[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > I admit to having read maybe about 50 lines, > > > > to try and see if there were any pearls I might > > > > have otherwise missed. > > > > > > I really didn't. *Whatever* the subject matter, > > > I can rarely get through more than a few lines > > > of any "Edgpost." The reason is that I don't get > > > off on a genre of writing called "emotional > > > junkie-ism." That's where writers mistake a > > > surge of strong emotion for creativity. The > > > more strong the emotion feels, the better they > > > think their writing is. > > > > > > There is always a kind of desperation about this > > > kind of writing that I don't enjoy. Because when > > > the current surge of emotion wears off, the > > > writers in question often find that they have > > > nothing to say, and have to artificially create > > > another "surge" before they can write again. This > > > often takes the form of abuse of drugs or alcohol, > > > or something we see often on this forum, "manu- > > > factured outrage." Think Rush Limbaugh. That's > > > the problem with writing like this...it's a kind > > > of junk food. > > Good description, Barry. > Every now and then empty calories are what I want, > I guess. Or at least what I'm willing to put up with. That's exactly it from the reader's point of view -- a "junk food sugar rush." >From the writer's point of view it's often more debilitating, and often marks the dif- ference between people who consider themselves writers and real writers. It's EASY to write when you're all caught up in an emotional experience or a strong mood. The words just flow out. However, there are two problems with this kind of writing. The first is that the words often are not really very good, and the writer cannot see that *because* of the strength of the mood. He or she tends to believe, "If I felt that strongly about it as I was writing it, it had to have come from a 'deeper place,' and thus *has* to be good." Sadly, this is often not the case. The second problem is that this kind of writing is addicting. One gets "hooked" on the emotional highs, and when they are not present, writers of this ilk often tend to be able NOT to write. So they create *artificial* emotion via drugs, alcohol, "manufactured anger," artificial bhakti, etc., hoping to "jack themselves up enough" that they can write again. Leads to a lot of burnouts. I can speak about this with some humility because I've been there, done that. But one of the things you learn if you actually become a journeyman writer -- someone who has to write "to deadline" and churn out not only output but *quality* output on a consistent basis -- is that you can't rely on this. First it's a burnout, and second it's very illusory in terms of quality. It's a similar situation in my opinion to those seekers who confuse strong emotional experiences with "spiritual experience." For them, the stronger and more overwhelming the emotion they feel about their spiritual teacher or God or whatever is, the more "spiritual" an experience it is. While I understand this point of view, my experience in life tells me that it's just not true. Truly profound spiritual experiences are NOT overwhelming; they feel natural and normal. A person having a strong samadhi experience who is suddenly needed to handle an emergency CAN handle it, without feeling the least bit "spaced out" or "fragile" or "emotional" about having to do so. But all this is Just My Opinion, as always. I'm sure there are people who really get off on over-the-top, out-of-control emotion presented as if it were art. Many of them are Glenn Beck or Tammy Faye Baker fans. :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:55 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I admit to having read maybe about 50 lines, to try and see if there were any pearls I might have otherwise missed. I really didn't. *Whatever* the subject matter, I can rarely get through more than a few lines of any "Edgpost." The reason is that I don't get off on a genre of writing called "emotional junkie-ism." That's where writers mistake a surge of strong emotion for creativity. The more strong the emotion feels, the better they think their writing is. There is always a kind of desperation about this kind of writing that I don't enjoy. Because when the current surge of emotion wears off, the writers in question often find that they have nothing to say, and have to artificially create another "surge" before they can write again. This often takes the form of abuse of drugs or alcohol, or something we see often on this forum, "manu- factured outrage." Think Rush Limbaugh. That's the problem with writing like this...it's a kind of junk food. Good description, Barry. Every now and then empty calories are what I want, I guess. Or at least what I'm willing to put up with. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > Barry, I think it's great you are helping to raise a baby. > > It's a beautiful experience. How do you feel about it? Share. > > It's a very "it takes a village to raise a child" > experience, for many reasons. > Thanks for plugging Hillary's first book. http://www.happinessonline.org/LoveAndHelpChildren/p12.htm > The biggest is because my best friend is part of a > polyamorous relationship, and thus there are three > "live-in parents," not two. Seeing them actually > get along and share equally in all aspects of > raising a daughter is pretty inspiring. What is inspiring about it? What is the gender mix? > I'm not there all the time, only "as needed." So it > is sometimes several days or a week between times > that I get to see Maya. ( Maya the little girl, not > Maya the concept. :-) Are you the babysitter when the three parents want to go out for the evening? Or do you visit with one or more of the parents present? > Thus I actually have more of a perspective on how > much she