Uncategorized

What did I do this weekend?

With good friends, Dan and Christy, I sailed aboard the Chardonnay II, in Monterey Bay, out of Santa Cruz, CA. Did the Afternoon Sail. The Chardonnay II is a 70-foot luxury sailing yacht designed for speed out on the open ocean.

And it was an absolutely glorious, GORGEOUS day!  We left harbor at 2 p.m. on Saturday, on a pretty full compliment, by the looks of things. On this sail, free beer and pizza were provided by the Santa Cruz Mountain Brewery (well, at least the beer was provided by these guys; not sure who provided the pizza) Not a partaker of alcohol, I passed on the “Barley Sandwiches,” my dad used to call them, but had no trouble whatsoever with the pizza. They just kept comin around and I kept eatin! Ate at straight-and-level, and ate at 45 degrees. Ate with the sea breeze in my hair, ate watching other sail- and motorboats pass by.

Now, THIS is the way to eat pizza!

Cheese, pepperoni, mushrooms and sausage, pesto, and my personal favorite, Hawai’ian (though I was impressed with the pesto) were served. For 2 hours we sailed around Monterey Bay, between the Santa Cruz’s lighthouse point and the Santa Cruz harbor. Even saw some porpoises/dolphins on the way back to the harbor.

Now, I don’t know the nautical for being angled at 45 degrees or whatever it was we were at, but when under full sail and sailing across the bay, I was also quite impressed with the beer pouring services of the two crew members at said 45-degree angle!  Quite skilled! Such yankin-and-bankin also gave new meaning to “hitting the target” in The Head. Luckily, the Head’s deck had a perfectly placed angled corner built into the deck to better steady one’s self during such high-angled maneuvers….

There is just “something” about sailing along with the wind and the birds and the sun on your face. The water was very calm (a GOOD thing, given I seem prone to sea sickness), so we all just kicked back and enjoyed the ride. I don’t seem to relax much, but this was total relaxation. I could definitely do this again–and very well might (hear that D&C?)!

This sail is HIGHLY recommended! The Chardonnay II can be located at CLICK HERE.

Thanks, again, Dan and Christy–this was a blast!

Fair winds and following seas!

I recently experienced an incident that got me thinking. It involved interpreting experiences. Many people like to go to psychics or intuitives or “masters.” Or maybe just get a second opinion. Nothing wrong with getting a second opinion. But while going to “masters” for soulful advice and life interpretations can prove beneficial, I also feel it can actually prove more harmful than good. When you go to someone on a constant basis and ask them to explain what happened to you (i.e., asking another to do something you can very well do yourself) you can become lulled into atrophying quite a powerful ability you have yourself. Continuing to do so is harmful because we should all become self sufficient in determining our own experiences, and not rely on others to do something for us we can very well do ourselves. 

And it doesn’t matter if we so-called MIS interpret anything. 

First off, I don’t think this can really happen. I think that each of us will and MUST interpret our own personal experiences on our own, and interpret them in the way we do–have to do. The only right answer is ours. Really, even if we do go to someone else, and we “take” their interpretation, it is up to us to accept that as ours, so, we’re really still making the call. 

Why go to all that trouble? 

Just do it yourself. It allows us to grow and get better at interpreting our own experiences. Having others constantly doing something we can and should do ourselves does no one any good. Not even the “master.” And really, shouldn’t a “master” realize this themselves and turn our questions back on us? Those are the best “masters,” the best teachers. The old giving-someone-a-fish-or-learnin-them-to-fish analogy. And it doesn’t even matter if a “master,” or anyone else might happen to “properly” interpret an experience the same way we might have, we–YOU–have to do this, not someone else. 

You. 

Each of us–from the so-called lowest spiritual newcomer to the greatest so-called “master”–uses a filter (and by this I mean the personality and conscious mind of an individual that one uses to learn and interpret the world around [and in!] them) to see and experience the world. It’s unavoidable. If you cast a shadow–or exist in this continuum in any manner shape, or form–you’re using, living, breathing, and interpreting through a filter. 

That’s not a bad thing. 

It simply is. 

And having someone else use their filter to interpret your experience is faulty. If you don’t believe in angels, and someone tells you “angels are watching over you,” then that won’t mean anything to you, might even turn you off cause of the religious symbology, and you’ll use your very own filter to remove the offending term and “translate” to the closest term in your filter. As anyone who has ever studied languages can tell you, things frequently get lost in translation, because not all words translate [well] into other languages. Transfer that…to this discussion. 

