Rilalities IX


Literature: I’m always surprised when I find a collection of a fictional author’s book of letters essays, memoirs, and other pieces of non-fiction, and I find that so few of them pieces have merit.  The authors I’m speaking of are the titans of the fiction world that have written masterpieces.  I acknowledge that these authors may have saved their best material for their fiction, but my inclination is that their brain droppings (sorry George Carlin) might have some juicy nuggets in it. Brain droppings, as I define it, are those casual asides that the author couldn’t find a place for in their masterpieces, or any of the other works of fiction that I had a voracious appetite for at one point in my life.  I have not purchased any of these collections with the idea that they would be as brilliant, front to back, as the masterpieces, but I’m often surprised at how worthless they turn out to be.

fiction-and-nonfictionPolitics: There is some debate as to whether Hillary Clinton is a socialist.  Those that strain to be objective on the matter, state that she cannot be a socialist: She’s rich. As one that is fond of poignant humor, I thought this was a creative method of declaring that if she is a hypocrite.  It became obvious that this assertion had nothing to do with creativity, when this on-air personality defended his position by stating that she worked the Capitalist system for what it was to her own benefit, and that she had to have some appreciation of it as a result. Whether or not Hillary is a socialist is not important to this discussion, or at least it pales in comparison to the idea that an individual can do everything they can to amass personal wealth while condemning others for doing the same.  If she wins in November, she could also do everything she can to prevent and inhibit wealth production for others while continuing to do whatever she can to amass her own, and if someone asked her if such actions could prove hypocritical, she could say no, and she wouldn’t be lying by her own definition.

Sports: When I hear sport’s analysts breakdown the comments made by an athlete, I often wonder how much of their analysis is an actual breakdown of the athlete’s comments, and how much of it involves the author’s personal interpretation?

Entertainment: If you see a high-profile, entertainment talk show host being interviewed, you can count on a political issue coming up.  When it does, the talk show host says, “I receive audience complaints for what I do, from both conservatives and liberals.”  Some of them add, “Which basically means I’m doing my job.”  The more savvy ones allow the interviewer to add the latter.  The interviewer and talk show host then move on other subjects, and this leaves the impression that the complaints the host receives are around 50/50.  I realize that such interviews are inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, but if I were the interviewer I would consider it my duty to point out that most of these talk show hosts are divisive in some manner.  Or if I was feeling hospitable, I would say that the American public has become so divided that even silly, entertainment talk show hosts can cause an audience to view them in a subjective manner. Regardless how I phrased it, I would force them to admit that an overwhelming majority of the complaints they receive come from one side.  For if you receive 10,000 complaints from one side, regardless what side it is, you shouldn’t be able to make a blanket, and unchallenged, assessment of those complaints, if you only receive 100 from the other.  I’m not saying that the host should be required to report exact figures, but something along the lines of: “Well, obviously, the brunt of complaints is from one side, I mean (laughter) we all know who I am, and what I believe, but I do receive complaints from my side too that suggest that I’m not partisan enough for them.”

Social:  “Just because you’re predisposed, you can’t be objective most of the time.” There’s no way we’re wrong.  The third party players say that we are.  They say that we make the mistake of assigning our motives and attributes to those around us. We’re forced to concede that this is true, but we don’t think it applies to us.  Have you ever considered the possibility that it might?  Of course, we say, we view ourselves as the personification of objectivity.  We rarely make a decision, until we’ve approached it from every possible angle imaginable.  Honest people, offering honest assessments, tell us we’re wrong.  It’s preposterous.  It’s absolutely preposterous, and it’s something that we often fail to  consider completely.  It’s indescribable when it happens to us, and we wonder how often those that know so much more than we do, realize that they have a lot to learn?

Why Adults Still Hate Their Parents


I am so glad I don’t have to go through all that anymore, is the first thought I have when I hear adults my age talk about how they still hate their parents. When they say it with such animosity and rage, I remember the emotions that drove me to say such things, and I’m happy to be past all that. When I hear someone say that their parents are bumbling fools, idiots, or backwater hicks from the 1950’s, I remember saying such things, and I regret some of it, but as has been said of regrets, there is little that we can do about them now.

