I picked up The Knitting Circle pretty randomly. I wanted something lighter and quicker to read.

Well it was quicker. But not lighter.

As it turned out, this book is about a mom whose five year old daughter just died from meningitis. The story is personal cause the author herself just recently lost her own daughter. And this book was well written.

But it was so painful. So so dreadfully sad. Having an almost-five year old myself, I couldn't stop imagining the worst and kept getting freaked out over and over again. I am not sure it was a good idea to read it.

It did, however, make me want to knit again. The soothing, repetitive motion is quite calming.

I must also say that the woman who taught me to knit was nothing like the store owner in this story. She was unwelcoming and snotty. All in all, I would say do not read this unless you're into really sad stories.

On to John Irving. I love him.

October 31, 2009 | link | literature | share[]

WEEKLY BOOKS - THE HELP

1. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
2. The Devil in the White City
3. The Black Swan
4. The Road
5. The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society
6. The Art of Racing in the Rain
7. The Knitting Circle
8. Julie and Julia
9. The Book Thief
10. The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie
11. Good in Bed
12. Twenties Girl
13. The Girl Who Played with Fire
14. The Shack
15. Home Repair?
16. Love Walked In
17. The Girl with No Shadow
18. What I wish I knew when I was 20
19. The Last Time They Met
20. The Wonder Spot
21. The Poisonwood Bible
22. The Unaccustomed Earth
23. In the Woods
24. The wishing year
25. The Story of Edgar Sawtelle
26. Personal Development for Smart People
27. Handle with Care

History is written by the winners so the saying goes.

I waited for months to get my hands on Crescent and Star: Turkey between two worlds. I read about it months ago and decided it would be interesting to read a foreigner's perspective of my homeland. I downloaded the first chapter from the New York Times and found him to be interesting enough to be worth my time.

As I read book, I often find myself struggling to remember the versions of history I was taught. For as long as I can remember, I've hated history with a passion. Part of that might be attributed to having grown up in a country with history that practically dates back to the beginning of time. Another part could have something to do with my awful teachers. History translates to hours of memorization when you go to my school and maybe that's got something to do with my despising it, too. I've never been good at memorizing anything.

Anyhow, let's get back to my topic. Reading about the history of the Ottoman Empire, I noticed a few discrepancies. Some were minor, like the story of how someone got their nickname. Others were more drastic and made me ponder how history is taught. Every nation has its own version of what happened, who was right and why things turned out how they did. One nation's hero is another nation's traitor.

In my training class at work, I met a girl from Iran who became one of my close friends. I remember chatting with her one day, in the subway on the way home. I can't recall how the conversation came up but I was telling her how glad I was that Ataturk did all that he did for Turkey and how if it weren't for him, I don't know where we would live. She looked at me in the eye and told me that they considered him a traitor. I was flabbergasted. Honestly. If you ever visit Turkey and see how adored and cherished this man is, the idea of anyone, anywhere not thinking he's amazing hadn't occurred to me. I mean, there are special history classes solely based on him and his movements for goodness' sake.

Reading this book makes me wonder what it takes to get an honest account of history. What actually happened? I am not so concerned with who's right and who's wrong. I do understand that's opinion based. But I am interested in a straightforward order of events. Just to be informed. Just to learn without bias.

Do I need to read books from all the countries involved and string the pieces together? Is it even possible to get an accurate understanding of what happened? Is history always deceiving? Is the only way to know what happened to have been there?

People say that those to don't study history are doomed to repeat it. Yet they never say anything about how difficult it is to simply get the facts.

Previously? Anticipation.

"As worker's comp benefits have become more difficult to obtain, the threat to workplace safety has grown more serious. During the first two years of the Clinton administration, OSHA [ Occupational Safety and Health Administration ] seemed like a revitalized agency. It began to draw up the first ergonomics standards for the nation's manufacturers, aiming to reduce cumulative trauma disorders. The election of 1994, however, marked a turning point. The Republican majority in Congress that rose to power that year not only impeded the adoption of ergonomics standards but also raised questions about the future of OSHA. Working closely with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, House Republicans have worked hard to limit OSHA's authority. Congressman Cass Ballenger, a republican from North Carolina, introduced legislation that would require OSHA to spend at least half of its budget on "consultation" with businesses, instead of enforcement. This new budget requirement would further reduce the number of OSHA inspections, which by the late 1990s had already reached an all-time low. Ballenger has long opposed OSHA inspections, despite the fact that near his own district a fire at a poultry plant killed twenty-five workers in 1991. The plant had never been inspected by OSHA, its emergency exits had been chained shut, and the bodies of workers were found in piles near the locked doors. Congressman Joel Hefley, a Colorado Republican whose district includes Colorado Springs, has introduced a bill that makes Ballenger's seem moderate. Hefley's "OSHA Reform Act" would essentially repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. It would forbid OSHA from conducting any workplace inspections or imposing any fines." - Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.

