about before: between the two most common science fiction future predictions, that is, that humanity will evolve and transcend in some way, or that humanity will destroy itself, which did I think was the most likely? And although I had never thought about that before, I have read enough sci-fi to have encountered both of these predictions — actually, in my new elective class on fantasy and science-fiction literature, we have read both a dystopian novel (Feed by M.T. Anderson — HIGHLY recommend) that predicts that humanity will destroy itself and the Earth’s ecosystem along with us; and a short story by Isaac Asimov called “The Last Question” (Asimov said this was his best story. It’s probably not — but it’s a cool idea, and it’s very well realized. Also recommend. But not as highly as Feed.) which depicts humanity evolving and transcending. Along with our computer intelligences, I might add; which is a nice element to include in this unusually hopeful story. So I was able to formulate an answer, quickly; one that responded to the question but also considered some of the complexities in the topic: I said, immediately, that the doom option is far more likely — but I also pointed out that said doom is certainly not going to be the actual end of the human race, because we are enormously adaptable and incredibly good at surviving, so some people would live through the end of the rest of us, and those people would end up being very different from the people who came before the doom; and therefore those people may be said to transcend. But also, I asked what was meant by “evolve” and by “transcend?” Humanity has largely stopped evolving physically, because we now evolve societally; our greater height and longevity, our now-selective fecundity but also our incredibly improved survival rate — all these are changes that have been wrought by society, and not by physical evolution through natural selection. So is evolution to be defined as something that happens naturally through the same process of environmental pressure which differentiated us from the other great apes? Then hell no, humans will not evolve. But is evolution simply about the changes wrought on the species by their — our — continued survival and our steady adaptation to differing circumstances? Then yes, we will continue to evolve. Also, does “transcend” mean changing who we are as a species? Being born different, as the kids say? Or is it about changing individuals after birth? That is, if I am born as a normal weak-ass human, but then I add machine elements to my body, and end by uploading my consciousness into a robot body: have I transcended? Have I evolved?

Is this an evolved human? I mean, other than because it is Patrick Stewart…

Anyway, the point is I talk too damn much. But also (And this is more the point): I’m very smart. I was able to start answering the question, and then think about both the question and my answer, while making my initial point. I thought of these two works I have named, and thought about how they fit into the spectrum of future possibilities. I could have kept going. I could have turned this into a lesson, or even a unit, without thinking too hard. (We should also include “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut. Great story about evolution, and also dystopian doom. And “By the Waters of Babylon” by Stephen Vincent Benet is a nice example of people surviving past the cataclysm, and maybe becoming better? Maybe stronger?) I could have put this to students, and maybe helped them to recognize the importance of trying to become better, rather than worse, even though worse is MUCH easier. I have used it as an example here, but I could have turned this into a whole essay; it might have been a good one.

I am proud that I can do that. I am proud of my abilities. I read well and remember what I read; I think well and speak well and write well. Over the last 20+ years of teaching, I have actually learned to think like a teacher: surprising, considering that I didn’t even think like a student when I was growing up. Part of why I do that, why I think like a teacher? I’m proud of being a teacher. I’m proud of what I have done as a teacher. Not as proud as what I have done as a writer; I still think art is more important than education, because education has been co-opted and commodified, and also to some extent Balkanized (Meaning it has been broken up into small pieces, as the Balkan states were broken off of the Soviet Union; now there are lots of them, but they are individually much less than they used to be, partly because they are hostile to each other. Huh. I actually didn’t know that last part was in the definition. Now I have to think about whether that applies to teaching. Yeah, probably; I have often had conflict — beef, as the kids say [By the way: I do that “As the kids say” thing precisely because it is “cringe,” which is hilarious. I can actually make my students shiver with loathing when I say something like “No cap, for real for real.” I love it.] — with other teachers, and that probably is a result of the system, at least in part.); while that has definitely happened to art on the internet (which was where and how I discovered the term Balkanization, in a description of how the internet has affected art), art is able to — well, to transcend that process, and remain valuable, which education has struggled to do. So when asked what I have accomplished that I am proud of, the immediate answer is always: my books. I have written books. They are good books. I am proud of them. Only after I have said all of that — and probably much more — do I maybe add — “Oh, and I’m proud of teaching, I guess.”

And that’s why I’m writing this: because two weeks ago I wrote about value and worth and price, and I recommended that people stop buying stuff, which theme I wanted to expand on lest I be too holier-than-thou; and both that piece and this one are in response to the number of my friends who question their value and their worth: particularly in terms of their art and their accomplishments as artists. I do it too, and for some of the same reasons; but I do it less. Because I’m a proud man.

And Pride goeth before a fall.

Okay: so what is pride? What does it mean to be proud of something, or of someone? What does it mean to be proud of yourself — and is that the same as being proud as a person? Of having pride? Is pride good, or bad?

According to Christian values, pride is bad. We should instead be humble. But okay, what does that mean? My immediate thought is that humble means “Not proud;” so I should define “pride” first, and then “humility” in relation to it. I suspect we are more familiar with and have a better understanding of pride, especially we Americans. So we’ll start there.

I think of pride in two contexts: pride in one’s accomplishments, and the pride a parent feels about their child. That’s not to limit it to those: I am proud of my wife, I am proud of my brother, I am proud of my father (Maybe even more so than he is proud of me…), I am proud of my friends. I am proud (in a way) of things about me that I wouldn’t label as accomplishments, like my intelligence and my empathy. But the first things that come to mind are the first two I stated. When I talk about being proud of my accomplishments, I think that feeling is a sense that what I have done is good, is important, and is something I think is defining for me. I’ve done stuff that I’m not proud of (Which should be a simple statement describing things like “I drove to the post office today” but has a strong negative connotation, implying things that I have done which I am not only not proud of, but that I am ashamed of; those things also exist), and some of it is good and important — like food. I make dinner sometimes. I made dinner last night. Sandwiches. Pesto, tomatoes, mozzarella cheese. Potato chips on the side. (I didn’t make those.) Delicious. Food is good and important, the fact that I make the food sometimes so my wife doesn’t have to is good and important — but I’m not proud of that. Because I don’t see it as defining.