When I’d complain about my dad, one of my greatest frustrations was that no one listened to me. So, when people talk about how awful their parents were/are, I listen. I listen to those in their twenties, and I remember those complaints. I listen to thirty-somethings, and I try to remember if I was still that angry in my thirties. When the complaints come from those who have crossed the big four-oh, I want to ask them, “Why is it still so important to you that your parents be wrong?”

“I’m smarter than my dad,” a twenty-something blogger wrote. “I really wish I wasn’t. It’s like finding out Santa isn’t real.” 

That isn’t an exact quote, but it is a decent summary of her entry. The blogger went onto discuss how intelligence and cultural sensitivity are a cross that she must now bear in her discussions with her parents. She never states that she hates her parents. She states that she, in fact, loves them a great deal, but she characterizes that definition of love with an element of pity, bordering on condescension, that appears to be endemic in twenty-somethings.

Define smart. Are you smart, or just smarter than your dad? What’s your definition of smart, intelligence, and knowledgeable? What are your bullet points, your parameters, and your conclusion? Before we move onto the next point, let’s consider the idea that these barometers are all based on your settings. These aren’t fighting words, I know exactly what she’s talking about, because when I set the ground rules, I found out that I was smarter than my dad too.

That’s the first question we should ask anytime we determine that we’re smarter than another, which one of us set the terms? We know our areas better than them, and if we could remember to walk away after laying out our presentation, we might leave that discussion with a lot of confidence in our intellect. Some of have the annoying habit of sticking around to let others present their side and delve into their areas. We learn more about them, and their areas, and at some point we just wish they would shut up because their presentation can be humbling.

Did you get better grades in school than your dad? If so, you’re probably smarter than he is, unless you consider the idea that you might just be an excellent test-taker. Tests are important, grades are important, and degrees are important in life, but are they the decisive determination between smart and smarter? We might score high marks on a test, but how often do we retain that information a year, a month, or even a week later? Being a good test-taker is an admirable skill that we might be able to use when we face tests in the workforce, but does it mean that we’re smarter than our adversaries? Were Jeopardy! champions that much smarter than their opponents on the quiz show, or did they prepare for the tests of their knowledge better than their opponents? 

My dad wasn’t smart by our standards, but he had boatloads of wisdom from his experiences in life, and he wasn’t afraid to bore his listener with his extraneous information, or information I considered extraneous. It went in one ear and out the other, of course, until a situation called for it, and I sucked it back into prefrontal cortex and used it. The disappointing conclusion I reached was that my dad wasn’t as dumb as I needed him to be for my characterization of my intelligence.  

My teenage hatred of him, blocked the idea that he had his areas, and some carry this well into their twenties. The teen years are a period of rebellion, learning, and individualization that wrestle with one another to mature our minds to formulation. As we age, our mind matures, and so does our rebellion, until it manifests into either full-fledged hatred, or a condescending pity that recognizes their backwater modes of thought for what they are. This matured rebellion is also based on the fact that our parents still have some authority over us, and that reminds us of those days when our parents had total authority over us, and how they “abused it to proselytize their closed-minded beliefs on us.”

When we finally reach a point when they’re no longer helping us pay for tuition, a car, or rent, and we’re able to flex some independent muscles, we spend the next couple of years fortifying this notion that they were wrong, all wrong, all along.

By the time we grow past our narcissistic teens, twenties, and for some of us, our thirties, circumstances begin to reveal some of the logic and wisdom our parents attempted to pass down to us, and the idea that some of it applies in some circumstances. (Some will never admit this. They remain stuck in peak rebellion.) Our parents advice did not apply in all circumstances, of course, but it does in enough of them that it starts to dim the bumbling fool tint on our rose colored glasses. Then, when we reach our forties, we begin to think that they’re idiots all over again.

