New blog rule?

[jlh]

This is probably not controversial.

I've noticed an axiom at work. When one makes a blanket post about some sort of behavior or speech that is annoying, the people that you aren't targeting with your statement are the ones who comment or post themselves worrying that you meant them, and the ones that you DID mean assume that you didn't mean them. Therefore, pretty much nothing gets accomplished.

What made me think of this most recently were all the posts on LJ and various blogs about writing. It seemed to this reader that many of them were meant to keep anyone who might think that writing was easy, or not requiring of hard work or talent or both, from further "laboring" under that delusion. But frequently they seemed to say, "Only if you are deeply and importantly talented and willing to sacrifice everything else in your life for your Art should you ever put pen to paper. Otherwise do us all a favor and get a job at the mall." But the trouble here is, there are of course plenty of people who are bad writers, think they are good writers, and assume that they are "deeply and importantly talented." Meanwhile those who may well be rather talented will think, "Gee, I didn't win a writing contest when I was four so I must not be deeply and importantly talented" and get discouraged. Just to drive that nail in the coffin Garrison Keillor got into the game by shouting about writers who whine about writing, when those writers weren't whining, but trying to say that yes, writing is an actual job requiring actual work. And THAT led to pegkerr wondering if she whines too much (far from it, Peg) and I'm sure she wasn't the only one with that reaction.

Friends, there are no winners here. Those who are tuned in to who they are and the little social cues around them, respond to such general appeals even though they don't apply to them PRECISELY because they are tuned in. Those who are tuned into their own personal frequency will never recognize themselves in a general appeal PRECISELY because they aren't tuned in! I've done it and I've watched it done and I'm telling you that it doesn't work.

Josh says there's no name for this little law because blogging is too new but I think we should try to find one and then spread it around. Are you with me? Do you see what I see?

Comments

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

I shall make the circle a little more vicious by saying "Hmph, and for my part, I was never able to get through a single book of Keillor's, and don't share his delusion that Lutheran women making salads are endlessly amusing by their very nature."

/catty

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Yes, I neglected to include that I think Garrison Keillor is one unfunny mo-fo. There was a bit on The Simpsons where Homer is watching public television and they're showing some Prairie Home Companion special and Garrison says something twee and the audience laughs and Homer goes, "Ohh, I don't get it!" Which pretty much sums it up for me.

[ali-wildgoose.livejournal.com]

I suppose the "Blogger's Rule of Hint Dropping" is too unwieldy ;}

[soupkills.livejournal.com]

Axiom of Inverse Applicability: The only people who listen to advice are those who don't need it.

[zorb]

True. The question now is whether this post also falls into that category of posts? *g*

[jlh.livejournal.com]

HAAHHAHAHAHAHA

I didn't even notice that I did that. Though really, this post isn't about saying, "Don't do that." It's more about saying, "Do you guys notice that this happens? Should we name this phenomenon?" Because I've done it and I'll probably do it again . . .

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

This is a fascinating post and something I have spent a lot of time thinking about. When I am teaching writing I want to encourage everyone to write. I want to show them how to get past writer's block or the disappointment some people have when their first draft is not Proust. Talent doesn't have much to do with it. It is about expressing your thoughts or exploring your imagination. I leave it there as a teacher. I believe that the more you read and write, the better you will be at both. I try to treat my fellow MFA students a little more rigorously. I do hold them to a higher standard. I don't know if that is wrong of me.

But I do have to be honest with my students who romanticize the writing process. It is a long hard slog. And there is no guarantee of anything at the end. The novel publishing market is very slim. If someone is writing because they have this daydream of being famous and rich--well, they might be better off playing the lottery. I think you have to find a balance between working hard, keeping your head down, and having a small realistic dream. Mine is to see my novel in print some day. I know it will be a long, long, hard road. And if it doesn't happen until I'm 80 that is cool. And if it never happens I will be crushed. But I do not expect that getting published will change my life or fix all my problems. That is where I think romanticizing the process is troublesome. If "writing" becomes a panacea for all your troubles that is a problem.

Frankly what irritates me is when people find out I write they often say something like, "Oh, I've always wanted to do that/I write too but I can't every get past the first page/etc." I have no patience for that. Sit down. Write. And keep going.

I remember that you didn't take issue with my writing post. I think we feel similarly on may points. But I just wanted to post some thoughts because this is my life. :)

That law? Some kind of sheep law. baaaa

[adjudicated.livejournal.com]

And see I find Prairie Home Companion very endearing, if not particularly funny in the ha-ha sense. I like it enough to be interested in the casting of the movie!