Amongst many others, one of the issues "Fast Food Nation" made me face was the drawbacks of capitalism. In the book, there are quite a few examples where large companies, which are major revenue sources and employers in a state, push around the congressmen of the particular states. When a corporation, regardless of its size, gets to tell a political figure what sort of law he can and cannot introduce in a state, I think it's fair to say that there's something wrong with the system.

I'm not against capitalism as a concept. I think there's much to be said for the motivation provided by the knowledge that hard work can yield to a wealthy life style. Same goes for healthy competition. Often times the lack of monopolies provides for a more fair price for the consumer and allows for materials to stay close to their market value. I think incentives and personal benefit are better motivators than pep talks or long-term promises. Competition also promotes the push for better results. More efficient ways. I think in recent history, much scientific and electronic progress has been made in capitalist societies.

However, and you knew this was coming, it appears mankind is not necessarily exemplary in its behavior. There appear to be intoxicating effects of the money that encourage people to bend the rules far enough to break them. It appears the rich have no problem taking advantage of the poor, less educated or less advantaged. It appears there are some people who will do anything for the right amount of money. Even at the cost of human lives.

Until human beings grow up and grow a full-time conscience, I don't think it's possible to live in a fully democratic and fully capitalist society. I think organizations that watch out for the benefits of the thousands of people who don't have a voice are crucial to our society's life cycle. I think the government needs to remember its purpose and protect all of its citizens equally. Most importantly people need to care more. Humans are not an endless commodity. They are not a commodity. Humans have rights. Humans need to be treated like humans.

Sometimes it feels to me like thousands of years have changed little and we're still not much better than the savages we started out as.

Previously? Eat Meat?.

Fair warning: the following excerpt is graphic and it's recommended that you don't read it while you're eating or before you're about to.

"I see: a man reach inside cattle and pull out their kidneys with his bare hands, then drop the kidneys down a metal chute, over and over again, as each animal passes by him; a stainless steel rack of tongues; Whizzards peeling meat off decapitated heads, picking them almost as clean as the white skulls painted by Georgia O'Keeffe. We wade through blood that's ankle deep and that pours down drains into huge vats below us. As we approach the start of the line, for the first time I hear the steady pop, pop, pop of live animals being stunned.

Now the cattle suspended above me look just like the cattle I've seen on ranches for years, but these ones are upside down swinging on hooks. For a moment, the sight seems unreal; there are so many of them, a herd of them, lifeless. And then I see a few hind legs still kicking, a final reflex action, and the reality comes hard and clear.

For eight and a half hours, a worker called a "sticker" does nothing but stand in a river of blood, being drenched in blood, slitting the neck of a steer every ten seconds or so, severing its carotid artery. He uses a long knife and must hit exactly the right spot to kill the animal humanely. He hits that spot again and again. We walk up a slippery metal stairway and reach a small platform, where the production line begins. A man turns and smiles at me. He wears safety goggles and a hardhat. His face is splattered with gray matter and blood. He is the "knocker," the man who welcomes cattle to the building. Cattle walk down a narrow chute and pause in front of him, blocked by a gate, and then he shoots them in the head with a captive bolt stunner - a compressed-air gun attached to the ceiling by a long hose - which fires a steel bolt that knocks the cattle unconscious. The animals keep strolling up, oblivious to what comes next, and he stands over them and shoots. For eight and a half hours, he just shoots. As I stand there, he misses a few times and shoots the same animal twice. as soon as the steer falls, a worker grabs one of its hind legs, shackles it to a chain, and the chain lifts the huge animal into the air.

I watch the knocker knock cattle for a couple of minutes. The animals are powerful and imposing one moment and then gone in an instant, suspended from a rail, ready for carving. A steer slips from its chain, falls to the ground, and gets its head caught in one end of a conveyer belt. The production line stops as workers struggle to free the steer, stunned but alive, from the machinery. I've seen enough." - Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser.

I'm not a vegetarian, but after having read this, I thought long and hard about my choices. If you read Fast Food Nation and find out what goes into the meat that you eat, not to mention the conditions under which the meat packers work, you might seriously reconsider your choices, too.

Previously? Eyes Closed.

I like to read. I love to read.

I like to listen to music. I like to go to the movies. I like to watch TV.

Until I moved to the United States, I didn't realize that there were a whole list of movies/books/etc. I could never admit to reading/watching/etc. It appears, here, there are two sets of people: one. people who have no standards, two. people who only read literature or watch small budget/foreign movies.

It appears I don't belong in either.

I like to read what I like to read and I tend not to worry about what others think about it. I read John Grisham and I read Charles Dickens. I'm not embarrassed of one just like I'm not particularly proud of the other. I don't read Danielle Steel and I don't read James Joyce or Hemingway. I believe that you can't judge something unless you've actually done it. if you've never read Sydney Sheldon, can you really say that he sucks? If you've read even one book, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I know tons of people who are happy to bash a novel they've never read, a movie they've never seen.