I wrote the last line to complete a joke I read. I cannot remember where I read it, but it was one of those bullet point lists, oven mitt/bumper sticker type of rants that get passed around the office space. It’s a funny line, because there is an element of truth to it. We compare ourselves to the people who surround us, and our parents are the most prominent indicators we use to determine how we are doing in life. Our evaluations are steeped in emotion and feeling, and they very rarely involve objectivity. Even in our subjective analysis that ends with considering them fools all over again, we find ourselves admitting that a truth lies somewhere in the middle. This truth is a hybrid of the lifelong recognition we have had of our parents’ failings combined with the points we begrudgingly give them on some matters. We also gain some respect for them in a manner we never did as kids, because we now have our own kids who consider us bumbling fools.

As flawed as our parents were, and some of their advice and philosophies were fundamentally flawed, we eventually gain enough distance from our youth that we begin to view them as fellow parents who tried to lead us down a path conducive for happiness and success in life. At some point, we learn that the problems we have in life are no longer about them. It’s about us. If our inability to cope with problems results from our parents raising us, it might be a result from being so traumatized by our parents that it has lingering effects that cannot be resolved without outside assistance. If that outsider is able to approach our problem with a level of professional objectivity, they will inform us that if we are going to have a decent future, it’s on us to work on putting the past behind us.

This specific timeline may not apply to everyone, as we all go through these stages on our own time, and the word hate may be too strong to describe the animosity some adults still have for their parents, but anyone who has been through the peaks and valleys of a combustible relationship with their parents knows it can be one hell of an emotional roller coaster ride.

Theory formed the foundation of much of my uninformed rebellion, and real-world circumstances revealed to me that some of the archaic and antiquated advice my dad offered me had some merit. These circumstances, as I said, included having my own child and my own attempts to protect the sanctity of his childhood, in the same manner my dad attempted to protect mine. As evidence of this, I often informed those around me that my dad committed some egregious errors in raising me by sheltering me too much. I enjoyed this presentation, until some know-it-all suggested that that means my dad did his job. “How so?” I asked. I was all ready to launch into a self-righteous screed about how this know-it-all knew nothing about my childhood, until he said, “By allowing your childhood to last as long as possible.” That response shut me up in the moment, but the more I chewed on it, the more I liked it. 

Another circumstance that proved my dad might have had some worthwhile advice arrived when I tried to get along with my co-workers, and I tried to appease my boss. My father warned me that this would prove to be more difficult than I imagined, and he was right, but I regarded that as nothing more than an inconvenient coincidence in my path to individuality.   

It’s not debatable to me that I was right about some of the things on which I planted a flag, but these circumstances led me to recognize that although my dad would never be as intelligent as I am, he lived a rich, full life by the time he became my mentor, and some of my impulsive, theoretical thoughts about the world were, in fact, wrong. (Even after gaining some objectivity on this matter, it still pains me to write that line.)

Having my own job, my own money, and my own car did a great deal to provide me the independence I needed, but I wanted more. Having my own home, and friends, and a life completely devoid of my dad’s influence gained me even more, but it wasn’t enough. I wanted to be free of the figurative shackles being my dad’s son implied. Every piece of information I received about history, the culture, and the world was exciting, and new, and mine, because it stood in stark contrast to everything my dad believed. The information that confirmed my dad’s wisdom, bored me so much I dismissed it. The new age information coincided with everything I wanted to believe about the brave new world that my dad knew nothing about, and it confirmed my personal biases.

In my teens and twenties, I never asked myself the question that I now pose to those who still need to prove their parents wrong. I probably would not have had much of an answer, even if I searched for it. I probably would have said something along the lines of “Why is it so important to him that he cling to that age-old, traditional mode of thought?”

This redirect would not have been an attempt at deception or evasiveness. I just did not have the awareness necessary to answer such a question. Moreover, as a twenty-something, new age thinker, I was rarely called upon to establish my bona fides. All parties concerned considered me a righteous rebel, and the old guard was, by tradition, the party on trial. They often felt compelled to answer my questions, as opposed to forcing me to define my rebellion, and I enjoyed that because I couldn’t answer those questions.

My twenty-something definition of intelligence relied on emotion, theory, and very little in the way of facts. I thought they were facts, however, and I had the evidence to back them up. I thought I was intelligent, and more intelligent than my dad was, but the question I did not ask is what is intelligence? We asked the blogger that question, but we could also ask that same question of a person from a socioeconomic background far different from our bloggers, and we would receive an entirely different answer. How much does the answer to that question different from country to country and era to era?  