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed "Lake Wobegon Days" enough to laugh out loud at it on the train to and from Chicago, back when I was commuting from the western 'burbs to the Loop. But maybe I relate to Keillor because he's so Midwestern. I actually KNOW Lutheran basement potluck ladies ;)

[jlh.livejournal.com]

You intrigue me. Is this a general rule, already formed, of which this is merely the latest application?

[soupkills.livejournal.com]

Nah, I just made it up. Sounds good though, doesn't it?

Note: I do believe it to be pretty generally true, but I haven't seen it stated in this exact manner anywhere.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

The thing that gets me is really the Talent Narrative, wherein if you have a talent for something it will express itself before your 18th birthday--hopefully before your 10th birthday--and even if you have obstacles in your way you will have always known that the talent is Your One True Path and you will persevere, though you also have been supported by key people at key moments who recognized your Great Talent.

See, I've never had any talent, except perhaps for making friends. I sing fine, I write fine, but no one has ever said these are things I should DO. Mostly they just say, you are smart and can do whatever you want. But that isn't being talented; that's being generally intelligent. Being generally intelligent isn't a calling. So when you already have that Talent Narrative in the culture it's a huge disincentive for anyone to take up some kind of creative pursuit if they never were told as an adolescent that they were Talented. I feel the sort of writing posts I was talking about, the discouraging ones, are ones that would specifically discourage those who weren't part of that Talent narrative and would therefore never try anything new, while NOT discouraging the pie-in-the-sky types that you describe. See what I mean?

I also, as you know, get annoyed with those who think that any writing that isn't fiction writing, isn't really writing, but I have issues with hierarchies anyway. It's different, sure, but I don't think we need to cast aspersions.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Frankly what irritates me is when people find out I write they often say something like, "Oh, I've always wanted to do that/I write too but I can't every get past the first page/etc." I have no patience for that. Sit down. Write. And keep going.

You're a far better person than I am. I love it when people say that because I think, "Good! Less competition for meeee!"

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Then put your name on it, feller. I think it rocks.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Word to all of that. It's the way it's always portrayed in movies and TV as well. And yet I honestly just don't think it's true at all. Often people who can be truly great at something *don't* show it by being some kind of prodigy early on. I remember a dance teacher of mine once saying, for instance, that a lot of the things that can make a great dancer come later. Like if you're wonderful at interpreting the music that might not be apparent until you learn the technique, yet in class the kid who has more of a knack for picking up the technique first might stand out. It's a shame how many kids think oh, that must not be what I'm supposed to be doing. They don't realize that art is far less about having some magical sparkle that's apparently early on, as if you are or are not an artist, and far more just about working at it and working at it. That's a really exciting narrative too, and it's a shame you never see it--though I think part of it is almost a protective thing for artists. It maybe profits them to have people thinking their work is mysterious and that they are different from others.

The other myth of artists in fiction is also that talent is linked to a sort of burning desire to make it, and that doesn't necessarily do it either. Because that burning desire hardly ever seems like the drudgery of working hard at something every day.

Btw, I do think we need a name for this law, because it's like clockwork that this happens.

[soupkills.livejournal.com]

Very well then.

Cotter's Axiom of Inverse Applicability: The only people who listen to advice are those who don't need it.

Better? :)

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

Yeah, coming from thousands of miles away where we only have the vaguest notion of differentiating between Protestant groups, I wasn't remotely up on Lutheran in-jokes and so there were probably jokes in there I had no idea were supposed to be jokes. I stopped 100 pages or so into LWD.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

soupkills came up with an excellent option above.

I wonder if it dovetails with the youth thing, so the reason we love young talent is that it's all raw and pure and etc. Whereas older talent has that whole sheen of competence. It's like being a punk, only very superficially. I love your point about why artists might want to keep the narrative going.

[imaginarycircus.livejournal.com]

Hahahahaha! I hardly ever find anyone who writes like I do so I try not to worry or think about it. If you think too hard about sucess rates or publishing chances it just gets so depressing!

[sisterpandora.livejournal.com]

This is SO true! And, yes, it is in deep need of a name. Though I cannot say if it is a deeply talented need.

[tropes.livejournal.com]

Simple:

Clio's Law.

You're like, Godwin, in a way.

[calloocallay.livejournal.com]

I was going to suggest the "Rule of OMG, me? do you mean me? I'm so sorry! When did I do that? omg!" but yours certainly sounds more official.

Let's use it in a sentence!

I remarked during lunch that people who pick their nose in public are being rude, but due to Cotter's Axiom of Inverse Applicability, Hortense wholeheartedly agreed with me, not realizing that I was alluding to her actions of yestere'en.

[melieltathariel.livejournal.com]

The Behavioral Modification Exclusion Principle sounds appropriately scientific and fancy, don't you think?