So, the best thing to do is cut out all that extra effort and use your own innate talents and give it a go yourself. Again, it does not mean you have to get a “right” answer, just the mere fact you’re making the effort is important enough. Is a growth effort for you and your being (<insert translation>). If none of this means anything to you, that also speaks volumes to who you are–and again, that is not meant in a bad way. It is just WHO YOU ARE. Period. 

Think for yourself, is all I’m asking. 

Got a couple of other things I gotta get off my chest.

I loved reading the August 23, Publishers Weekly (PW) “The New PW Select,” by George W. Slowik, Jr., the President of Publishers Weekly. It finally shows an opening of hearts and minds—and a change of reality. Most change takes place in baby steps, and this is a fine example. A major industry player is recognizing that books are books, they LOVE books, and they want to include as many books as possible into their milieu.

This is GREAT!

This is the way it should be. It is only a matter of time before other venues take similar action.

Another topic: that books are gonna die. The physical ones. Sigh. A couple years ago—and I mentioned this before and I wish I’d kept it!—but PW did an entire issue on the “Demise Of <fill in the blank>.” It was such a wonderful issue, because it actually included clips of “the Sky Is Falling” articles that had been published at the time (late 1800s to early 1900s).

As I remember it, NONE of them had proven true. Not one.

I find it an interesting Human trait that we love to rail on about  the end of [any]thing[s]. Is it because of some buried Racial Guilt? Feeling of inherent unworthiness? I mean, why would someone, anyone, intentionally focus and delight in bringing about the end to one’s existence—to ending one’s life, or in bringing about the total and utter annihilation of an entire race [i.e., planet] of people? Makes no sense to me…unless these individuals harbor some innate feeling of unworthiness and the need for Universal Punishment.

My point is, the demise of anything only comes about because someone WANTS it; actually takes steps to BRING IT ABOUT.

It doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

Someone has to initiate it…then bring it about by constant attention in some way or the other.

If you really want to remove all physical books from existence, by all means go for it. You get what you pay for. Get want you CONCENTRATE upon. There is no “external agent,” no extraterrestrial race, nor God Force bringing this on—YOU’RE bringing it on YOURself. Period. So, quit whining and own up to it. To your own internal feelings and beliefs. If you want books to stay, KEEP THEM IN CIRCULATION. Just because we create some new-fangled techno-wizardry doesn’t mean books cannot coexist.

It’s a pretty big UNIVERSE out there, people.  I think it can handle multiple forms of media.

This all comes back to my earlier statements. We create our OWN realities. Individually and en masse. Each of us—by our thoughts and our actions. The more attention given to things you DON’T want, the more of what you “don’t want” will be exhibited in your life.

So, I have a cool suggestion.

Why don’t we all focus upon what we all DO WANT? Let’s not give press time—heck, THOUGHT time—to anything we DO NOT WANT?!

Whaddya say?

This is not the same thing as burying one’s head in the sand. It’s about giving the time of day to the GOOD THINGS in life, not the negative.

And, if you don’t understand that last part, then I suggest you re-examine your own thoughts about everything I’ve discussed here, and life in general, and do some reading about getting what you want out of life, because there are quite a few books out there and I’m certainly not gonna recreate the wheel in these new-fangled, techno-wizardry electronic pages….

Think GOOD THOUGHTS, people!  :-]

Peace.

I belong to a couple writer groups. I like these people, I really do. They get into spirited debates about—mostly, from what I witness, anyway—the mechanics of writing. And that’s okay.  It is. I hardly ever see any real discussion on the heart of writing, its soul. This I find curious. Perhaps it’s because the soul of writing doesn’t need any discussion. What can be said about it?

That a piece of writing needs some?

That it doesn’t?

What is “soul,” anywho?

Do you even believe in a “soul”?

It is good and productive to discuss all-things writing, while part of a writers’ group of any kind, but I (personally) find such arguments mental masturbation (not that there’s anything wrong with masturbation…). I just find it not all that useful to the actual effort of writing—and maybe that’s to my detriment. I’m more of a metaphysical, organic fiction writer. I’ve heard from the published and unpublished, agents and publishers. All manner of well-meaning and wonderful people on the topic, but I truly do not think it matters, the mechanics of writing, that is. I’ve said it before…poor shit gets published just like good shit. There’s no accounting for taste.