I think when you have the whole attitude that surrounds the mindset of 'I'll only watch movies that are small budget and independent', you're automatically ruling a whole set because it doesn't fit into criteria that you've preset at a certain point for a certain reason. It's such an exclusionary mindset. But that's their problem. What people choose to deprive themselves from is completely their own problem.

I mostly mind the people who judge you for liking something they define as low quality. There is an entire list of music you should never admit to listening. And God forbid you enjoy some mainstream writer or movie. Which means you have to walk with your head down in shame and hide any part of you that might find the movie fun or the music entertaining.

Why are people so judgmental? Why do people have to categorize themselves? Why can't you read comics and literature and Harlequin all in one and still be a high quality human being? Why do you have to wear all black and adhere to strict rules just to be intelligent?

I love Disney. I love cartoons. I enjoy watching teenage movies and TV shows and music.

And I refuse to be called stupid or non-intellectual.

Previously? Point of View.

I'd guess her age at twenty-eight or so, the point where working women first taste success and realize they've been conned. A crucial moment - it's when the ache sets in. sometimes it leads to marriage and a family. Sometimes it spurs devotion to a cause. Men reach this point, too, of course, but it seldom results in major changes. That's how it happened for me in my late twenties, when it dawned on me that CTC was not just a temporary assignment. I weighed my alternatives, convinced myself I had none, and here I am - subsisting on smoked almonds, chasing miles. - Walter Kirn in Up in the Air

Family or devotion to a cause? Hmm. No wonder they both sound so appetizing,

When I read this jewel in an otherwise mildly entertaining book, I couldn't believe my eyes. One of the greatest aspects of reading something you think in a novel is realizing that you're not the only one. Misery loves company, right? Actually everything loves company. Weirdness, sorrow, happiness. Knowing that you're not the only who thinks something is a major relief.

The hardest part, for me, was admitting that it's really not a path to some goal, but it's the goal itself. Even though I believe life is often the journey and not the destination, I also think that sometimes a worthwhile destination can make a difficult path bearable. What, unfortunately, often happens is that we get walking on a path, for some reason or another and rarely stop to consider whether it's the path we meant to keep walking on. Is there a worthwhile goal at the end of this one?

Assuming one does stop to consider these issues, as the above excerpt implies, the next difficult step is to have the nerve to admit that the path might not be leading anywhere special. And at twenty-eight and halfway to success, it's excruciatingly difficult to admit that. It's even harder to cut your losses and move back to begin another path.

I remember, freshman year in college, when my economics professor taught us about 'sunk cost.' If on your way to a concert you lose the tickets, do you buy another one when you get to the concert or do you just give up and go back home?

I hope that no matter how old I am and how far down the path I've traveled, as soon as I realize that it's the wrong path or the wrong destination, I will have the strength of mind to consider it sunk cost and turn my life upside down. As many times as necessary.

I guess I'm just like many other women. Facing that crucial moment. The only difference is that I'm twenty-seven. That's only off by one year.

Feeling less weird about my recent decisions already.

Previously? The Wrong Path.

Funny how one cares about these things, how desperately one wishes to make a good impression, how frightened one is of failure. It's pure vanity of course. Or perhaps, to be kinder to oneself, professional pride. There are so many other more important things in my life to worry about, and yet what matters most to me at the moment is thinking of something clever to say at the last session tomorrow. Messenger's the same - totally wrapped up in the conference, paying attention to every speaker, making sure everything is going smoothly, schmoozing his star speakers, keeping the TV people happy. Nobody would guess that he's waiting for the result of a blood test that could mean the difference between life and death. I suppose it's a blessing really, that we both have something to distract us. - David Lodge's Thinks...

Life is defined by extreme moments, the up or down spikes that break the monotonous straight line. When I look back on my past, I always remember the spikes. Sometimes they are major events: my college acceptance, my first kiss, my sister's wedding, my grandfather's death. Sometimes they're minor occurrences: a fabulous day with a good friend, a whispered secret, a broken trust. I don't remember much about my daily life.

Yet while these major or minor events were going on, life still continues. In the last five years, I've had many personal struggles, but I put on a normal face and took the subway to work. I sat through meetings, fixed my code and talked to users. I might have even chuckled once or twice. Not only did I show up to work everyday, but I worried about my code, making sure it's tested properly. I spent hours trying to solve a user's production problem.

Tragedies happen. Even without considering the freak events like what happened over a month ago. People get old and die. People that you love let you down. People that you always thought you couldn't live without, leave you. Most of us are emotional beings, we cannot move on in a few minutes. It takes time to develop a coping mechanism. Some recover quicker and some never really do. Regardless of your personal timetable, life continues on. In most cases, one has to report right back to work and meet deadlines. Or take midterms.

Ironically, I think it's these small tasks that keep us alive, that keep us from falling into a deep depression. The fact that you have to go to work gives you a reason to get up and dress in the morning. Your midterms stop your mind from constantly replaying scenarios relating to your tragedy. The trivial, day-to-day activities ensure that you have at least split seconds where you're not fully concentrating on the tragedy. I think that's what starts the healing process. After the first week, you spend a single minute thinking of something else. But a month later, you spend a full day. A few months later, maybe you move up to a week. The misery slowly disintegrates. Sometimes it lingers for years but it's not the debilitating emotion, it's a whisper that's barely audible.