In Abraham Lincoln’s day, the ability to drop a pertinent reference from Shakespeare and The Bible in any given situation formed the perception of their intelligence. My generation believed that dropping a well-timed, pertinent quote from Friends and Seinfeld defined intelligence, coupled with a thorough knowledge of the IMBD list of Bruce Willis movies. To the next generation, it has something to do with knowing more than your neighbor does about Kim Kardashian and Lady Gaga. (I concede that the latter may be an epic fail on my part.) What if someone you know, someone similar in age and background, didn’t know that Jennifer Aniston was on a TV show prior to her movie career? Would you consider them hopelessly out of touch, possibly an alien from another planet, or just plain dumb?

Even if we thought our dad was from another planet, we didn’t know where to look. Even if we did, we were never so curious that we were going to look in various areas. He somehow managed to live through the 80s and 90s without ever hearing about Seinfeld or Bruce Willis, and that led us to believe he was so hopelessly out of touch that he knew nothing. He knew nothing about computers, devices, and a third party once introduced him to what he called “these fancy, new gold records” before his death. (It took us a while to realize these gold records were CDs, compact discs, LOL! Gold records?). This lack of knowledge about pop culture and technological innovation transcended all matters, as far as we were concerned. We believed our dad was a bumbling fool, traditionalist trapped in 1950’s traditionalist modes of thought, and that he could’ve never survived in our current, more sensitive culture. He was a backwater, hick, and whatever other adjectives we apply to one trapped in a time warp of the sixties, maybe seventies, but he was definitely not ready for the nineties, the noughties, or the one-ders.

The question that the I-am-smarter-than-my-parents contingent must ask themselves is how much of the divide between our parents’ level of intelligence and ours is in service of anything? I, like the snarky and provocative blog writer, can say that I knew more about more than my dad did, but I defined that divide and most of what I used to inform that divide involved inconsequential information that didn’t serve a substantial purpose. We all refer to ourselves as the king of useless knowledge in self-deprecating terms, but as with all good jokes, we know there is an element of truth in them.  

The conditions of my dad’s life were such that he didn’t receive what most would call a quality education, but he used what he learned to prosper on a relative basis. One could say that the difference between my dad’s education and mine, and the education of the snarky contingent versus her dad’s, could be whittled down to quantity versus quality.    

In the Workplace  

Much to my shock, I began quoting my dad to fellow tenured employees, when I was well into my thirties:

“Everyone has a boss,” and “You can learn everything there is to know about the world from books, but the two words most conducive to success in life are going to revert to either: ‘Yes sir!’ and ‘No sir’.” 

I loathed those words for much of my young life, as they implied that even after escaping my dad’s management of my life –a level of authority that turned out to be far more macro than I ever considered possible– I would always have a boss. The bosses who followed my dad incidentally taught me the true difference between his level of macro management, and their definition of micro when I was out on my own, and out from under his totalitarian thumb. I would also learn that my boss’s moods would forever dictate whether my day would be a good one or a bad one, in the same manner days under my dad’s moods affected me, only tenfold.

Dad’s advice derived from his experience in the workplace, but that experience occurred in an era that required absolute, unquestioning reverence of a boss. Thanks to the new age ideas of boards and panels conducting arbitration cases for those who have been fired, the various wrongful termination lawsuits, and the threat thereof that gave life to the Human Resources department, the reverence requirement was no longer as mandatory in my era.

I would also learn that my newfound level of freedom would contain a whole slew of asterisks that included the idea that no matter how much free time I had, I would spend a great portion of my life in a workplace, under the watchful eye of an authority figure, compromising my personal definition of freedom every step of the way. “You cannot talk to your neighbor on the job, and you are required to stand here, sit there, and always look professional. Why, because that’s what we’re paying you to do.” So, if I want money to be free, I must surrender my freedom in the workplace? “Of course not. You are free to follow whatever rules you want, but we are free to fire you too. At that point, you can seek employment elsewhere and follow their rules.”