Now, I intend absolutely no disservice to those reading either of the above, those agenting it, and those publishing it. I truly feel that whatever the book, it gets picked up little because of the mechanics involved (from my rather disadvantaged purchase, perhaps)…but because someone feels they can make money off it. That for one reason or the other (see previous statement) it got their attention.

Do you have to hook someone in the first page—the first word?

Only if s/he reading it believes this to be the case.

Does POV matter?

See above.

And sure the argument can be well made that only WELL-ESTABLISHED authors can “get away” with breaking rules.

For every argument exists an exception.

And when those such as ourselves become so focused on the very mechanics of writing we cannot always see the forest for the trees. In our minds, of course you have to have a well-written story…a well-conceived plot… action/something interesting on each and every page. Less adverbs, more nouns, less tell, more show—good Lord, pick yer poison! Rules-rules-rules!

Readers don’t care. I’ve asked them. Those that aren’t writers, nor have any inclinations toward writing. They tell me they just want a good story. Something that interests them. “A good book.”

I’m a writer—I actually make my living at it (currently I’m a tech writer, and yes, I DO outline lots in that world; see “organic writer,” above…)—and have been a reader since not long after sperm-and-egg, so I think I have a pretty good idea, you know, what’s “good” (see “no accounting for taste,” above), right? A couple years ago I read a bestselling book in which the writing not only sucked, but did so out loud. To me. So, I asked someone else what they thought of the book.

“It was great!”

Best thing they’d read in a long time.

There you go.

So, really, what is writing about?

Mechanics? Attention spans? Money? Whether or not something is, uh, “well written”? Some weird-assed Zen thing?

For every answer I can provide, someone out there will take exception with me, if for no other reason than they can…or want to prove me wrong…and have some vat-o-stats to slosh all over me like so much boiling oil. To each of them I can only say: Yeah…maybe.

 Sure, get involved in the discussions, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them, a good didactic encounter never hurt anybody, but in the end, find out—inside you, inside your soul—why you’re doing what you’re doing. Make that your reason for writing. Don’t make it about having to do your efforts one way or the other to sell or grab the shortened attentions span of some agent/editor/reader. Do it for presenting the best damned story possible, to being true to the story (some say it’s all about characters, but characters are part of a story). Many don’t believe this, but I truly believe that if writers honestly open themselves up and allow themselves to be overcome with the soul of a story…the story itself will present the writer with the best method of expression.

Organically.

Write because you must.

Do the very best you absolutely can. Learn what you need to learn, then get on with the business of writing (here I mean actual writing, not the “business suit” end of things). I truly believe that after a while you’ve learned all there is about the mechanics of writing…that you then have to develop an ability so frigging powerful, so evocative, so gripping and whatever else it needs to be to be true to the story that readers cannot help but read your story, like rubbernecking roadkill and accidents.

If you are easily deterred by any other argument, it’s simply not your bag. No biggee. Doesn’t have to be. Don’t take it so hard. Find whatever else it is you’re supposed to be good at.

I was once asked (and I paraphrase) why I kept “at it,” with going to years of conferences and such when I wasn’t published (a matter of opinion, since I am self-PUBLISHED [and, BTW, did you read this week’s, August 23, Publishers Weekly “The New PW Select,” by George W. Slowik, Jr., about self-pub’d books? It’s on page 4. I applaud you, sir! That’s what writing is about!]). To me (and I could be off-base) the question implied why am I still doing this after eons of “nothing t’show fer it.”

So why do I continue doing it?

<Shrugging shoulders>

Because I have to.

Now, admittedly, lately, things have gotten crazy, and I haven’t been doing much of “it,” even outright questioning my continued ability to do so, because of the “weird Zen of it all” (and not in a good way), but the intent is still there. I’m thinking I’m simply way too stressed out to concentrate on those efforts right now, and actually don’t have much time to devote to it, given my day job is occupying the areas of space-time I devote to my fiction efforts…or there’s some gnarly metaphysical struggle going on inside me. Maybe the later is spawning the former. Yeah, this I believe, cause I’m paranormally metaphysical that way.

