"It's just a work of fiction"

A phrase that I find entirely frustrating is "it's just a work of fiction" or anything along those lines. This is usually said when a person criticizes a work of fiction, and then someone else (usually someone who enjoyed said word of fiction) will rebut with "It's just a work of fiction."

The problem with this mindset is that fiction is never just a work of fiction, especially fiction that is written with a purpose of touching people in a certain way. This comes to mind because I was just reading a blog post about the problems with The Shack (some popular novel amongst Christians that I probably won't be reading any time soon). Quite a few times in the comments, people were saying "It's just fiction." As if saying The Shack is only fiction negates the fact that there are apparently quite a few Biblical issues in the book.

Humans are such ignorant and amusing creatures. We think we can watch shows, read books, basically inundate our entire being with fiction, and yet still not be influenced by it. For example, we women watch silly Hollywood romance movies and we think, "Oh, I know this isn't realistic, so obviously I'm not going to expect this in my real life romance," but there is a part of us that really does want a Hollywood romance. There is a part of us that is influenced by all those romcoms and tear-jerkers. It is not "just fiction." What goes into the mind does not simply fall back out if you stuff it in there over and over and over again. 

Such is also the case with a fiction novel you may read only once. So many people have read The Shack and said it completely changed their lives (ironically it is those very same people who will attack someone who criticizes the book by saying "It's just fiction"). Now tell me, if a book is just fiction, and by implication shouldn't be taken seriously at all, how can it change your life? 

Then there are people that use the phrase when a work of fiction is offensive. A particular favorite of mine is Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors. Personally, I've never read the book, but I'm sure many people were saying "It's just fiction" when the book was published. Yeah, it's just a fiction book that gave step-by-step instructions in how to carry out a successful murder. James Perry says he used the book as a manual on how to carry out a triple homicide. Obviously not just fiction to him (obviously not just fiction to the 4th circuit US Court of Appeals either). Fiction is powerful stuff.

Words have power. Fiction has power. It's a cop-out response to say "It's just a work of fiction." It is never just a work of fiction. People take the words of fiction to heart. I might not agree with everyone Plato taught, but his cave analogy is quite relevant here. We are so heavily influenced by the artists of society, and we don't even realize it.  We like to imagine we aren't influenced by fiction, but that's just silly. 

Plain Jane romance

In trying to find romance novels with normal-looking characters, all I can find is stories with gorgeous guys and plain Janes... because obviously that is way more realistic than the stereotypical beautiful heroine hooking up with the gorgeous hero.

By "normal-looking" I mean your average human being that is neither drop-dead fake Hollywood gorgeous nor homely. Most people are in a gray area where they can either be straight-up ugly or straight-up beautiful if they either let themselves go and look like Sasquatch or get themselves a Hollywood pit crew to do their hair, make-up, diet, weight training, etc. That's your average person, and that is the type of person I was trying to find in novels. Just your average subjective beauties (where some find them ugly, some find them average, and some find them good-looking).

Instead I find novels with the perfect 10 guys, and either deformed or plain Jane women with serious self-esteem issues. In fact, I have such a novel where the woman has a huge red-wine colored birthmark covering half of her face and the guy is handsome... or he might have also been deformed as well. Either way, they (or she) are deformed. It can't simply be normal. It has to be extreme ugly. ... and this is a Christian romance.

Then there are the fat women with the good looking man. I'm not saying such a matching is impossible. In fact, many a good-looking fellow likes him a woman with extra meat on her bones. It's just bothersome, because it's used as a gimmick. "Oh look at my story. I'm so deep, because I have a fat woman instead of the stereotypical perfect beauty." Yeah, except your story still has the unrealistically gorgeous hero.

Funniest of all is the plain Jane/ugly Betty coupled with the blind guy. ... (sigh). Because heaven forbid a man that can actually see hook up with such a woman. "Here you go, Steve Wonder. Take the ugly woman. Not like you can see her horse face anyways."

And I know novels are for escaping the real world and diving into fantasy, but it is sometimes nice for fantasy to be somewhat realistic. If people are willing to read romance novels about deformed, blind, and plain Jane women, surely they would be willing to read about normal-looking couples... or maybe not. I would at least.