That’s another aspect of this we struggle with, I would guess. It’s hard for us to define ourselves. It’s particularly hard for artists to define ourselves, because most of us — almost all of us — have other jobs. Almost no one makes their living exclusively from their art. And here in our capitalist society, we define ourselves first and foremost by our jobs; that is, by our income-earning vocations. Even that word is misused: it means a career or occupation (One regarded as particularly worthy and requiring great dedication, the Google tells me, so the definition is closer to what I want it to be, and I’ve just been misusing it. But I wonder how many people who use the word use it to that full definition.), but it comes from the Latin word for “to call,” vocare, so it is a calling. Something we are summoned to, something we are compelled to do — no, even that doesn’t have the right feel, because honestly, I am summoned and compelled to earn a paycheck because I have a mortgage and because I need to buy tomatoes and pesto and mozzarella for my sandwiches. A vocation should be something that thrums the iron string of our soul that Emerson wrote about in On Self-Reliance. Something that makes sense of us, and by which we make sense of ourselves and our world. My father spent five years or so working as human resources director for a tech company in Boston; but his vocation was always particle physics, and when he went back to that, he made sense to himself. So he is proud of his work at SLAC [Stanford Linear Accelerator Center], and not as proud of his work at the tech company. Similarly, I am proud of my writing, and proud of my teaching — and I mean, I guess it’s cool that I have put a lot of work into home renovation projects over the years.

I’m quite proud of this image of me, which I captured after I spent several hours installing that floor. I guess I’m proud of the floor.

So that’s the first part of pride. When you do something that is good and important and defining, then you are (or should be) proud of that. “Important” is a word in there that probably needs defining too, though it is definitely subjective for me: there’s no real reason to think that my writing is important, as I have not been groundbreaking or influential or even particularly successful with my writing; but I think it is important. And I see a distinction between my important writing, like this blog I keep trying to keep up, and my books; and my unimportant writing, like my journal or the emails I send, stuff like that.

So if that is pride, I’m not sure why it’s a thing that Christianity would be against. Other than, of course, the cynical assumption that the faith wants to put all goodness into God so that people need to rely on the church; if God is the source of all good things, then there isn’t anything for any human to be proud of, because we didn’t do that stuff, God did; he just let us borrow it. Personally I don’t like that. But then I’m not a Christian. That may be exactly the mindset they’re going for.

But I don’t think that’s the source of the idea that “Pride goeth before a fall.” (Hang on, let me check on that, because I used “Spare the rod and spoil the child” in an essay I wrote once for school and claimed it was from the Bible, and later on I looked it up and it does not in fact come from the Bible at all. I am actually proud of that essay in a particularly perverse way: I think it’s one of the worst things I’ve ever written, which it was meant to be, and it has been an effective example for my classes because it is so bad. Okay, so this one is from the Bible but I’m misquoting: it is “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18, King James Version) I think — though I agree that my understanding of Christian ideology is a pretty laughable foundation for a discussion — that the pride spoken of there is a different kind of pride: and now that I have actually found the correct quote, I feel pretty well confirmed in that.

It’s the haughty spirit. That’s the point. That’s the bad pride, the one that leads to karmic justice in some way.

See, there are plenty of people who take enormous pride in things that they didn’t even do. So it’s one thing to take pride in something that isn’t good; I’m pretty damn proud of my longstanding hobby (One might even call it a vocation?) of stapling papers in the wrong corners in order to mess with my students:

Trigger warning: if you like things being done just so and being done right, you will not like what I did to these papers.

But there’s nothing good about that.

And then there are plenty of things I am proud of which are not important — like the video games I have beaten, that sort of thing. And I already spoke of things that aren’t defining, like cooking dinner for my family. Those things may not really deserve pride — and because of that it does make me question whether I feel proud about them — but regardless, there is no harm in being proud of things that don’t really matter much.

But then there are people who are proud of things they didn’t even do: like being American. Or male. Or tall. Or white. Don’t get me wrong, you can like those things, you can appreciate being those things (I’m not really sure why you would, but to each their own): but what on Earth would make someone proud of being born in this country? What did you do to make that happen? What time and effort did you put into it? Now, if you emigrated here, went through the enormous upheaval of moving to a whole new country; if you made a life and a home here, and created a place for yourself: that would be something to be proud of. But if you are proud of the fact that were born here, well. Bill Hicks has something to say about that: (**Please note: this clip is not safe for work.)

In To Kill a Mockingbird, Miss Maudie talks about Atticus’s shooting ability, once it is revealed that he was called One-Shot Finch, after he shoots the rabid dog. The kids can’t understand why Atticus never talked about how he was a dead shot, and why he never goes shooting if he is so good at it. Miss Maudie theorizes (Falsely, in a way, because he later says what he wanted his kids to think — that courage is not a man with a gun — but this point of Maudie’s also makes sense and might be part of his reasoning) that it is because Atticus recognizes that there’s no sense in taking pride in what she calls a God-given talent. She says that being born with a good eye and a steady hand is nothing that comes from hard work and dedication; it’s just a thing that is true about Atticus, like being tall.

I don’t entirely agree with Miss Maudie — I think that shooting a gun accurately would take a hell of a lot of practice, and therefore would be something to be proud of; but also, you would need to shoot in a good way, and also in an important way, for it to earn pride in my definition — but I see her point and I agree with the idea that taking pride in something you didn’t do, something you aren’t responsible for, is silly. That’s the idea of the Bible verse, too, I think.

See, if you put in the effort on something, if you really do the work, then it’s damn difficult to be proud of it. Because first of all, you’ve seen alllllll the mistakes you made in the process of learning; and if it is something hard to do, then you made a lot of mistakes. You also know, better than anyone, how much effort you have spent, and also you should know the difference that effort made: and that should pretty clearly show you that anyone else who put in the same effort would probably make the same progress — unless you were born with a gift of some kind that contributed to your ability, like having a sharp eye and a steady hand. But if it is something really difficult, then you also recognize that your sharp eye and your steady hand are not the things that make you good, or that make you great: they make it easier for you to be good or great — but only effort and dedication makes you good, or makes you great. The physical gifts are not something you did, so not something you should be proud of: the pride comes from what you put into making yourself into someone you can be proud of. Michael Jordan certainly has physical gifts that make him a great basketball player: but he’s Michael Jordan because he had the will and the drive, and he put in the effort. Therefore, I think he should be proud of what he accomplished. Shaquille O’Neal, on the other hand — well, he should be proud that he is apparently a very nice person. And then, of course, if you do what most of us do with our passions, and you look around at other people who do the same thing, what you are bound to find is people who do it better than you. Because nobody, not even Michael Jordan, is actually the greatest: there’s always somebody better. Knowing that keeps us humble, even if we have accomplished something to be proud of.