I don't mean that we should forget about our tragedies. I never do. Even if I really would like to. But life does go on and human beings have an amazing capacity for pain. And tragedies remind me how thankful I am for the mundane.

Previously? Greatness.

Data now emerging show the fascinating and unexpected ways that genes and culture actually interact in animal mating situations. Consider the case of a fish less than an inch long: the guppy. In this species, females have an innate preference for males with lots of orange body color. Combining the importance of female mate copying with the documented genetically based preferences that female guppies exhibit for colorful males creates an ideal system in which to examine the relative importance of genetic and cultural factors in shaping mate choice. In a 1996 experiment in my lab, I did just that. Essentially I created an evolutionary soap opera. A female's genetic disposition was "pulling" her toward a more orange male, but social cues and the potential to copy the choice of others was tugging her in the exact opposite direction - toward the drabber of the two males. When males differed by small amounts of orange, females consistently chose the less orange males. In other words, they copied the choice of a female placed near such a male. Here, culture - in this case, the tendency to copy mate choice - overrode a genetic predisposition for orange males. If, however, males differed by large amounts of orange, females ignored the choice of others and preferred the oranger males - in this case, genetic predisposition masked any cultural effects. With guppies, it is as if a threshold color difference exists between males in the eyes of female guppies. Below that threshold, cultural effects are predominant in determining female mate choice, and above that threshold genetic factors cannot be overridden - and this in fish with a brain the size of a pinhead! - Lee Alan Dugatkin in The Imitation Factor

Lee, in his book, talks about how females imitate other females when choosing partners. If a female sees a man surrounded by other women, she gets interested. So much so that she might choose that male over another, one that genetically appears more attractive to her.

Doesn't that sound like high school? Not even a little bit?

I remember being in college and feeling amused, mostly cause I don't want to use a worse word, about how a male would date one sorority sister and then another, until half the house dated the same man. A guy who's dating looks appealing. Maybe cause the female thinks that since another female found him attractive of date-worthy, there must be something special about this guy. Especially, if the girl is popular or pretty.

Why is that?

Obviously, if all the women chased after the same man, there'd be one very lucky man and tons of not-so-lucky ones. So, obviously, some women choose different partners. Maybe cause they are oranger. But many women do go after the same man. Many women like to pick a man who's desirable. The joke about how much more attractive men become when they're wearing a wedding ring is not entirely without substance. Maybe women like the competition, the idea of having been chosen from a crowd. The idea of being the one that this desirable man picked. Or maybe it's the safety in numbers.

Lee also talks about how young women seem to imitate more than older women. As if young guppies know that their elder equivalents must have good taste in men. I think that also has validity in its correlation to human lives. I, personally, see this competition much more in teenagers than in adults. When an adult goes after a married man or an adult pursues some other woman's boyfriend, it's considered somewhat immature. Like she should know better. But women of all ages seem to do it all the same.

I don't really know the reasons for the imitation factor, but I can certainly agree with Lee that it's a part of our society. Even if it isn't the most desirable one.

Previously? To Have or Not to Have.

"Empirical research reveals that there is a significant correlation between low self-esteem and psychological disorders and a high correlation between high self-esteem and happiness." - Marvin Kohl in Wisdom and the Axiom of Futility

Self-esteem is an issue I've grappled with often in my life. When someone has it in high doses, others call him self-centered. When others lack it, they would often give up a body part to accumulate more of it.

I wonder if we're born with high self-esteem. Is it something that our parents instill in us or is it something that comes with the genetic makeup of every individual? If we're born with it, then that puts a lot more responsibility on the parents and environment of a child to sustain it. If it doesn't come inherent in our genetic structure, how exactly do parents, teachers, environment, or mentors establish it?

As I kept reading the above paper, I ran into this most interesting distinction of different causes of lack of self-esteem:

"Of the many sources of low self-esteem, two are central to the present discussion. That is to say, human beings compare their behavior to at least two different kinds of expectancies which typically have become internalized standards (or selves) whose point is to guide self-regulation. These selves are the ideal self and the ought self. The ideal self is the kind of the person an individual would really like to be...The ought self is the kind of person an individual believes he or she had the duty or obligation to be?"

The distinction between the two different forces at play fascinated me. Once I saw it on paper, it was obvious but somehow I'd never made the connections before. Since I'm a list-maker, I took out my pen and paper and tried to list the influences of my two selves. Here are a few from my lists:

"Gordon focused on a seeming oddity first noticed by the linguist Paul Kiparsky; compounds can be formed out of irregular plurals but not out of regular plurals. For example, a house infested with mice can be described as mice-infested, but it sounds awkward to describe a house infested with rats as rats-infested. We say that it is rat-infested, even thought by definition one rat does not make an infestation. Similarly, there has been much talk about men-bashing but no talk about guys-bashing, and there are teethmarks, but no clawsmarks. Once there was a song about a purple-people-eater, but it would be ungrammatical to sing about a purple-babies-eater. Since the licit irregular plurals and the illicit regular plurals have similar meanings, it must be grammar of irregularity that makes the difference.

