Crossbyte Contemplation #8 "That bein' kind can hurt someone sometimes" REO Speedwagon

I've labeled this a contemplation. I am an introvert which means basically I am lost in my own head most of the time. If you're not an introvert, you probably have trouble believing people do that. Or maybe you see introverts and your impression of them is that they are aloof or arrogant.  Maybe even snobbish.

What is actually happening to introverts is that we are tryig to sort through a whirlwind of thoughts. You've heard the expression that someone is overthinking something. Introverts do this all of the time. Thinking in and of itself is not a bad thing, but to me, it is exhausting because I don't think in a logical, rational way. I think by association which means that one thing makes me think of something else which makes me think of something else -- it's kind of like getting lost in links on the Internet, but the Internet does have a home button. I can't always find mine. Maybe a better allusion would be it's like the old pinball machines. The ball zooms all over the place and it hits things and pings everytime it does.

A few days ago, I was reading a pretty deep philosophical book written by Linda Seger who is not only one of the best screenplay consultants around, but she is also a deeply spiritual woman. The book was entitled, Spiritual Steps on the Road to Success: Gaining the Goal Without Losing Your Soul. I recommend this book to everyone even if you don't consider yourself spiritual.

This is my second of what will probably be many more times reading it. As I read it, I get all kinds of insights. It's like the pinging in my head. Every time I read something that connects, I think about how awesome it is. Then, after I finish reading a chapter or two and the inspiration of the moment leaves me, I think, What did I just read? I can sometimes pull out a main point or two, but when I start trying to put it all together, it doesn't work. It's like finishing a game of pinball and not knowing what your score was.

As I thought of this, my mind shifted to music. I'm not sure why. I thought how one musical chord no matter how beautiful does not make a complete song. I guess since I was reading a spiritual book, my mind shifted to kind deeds and how one kind deed every once in a while doesn't make a kind person. Just like in music, one chord doesn't make a song. If you aren't kind most of the time, then you might as well not be kind at all.

Let me explain what I mean. Sometimes a kind word doesn't mean anything if it doesn't happen much.  In fact, a kind word once in a while just makes it worse when the harsh ones come back. Think about it; someone says 9 mean things to you and then 1 kind thing. Immediately your guard goes up. I don't trust the one kind thing at all. With unkind people, what will usually follow the one kind word is a whole bunch on unkind things. Those unkind things absolutely crush a person's self esteem. It's like a dog that hangs around someone who beats them because every once in a while the person gives them a treat.

The results of being unkind to someone echo through the years. A person who has been treated badly whether by bullies, abusive partners, or any abusive person in positions of power never loses those wounds. They can do great things nine times in a row, but when they mess up one time, that's all they think about. I'm that kind of person. I can have one really bad experience and forget the 100 good ones that I had before it.

Even when someone tells you, you've done a good job, but ... all you can think about is, "I wasn't good enough."

Seger talks a lot about writers in her book.  Introverts frequently take up writing, but in some cases it's the worst thing they can do. In writing, rejection hits you far more times than acceptance does, and even when something good happens, you can't rejoice much because you know that rejection is right around the corner.

Maybe that's why I found myself reading Linda Seger's book. Maybe I have begun to feel like I'm losing my soul because I don't have the success I want to have (though I probably couldn't define what success to me as a writer would consist of.) Maybe, I needed to go back to what success should mean.

Anyway, I've circled back now. I wanted to talk about the insight I got out of reading Seger's book. 

One musical chord, though beautiful, can not make a beautiful song

                                        just like only

One kind word does not make a beautiful person.

#crossybte

I hope you are kind all the time to those who need it the most: the weird, the homely, the odd, the poor, the destitute, the lost, the sick, and all of the people who need a kind word, well, more than one kind word. It hurts more if one kind word is followed by nine bad ones than if there are ten unkind ones. 

If you're interested, here is an outline template for planning your screenplay, play, or novel.

 I am a dyed-in-the-wool, irredeemable pantser when it comes to my writing. I pick a place and start writing, and much like just walking into the woods without a compass, I get lost.  I don't know how many partially finished manuscripts I have on dust-covered (Metaphorically) computer files. If I got rid of all of them, my memory on my computer would go up a whole gigabyte I bet.

My reading for my writing craft, much like my writing, is scattered, unorganized. I will pick up a how-to book and read a few pages, perhaps even highlight all over the pages so that there is very little unhighlighted material. Then, when I go back and look at the book again, I might as well read the whole thing over again. Like my documents, many of the how-to writing books I have are only partially finished. I've found some stashed in old bookshelves like worn-out underwear stashed in a rag bag. My wife says they make the best dust rags.

I have read a lot, as sporadic as it is. I have also soaked up some of the things I read. Still, when I look at all of these books on structure --everything from Save the Cat to the Snowflake Method -- I am slightly overwhelmed, well, more than slightly.

I always tell my writing students that in research they need to take material from several different sources and make it into one coherent document. Well, this teacher became a student and did the same thing. I came up with a four-page, fill in the blanks, template that I can use to plan my own writing.

This is a video I made explaining it. If anyone thinks it could work for them, let me know by sending me an email at thecrosses@gmail.com and I will send you a copy, either pages or word, that you can type right into.

YOU WOULD THINK POLITICIANS WOULD ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO DEBATE

 

It embarrasses me that politicians and news outlets don't know how to conduct an actual meaningful debate. If there are any competitive debaters out there, correct me if I say anything wrong here. This is how I remember it.

First, both parties agree to the debate rules. If the rules are followed, there is NO reason why this debate can't be done virtually. First, in a real debate, both sides are given the same question or proposal. I did not like the different questions for different people. That lends itself to political bias. Well, maybe it doesn't matter because both candidates talked around the issues without answering the questions that were actually asked not once but several times.

We all know what the major topics are: the economy, COVID, the supreme court, international relationships, taxes. Every candidate should get the same question. In a real debate, the question is posed. First person responds, second person responds. If they talk over the limit or they talk over the other person, they are penalized or disqualified. Now, I think the modern equivalent of that is turning off the microphone.

If I recall correctly, there is some time for participants to prepare for rebuttals. During this preparation time, an objective fact-checker should be allowed to speak. It would need to be someone each side can agree on which is probably impossible, so maybe you could get one conservative and one liberal to do this job. Of course, that leaves out moderates like me.

Then, you have rebuttals. Then you have a follow up to the rebuttals. Then, you go on to the next question. The order of response is changed. The person who went first on the first question goes second. This switches each time. At the end of the debate, each person gets a final time to reaffirm their positions on the topic. They are not allowed to add new information or try to rebut again. If they do, then the microphones should be turned off. Allow the other person to talk. Give the first person another chance to do what they are supposed to. If they don't, shut them off and not allow them to talk anymore. You break the rules a first time, you get a second chance. You break the rules a second time, you take the consequences.

Some of you might say that this will take forever, but the truth of the matter is that if the candidates are forced to meet the time limits, a whole lot of time would be saved. As far as I'm concerned if you can't abide by these rules, you are either afraid or you have nothing of substance to say.

There's another thing I've noticed about the debates. Both parties, at times, do not answer the question they are asked. They should get a time penalty. If you don't answer, the first time you get 15 seconds taken off your time. If you're supposed to talk for 2 minutes, your mic gets cut off at 1:45. If it happens a second time, you get a minute taken off. When that time is over, your mic gets muted. That would force them to actually talk about the issues.