Throughout the course of my life, I’ve met those who never went through through these stages of rebellion. If you find this as incomprehensible as I did, all I can tell you is I’ve met them. They said rational things like this, in their twenties, “I never thought my parents were perfect, but I know that they always tried to steer me into doing what they believed to be the right course.”

As soon as I picked myself off the floor from laughter –believing that I was on the receiving end of a comedic bit– I realized they were serious. The fact that their upbringing was so much healthier than mine, caused me to envy them in some ways, but after chewing on that for years I realized that all of the tumult I experienced, self-inflicted and otherwise, defined my character and my current individual definition of independence.

We are our parent’s children, and at times, we feel trapped by it. Therefore, we focus on the differences. We may mention some of the similarities, but we take those characteristics for granted, and we think all parties concerned should too. Even when we reach a stage in life when we begin to embrace some elements of that trap, somewhere in our thirties and forties, we cling to the idea that we’re so different. The answers as to why these dichotomies exist within us are as confusing to us as the fact that they are a fait accompli.

When immersed in the tumult of the younger brain, trying to make some sense of our world, we may fantasize about what it would be like to have other parents. Our friend’s parents seem so normal by comparison. We think most of our problems would’ve been resolved by having their parents, or any other normal people as parents. We might even fantasize about what it might be like to have been free of all patriarchal and matriarchal influence. We consider how liberating it might be to be an orphan, until we recognize how confusing that must also be. Those without parents must lack a frame of reference, a substantial framework, or a familiar foundation from which to rebel. When we consider this, we realize that much of our current identity is comprised of various pushes and pulls of acquiescence and rebellion to our parents.

While there is some acknowledgement of the ‘the more things change, the more they stay the same’ dictum when we receive advice from our parents, our rebellion operates under the “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” principle when we process that advice and apply it to our era. When we acknowledge that knowledge of innovations and pop culture are superfluous that removes a substantial plank of our rebellion, until politics takes its place. We then sit down at our proverbial dinner table to resolve the political and geopolitical problems of the day, for our nation, our state, and our locale in a manner we deem substantial. It fires us up. We deliver nuke after nuke, until we realize that the effort to persuade our parents is futile. We also recognize that nestled within this effort is our juvenile, sometimes snarky need to prove them wrong. While a more substantial plane than pop culture, political discussions can be just as silly for us, as it was for our parents when they discussed such issues at their parents’ dinner table, and they considered their parents to be bumbling fools who offered nothing new to the discussion and stubbornly resisted the winds of culture change. The one import that they may have taken from their discussions with their parents, as we will with ours, over time, is that the more things change, the more they stay the same, and human nature doesn’t change as much as we may believe it does with innovations, cultural advancements, and social awareness. A kiss is still a kiss, a boss is still a boss, and the fundamental things still apply, as time goes by.

Epilogue

One final piece of advice this former-rebel-turned-individual offers to the provocative, parent-hating rebels is that we should all thank our parents for raising us. Thanking them could be one of the hardest things we ever do, as we may lose most of the provocative, parent-hating points we’ve spent our whole life accumulating, but it might turn out to be one of the best things we ever did too.

I thanked my dad for everything he did for me, and I did not add all of the qualifiers and the but-I’s I would have added years earlier. I managed to put all of my grievances behind me for the ten seconds it took me to thank him.

Was it hard? I will not bore you with the details of my rearing, but suffice it to say my dad could be a difficult man, and he played a significant role in the anger, frustration, and the feelings of resentment and estrangement I felt for much of my life.

I could go into further detail to ingratiate myself with those currently struggling with the idea that I don’t understand their dilemma. To display my empathy, I have a quote that served me well through the traumatic years: “Not every person who becomes a parent is a good person.” Modern media has made this quote much less provocative than it was when I was a kid. It’s no longer the tiny light-turned-epiphany in the darkness it was for me when I first heard it. I realized I wasn’t the only problem, and that my dad might be 50% of the problem. He was wrong as often as he was right, just like every other human on the planet. He was flawed, at times, misguided, confused, immoral, and as uncaring and narcissistic as the rest of us. Yet, we are people too, and we’re just as susceptible to being all of those things, especially in our view of them. If we were able to shake that view, most of us will see that our parents were essentially good people who tried to move past their limitations to make us better than they were.