NaNoWriMo

If the point of NaNo is to write 50K words on a new story in 1 month, then I have now reached that goal. If the point of NaNo is to write an entire novel in 1 month, I am pretty sure that is not going to happen. I thought the purpose was to simply write 50K, but all the little emails they send us with the "pep talks" to encourage us to finish the 50K keep saying "finish a novel," "finish a novel," "finish a novel."

Dude. Last I checked, a decent novel is definitely longer than 50K words (especially fantasy novels), and I most certainly am not going to be writing 75K words or more in less than 30 days. These pep talk people need to get their lingo straight, because I'm starting to feel like a failure.

Also, my Word is weird, because it counts quotation marks as words. This means I need to write a couple thousand over 50K just to be on the safe side with my word count. Stupid Word.

Wealth Of Nations

Not really a rant or extreme opinion of any sort, but I just finished reading An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, the Father of Economics. No, I did not read the book just for the fun of it. I'm not that much of a nerd. I read it for a directed study class.

I had no idea what to expect going into the course, because I really didn't know anything about economics beyond what I "learned " in AP Macroeconomics (I didn't really learn much in that class. I would have failed if not for a few grade-booster tests at the end of the semester so that half of the class wouldn't fail). To be honest, I didn't even know who Adam Smith was going into the course. Economics never really interested me before.

I am interested now. I imagine after reading Wealth of Nations one will either be turned on to the study of economics (either to prove Smith wrong or to delve deeper into the new ideas Smith put forth to see how much they have held true over the past 200+ years), or be completely turned off by the study of economics.

The most surprising thing about his book (once I learned a bit about who Adam Smith was) is that he is not a supporter of laissez faire economics. There are quite a few sections in the book where Smith supports government regulation of business for this, that or the other reason. From what I understand, the general assumption is that Adam Smith is a 100% capitalist that would not approve of any regulations on business at all. That is not what he thinks at all. Certainly he thinks some of the market should be left alone, but he acknowledges human nature is naturally self-interested (which is different than selfish in Smith's vocabulary), and so it is necessary to make sure this self-interest won't hurt the Wealth of the Nation over all.

People have also made the assumption that Smith would support the rich businessman and disdain the laborer. That is not the impression I got at all while reading his book. At one point he even says that laborers are necessary for a business to work, and so they need to be treated decently. He says if the working class is not happy, then society will not be happy. It was like Marx read that bit and expanded on it. In fact, Marx did read Wealth of Nations. He simply thought Smith was too naive, for lack of a better term, in his views and took Smith's ideas about laborers to the extreme.

Now this is not to say Smith was without error in his idea about the economy. He was writing when a free market economy was in its early stages, and so he obviously could not know all the intricacies of how a free market would work (free market being a bit of a misnomer, since, as I stated earlier, he believes in some regulations). He set up a superb foundation for future scholars though, and if nothing else, any person interested in economics should read Wealth of Nations just to see what the "father" had to say on the matter. It is tedious, but worth the read. Actually, even if you aren't currently interested in economics, it's a good educational read regardless.

p.s. I did not include any quotes from the text, because that would require me looking them up. The book is 947 pages long. I am not going to reread the entire thing just to find relevant quotes. I already have to write a 15 page paper on the guy. No need to put any effort into this blog post as well. ... ;)

As a bit of a side note, I also had to read Theory of Moral Sentiments before reading Wealth of Nations. I do think reading Theory of Moral Sentiments before Wealth of Nations really helps to give a more complete picture of Smith, so one can see he is not as cold-hearted as Wealth of Nations might lead one to believe. Or maybe I just like Smith.

So I guess this was like a book review of sorts, except I didn't give a brief summary of what is in the book. Brief summary: economics. Enjoy.

Tall, Dark, and Handsome

You know what is pathetic? I was going to write a blog on three descriptive terms/phrases used in writing that I don’t like, and am now realizing I’m going to have to split this up because it was getting too long (partly because I’m a rambler). So, in order to shorten things, I shall start with the biggest offender of them all: “tall, dark, and handsome.”

Let me first give you a few examples of men (real and characters) that would classify, in the classical sense, as “tall, dark, and handsome”: Clark Gable, James Bond (minus the most recent), Aragorn, Gerard Butler, and Hugh Jackman.

One thing to take note of… allof these men are white. Which raises the question, why are they being characterized as “dark?” Why, because their hair is dark of course. Obviously that is the only qualification for being labeled as“dark” in the “tall, dark, and handsome” category.