But even though it is difficult to take pride in what do, if that thing we do is a calling, if that thing is very difficult, if that thing takes years of dedication and effort to accomplish: then we have to take pride in it. We have to. Because there’s another aspect of pride.

The pride a parent takes in a child, that I take in my wife, my friends, my family, is not the pride of accomplishment. I mean, I’m proud that I support my wife in her art (and I’m proud I make her delicious sandwiches for dinner, without which she could not continue to make art), but otherwise? Her art isn’t my accomplishment. I did nothing to make her into the artist she is, not really. My support and sandwiches were helpful, but she could have done it without them, of course. But I am so incredibly proud of what she can do. So is that like the pride that dumb people take in being born between Canada and Mexico?

No: it’s something else.

The quality of an accomplishment that makes it pride-worthy, the aspects of it that make it (to one’s subjective viewpoint) good, and important, and defining, can be boiled down to one simple emotion: the most powerful emotion. Love. I write because I love what writing can do, and I love what writing is; and therefore I love writers — and therefore, when I write, I love myself. I love when I am able to create the effects that make me love writing. I am so very proud of those moments, of those effects, of what I did, and of myself for achieving them. And yes, it is entirely subjective: but then, often, so is pride. That doesn’t make it bad.

Pride is bad when it is not based on love. That’s the second half of the proverb, the “haughty spirit.” When one bases their pride on their contempt for others, then pride is bad. When one sets oneself above others, and is proud as a corollary to that, that is bad. That leads, in a righteous universe, to destruction: to a fall. (I know it doesn’t always. This is not a righteous universe.)

So really, it’s not that it’s dumb to be proud of being an American; it’s dumb to think that other people are lesser for not being Americans. (I knew that, actually. I am proud of my country. But also, I am humbled by it, because I can never do enough to make it the country that it should be, which means I am not fully worthy of it: so my pride does not create in me an haughty spirit. What a phrase that is. Don’t you just love the KJV?) It’s not that bad to be proud of being tall, or of being white; it’s bad to think that short people are worse off, or that people who aren’t white are somehow worse or less than white people. That’s where pride goeth before destruction: at least it is to be hoped that it does goeth before destruction. Because that kind of pride should be destroyed.

That’s not the pride that people have in their children, unless those people are really damn awful. Parents who put in a lot of work helping their kids to achieve something can take pride in their accomplishment, too, but mainly, parents are proud of their kids because they love their kids. And that love is pride; that pride is really just love.

I think that pride is love turned outwards. Love is generally directed into the person, or the pursuit, or the object, for whom/for which you feel the love; or it is turned into ourselves, as we enjoy the loved thing or the loved one being around us and bringing us joy. When we are proud of someone, as when we are proud of our accomplishments, we want to share that love with others: we want to express it, we want others to see it, we want everyone to know about it. That’s pride. I am proud of my books because I love my books. I am proud of my wife because I love my wife. I want to show off my books, I want to show off my wife, because I want other people to know of my love, and I want other people to understand how much I love, and why I love, and how lucky I am to have these loves in my life: both my accomplishments, and my incredible, incomparable wife.

Also: I am sometimes not proud of being an American. Because I do not always love my country. I am always proud of my wife.

But please remember this, whoever is reading this: if you work on something hard; if you think that thing is good; if you think it is important; if you think it defines a part of you: then be proud of it. Be proud of it like a parent is proud of their child. Notice that I have not spoken of the value or the worth or the price of the thing you do of which you are proud: love has no price, and so neither, therefore, should pride. You just feel it, and want to share it: and you should. Always. And if you are a parent: be proud of your child, especially when that child is proud of themselves. Love them for who they are and for what they do: and love yourself the same way. Don’t talk yourself out of it because you could have done better, or someone else could have done better, or it wasn’t exactly what you thought it would be: just love what you did, and love yourself for doing it. Be proud.

You deserve it.

Imperfect Persistence


One of my flaws as a teacher is my insistence on persistence. I like finishing things: I don’t like leaving them incomplete. It’s a problem for my classroom because it means that I don’t always adapt quickly to how my students are taking in the material, how much they are learning from it; I have, more times than I can count, stubbornly kept on reading the same piece, the same essay, the same story, the same book, even though my students have completely lost interest, simply because WE’RE NOT DONE YET. Maybe even worse, I have gotten irritated about reading excerpts, and have gone ahead and given my students the entire piece to read, just so we can do the whole thing; then, when they get tired of it — or, honestly, if the author gets out of their golden zone and drops down into less stellar writing — and nobody is paying any attention to what I am reading, I keep reading it anyway. Why? BECAUSE WE’RE NOT DONE YET. Again, this is because I was unsatisfied with an excerpt, and insisted on reading the whole thing. (This example, by the way, comes from my experience with Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “On Self-Reliance,” which is a lyrically beautiful piece of writing, with amazing ideas in it — aaaaaand it’s also over 10,000 words long, which is about 19 pages of 19th century transcendentalist sermon. Most textbooks that cover the era or the genre have excerpts from it. I gave a class the whole thing and tried to read it to them. The excerpts were better.)

To be somewhat more fair to me, I love literature and words and writing and reading more than I can clearly explain; so for me, all of Emerson’s essay is beautiful, and essentially all of it can be inspiring. I also feel a sense of — duty, I suppose, in that I find it disrespectful to take only excerpts from a longer piece. If all Emerson had to say was the thing about trusting yourself, that’s all he would have said; obviously, he thought there was more that was worth saying, and since Emerson was an incredible genius with words and ideas, and one of my heroes and inspirations, I want to honor the man and his work by taking it in, and giving it to my students, in the form Emerson intended: all 19 pages of it. So I gave my students the whole thing to read because I thought, and I think, that it’s worth reading the whole thing, that reading the whole piece is the right thing to do.

It turned out they disagreed with me, and as always, the students win those arguments by the simple expedient of shutting down, no matter how passionately I read, or how carefully I point out the valuable material in the rest of the essay after you get past the “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.” Maybe there’s a way I could have maintained their interest as Emerson goes on and on and on — no, there’s definitely a way; I just don’t know that it’s worth it when there are other good things to read in the world, and limited time to do that reading. At some point even my desire to finish things caves in the face of continued passive resistance, and I do (I did with Emerson) give up and discard the piece in favor of something newer and more interesting for the class to work on.