As I sat in a pew staring at the pine box, it dawned on me that no matter how obnoxious, uncaring, self-serving, and angry my father could be at times, he was a member of an ever-dwindling, endangered species of those who truly care what happens to me. Others say they care, and some of them do, on a conditional and limited basis, but those who care comprehensively and unconditionally, I realized that day, are so few that when they’re gone, they’re gone. 

As sad as that day was, it could’ve been so much worse. If he died of the heart attack he had, in the midst of our tumult and turmoil, I would’ve been an absolute wreck. We managed to heal all wounds in the aftermath of that, and as I said I thanked him for taking the role he didn’t have to take in life, my father (he was my step-father).

Some might not be able to forget or forgive right now, because the wounds are too fresh and raw, and they might never reach a place where they can thank them. I empathize on a relative basis, but all I can tell my fellow angry offspring is when I sat before that pine box, I was glad I didn’t wait one more day. I thought about the number of people who truly care about me. I knew my friends care about me, but they have their own lives to live, and those lives will go on regardless what happens to us. We know our parents care, but some of them have a misguided, confusing, and completely wrong way of showing it. As impossible as this is to believe today, expressing some level of gratitude in whatever manner your relationship with your parents requires might be the best thing you have ever done. We might not see it that way today, but my guess is that even the most obnoxious rebel will see it one day, and my hope is that this epilogue will convince someone, somewhere that waiting one more day might be one day too late.

I dedicate this epilogue, and this near-complete compendium of my experience on this subject, as oppose to one of scholarly research, to those who need a tiny light in the overwhelming and all-consuming darkness. If this article provides some small spots of clarity for those who are confused, frustrated, and raging, then it will be worth all of the effort I put into writing it.  

Art is Dog. Dog is Art


A man let his pet out for a tinkle. Nothing strange about that, right? His pet was a rooster. I was the visitor walking my dog passed his property, witnessing a homeowner doing what he does from the comfort of his own home, so I was in no position to evaluate his activities. Watching the man do that, led me to feel that I was a stranger in a strange land, and I couldn’t shake it. Other than this small, relatively insignificant episode, it wasn’t a strange land to me. Even though I was born and raised in a relatively industrial city, my home state is generally considered an agricultural one, and just about everyone I knew and spent some time in and around the agricultural industry. The state was I was now walking my dog in was so close to mine that I didn’t expect to see anything different from what I knew, and I didn’t, until this rooster sprang out the backdoor that the homeowner held open for him. 

I tried to look away quickly, because I didn’t want him to know I saw it. I didn’t want to share that uncomfortable smile that we share with someone after they do something we consider embarrassing, and I didn’t want to have to come up with some comment to lighten the load for him. Just before I could look away, the homeowner waved. It was a hearty wave, strengthened by a pleasant smile. The man’s smile and the wave suggested that letting a rooster out in the backyard was nothing but routine for him, and there was no reason for me to stress out about it in the moment. I returned the smile, waved back, and continued walking my dog.

While attempting to force the conclusion of the episode in my head, I almost missed the rooster rush the fence after it saw how close my dog and I came to its territory. It quickly ambled down the considerable stairs that descended from the porch, and it sprinted across the yard to us, until its beak protruded through the fence. It eyed my dog, and it eyed me. It offered us an unmistakably foreboding eye to caution us against stepping any closer. It did not cockle-doodle-doo us, but some sound, like a bark, seemed like the next logical progression to punctuate its warning. 

It followed us along the fence line with that foreboding eye. The silent tension percolating between us was not one of fear, but I was so confused that I wanted to hurry up and end this episode before a more confusion progression occurred. The writer side of me wants to write that when we reached the end of its fence line, it stood there watching us as if it didn’t know what to do, but even though its actions were born of mimicry, the rooster appeared to know exactly what it was doing. The rooster’s actions were so foreign to my limited understanding of roosters that they unnerved me. They unnerved and confused me so much that I thought if I were a four-to-five-year-old when I experienced this episode, I might walk away in tears. Especially, I thought, if this rooster tried to bark. If it tried to bark, or make some sort of sound to punctuate its warning, I thought it might rattle my foundation in the same ways some of the early David Lynch films could. 