Wherein lies my main issue with the term. Authors are always talking about a white man,and never about a man who is actually dark. What would you call a tall and handsome man that is of a darker complexion? Tall, dark, dark, and handsome?And what about men of dark complexion that dye their hair blond? Are they no longer dark? And what if I were to start dating an East Indian man who was tall and handsome, and I described him to my friends as “tall, dark, and handsome”?Why, they would get the impression that my boyfriend was white, because of them is application of the term “dark.” It’d be quite a curfoodle. (which isn’t actually a word, as it turns out. Sure, “ain’t” is in the dictionary, but curfoodle can’t be found but in four places on the internet?!) Quite frankly, I find the term lazy and very Euro-centric (ignoring the fact that there are now actually dark men in Europe… and that many Greek men have always been “dark.” You get my point, though).

Moving on to real examples of a“tall, dark, and handsome” men: Denzel Washington, of course. Antonio Banderas(though I have no idea how tall he is). Billy Dee Williams was probably considered quite handsome in his day. Also,in trying to find tall, “handsome” Asian men on Google, I found this. Last, there is Oded Fehr.

Oh. Comparison: Oded Fehr v.Brendan Fraser. Both in The Mummy. Obviously we can all agree that Oded is obviously the dark one, but not if we are using the term “tall, dark and handsome.”

Moving on, tall and handsome are very subjective terms. To me, any man over 5’10 is tall. To a girl that is 5’10, a man who is 5’10 isn’t tall. Let’s be a bit more descriptive, shall we? And handsome? Some girls think Robert Pattison is “handsome.” Personally, Ithink the man is the furthest thing from. I think Spock (as played by Leonard Nimoy) is handsome. Highly subjective.

In sum, if a person is going to bother to describe someone, a description better than "tall, dark, and handsome" would be much appreciated. And really, if a person can write 70K+ words for a novel, you'd think they would be able to come up with a few extra words to describe a man. It's not like an extra 10 words would kill them. Lazy cliches.

Too humble musicians

Madison and Hamilton were able to spit out the Federalist papers (those long, extremely complicated pieces of work) one every few days or so, and I can’t even be bothered to write a simple blog once a month. I feel a bit pathetic.

So, it’s the last day of the month, and here I am with no topic to discuss (well, I wrote something up, but it needs lots of editing, and I don’t have the time for it now). Since I’m a slacker, I’m just gonna put up a blog post I had written a while ago, but didn’t post originally because I didn’t like it (ha. You’re getting my reject blog post. Bet that makes you feel special)

Here it is:

So last night on a forum [not actually last night, as I wrote this up a while ago], a guy posted a thread asking if any musicians were on the forum. If so, what instruments did they play, how long, what type of music, etc.

A few men replied saying they were musicians, and were like “I’ve been a beginner on the guitar since 1963, I'm still learning stuff and know there's so much more to learn.” When I read response after response saying stuff like that I grew rather peeved. At first I wasn’t sure why. I thought maybe it was the (false?) humility they were displaying, but then I realized it bugged me because it made me feel insignificant, like they were belittling me. I realize that was not their intent, but that is how it felt.

I am an actual beginner on guitar. I’ve been playing less than 2 years, I’m self taught and not highly motivated, so my skills are rather amateurish. Hearing a bunch of men who are obviously skilled on their instrument-of-choice by now, after playing for numerous years, say they are just beginners was like they were discounting anyone who is an actual beginner. If those men are beginners, what does that make us actual beginners? Where does that leave us?

That would be like a Sensai saying she is a white-belt. No. She is not a white belt. She is a blackbelt. White belts are beginners in karate. Black belts are not. Yes, we can all call ourselves students, because we are all continuously learning, but the title of beginner only goes to people who just began, hence the word “beginner.” Likewise, an advanced musician could say “I’m a student of music, always learning something new.” But they should not say “I’m a beginner.”

It’s also annoying to me when musicians try to downplay their skills. There is a difference between being humble and sounding ridiculous.

It may sound like simple semantics, but that is not how it feels to me.

I can add, after reading Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, that the “(false?) humility” is something that bugs me. Smith points out that we are more prone to like a person that is slightly too vain over a person that is slightly too humble. This is because we can at least admire the slightly vain person for striving towards excellence. We cannot admire the too humble person for underestimating the praise actually due them. Sometimes we may even scorn them because it makes us angry that they underestimate their true worth.