Though if I think their resistance to the learning was because they were being lame, rather than me being lame in my choice of material or pedagogy, I will often re-inflict the same sort of thing on them. I mean, what if we move on from Emerson — and go straight to Thoreau? CheckMATE, teenagers! Transcendentalism IN YO FACE!

On the other hand, one of my flaws as a political activist is a distinct lack of persistence. Or maybe it’s a lack of focus: I don’t have a single cause that I fight for; inasmuch as I have a political side and a set of causes to fight for, I don’t push myself very far into that fight. I give up very easily. I will argue until the cows come home — and then I will argue with the cows — but I won’t go out and do things, won’t collect signatures or donations, won’t canvass or march, won’t join political action committees or grass roots organizations. It goes straight back to the same point I made with what I teach in my class: because as much as I love literature, I do not love being around people. I guess I won’t say I hate it, because there are certain people I like being around as much as possible; but I hate going out among strangers. It’s one of the things that makes teaching an acceptable career for me, as an introvert; because I get to know my students, in some cases quite well, and that makes me more comfortable being around them. I hate the beginning of the year, and I hate getting new students and losing old students I like; because new students in new classes are strangers, and I don’t want to be around them until I get to know them better. (I don’t have to like them, actually, but I still feel more comfortable and get along better with students I know and dislike, than with students I can’t even recognize or attach a name to.) But that same discomfort with new, strange people keeps me out of political activity: because a march is thousands of people I don’t know, and all other grass roots political activity is focused entirely on meeting new people and getting them into the fight on my side. And I don’t want to do that.

But the result is, I don’t do much to make the world a better place, even though I want to, even though, knowing my abilities, and ignoring my personality and preferences and comfort level and anxieties and everything else apart from my abilities, I always tell myself that I would be good at politics. And I would: I think well, I listen well, I speak well; I’m very good with people. But also, there’s simply no way that I could be happy and comfortable being surrounded by strangers all the time, which is essentially the life of most political activists. Certainly the life of politicians, which I have also thought (And continue to think, in my less self-aware moments) that I could be successfully. I could give a speech. I could draft a law, and argue for it. Of course, I wouldn’t be able to make and maintain the friendships and alliances that would be absolutely necessary to get anything at all done in politics; I’d always want to just go back to my office, sit by myself, maybe read something; but that doesn’t matter, right?

Thinking this way has always had me considering whether or not I should start running for political office. (Also my students frequently tell me that I would be a good candidate and they would vote for me. It would mean a whole lot more if they voted. Or knew anything about political candidates beyond the most superficial information. Hey, they’re kids; what do you expect? It’s nice to hear, which is actually their point anyway.) I could start small, maybe a local school board; then something like a state representative, and then who knows? Congressman Humphrey? Why not? I wouldn’t want to go much farther than that, since greater power requires greater compromise, and I wouldn’t want to sell out; but I hear about congresspeople like Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who do the work of the Congress, who do the research and write the bills and all the behind-the-scenes grinding that is required to get stuff done. I could do that, I think. It would be useful if I did that. And I would give a good speech, and I would be awesome in a debate. Which makes me think I could get some useful things done, if I could go that far.

It struck me hard in this strange, idle ambition of mine when I heard that Mitch McConnell, whom I loathe more than most politically opposed people in this country, but who is unquestionably one of the most effective politicians of the last half-century if not more, absolutely hated working with Barack Obama: because Obama wanted to explain the ideas behind his political goals and actions, wanted to get into the philosophy and convince McConnell to work with him on the merits of the thoughts and his ability to communicate them; and McConnell just wanted to do a fucking deal. Because that would 1000% be me, trying to get into the underlying morality and the cause and effect of any legislation or policy I wanted to pursue; and the other politicians, the deal makers and negotiators, all those goddamn extroverts, would just roll their eyes and say they had another appointment.

So no. I should not go into politics. I should not run for office. If I could just jump straight into the role for which I am suited, I would be a real asset to the country or the state or whoever I worked for — I would make a hell of a speechwriter, I think — but that’s sort of like the ambition I had when I was a kid, to work my way into the NBA by becoming a 100% never-fail flawless free-throw shooter, who they could substitute in whenever a foul was called, and then I could calmly hit all the free throws and help win the game, despite being 5’10” and essentially unathletic. The problem being, of course, that the game doesn’t work that way. To become a speechwriter for a political campaign or organization, I would have to work in the field, and especially network in the field, for years; and I would have to do all the things I don’t want to do in order to do the one thing I want to do.

This same persistence makes me a good author, because I can keep working on one story until it is a whole book. And the same lack of persistence makes me an unpublished author with five — almost seven — genuinely good novels sitting on my computer, and not on bookstore shelves. The contrast, and what seems to me to be fairly extreme opposite traits, is difficult to wrap my head around sometimes: because how can I give up so easily on some things, and fight so goddamn hard and so goddamn long on others? If I’m willing to put in so very much time and effort to write a novel, to the extent that it takes over my life at times, and becomes one of my defining attributes, that I am a writer, that I am a novelist: why on Earth won’t I fight to get my books published? Do I just want to write, but not have other people read what I write? Why would I want that? And yet, that seems to be exactly the life choice that I have made: I’ve been writing novels for almost 20 years now, and have not published a single one, other than through self-publishing. (I know, I know — hang on, I’ll come back to it.) But you see, I know, with a bone-deep conviction of total understanding, that writing is communication, and therefore requires an audience for the writing to be anything real. I want people to read what I write. I am happy that people came and read my blog two weeks ago, when I posted the chapter from my novel Brute, and I am disappointed that fewer people read the one from last week, about Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. (That combination has contributed significantly to this topic, by the way. I’ll come back to that, too.) I do want readers. I want my work to be published.

So why do I give up?

