Emphasis on the Wrong SyLAble

Foreword: to those who asked about the Irving book, it's A Widow for One Year. I left out the title because I thought what I was saying really applies to the other books of his I've read as well.

What I'm thinking today arises from two recent public brouhahas (love that word): the Olympic uniform debacle, and the ongoing campaign rhetoric. Never having been a political animal anyway, I'm ill suited to understanding and/or discussing campaign practices. However, I can't help thinking that if something could just be got through the heads of campaign managers and their candidates', namely: that transparency, honest answers even to harassing questions,

and a change from the culture of he who can afford the most obscene waste of money wins is not the way to win the hearts and minds of those with something more useful than lint between the ears!

When will lawmakers begin behaving the way their oaths of office demand of them, and stop seeing who can outspend the other? It's shocking. The emphasis on insulting and "spinning" every bit of publicity-rich information (regardless of its accuracy) is utterly misplaced.

Then the Ralph Lauren flap: economy is a word with more than one meaning. For some it's a narrow concept involving an attempt to make the most of the money you have. If it was significantly (sic.) cheaper to manufacture some components in China or elsewhere, so be it. The point is that the designer shouldn't be using Olympic athletes as private posters for his company, and the important part of the Olympics is supposed to be international SPORT. Of course, the view of the games as purely chauvinistic competition is pretty well ingrained, but we should really be thinking of the fact that in the original games, even in the midst of armed conflict, the Greeks put aside the war for the duration of the games (in which they competed nude--perhaps so as not to reveal their native states)? The athletes were competing as athletes, not as members of Sparta or Rhodes, or Athens, or what have you.

It's discouraging to find so much of humanity engaged in what looks like deliberate or totally wrongheaded perspectives on really important issues with future consequences.

So much for my rant of the day.

To Tell the Truth

If a writer feels it necessary to trudge ahead regardless of past performance, or especially past recognition--or more likely the lack of it, the notion of an advanced degree, presumably an MFA, is bound to have surfaced. There was a time when I was sure one day I'd have a chance to enroll in some  program that would fill out my talent (if there were any) and lend some credibility to whatever I might write.

One of the things that is apt to take over when one is attempting to become--whatever the goal is--is that the aspirant looks to others who have reached it to provide instruction. Never mind how many scores of dollars I may have spent over the years on correspondence courses and books, the few that have been of real benefit wouldn't crowd a single shelf. A course in the history of criticism was one of the best aids to literary decision making for myself, along with only half a dozen of the many books I have bought and read. Now I'm a bit like a donkey with blinders on; I just keep plodding on.

Then, just today, a humble (well, maybe not so humble) blog once more put into a small space the most important lessons I've been able to take away from all those who have had the temerity to write about writing. It has to do with reality--with the absolute necessity--of putting out the truth regardless of its appeal or power to horrify. All writing is political, just as nearly all politics is economics. A writer who can face this at the fundamental level may turn out to be a good writer.

This is a pathetic distillation of a complex imperative, but if it interests you, stop by and read mfainabox@aweber.com.

Priority?

What is it about Time? Maybe I'm a little obsessive, but it really does seem as though even a second is shorter than it used to be. Trying to keep putting something up here on a regular basis while keeping up with the minutes I need to transcribe (I keep swearing I won't be a secretary again), the promised reviews and occasional essay for the Senior Women Web, and the queries for the last finished novel, plus revision of another...I think my long-suffering husband is glad I get around to doing the laundry. We don't discuss ironing.

Then I think that the impression may be distorted by the terrible pressures on the country and the world of late. Nothing that matters has time enough to be understood by most of us, let alone to figure out ways to deal with them. It was such an incredible relief to be finished with the election. Yet, we're now faced with actually finding things to DO--about the economy, the wars, the pirates, the fires and floods and earthquakes, the dying wilderness and rain forests, the educational and healthcare systems, and that list is only a beginning.

Everyone is always amazed when there is actually more than one person who wants to be President. This year, I find it harder to believe than ever before that even one person sought the office with such dedication to winning. Could it really be that someone without a personality disorder could fill the job? Is there really a man or woman who has the ego and drive to get there who will also have the sense and humility to be effective? If all the wise heads of all parties could be made to cooperate as advisors, would their counsel be recognized and considered?

And how can we, the ordinary Joes and Janes and the eggheads and experts, help? WILL enough of us help if someone comes up with instructions? Will we be able to keep our sights high enough above our own problems to see beyond them? Is there enough time to take care of everything we need to if we're to go on living on our beloved planet?

And how does one decide where to begin?

For the Next Time

Now that we're on the last lap on the way to Election Day, I wish people who control such things would consider some reformation of the election laws and practices:

1. Strictly limit the amount of time during which candidates may present themselves and their platforms;

2. Set real guidelines for "debates" and town-hall meetings;

3. AGAIN - do something to curtail the obscene waste of money by parties and their candidates, regardless of the sources of the funds thrown away.

I suppose none of this is likely, but it makes one wonder what has happened not only to common sense, but also to any moral sense. If public outcry could alter our recent behavior, let's at least give it a try!

Debates?

I know enough not to expect anything close to what we were taught in school about debating when I tune in on the campaigns' moderated discussions. When the moderator asks a question, usually carefully loaded to provide a maximum of embarrassment to each participant, it's no surprise to hear so few direct answers. Nevertheless, after listening to a couple of hours of commentators holding forth on the recent meeting of Biden and Palin, I have to ask, "Was anyone listening to WHAT was said?" Virtually every remark after the fact was directed at the WAY the "debaters" couched their arguments. These people who want our votes are supposed to be leaders.

A true debate would not permit the evasions, non-answers, digressions, and arguments ad hominem that are standard for these affairs--that ought to be arranged for the benefit of informing voters, instead of to further the public images of the contestants.

It's discouraging to find so little statesmanship and so much showmanship (and even some of that is pretty pathetic) concerning vital matters. Let's hope the puplic is more perceptive and analytical than the candidates' handlers think we are!

Leadership

I yield to no one in my distrust of most "media," and my tendency not to read what passes for news. However, I've just read a brief article by Lee Iacocca on Leadership in a recent AARP bulletin. I'm aware that one must read their material mindful of the filter of their agenda.

However this essay calls for voters to wake up to the reality that whoever ends up in the White House will need the best advisers and assistance he can muster. If they aren't in the day-to-day operations of the government, the proverbial ship of state is surely destined to sink, along with all of us.

His call is for Politics to behave not as usual, but as makes the only good sense: it should be mandatory for candidates to reveal choices for cabinet and others BEFORE the election, so that we can see who will have the best team (I'm including all parties who may be on a ballot).

Hear, hear!