A person who has been playing an instrument for 20+ years is prone to be very good at that instrument, and to call themselves a “beginner” is simply too humble. It underestimates the praise they are truly due. It isn’t to be admired. Humility at the correct level is worth admiring (like the distinction I made between saying “I am still a student/still learning” over saying “I am still a beginner”), but a humility too extreme is not worth admiring and is off-putting.

[To avoid being hypocritical in my own post, I'm not a beginner on the guitar. I'm not a skilled guitar player, to be sure, but I am decent.]

When Christians get too theological

While I am progressively growing to prefer discussions about Christ over other talk, I find that overly-theological and philosophical discussion from Christians can get really frustrating. In particular (and I may be shooting myself in the foot with what I am about to say, since I have this blog linked to the place I am about to reference), it bugs me when a person asks a simple question and the answers seem entirely too philosophical.

To use a completely ridiculous example (that I hope will never occur in real life anywhere), a conversation between the inquirer and the answering Christian might go down something like this:

"Do you prefer pizza or fried chicken?" asked John.

Mary's brow creased. "It's not either or. I can like both. Maybe I might be fasting meats, and so I need to eat only cheese pizza on a particular day. Then I would prefer pizza. Or maybe God has told me not to eat cheese for a month, so it would be fried chicken."

"Okay so... nevermind. Forget it."

It's absolutely ridiculous. Instead of simply answering the question, Christians seem to have to make it so complicated.

Yes, sometimes questions are too simplistic, but you can always give an answer without becoming some sort of crazy philosopher. We aren't asking for the answer Aquinas would have been most likely to give. (In which case it would be more like "Well, it may seem like pizza is best for this, that, and the other reason, but truly fried chicken is the best for this, that, and the other reason." ... fried chicken is better, btw)

To give a more theological example:

"I'm confused. Do girls prefer a man that would give a huge proposal or a man that would give a small proposal?"John asked.

Mary shook her head. "Your question is too simplistic. It's not about how the man proposes. It's about how he acts towards the girl before he proposes. Then the girl will say yes whether he proposes to her on a cruise with a stringed quartet or on the back of his pickup truck."

John blinked. "Yeah but, even if she likes the dude, don't girls want big proposals and stuff?"

"John, you're not listening. The proposal doesn't matter. Look, if I am dating a Godly man that is kind, and loving toward his family, then I am going to be happy to marry him -God willing- no matter how he proposes."

"Okay, so godliness is important to a Christian woman when it comes to marriage, and if I am striving to draw nearer to God, and treat my woman good, she is gonna say yes to my proposal. Does that mean I can skip buying the big ring if, as you seem to be saying, proposals don't even matter anyways?"

"Marriage is about the holy union between a man, woman, and God. Rings are materialistic and should not be the focus of marriage. This is not that hard to understand."

John sighed, and slowly flexed his hands that had been curling into fists. "Right. Okay. Thanks so much for your very helpful advice."

Now, if you had two normal people, I imagine the convo might go down something like this:

"I'm confused. Do girls prefer a man that would give a huge proposal or a man that would give a small proposal?"John asked.

"Your question is took simplistic," said Mary. "Some girls are going to prefer big proposals, and some are going to prefer small proposals."

"Oh. But how can you know what type a girl would prefer?"

"Ask her friends."

"It's that easy?"

Mary smiled, and chuckled slightly. "It's that easy."

John felt his cheeks growing warm, and rubbed at the back of his neck. "Wow."

(as an aside, I always feel weird writing about females chuckling. Yeah, we chuckle, but it still seems like odd phrasing)

Don't get me wrong, I love talking about God. My mom and I have some great conversations about holiness, how to make it easier to read your Bible daily, etc. It's just that sometimes I think Christians over-analyze simple questions. It is not a requirement to make everything deep and religious. Sometimes, a question is just a question. If I ask "Do I look good in this dress?" I do not need you to respond with "Would God think you look good in that dress?" [I just gave myself a giggle]

I think it says something that this post is coming from a girl whose family and friends have accused of being entirely too analytic at times. What does it say about someone's analytic tendencies if a habitual over-analyzer thinks you are analyzing things too much?