And the larger problem is, how do I get myself to change? If I can’t understand my motivations, the causes of my actions, I can’t address them, can’t change them; self-awareness is the most important factor in self-change. How do I tell myself to keep fighting for the things I give up on, when there’s no simple explanation for why I give up on those things and not on others? I’m neither 100% stubborn, nor 100% (Hey, what’s the opposite of stubborn? Wishy-washy? Flimsy? Weak-willed? Maybe adaptable.) adaptable, so I can’t just point at my nature and say “That’s just who I am, I never/always give up.” At the same time, if I’m willing to give up on things because of inherent or essential aspects of my personality — I am not going to stop being an introvert, which means I’m never going to be a good political operative — why do I keep persisting in the areas that are just going to keep hitting this wall? If I’m never going to be a good political operative, why do I keep trying to get involved in politics? If I’m never going to push myself to publish a novel, why the fuck do I keep writing them?

This is where I come back to self-publishing, then. Because honestly? It’s the perfect compromise. I have printed and sold somewhere in the hundreds of copies of my three published novels. (One has never been printed because it’s only available as an ebook. But there are a fair number of people who have read it electronically.) That means I have an audience: I have readers. The feedback I have gotten from my readers about my novels has been almost entirely positive. (Some people think I’m too wordy. No, sorry: EVERYBODY, including me, thinks I’m too wordy; some people think that’s a problem with my books. Mostly agents and publishers.) It also means I don’t have to do all the shitty things I would have to do if I were to become a professionally, traditionally published author, namely: I don’t have to compromise. I don’t have to edit my books to someone else’s standard, which standard would be almost entirely derived from what the market research said would be most profitable. Why didn’t my first novel sell? Because it was too long: it’s a young adult fantasy novel, based almost to the point of plagiarism, on Harry Potter, and it’s 600 pages long. And sure, the last HP books topped 600 pages — but the first two did not. After those first two became the most popular YA fantasy novels of all time, Rowling was able to write whatever the fuck she wanted and sell it to anyone, which is how we got The Cursed Child. (By the way, I liked parts of that. But not enough of it. And there’s no reason on Earth why it is a very short play, rather than what would likely have been a very good novel, other than Rowling decided she wanted to write a play, and was arrogant enough to think she had to be right because she’s JK Rowling. Which is also how we got this neverending TERF bullshit that has tainted the entire franchise. Sometimes persistence is not a virtue.) So once again, I want to skip all the difficult stuff and just go right to doing whatever the fuck I want to do, namely writing the very long books I enjoy writing.

However: let me also point out that the book is so long because it’s actually two and almost three books combined into one: the character has a life in the “real world,” a second life in the world of dreams which is the main fantasy aspect — and a third life in a role-playing game he runs, which I narrated as a real story, lending the book an element of swords-and-sorcery fantasy which I think is a real strength. Telling three stories means a lot of pages. Also a lot of work. But even writing this paragraph out here is making me excited about the concept all over again; maybe it’s time to go back and write the sequels I never wrote. Because I gave up on that series when it didn’t sell, even though I loved it and loved where I planned to have it go.

So maybe I do give up on writing sometimes. Well, like I said, I did eventually stop reading “On Self-Reliance” at my students. I don’t like doing things that don’t work. I don’t like wasting time. I have too much other stuff to do. More productive stuff.

More productive stuff like publishing my own books. Another accomplishment I am very proud of. And even though I don’t like being around strangers, I have, twice now, been very successful at selling my novels to strangers at a booth at the Tucson Festival of Books. Which I’m going to do again this year. And that’s an area where I actually like interacting with people: because they are book people, and I get to talk to them about pirates and stuff. And then they give me money, and they take my book away with them, and hopefully read it and enjoy it. A couple of them have told me they did read it and enjoy it, so I think I can assume that other people did, too. (I know for sure that several of my friends have read and enjoyed my books, and I’m grateful for that, and for them. I’m just saying that of the strangers who bought my books, most of them probably read the books, and some number of them enjoyed the books. A couple of those strangers have told me so.)

So then, why, if I’m happy self-publishing, if I get an audience and also a sense of accomplishment, and freedom as a writer — why do I still want to publish with a traditional legacy publishing house?

Because my other dreams and aspirations persist, too. I don’t just want to write: I want to get rich from writing. I want to be famous because of my writing. I want to be invited to speak on a panel at a convention, where I can see people dressed as my characters. I want people to write essays about my books like I have written essays about the authors whose works I admire.

It’s the same thing with politics: I don’t want to be around strangers and I don’t want to compromise; but I do want to make a difference. I do want to make the world a better place, to make people’s lives happier and more fulfilling. And sure, I’d like to be famous as a politician, too. As someone who made a difference. (Also, if I was a politician then I could get my damn books published.)

I meant for this topic to be just a brief introduction, a lil hook, to my intended goal with this post: to finish talking about Dr. King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail. There’s a whole second half, more than half, of that essay which I left off, last week. I talked to my brother, who told me the interesting truth that Martin Luther King Jr. Day is his favorite holiday: that the ideas and values represented by the holiday, associated with Dr. King, are closest to him, most important to him, compared to those associated with other holidays. And I told him that I had just written about Dr. King that weekend, about the Letter, and he asked which piece by Dr. King that was: was it the one about the long, slow arc of justice that bends towards freedom? No, I said, it was the one where he said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

“Oh,” my brother said, “the one about white moderates, about how he was disappointed by the white moderates.”

“That’s the one,” I confirmed: and immediately felt guilty. Because I left that part out. I stopped before that section of the Letter, which goes on for many more pages, covering many more ideas — and continuing to be brilliant.

I should have kept going, I thought. I didn’t finish the piece, and I left out important parts of it.

But then again, my wife, after reading the post last week, said it was good — but also that it was long. And my WordPress stats counter told me that not very many people read it. (Actually, my most popular posts continue to be my old book reviews, a couple of them in particular, and some of my essays about novels — especially the one about The Lord of the Rings and Gollum, and The Metamorphosis and Gregor Samsa.)

Regardless, though, I thought this week, I would finish analyzing the rest of the Letter. For Dr. King, another of my ideological and wordsmithing heroes; and for my brother, and for the sake of getting to the powerful statements the Letter makes in the last two-thirds, particularly about just laws and unjust laws, and about white moderates. Because, first, I want to finish the piece; and second, I worry that I am one of those white moderates who would have disappointed Dr. King. Because I don’t keep fighting for justice, don’t maintain my persistent participation in the political struggles that affect people in this country and in this world.

And thinking about that got me to here. On a subject about which, apparently, I have a lot to say. (I think I will probably finish analyzing the Letter next week. But we’ll see.)