...

Gordon found that three- to five-year-old children obey this restriction fastidiously. Showing the children a puppet, he first asked them, "Here is a monster who likes to eat mud. What do you call him?" He then gave them the answer, a mud-eater, to get them started. Children like to play along, and the more gruesome the meal, the more eagerly they fill in the blank, often to the dismay of their onlooking parents. The crucial parts came next. A "monster who likes to eat mice," the children said, was a mice-eater. But a "monster who likes to eat rats" was never called a rats-eater, only a rat-eater. (Even the children who made the error mouses in their spontaneous speech never called the puppet a mouses-eater.) The children, in other words, respected the subtle restrictions on combing plurals and compounds inherent in the word structure rules. This suggests that the rules take the same form in the unconscious mind of the child as they do in the unconscious mind of the adult.

...

The children produced mice-eater but never rats-eater, even though they had no evidence from adult speech that this is how languages work.Gordon's mice-eater experiment shows that in morphology children automatically distinguish between roots stored in the mental dictionary and inflected words created by a rule." - The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker

Parents and teachers historically tend to operate under the belief that babies and children do very little thinking of their own. Or that kids' minds are blank slates when they are born and when they start school. It's a common belief that children learn their mother tongue by repeating what the mommy and daddy say. Teachers assume that their first graders take their teacher's word for facts about science.

Yet, none of the above assumptions is true.

There is increasing evidence to the contrary. One-year-olds might be born with a certain grammatical structure or they might be developing it instead of merely imitating mommy's words. First graders already have ideas on why we can see an object and how darkness affects our vision. No matter how 'clearly' a teacher might explain a scientific fact, it often doesn't override the misconceptions the child has already built in his head.

It seems to me that we underestimate children. We never even think to ask them if they have an idea on why the sky is blue or what makes a seed grow into a tree. We assume they don't know until we teach them.

And you know what happens when you assume, don't you?

Previously? Intents.

"But he's groping behind his aviator sunglasses for the point of his anecdote - that forgiveness is ultimately less self-destructive than the bitter desire for revenge. Or perhaps that there is no such thing as revenge, in the sense that it never actually offsets the original grievance. " - Michael Lewis in Trail Fever

I don't believe in keeping tabs. At least I don't want to.

While I am quite difficult to anger, once someone crosses me, especially someone on whom I'd placed my complete trust, I rarely ever forgive. The heartbreaking experience of being hurt to my core seems to leave a deep trace in my soul.

Compared to many others, I haven't suffered any major disasters in my life, so when I run across stories of people who've suffered intolerable torture and are still able to forgive their offenders, I feel small. I feel petty.

As much as I don't believe in the necessity of revenge, I also haven't been able to forgive as easily as I should. I think the above quote is a perfect explanation of why revenge is useless. People seek revenge with the hopes that they can undo some terrible sadness or unfairness that occurred many years ago. Over the years sadness gives place to anger and bitterness. They focus all of their energy towards their enemy and grow to believe that if only they could seek revenge, all would be all right with the world once again. And, inevitably, it never works out that way.

Revenge leaves a bad taste in the person's mouth. It becomes misplaced anger, an emotion that surfaces way after its time. It resolves nothing and the person suddenly realizes he's wasted his entire life looking forward to this one moment which fails to deliver the magic. Talk about a wasted emotion.

While I don't live my life with the hopes of seeking revenge, I certainly do have a hard time forgiving people who hurt me. People who take my kindness and generosity for granted. People who forget that I have feelings.

But it's time to grow up. Time to let go. Time to learn to be a bigger person.

Time to forgive.

Previously? Know It All.

"Courage is the mastery of fear, not the absence of fear." - Mark Twain

Mark Twain's quotes are often my favorite, but this one has a special significance to my current state of mind.

I think most people assume that if you take a risk you must either be stupid or fearless. Why else would you give up all you have for a questionable future? Especially now that the markets are bad, the future of everyone is up in the air. This is no time to take risks.

So I must be fearless, right?

I must be a snob. I must be secure in my abilities. I must be rich. I must be dumb.

Well, I'm not.

I just believe in the power of fear and the necessity of conquering it.

A while back, I wrote about how sometimes it's okay to ignore an issue. Sometimes time helps issues disappear. Sometimes you change your mind. Sometimes you just learn to let go.

But that's not the case with fear. Fear tends to grow with avoidance.

Imagine you're in a bad relationship and you're scared to leave him or her for fear that you might never find 'the one.' So you put it off. Another year passes and now your relationship is even worse, yet you're a year older, and even more scared to leave. Another year and you're even worse off. One more year, and you're completely stuck. You may never get out.