I forgot about this incident soon after that walk ended. I didn’t consider it a “You’ve got to hear this!” type of story for months. I considered it a “you had to be there” story where so many stories go to die. When one of my friends told me a story about an incident that “kind of freaked them out a little”, I dropped this story on them in that “You think that’s weird, get a load of what happened to me one day” vein that we do to outdo their stories. His reaction to this story was such that I began telling it so often that it became my story. I told it so often during the next year, that when I returned to the locale where it happened, I began telling it again without proper foresight.

“Oh, that’s my brother Harley,” a man said. “He has a pet rooster.”

Harley’s brother interrupted me in full story mode. I was in my element as a storyteller with a number of people listening in, and I was on a roll. Harley’s brother locked me up. I couldn’t think of anything to say. It was equivalent to driving down the street at eighty miles an hour and slamming on the brakes.

My favorite stories are of the “strange but true” variety that can stand on their own. They don’t require embellishment or a clever, fabricated conclusion. A more clever writer might’ve added something more to ignite laughter or some sort of other sense of satisfaction for their audience. They might have the rooster bark, or have it make some sound that it mimicked from the dogs it was obviously raised around. Strange but true stories like the-rooster-that-thought-it-was-a-dog are my favorites, not because they’re hilarious, but because they’re so true that they leave the listener with that “All right, but what do you want me to do with this?” reaction. When I’m in the middle of one of these stories, and someone interrupts the timing and emphasis I’ve developed after so many retellings, it annoys me. When that interruption deflates my story, I become visibly flustered.

I had a finger in the air, and a smile on my face, as I prepared to launch into my critically acclaimed conclusion, but this man’s intimate familiarity with the rooster’s owner brought me to that screeching halt. It locked me up so bad that for the next couple of guilt-ridden moments I wondered if there was a colloquial antonym for verbal diarrhea. I considered the term verbal constipation, but I wasn’t sure if that captured it.

“Harley had two dogs,” Harley’s brother added. “They died. That rooster is the only thing he has left.”

There was something in the man’s tone I couldn’t immediately place. I immediately assumed it was compassion that he was directing at his brother’s loss. The more I thought about it, however, the more I began to believe that he might have felt bad about ruining my story and causing me a mean case of verbal constipation. He might have noticed how much I enjoyed telling this story before his interruption, and he might have recognized that he had taken one hell of a good story away from me.

Whatever the case was, the man provided me an answer for why a homeowner would release a rooster in his backyard. The rooster grew up around dogs. The rooster either mimicked the patterns of those dogs protecting their property, for so many years, that it couldn’t stop after they passed, or the rooster thought it was a dog. I did not ask if the rooster scratched at the door when it wanted to go outside, or if it saw my dog and I approaching and began running in canine circles, until Harley picked up on the visual cues that the rooster mimicked when it wanted outside. I didn’t ask about Harley, and if Harley participated in this routine because he missed the dogs so much that continuing the routine provided some sort of therapy? I didn’t ask if Harley thought the rooster’s actions were kind of cute, or funny in the beginning, and he ended up doing it so often that whatever drove him to do it in the beginning was gone and the routine of it all took over, because by the time I saw Harley do it, I saw nothing but routine on his face. I wish I asked some of these questions, just to fill out the details of this story, but Harley’s brother caught me so off guard that I ended the moment with a mean case of verbal constipation.

The Art of the Nod 

A speaker began speaking about himself. He began informing us of his talents, what he planned to do with them, and all of his subsequent dreams and expectations. His life story was interesting in the beginning, but he just went on for too long. He was also the type of speaker who provides far too many details, and he provided so many alternatives that no listener would be able to maintain interest no matter how much they wanted Ari to like them. I managed to maintain the façade that Ari intrigued me, but it was a struggle. When everyone else failed in this regard, I became the center of his attention. When that happened, maintaining interest became more of a chore for me.