I don’t want to be one of the white moderates who disappointed Dr. King. I don’t want to be wishy-washy, and tell myself that I’m being adaptable, when the thing I am adapting to and accepting is failure to do what is right, what should be done. If I should get my books published, I don’t want to be a coward who gave up and failed simply because I didn’t have the strength of will, the persistence, to keep fighting. If I have a role to play in achieving a more just world, I do not want to be the person who backed away from the fight simply because I don’t feel comfortable around strangers.

But the answer to this is not what I am implying there — what I frequently catch myself saying to myself, as a criticism, until I remember that it should not be a criticism, not even of myself. The answer is not to never give up, ever, for any reason under any circumstances ever ever ever. The answer is not to become a zealot who never compromises, to become an extremist. (Though Dr. King makes a wonderful point about extremists in the Letter, calling himself an extremist for love, and for freedom, and for justice. I could be that kind of extremist, I think.) Dr. King himself was a moderate: he wanted change to come without violence, without tearing down the systems and institutions that were tainted with intolerance and injustice. He wanted this country to be better: but he still wanted it to be this country.

I’m reading a book, currently — Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein — that is about extremists who were willing to do anything to achieve their ideological goals: they recognized that the only way to really achieve the change they wanted was to create a crisis, a shock, that would set a people back on their heels, and while the people were all reeling, the changes could be implemented because people wouldn’t be able to resist. And those people? They’re evil. Not only because their ideas were wrong and bad for humanity (The specific group Klein is focusing on is the neoliberal economists of the University of Chicago, under their prophet Milton Friedman — and fuck that guy), but because they refused to accept anything less than everything. They were not moderates. Their economic theory requires absolute purity, not a single element of compromise; and so they are zealots. And because Friedman was himself a zealot, who spent his long life fighting for this one cause, for this one idea, for the supremacy of his theories and the absolute elimination of all else, he did incalculable harm to this world. And it stuns me, and I’ve commented to myself in my annotations in the book (Of course I annotate books I read. Don’t you?), that Friedman and his colleagues and disciples could have such complete courage in their convictions, such unwavering confidence in themselves and their rightness, and their righteousness. Such complete, perfect, persistence. The ideology and Friedman’s example both lend strength to that tendency; but I think that’s a sign of zealotry in all cases, that absolute unquestioning confidence. And zealotry, in all cases, is bad.

I don’t want to be a zealot. Not even for a good cause. But I also don’t want to be weak, don’t want to give up when a fight is worth fighting.

So the answer?

Compromise.

Self-publishing my novels is the right thing for me to do. It’s where my focus and my energy should go. I may send away queries to agents, sure, and I may even hit the lottery and get published; but otherwise, I should compromise between what I want, and what the reality of my strengths and weaknesses dictate. There’s no point in wishing I could network with the publishing industry and get published that way; it’s not who I am. Sure, self-publishing means I am unlikely to ever get rich and famous from my writing; but that’s the idea of compromise: you don’t get all of what you want. But you focus on the main goals, and you work hard to get those, even if you have to give up something else.

My main goal has always been to be a writer. To create worlds. Part of that means I need to have people read and participate in my writing. That’s the main goal. That’s what’s important. And if I have to give up fame and money in order to achieve that? Fine. Probably better for me, even if it doesn’t feel like that.

Another of my main goals has always been to help people. This one, like the goal of becoming a writer, is essential to who I am, and who I want to be. If I want to make a difference, it doesn’t have to be a difference that affects the whole world, or even the whole country or the whole state: making a difference for one person is making a difference in the world. And I do that: for my family and friends, for my readers, and for my students. And since I’ve had thousands of students, I can actually say that I’ve had a pretty strong impact on the world around me, because I have had an effect on a pretty big number of people.

And I did it by staying true to who I am, and knowing what I can do and do well, and then doing that, exactly that. Not by wishing I could do something else, or be someone I am not. I do wish, sometimes, that I could do or be more than I am — I wish I was more tech-savvy as a teacher, and more organized, and better about using different styles of teaching and learning; and I wish I could be more of an extrovert when it would be useful to interact more with other people — but I have my strongest effect, and make my greatest progress, by doing what I do well, and persisting in that. Knowing what is actually important and what is actually good — and knowing, on the other hand, what would be nice, but isn’t necessary. And also, in contrast to Milton Friedman and his Chicago Boys (And if you want to know why I will continue to say #FUCKMILTONFRIEDMAN, read Shock Doctrine, or listen to Unfucking the Republic.), being open to the idea that what you think is the most important thing, and what you think is true, may not be — and being willing to learn what is true. That is also part of knowing what is really important, what is really good. I believe that reading is vital for everyone, that to be able to have a full and valuable life you must be literate: but I am coming to accept the idea that people don’t need to read. It’s still good and always will be, and for me personally it is vital; but not everyone needs to read. I can accept that. Because I’m not a zealot. And I’m not an asshole.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t have some confidence, some persistence in believing that what you think is actually true: you need some. I have to believe my writing is good enough to publish, or I would never put it in front of any audience, and then I would not be a writer. It’s important to believe in yourself and your decisions, to trust your decisions about what is important, which means you need to trust yourself; but the best way to do that, in my experience, is to trust your process whereby you came to the decision, and to base it on good processes: gather information, verify the information, draw conclusions from what you know; be open to newer or better information, even if it contradicts what you used to believe. As long as you are willing to abide by new information (also, good information), then what you decide based on what you currently know is the best you can do: and that should be good enough. Trust yourself — but verify your information. Friedman never questioned himself, not even when other facts interfered with his conclusions; he had an explanation for everything that showed how his theories weren’t flawed, it was the world that was wrong. That’s too much self-confidence. That’s arrogance and zealotry. But also, when I ask why I never got published, part of me wants to think it is because I’m not a good writer: and I know that isn’t true. I am a good writer.

What I am, is someone who has read Emerson’s “On Self-Reliance,” the whole thing. I understand what he meant when he said “Trust thyself.” And I know that his point rests on an older commandment, which is even more important: Know thyself. Know what you can do. Know what you should do. And when those two streams converge, when the two strings vibrate in harmony: keep going, keep fighting, and never give up.

Losing Spoons

Sorry I haven’t been posting regularly. See, writing a blog, even a short one about happy things, costs me some number of productivity spoons; and I find that I have fewer productivity spoons left to me these days.

(By the way: if you’re not aware of spoon theory, here’s a visual. Read more here.)