has changed since I saw her last than the > parents do. They're there 24/7, and so big changes > sometimes escape their notice because they're so > gradual. Me, because I'm not there all the time and > because I am by nature a "people watcher," I tend > to notice. Often I'm the first to point out a big > change, like the transition between not being able > to move her head to follow people as they moved and > being able to. Or her discovery of the wonders of > having feet. :-) > > She's only three months old, so she doesn't say much > yet. :-) But she has already laughed out loud (not > just smiled), so that's pretty neat. A good sign. > Barry, I guess the experience of being an observer of a family unit and being a peripheral father, gives you some emotional distance, that doesn't challenge your comfort zone, to the extent you are able to report seeing signs of childhood development rather than how you feel about it. Perhaps it explains why you cannot relate to how Edg feels about his children. His ability to write about his children so passionately, and beautifully comes from intimately experiencing the pain and joys of raising children. He can write about it because he has opened his heart fully to the experience of fatherhood. He is blessed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > Barry, I think it's great you are helping to raise a baby. > It's a beautiful experience. How do you feel about it? Share. It's a very "it takes a village to raise a child" experience, for many reasons. The biggest is because my best friend is part of a polyamorous relationship, and thus there are three "live-in parents," not two. Seeing them actually get along and share equally in all aspects of raising a daughter is pretty inspiring. I'm not there all the time, only "as needed." So it is sometimes several days or a week between times that I get to see Maya. ( Maya the little girl, not Maya the concept. :-) Thus I actually have more of a perspective on how much she has changed since I saw her last than the parents do. They're there 24/7, and so big changes sometimes escape their notice because they're so gradual. Me, because I'm not there all the time and because I am by nature a "people watcher," I tend to notice. Often I'm the first to point out a big change, like the transition between not being able to move her head to follow people as they moved and being able to. Or her discovery of the wonders of having feet. :-) She's only three months old, so she doesn't say much yet. :-) But she has already laughed out loud (not just smiled), so that's pretty neat. A good sign.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > > > Edg, Thanks for sharing what fatherhood means to you. > > Beautiful. You are a fortunate man to have allowed > > yourself the experience of a profoundly loving > > relationship with your children at their birth. > > Very touching. > > I'll admit to having read the following 14 lines, > mainly because I was curious as to what would > impress a Raunchydog. And I'll give both Raunchy > and Edg my honest opinion. > > It's *exactly the same kind of language* you hear > from Dads hauled into court for child or spousal > abuse. Ask Dr. Pete or Marek. > > *Every one of them* can trot out stuff like this. > As well they should. They've practiced it often, > every time they've had to try to talk their wives > out of divorcing them. > > IMO it's a form of "channeling." Ashamed of not > being able to control their lower emotions, they > think that they can somehow justify them by, for > a short period of time, channeling a "higher" > emotion to paint themselves as sympathetic and > merely misunderstood. > > I don't buy it. I suspect that Edg writes this > way about his kids because they won't have anything > to do with him, and writing about them like this > is the closest he can get to them. We've all seen > how he lashes out at anyone who doesn't buy his > act here on FFL; can we imagine that he'd be any > different in a family situation? > > I might be wrong about this, but that's how the > following paragraph strikes me. I'm helping to > raise a new baby myself, the daughter of my best > friend. And it's really neat. But so far I haven't > felt the need to write about it here to show how > sensitive and loving *I* am. Like the child abuser > waxing poetic about how much he loves the kid > covered with bruises, such language tends to > ring a little false and self-serving. Barry, I think it's great you are helping to raise a baby. It's a beautiful experience. How do you feel about it? Share. > But hey!, Raunchy...if you like it, cool. Me, I > just have higher standards when it comes to > writing, and to people. The word that stands out > for me in the paragraph below is "narcissist." The > entire paragraph is about how his kids made *Edg* > feel, not about the kids themselves. > > It's the "I love my kids because they make *me* > feel special" counterpart of "I'm enlightened > because believing I am makes *me* feel special." > That's probably why Jim liked it, too. That and > the fact that it was dumping on Barry. :-) > > > > "Every child of mine was entirely unique, and this was > > clear to me instantly when each one took the very first > > breath. I cut their cords. I whispered into tiny ears > > my cosmic love pouring from a heart newly aflame, a > > heart bursting to unexpected heights. My whole being > > flowed into their every possible future and blessed it. > > I could not kiss them enough, could not hug them as > > tenderly as their preciousness deserved, could not tear > > my mind from the perfection of their potentials. I who > > am a narcissist, a Leo, had my rock-heart melted by the > > first glance when their eyes opened to see my face for > > the first time. The world could never be the same, I > > was theirs forever, and I loved the challenge it > > presented to me -- down to its