The same applies to pretty much everything of which you're afraid. A bad job, moving out, moving in, a bad friend. The longer you're in, the harder it is to get out.

The trick is not 'not to fear', it's to face your fears. To attack them head on and remind yourself that you deserve better. Or at least that you owe it to yourself to try. As Shakespeare said, "Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt."

Cause if you don't try, you cannot possibly achieve.

So I'm going to try. I am scared. But I want to try. I need to try. I will try.

Care to join me?

Previously? Cuppcik.

Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Immanuel Kant

I was watching a TV program about the above philosophy tonight and since I've never studied philosophy before, Kant's categorical imperative was completely new information to me.

While most of us would probably agree that only doing things that we would be okay with the entire public doing is a pretty safe moral attitude, I wonder if it's actually used. I'd be interested in putting our own behavior to the test.

Let's say you're not really good about recycling. You mean to, but you just never get around to it and it's so much easier just to mix it all up and take it out as one big bag of trash. Well, that's not a huge deal. How many recyclable items are you throwing away? Maybe 10 a week, maybe 20. At the end of the day it's not a major disaster.

Now let's assume, no one recycles cause what you do became universal law. Suddenly, the numbers have grown exponentially. Suddenly, it became a huge deal. Suddenly, you're the cause of a major problem. Don't you feel responsible?

You'd better.

Yet in our day-to-day encounters how many of us actually use such a barometer?

I can personally volunteer the information that I would fail this test in a different way almost every single day. Some days I don't show as much patience as I would expect other people to show, or at least the world would be a bad place if everyone practiced as little patience as I do on those days. Other days, I'm too lazy. And at times too selfish. I try to be conscientious and I try to not overdo any of my negative traits, but I can not in good conscience say that I'd measure up.

On the other hand, I can see cases where Kant's theory doesn't work so well. Life is often not so black and white. Sometimes we have to reprimand people, sometimes we have to lie, sometimes we have to be mean in the short term to ensure the long term turns out okay.

But those are the exceptions.

Overall, I think the concept of "imagine everyone in the world did exactly as you did" is a good strategy to live in a society. Maybe if we all kept the principle in mind more, we might rethink a lot of our behavior or at least grow a conscious seed.

Sometimes a seed is all it takes.

How well do you measure up in Kant's barometer?

Previously? All-nighter.

A little over a year and a half ago, I lived in Japan for about six months. Knowing I was going to be alone in a non-English-speaking country for that long, I brought along twenty-three books. I figured they would last me at least for the first month, after which I was scheduled to be in New York to celebrate the new year with Jake, and to be at work for Y2K support.

One of the books I had with me was Jane Smiley's Duplicate Keys. The novel, in my opinion, isn't Smiley's best. Actually, it was quite forgettable and such I can't remember most of the plot.

But, as in most of her novels, the characters were enticing and one of them mentioned something that stuck in my mind. Since the novel is about a murder, each of the characters that has a key to the apartment where the murder occurred, of which there are many, starts discovering things about the others and suspecting them. One of the characters mentions that she's surprised how little she knew about her boyfriend with whom she'd been for quite some time.

The question of "how well do we know the people we think we know" starts dancing around in my mind. I sit down at my computer and start typing everything I know about Jake. I start with the basic facts: how he looks, his family, his background, etc. I move into preferences, past concerns, life goals, wishes, dreams, failed attempts. Then I move onto the really private things. Traits that I assume only I, or an exclusive set of people, know.

I look through my list and feel good. After five years, I know Jake quite well. Or so I think. I move on to make lists for the other special people in my life. Close friends. Even my sister.

I'm surprised at some of the details I remember. I'm also interested to see the pattern in some cases where I know a lot in one category and practically nothing about another. If it's so consistent, it must be me and my way of relating to others.

I like the idea of 'seeing' how much I know about a person in my life. I like knowing the holes in my familiarity. I like speculating on why they're there. Was it my choice or his? Did she just not want to divulge or did I never think to ask? Are we really as close as we seem? Do I know anything about her childhood? What about his disappointments?

I recommend that you try to make your own list. At least one. Pick a significant other, a best friend. Write down all you know. From the most obvious to the subtlest detail. Put it all on paper.

See how well you know the people closest to you.

Previously? Permanence.

Jake and I want to reading by Michael Lewis tonight from his most recent novel, Next.

At one point, Lewis mentioned a study by Robert Sapolsky of Stanford where, quite unscientific, research was executed on why older people show an inability/reluctance in adapting to change. Lewis explained that the research team discovered that people's ability to adapt to change was closely related to their experiences at a younger age.

For example, if you hadn't pierced your nose by 25 or so, there was little chance that you'd ever consider piercing your nose. The team supposedly wasn't able to figure why this was the case and they couldn't find any specific area in the brain that is used in adapting to the "new" which somehow depreciated with age. However there was ample evidence in favor of this idea.

Which would mean that it's crucial to try as many things as possible at a young age.

Or that seeds of open mindedness and curiosity need to be planted early on.