This has been a shift for me, because I don’t normally run out of spoons. Well, I do, but I have a lot to spend, most days. I spend a lot of them at work, but I can still usually do a few things in the evening; I can go to the gym; I can go to the grocery store and make dinner; I can sometimes do a task for school, like set up a lesson for the next day. I can almost always get something written even on a school night, if it’s not one of the times in the school year when I’m burnt and exhausted and hate everything. And on the weekends, I can usually spend the entire time working, on grading, or chores, or my writing.

Life’s a lot easier when you don’t have a chronic disease or the weight of mental health concerns.

But my usual easy productivity has not been with me for the last month. Now I have to count my spoons.

It’s remarkable, and I wasn’t prepared for it. I really thought I would be able to do extra things: I thought I would be able to get extra writing done, since I don’t have to spend as much time at work; I thought I would be able to provide extra emotional support to my friends and family — and my students. The first week or two I was throwing around offers to help in any way I could; I suppose I’m lucky that nobody really took me up on it, because if I had had to spend my energy doing extra tasks for others, I’m not sure what I would have had to drop. I was angry with myself for the first couple of weeks: why was I so tired? And if I was so tired, why wasn’t I sleeping? Why wasn’t I getting more things done?

It didn’t really dawn on me at first that the answers were in some of the questions, and all I had to do was put the pieces together: I am tired because I’m not sleeping, and because everything I do — everything — is harder. I’m not sleeping for the same reason that everything is harder: because I am constantly afraid, constantly anxious, constantly trying to find something to do to solve the problem — and constantly aware that I cannot solve this problem. And of course, the more I worry, the less I sleep, and then I have less energy to do things, including worry, but worrying is never the thing I let go of in order to do other stuff: I worry first, and then whatever energy I have left over goes to my job and my daily tasks. I spend more energy getting mad at myself for not getting more done during the day, and because I’m tired and on edge, and I struggle with my temper, I am constantly getting mad at anything and everything around me. And then I feel bad because my family has to walk on eggshells around me so that I don’t snap at them. And there’s some more energy spent, and even less accomplished.

I get it now, I understand; I’m still not dealing with it well, though. I still get angry with myself for not doing more. It’s weird: somehow I still feel pressure to use this extra free time before it runs out, like I find myself thinking that I should do more writing or record more podcasts before the quarantine is over and I have to start going out and doing things more. Like this is a vacation.

But that’s not what this is. This is a natural disaster.

I’ve been through a few of those: a hurricane and more than one blizzard in Massachusetts; a wildfire in California; a flood in Oregon. None of them on the scale of Hurricane Katrina or Maria, or the Loma Prieta or Northridge earthquakes. But they were bad enough to show me what a natural disaster feels like: you watch things fall apart that you had always counted on; you watch danger arise from a direction and in a way that you never expected; you watch that danger come for you, or for those you love: and there’s nothing you can do. Except realize what you are about to lose. And realize you have no idea what to do if and when you lose it, how you will get it back, how you will live without it.

That’s what this is. Covid-19 has taken away things we never expected to lose, and we are in danger of losing even more, if we haven’t already lost everything. And I am aware of how lucky I am to be able to say that I have not lost everything. I see people on social media who have, and I can’t — no, I was going to say I can’t imagine what that would feel like; but I can imagine. That’s a lot of what I do during the day. I imagine what I could lose, and how it would feel, and what I would do about it. And every time I think about, what if I lose someone I love, or what if I lose my job and my home, I realize: there’s nothing I could do about it. I assume I’d adapt and survive, I assume I’d be able to ask for and receive some help; but I don’t know. I just don’t know. I know I couldn’t fix the problem, couldn’t recover the loss. I know I’d be devastated. I don’t know how I’d deal with it. Maybe I wouldn’t be able to. I worry about all of it.

That’s why I can’t get much writing done. Not even happy little blogs: because it turns out that I need to feel happy before I can post happy things; or at least, I need to be close enough to happy to recognize what would be a good happy thing to post. I can write things that  I’m not actually feeling in the moment, but when I try to think up a good topic, or when I try to pick a good link to share, if I’m feeling down or exhausted or angry or afraid, nothing seems like a good idea. Which I also get mad at myself for, by the way. So that’s fun.

This is what it feels like to have to count your spoons. To have a chronic illness, or a mental health condition like anxiety or depression. It feels like nothing works right. And I suspect that you always feel like it’s your fault, like if you could only deal with it better, be smarter, more thoughtful and aware and organized, then everything would be better. Though maybe people who deal with this all the time are smarter about it than I am, maybe they know that they can’t blame themselves for something that’s outside of their control. All I know is that that thought doesn’t help me. Knowing that I can’t do anything about it doesn’t keep me from worrying about it. About anything. Knowing that it’s not my fault doesn’t keep me from getting angry at myself.

I even have that little annoying thing that clearly isn’t the main issue, but keeps popping up and irritating me, because it’s kind of a pain and it’s clearly connected to the larger problems, so when the little irritation pops into my consciousness, it makes me think of the bigger issues, which sets me on edge; at the same time, I can’t believe I also have to deal with that little fucking thing that just won’t go away. I have eczema, you see. On my hands. They itch. And then the skin dries out, and splits, and hurts. And itches more. It’s made worse by repeated hand washing, and by stress, so. Fucking annoying. I feel bad bitching about it, because people are dealing with things that are a thousand times worse, but that only makes it more irritating, because goddammit, my hands itch, and maybe I should be Zen enough to rise above it, but I can’t, and I feel lame and I wish I could just make it stop but I can’t control anything but I can still worry about it.

And around and around we go. Using up our spoons. And getting nothing done.

This wasn’t even the blog I was going to write; I was going to write about my students. And part of me thinks I should add that right here, right now, make the point I was actually going to make; but you know what? I don’t want to spend the spoons. I need to call my dad, and I want to maybe record a chapter of the book I’m reading to my students for their distance learning English class. So I think I will stop here, and write about my students tomorrow. Or maybe the next day.

I’m grateful, honestly, that I’ve had this experience, because I think I get it now, what it is like to have to count your spoons. I’ve been able to sympathize with the people I know who have to do it, but I could never empathize. Now I think I can. But I also realize: if this disaster, and the weight of the worry that I’ve been carrying around for a month now, have reduced my formerly unlimited number of spoons to some number I have to count: what has it done to people who had to count their spoons in the first place?