But I keep picking at things, if only for a half hour.

So, what is writing?

It is sitting down and pounding away at letters.

It is creation.

It is being true to the story.

It is heart and soul.

It is…whatever the writer wants it to be.

If you wanna follow rules—go ahead.

Write first person POV? Feel free.

Capture someone’s attention on page uno—by all frigging means, capture away!

But remember this: even the most poorly written works can be bestsellers. There’s no accounting for taste.

Write with soul. With heart. With all that you have and are. Believe in yourself—and your story.

That’s writing.

I read something the other week and again this morning which really got me to thinking about something I’ve often thought about: that humans are inherently violent. Evil.

Now, I have always taken issue with this statement from the very beginning and as far back as I can remember, which to me was my early 70s Star Trek watching days. Maybe it was from all the other reading I did, which was largely philosophical and metaphysical, but I never believed that statement–and still don’t.

What I recently read was a “letter” written by ex-Army Captain Paul K. Chappell. Chappell is also a West Point graduate, served seven years, and deployed to Baghdad. Look at this link and take a good look at his pictures.  He has a different look in his eyes, his face, his energy, from his Army days to civilian life.  Really look at the last photo, April 2005.  And check out this 10-minute YouTube video Mr. Chappell gave at American University, in Washington, D.C.

What Chappell wrote was that people are not inherently warfaring nor violent nor evil nor warmongering. We are the opposite to all this, because the basic nature of people is to FLEE violence or someone else trying to disembowel us or anything else heinous. If we were so inherently violent, we would not flee violence, not avoid war–but embrace it, run toward it. If we were so naturally violent and warlike, why does war mess up so many people? Why PTSD? Mr. Chappell says that 98% of soldiers who go to war experience some form of psychological trauma, but 2% do not. Why do these 2% not go “crazy,” as he puts it?

Because they were already that way.

One of the key things Mr. Chappell also discusses in the letter I read was how do governments get people to go to war? And this I’d learned over time on my own: by dehumanizing the “enemy.” By getting those fighting wars to feel they have to go to war to protect some element of their own, be it family or their own localized “band of brothers.” Then, Mr. Chappell says, people will fight and not flee.

I didn’t write this post to attack our government or give reasons for why we’re in war. I write this post to show others and clarify and corroborate–to myself, even–what I’ve always believed to be true: that humankind is inherently PEACEFUL.

Peaceful.

That’s all.

I found this next site’s link in an e-mail I get, and think it dovetails nicely into my Down the Rabbit Hole post. For all the Doom and Gloom (D&G) being perpetuated by you and me and everyone else, in that we ALL have a hand in the reality we’re creating (i.e., it’s never someone else’s fault, such as the government’s, or “Big Oil,” or the “Religious Right,” because we all have a hand in creating what ends up manifesting into our individual and mass realities), from Gulf oil spills, wars, and lack of individual successes and happiness, I like this link because Lynda Dahl, who created this link, gives some explanation to what she presents. Yes, it’s all about a Seth-based philosophy, yes its’ “weird” to the uninitiated, but also, yes, it’s an optimistic way of thinking, and yes it “gives” control of our lives to back to us (I quote “gives,” because it’s always been with us, according to this way of thinking, so there’s really nothing to “give” back, really). Now, that can be scary for some, a boon to many. And it’ll definitely go against the grain for others who believe other systems of beliefs, but I much prefer to believe in something that gives hope and control and no D&G than anything else that does. And I’m sure that last sentence evokes all kinds of “head-in-the-sand” arguments, but that, again, is part of another system of belief, to which I don’t subscribe.

And I ain’t perfect, lemme tell you!

I’m just like everyone else out there, trying to make my way through this life I’m living in the best way possible!

The philosophy will tell you that’s it’s just a matter of changing your beliefs and all is modified. It’s the “just” that’s the hard part, whether or not we make it hard. Not everyone can do it, or many can, but to varying degrees of success. But in any event, I much prefer this system of thought to anything else out there. All this is even discussed within its philosophy.

I digress.

I wanted to put this link out there as a counter, so to speak, to all the D&G. As my little part in helping show there’s another way to what we think there may be to living, breathing, and thinking life, and this way may help others in redirecting their thoughts to more useful, productive, and positive ends, as I talked about in my previous post and which was what Down the Rabbit Hole was all about.