quarks." >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" wrote: > > Edg, Thanks for sharing what fatherhood means to you. > Beautiful. You are a fortunate man to have allowed > yourself the experience of a profoundly loving > relationship with your children at their birth. > Very touching. I'll admit to having read the following 14 lines, mainly because I was curious as to what would impress a Raunchydog. And I'll give both Raunchy and Edg my honest opinion. It's *exactly the same kind of language* you hear from Dads hauled into court for child or spousal abuse. Ask Dr. Pete or Marek. *Every one of them* can trot out stuff like this. As well they should. They've practiced it often, every time they've had to try to talk their wives out of divorcing them. IMO it's a form of "channeling." Ashamed of not being able to control their lower emotions, they think that they can somehow justify them by, for a short period of time, channeling a "higher" emotion to paint themselves as sympathetic and merely misunderstood. I don't buy it. I suspect that Edg writes this way about his kids because they won't have anything to do with him, and writing about them like this is the closest he can get to them. We've all seen how he lashes out at anyone who doesn't buy his act here on FFL; can we imagine that he'd be any different in a family situation? I might be wrong about this, but that's how the following paragraph strikes me. I'm helping to raise a new baby myself, the daughter of my best friend. And it's really neat. But so far I haven't felt the need to write about it here to show how sensitive and loving *I* am. Like the child abuser waxing poetic about how much he loves the kid covered with bruises, such language tends to ring a little false and self-serving. But hey!, Raunchy...if you like it, cool. Me, I just have higher standards when it comes to writing, and to people. The word that stands out for me in the paragraph below is "narcissist." The entire paragraph is about how his kids made *Edg* feel, not about the kids themselves. It's the "I love my kids because they make *me* feel special" counterpart of "I'm enlightened because believing I am makes *me* feel special." That's probably why Jim liked it, too. That and the fact that it was dumping on Barry. :-) > "Every child of mine was entirely unique, and this was > clear to me instantly when each one took the very first > breath. I cut their cords. I whispered into tiny ears > my cosmic love pouring from a heart newly aflame, a > heart bursting to unexpected heights. My whole being > flowed into their every possible future and blessed it. > I could not kiss them enough, could not hug them as > tenderly as their preciousness deserved, could not tear > my mind from the perfection of their potentials. I who > am a narcissist, a Leo, had my rock-heart melted by the > first glance when their eyes opened to see my face for > the first time. The world could never be the same, I > was theirs forever, and I loved the challenge it > presented to me -- down to its quarks."
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:00 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > Edg, > > > > I didn't bother to read any of this. I merely > > pressed Ctrl-A and Ctrl-C pasted it into a text > > editor. > > > > Why? Because someone (I forget who) predicted > > that you would react to me blowing your last > > rant off without reading it with a 100+ line > > reply. Possibly, in his estimation, a 200+ > > line reply. So I had to turn on "line count" > > and see how good his "seeing" was. > > > > It's not all that great. It took you 377 lines > > to vent your spleen this time. > > > > Not one of which I read. > > > > And you know what's saddest? > > > > MY bet is that these 377 lines represent more > > writing than you have accomplished on any of > > your creative writing projects in months. > > > > And THAT is what you are angry about. Not me. > > I admit to having read maybe about 50 lines, > to try and see if there were any pearls I might > have otherwise missed. I really didn't. *Whatever* the subject matter, I can rarely get through more than a few lines of any "Edgpost." The reason is that I don't get off on a genre of writing called "emotional junkie-ism." That's where writers mistake a surge of strong emotion for creativity. The more strong the emotion feels, the better they think their writing is. There is always a kind of desperation about this kind of writing that I don't enjoy. Because when the current surge of emotion wears off, the writers in question often find that they have nothing to say, and have to artificially create another "surge" before they can write again. This often takes the form of abuse of drugs or alcohol, or something we see often on this forum, "manu- factured outrage." Think Rush Limbaugh. That's the problem with writing like this...it's a kind of junk food.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
Edg, Thanks for sharing what fatherhood means to you. Beautiful. You are a fortunate man to have allowed yourself the experience of a profoundly loving relationship with your children at their birth. Very touching. "Every child of mine was entirely unique, and this was clear to me instantly when each one took the very first breath. I cut their cords. I whispered into tiny ears my cosmic love pouring from a heart newly aflame, a heart bursting to unexpected heights. My whole being flowed into their every possible future and blessed it. I could not kiss them enough, could not hug them as tenderly as their preciousness deserved, could not tear my mind from the perfection of their potentials. I who am a narcissist, a Leo, had my rock-heart melted by the first glance when their eyes opened to see my face for the first time. The world could never be the same, I was theirs forever, and I loved the challenge it presented to me -- down to its quarks."