And the scariest thing of all is: what if this doesn’t stop? I mean, that’s what it’s like to have a chronic illness: you have to recognize that the situation will, or at least may, be permanent. You’ll always have to count your spoons, forever. I  won’t have to face that, at least not with the current pandemic; it may take a year for things to get back to normal-ish, but there will be a vaccine, and things will improve; I don’t know how long the economic damage will last, but I know it won’t be forever. But for some people, the changes  wrought by this disaster will be permanent. And maybe they will be for me, too. Or if that doesn’t happen with this disaster, maybe it will happen with a future one. At some point, I will have to face and deal with a permanent loss, a reduction in my capacities and abilities, a change in my life, that will never get better. And then another one, and then another one.

I think, between now and then, and using what I have learned and what I am going through now, I have to learn to accept that loss, that reduction, that change, and keep going forward with what I have left to me. I’m sure I can do it; I know everybody does. We deal with loss for as long as we live. I hope I am learning how. I hope the learning helps.

I mean, it’s kinda new.

New Year, New Me. Right?

Not really, though.

Nothing much changed for me in 2019. I’m still married to the same perfect woman, who still enchants me with every breath and every glance; I’m still pet-parent to the same two dogs, the same tortoise, and the same (occasionally obnoxious) cockatiel; I’m still teaching at the same school — which means I have many of the same students — and still writing, still working on the same time-traveling Irish pirate story, still not writing enough and still mad at myself about it.

I’m still upset about the state of the world, still ambivalent about what I should be doing about it beyond what I already do.

And of course, I still hate Trump.

There are some changes. My wife has made big changes, which of course affect me, mainly by making me proud: I am enormously, heart-shakingly proud of her strength, I am proud of her incredible talent and imagination, I am proud of the world that it has continued to become more aware of how amazing my wife is — and it is finally starting to reward her for her never-ceasing efforts.

We moved into a new house, which is smaller and cheaper than the last; it’s been nice to ease the financial burden, and it’s showed us how much room we actually need (More than this place, less than the last), and that, after seven residences in the last six years, we would really like to set down roots and own a home again. Though I am wary of the potential coming economic crash: last time, we bought a house just before the economy burst into flames; I’d like to be a little more careful and intentional this time. So maybe that’s new.

I did manage to sell my books, though still not to a publisher nor an agent; I sold them directly, at the Tucson Festival of Books. Not the vision of authorial success I once had, but nonetheless: standing behind a table and talking to people about my book, and watching them agree to buy it and hand over money, was an extraordinary feeling, one I hope to repeat this year. And I did start sending out queries again, because my wife has shown me, as she always does, that artists don’t give up. Ever.

I was a better friend this past year than I have been in a long time; I grew closer to the people whose company I enjoy and whose support I rely on, and I’m happy about that.

And, of course, I’m one year closer to dying, whenever that may happen; but I still don’t care. Death comes for all of us, and I see no reason to spend any time watching it come. I hope, and I try to behave so that I will welcome it when it comes and pass away with no regrets; but if that doesn’t happen, if it comes too quickly or I have done the wrong things, still I would rather have lived than not have lived at all; still I am happy and grateful for the time I have had, the memories I have created (and even the ones I have forgotten), the people I have known, and the deeds I have done.

 

I don’t have wisdom to share: if anything, this year has taught me more than most years about how naive and ignorant I still am. I am writing this on a whim, and trying to decide if I should continue whimming on this blog for this coming year. I dunno. It’s good for me to write, but I have to write the third book in my pirate trilogy, and I want to get it done ASAP, because I have several more ideas I want to pursue — but first, I have to finish a story, something I still struggle with. I have no idea if this blog is good for people to read. I  hope so. I hope this is a good thing. I intend to continue doing the same good things into this next year, hopefully make some good changes, hopefully continue to learn and grow.

One thing is for damn sure: I’m going to put in time and effort to make sure that Donald Trump is voted out of office in November. So I warn you now, this blog will likely become much more political over the coming eleven months. It will probably get agitating to those who read this regularly, but I don’t care (No, I do care: and I’m sorry. But also, I’m going to do it anyway.). We all need to be agitated, because the alternative is complacent: and that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.

 

I wish you all, and myself, a wonderful new year, full of hopes and fulfillments. Let’s make this one a good one.

This 100th Morning

This morning I am writing my 100th daily post in a row.

I’m quite proud of this: I didn’t miss a day, and I ran the gamut of posts, from short jokes or links to long essays on important topics, with everything in between. It has been extremely good for me to have this daily deadline, especially during the last few months of the school year, when I tend to want to do nothing strenuous or intellectually challenging because I have to summon so much energy just to keep teaching. This blog has kept me writing, and it makes me happy and proud.

I’m very thankful for the people who have been reading: the numbers on this blog have all gone up, subscribers, visitors, and viewers. I admit that sometimes I’m surprised that people still come and read this, considering some of the crap I’ve said on here — both silly things and offensive, controversial things —  but I am grateful that you do, indeed, seem to  keep coming here to read what I say.

And I hate to do this to you.

But I have to shift my focus. It’s summertime, and though it sounds long it feels short; and this is the best chance I have to finish my book. The Adventures of Damnation Kane, Volume II. I have to keep my promise: I told people at the Festival of Books that I would have the second volume edited and published within a month or two; I didn’t make that deadline, but I can at least do it now.

I don’t plan to stop blogging: there are still things I want and need to say, and this is the best place to do it. I just won’t be doing it as much, at least for a little while. The book really is nearly  done: the main story is written and typed already, I just need to format and edit it; I’m nearly done with the bonus chapters, at least in first draft. So I am hopeful that it will be finished soon, and then maybe I can go back to daily posts — though there is also that third volume out there, waiting to be written . . .

 

I hope this doesn’t drive people away. I hope I’ve earned enough of your kindness and consideration that you will let me finish this other project without feeling that I’m too lame for not being able to do both. Who knows? Maybe I can do both. (I’m pretty sure I can’t do both and move, which pretty much eliminates blogging for the next week or so.) Maybe I can manage a really short post a day, just something to spark a thought or bring a snort of laughter. I’ll try. And I’ll keep trying. Even if you all do stop visiting here and reading what I have written.

Thanks again, and see you soon?

Also, read my book: the second volume is forthcoming.

The Adventures of Damnation Kane