My friend, a third party in this conversation, was not as successful in her efforts to purport interest. She nodded off. I was, presumably, the only one who saw her nod off, and I was the only one to witness her artistic recovery.

When she nodded off, her head went down and some instinctual part of not wanting to appear so bored that she fell asleep took over, and she jerked her head up. The art of this nod occurred a second later when she nodded down again. This second nod was not a result of falling asleep, but an attempt to rewrite any theories we might have had about her falling asleep in the first place. She performed the second, voluntary nod to re-characterize the first one as nothing more than the first in a series of nods of agreement.  

She even added a “Yep!” to further characterize the hearty series of nods further. 

She had no idea what she was agreeing to, but she got away with it. I looked out at the faces of the others in the room. No one else saw it. I was impressed. I looked back at her, and she had not only maintained her agreement, she strengthened it, until she was garnering more attention from Ari than I was.

In the halls of social protocol, I considered this art.

I all but applauded her for this reaction when I asked her about it later. I mentioned that I didn’t think a person could carry something like that off once “That!” I said, “was too artistic. That requires practice!” I asked if she ever did this to me. She said she hadn’t. She said I was never that boring. I was grateful for the compliment, but I had to know how often she did that. She said as far as she was concerned it was the first time. She had no other explanation for it, other than the fact that she was trying to avoid appearing rude. She tired of my questions after a while, and she stated that the moment embarrassed her, and she asked that we move onto other subjects.

Old People

Old people? Old people? Let me tell you something about old people. Old people set the parameter. If it weren’t for old people, your nuance would have no contrast. All that rebellion you cherish, that avant garde comedy, would just be blather. Old people? Have you ever watched the movie Caddyshack? Did you find it humorous? Uh huh. Ask anyone that knows anything about the finer nuances of comedy, and they’ll tell you that that movie would not have been half as funny as it was, were it not for the old person in that production, Ted Knight, providing contrast. Without contrast in comedy, the movie is just a bunch of buffoons standing around reciting lines to one another. Contrast provides the pivot point for comedy, and that old man in Caddyshack, that fuddy duddy as you call him, set the standard for the role that straight men would play in comedy for the next four decades. The straight men set the parameters for other players to bounce off, and that’s what we old, boring types do. We set the parameters for the rest of you to appear funny, cool, hip and sexy. Try writing a cool, hip, funny scene without a Dean Wormer, and we’ll see how far you get.

Like Boxing for Writers

Some writers believe that what they write is witty, humorous, or a display of their as of yet undiscovered talent in the art of comedy? We’ve all watched them write about clouds and trees, and we’ve all let that go, because we know all writers have to preen themselves every once in a while, but when they attempt comedy some of us think these writers need an intervention. 

One of the dangers inherent in comedy is that it’s relative, and every audience member should acknowledge that before they castigate another’s attempt at being humorous, but some attempts at humor are so bad that I want to say that we can all see the writer’s haymaker coming.

When the author writes about a disagreement they had with their daughter about what television show to watch, we know to put our laughing galoshes on. We also know that every author, if they are male, will provide exhaustive detail about how they regard their daughter a superior intellect. They will provide us with eyewitness testimony of their daughter’s brilliance, and for some authors this will last for about a quarter of the story.

At this point, many of us envy those who can start a story and ‘X’ out of it when it fails to intrigue them. Those who are able to find their way through the maze of the author’s shame, apologies, and qualifiers are introduced to a flurry of jokes that are intended to impress the judges. There’s no power behind the punches, because the author doesn’t want to offend the reader, their daughter, or any judge that might happen upon their story. We see their effort dangling, and as the joke plays out we all learn what not to do when we’re looking for a laugh. The author is the butterfly that floats merrily through our head without the fear, or the need to fear, the bee sting. They’re the Pernell Whitaker, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Floyd Maywhether of the writing world that gets points from the judges, but bores those of us who don’t understand the art of boxing. We want something exciting to happen, the judge can call it blood lust if they want, but if the reader wanted to witness the majestic art of dance, they would’ve attended the ballet.