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote > > 'All Hat, No Cattle' > Trace Adkins > > See that boy standing there by the dance floor > He's lookin' like the Marlboro Man > Starched shirt, starched jeans, big trophy buckle > And an empty Copenhagen can > He's talkin' cowboy this and cowboy that > Well I'll bet one thing's for sure > The only stampede that he's ever seen > Is the clearance at the western store > > All hat and no cattle, that boy just ain't real > All boots and no saddle, don't know how to make a cowgirl feel > Think I'm gonna tell him to pack up his act > And go back where he came from > 'Cause all hat and no cattle ain't gonna get it done > > He's just a smooth-talkin', long-tall slow-walkin' > Srugstore-made-up dude > So honey don't you fall for that fake Texas drawl > He ain't right for you > What you need's a man that ain't just a hat stand > When you get him home > Well, I don't look like much, but I can sure saddle up > And ride with you all night long > > All nat and no cattle, that boy just ain't real > All boots and no saddle, don't know how to make a cowgirl feel > Think I'm gonna tell him to pack up his act > And go back where he came from > 'Cause all hat and no cattle ain't gonna get it done > > All hat and no cattle ain't gonna get it done Very funny :-) Thanks for posting this !
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
> > Sometimes Barry is all hat, no cattle. > > nab wrote: > "All hat, no cattle" ? > > That's a very funny picture, from where did > this expression arise ? > Well, Nabby, I think it's from one of Turqy's favorite country singers, Trace Adkins. Apparenlty Turqy and Curty like Hillbilly music a lot. LOL! Me? I like Rockabilly. 'All Hat, No Cattle' Trace Adkins See that boy standing there by the dance floor He's lookin' like the Marlboro Man Starched shirt, starched jeans, big trophy buckle And an empty Copenhagen can He's talkin' cowboy this and cowboy that Well I'll bet one thing's for sure The only stampede that he's ever seen Is the clearance at the western store All hat and no cattle, that boy just ain't real All boots and no saddle, don't know how to make a cowgirl feel Think I'm gonna tell him to pack up his act And go back where he came from 'Cause all hat and no cattle ain't gonna get it done He's just a smooth-talkin', long-tall slow-walkin' Srugstore-made-up dude So honey don't you fall for that fake Texas drawl He ain't right for you What you need's a man that ain't just a hat stand When you get him home Well, I don't look like much, but I can sure saddle up And ride with you all night long All nat and no cattle, that boy just ain't real All boots and no saddle, don't know how to make a cowgirl feel Think I'm gonna tell him to pack up his act And go back where he came from 'Cause all hat and no cattle ain't gonna get it done All hat and no cattle ain't gonna get it done
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
On Apr 20, 2009, at 4:00 PM, TurquoiseB wrote: Edg, I didn't bother to read any of this. I merely pressed Ctrl-A and Ctrl-C pasted it into a text editor. Why? Because someone (I forget who) predicted that you would react to me blowing your last rant off without reading it with a 100+ line reply. Possibly, in his estimation, a 200+ line reply. So I had to turn on "line count" and see how good his "seeing" was. It's not all that great. It took you 377 lines to vent your spleen this time. Not one of which I read. And you know what's saddest? MY bet is that these 377 lines represent more writing than you have accomplished on any of your creative writing projects in months. And THAT is what you are angry about. Not me. I admit to having read maybe about 50 lines, to try and see if there were any pearls I might have otherwise missed. To be fair, it's about time for Edg's two-month blowout, so he's right on schedule. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > Not one of which I read. > > > It wasn't from Judy, so Turqy didn't read it. > > > And you know what's saddest? > > > > MY bet is that these 377 lines represent more > > writing than you have accomplished on any of > > your creative writing projects in months. > > > How much would you be willing to wager? > > My bet is that Edg keyed it in in less than > five minutes, but your reply took you all night > or more. And while yours made no sense at all, > Edg's was a polished and well phrased masterpiece, > in comparison. Maybe it was Barry that got angry > because Edg said it so well, while Barry had > nothing to say. Sometimes Barry is all hat, no > cattle. Go figure. HeHe. "All hat, no cattle" ? That's a very funny picture, from where did this expression arise ?
[FairfieldLife] Re: What Barry Wright doesn't know
TurquoiseB wrote: > Not one of which I read. > It wasn't from Judy, so Turqy didn't read it. > And you know what's saddest? > > MY bet is that these 377 lines represent more > writing than you have accomplished on any of > your creative writing projects in months. > How much would you be willing to wager? My bet is that Edg keyed it in in less than five minutes, but your reply took you all night or more. And while yours made no sense at all, Edg's was a polished and well phrased masterpiece, in comparison. Maybe it was Barry that got angry because Edg said it so well, while Barry had nothing to say. Sometimes Barry is all hat, no cattle. Go figure.