Sitting there, I thought to myself that I would hope to never be one of those people who have a hard time adapting to change. When I meet people who are negative on computers today, I find myself thinking how these people are choosing to overlook something that might improve their live tremendously. Of course there are negative aspects of technology but to completely rule out the possibility of it affecting your life positively seems nothing but small-minded.

I want to make sure I'm always open to new things. I don't want to be afraid of or intimidated by my lack of knowledge. I want to be open to uncharted territories and jump in the bandwagon. I try to do that in my twenties and I need to make sure that I also do it in my fifties. The idea of becoming the sort of person who's bitter towards change is a frightening thought for me.

So should I run out and pierce my nose?

Well, no. But I think I should be open the idea. I should consider it. It's not doing everything, as much as being open to the possibility of doing it.

That's what I never want to lose.

I've always been a firm believer that you can learn at any age. There's nothing extra-special in my brain that makes it easier for me to acquire a new language. People who claim that a language can only be learned at a young age can talk to me. I learned Japanese at 25. So I know that it's bullshit.

Humans are very good at making excuses. We're very resourceful when it comes things we don't want to do. We use lack of time, other commitments, work, family, anything and everything as a reason to not accomplish something. If you don't want to do something, you should just say so. It's pointless to use excuses. And there's no rule that says you have to learn anything. (well, there might be work requirements, but that's another issue)

I might like to pierce my nose, learn Swahili, a new programming language, or I might not. But I'd like to have the option. Now and forever. If that means I need to start now or try a bit of everything at a young age, then that's what I need to do.

Suddenly taking all these classes and turning my life upside down has an even bigger purpose.

Previously? Shortcut into Heaven.

"The point is...the point is how I feel. I don't care what gets done. I just don't want to die feeling that I never tried. I don't believe in Heaven, or anything. But I want to be the kind of person who qualifies an entry anyway. Do you understand?

Of course I understand. I'm a doctor.

Nick Hornby's new book, How To Be Good, raises many interesting points about the meaning of being good, marriage, family life, charity and cynicism. Although it's not directly related, the exchange above made me realize why I don't like some of the ideas that have become linked with Heaven and Hell.

My personal beliefs on the existence of Heaven and Hell aside, I don't like the implication that someone should "do good" so they can be allowed in Heaven. To me that sounds just as conniving as lying to get your way.

You should never do anything because you expect something in return. I've always believed that doing something because you want to or like to is the only acceptable reason. Anything besides that is guaranteed to leave you, and the other people involved, displeased.

Life is so very short and it makes no sense to waste your precious moments on something that makes you unhappy. I understand that people work so they can earn money so they can go on vacations or afford other things that make them happy. And, while I have another rant saved just for that case, that's not the scenario I'm talking about here. I'm talking about doing something because someone guilted you into thinking that's what you should do.

What's the point of doing something out of guilt? How much satisfaction do you feel after you've completed an act that someone else thought to be "important that you do"? How much energy do you put into doing something that someone else deems necessary? Do you think people are so stupid that they don't notice your heart's not in it?

What's the point?

Are you trying to cheat people, or God in the case of heaven, into thinking that just cause you go through the motions of doing something that someone else 'strongly urged' you into doing, that they suddenly will think you're this amazing and dedicated person? No one, but you, loses in the end. You're the one who gave up the time to do something that you didn't care to and you're the one who doesn't truly feel rewarded since deep-down you know you never wanted to do it anyway.

Talk about a sell-out.

I think you should help the homeless if it means something to you. Six mentioned a while back about reducing your guilt and how you should call your old grandma Jane only if you actually want to talk to her. There are no guarantees in this life and real and honest people, their emotions and God can not be bribed. Guilt is nothing but manipulation and doing something in the hopes of getting something in return is awfully close to bribery.

Stop fooling yourself.

Previously? Crush Me.

"The grief channel, the woman at breakfast had said, but the deliberate stimulation of public mourning was hardly unique to the network where Wallingford worked. The overattention to death had become as commonplace on television as the coverage of bad weather; death and bad weather were what TV did best." - John Irving in The Fourth Hand

It's amazing how sometimes when you have a thought, everywhere you turn, you see examples of it. Earlier this morning, I was thinking of how the news always consists or tragedies and terror. Bad news is far more sensational than good news.

With the exception of rare outliers, all news organizations tend to place the negative news above the positive ones.

I am not saying that the bad news isn't important. By no means do I encourage avoidance of the sorrow in the world. Information, of all kinds, is necessary for each person. No matter which country you live in or are a citizen of, we all live in the same world and belong to the "highly-evolved" animal class of human. Miseries suffered in other parts of the world than our own are relevant to our lives. And it is partially our duty to do our part, however small it might be, in lowering the world's suffering.

Everything starts with awareness. If you don't know the news, you can't do anything about it.

Having said all of that, I've decided that there are many papers that highlight the bad news and to tip the scales a bit more even, we also need to read some good news. This is coming from the previously mentioned idea of celebrating successes.

Yes, there are terrible things going on in the world. Yes, there is too much suffering. Yes, we have much work to do. Yes, it's important to recognize the atrocities that are going on in the world.

But it's also important to be aware of the good news. The inspirational people. The movements towards making the world a better place, whether they're small steps or huge ones. The stories that fill us with hope, amazement, and happiness.

If we only look at the bad, we will feel defeated and frustrated. We won't notice that while many parts of the world are falling apart and millions of people are letting us down, there are quite a few who are fighting to keep things in place. A few who're striving to make positive changes.

So I decided I want to show people the good news. The stories that are often at the bottom of a web page or in the inside pages of a newspaper. So that after several hours of reading disaster news, you can spend a few minutes reading about the people who've chosen to do something about it. Or something that's simply going to lift you up. Or make you laugh.

In an effort to celebrate the good and be aware that it's out there, I present, happie news.

Previously? Cults.

People do not knowingly join "cults" that will ultimately destroy and kill them. People join self-help groups, churches, political movements, college campus dinner socials, and the like, in an effort to be a part of something larger than themselves. It is mostly the innocent and naive who find themselves entrapped. In their openhearted endeavor to find meaning in their lives, they walk blindly into the promise of ultimate answers and a higher purpose. It is usually only gradually that a group turns into or reveals itself as a cult, becomes malignant, but by then it is often too late. -Deborah Layton in Seductive Poison

Until recently, I hadn't spent longer than three seconds of thinking time on the topic of cults. I had no reason to; I had never known anyone who had ever had any involvement, to any degree, with cults.

To me, cults had always been something weak people joined. People who lacked the capacity to think for themselves. People who wanted others to make the decisions in their life. People who could easily be deceived. I knew I would never join a cult. I even remember the Hale-Bopp incident and how we laughed at the stupidity of the people. I never stopped to think what had caused these people to become non-individuals that acted like lemmings. I assumed they had always been so.

A few weeks ago, I got in touch with an old college friend. A good friend who had asked me to call him a few months prior but between my vacation and usual hectic state, I'd put off calling him. When I finally got around to dialing his number, it didn't take me long to ask about his girlfriend and get the shocking news. This girl that he'd dated for quite some time, a computer scientist, had left him to join a cult. Of course, she denied its being a cult, but it was quite obvious to him and I knew him to be rational and felt confident taking his word.

I must admit that "joining a cult" would not have been in my top-500-reasons-why-couples-break-up list. As I plunged into my diatribe of how I would never join a cult, he asked me to read Seductive Poison and said we would chat afterwards. I read the novel and decided the above quote drove home the point my friend was trying to make.

While I still think it takes a certain mindset to join a group that evolves to be a cult, I can recognize that it's a lot more likely for a regular human to temporarily enter such a mindset than I would have originally thought. There are times in most people's lives where we feel like we're ready to give up. It might be because you lost a loved one, a job, a lot of money or many other reasons. But almost all of us go through a phase, however short or long it might be, where we feel alone, misunderstood and under-appreciated. Many of us lack self-esteem and want to make our loved ones proud.

The cult-leaders strike during those moments. They take the person who feels at the bottom and lift him up. They give him a purpose. They make him feel proud and important. Since most cults start as an encouragement or salvation tactic, they don't cause alarm flags to rise in the person's mind. By the time, the movement becomes a full-fledged cult, the people on the inside have long stopped questioning.

And that's the crucial point.

You must never stop questioning. It's necessary to reevaluate life constantly. Once you stop questioning, you never notice anything, you are now no different than a sheep in a herd. We display this behavior consistently. We think a lot before we make a decision but once it's made, we don't feel the need to reconsider it.

A common pitfall in long-term relationships is not realizing that you've long stopped loving your partner. You're still together only cause it's practical and that's how it's always been. Same goes for a long-term job. You don't ponder whether you still like it. You just do it day in and day out until you get to the next level and then you keep doing what you need to to get to the next level, and so on. You never stop and think about whether you are happy.

The only time we stop to rethink is if something major goes wrong. A partner cheats or you don't get an expected promotion. At that point, you've hit another low.

I'll buy that if you're depressed enough, you may be out of your mind enough to get involved in a cultish movement, but once you've recovered a bit of your sense of self, it's best to rethink every decision before being forced to do so.

It's the necessary tool for you to be in control of your own life.

Previously? Choke.

"Artists' lives, in those days, were brief. Often in the living, always in the writing. A painter's life was as long as a who's who entry or a note in a tourist guidebook. This was what artists' recorded lives mostly were, chronological lists of works with a note on technique or the odd illustrative anecdote thrown in. the most intelligent and ambitious of these assemblages - Vasari's in the mid sixteenth century and Bellori's a hundred years later - elaborated an idea of painting that each artist's career was used to illustrate. Neither the individual artist's inner life nor the minutiae of his social existence - the staples of modern biography - was felt worth retailing to anyone interested in the work." - Peter Robb in M: The Man Who Became Caravaggio

I can't claim to be a biography expert. I haven't even read many biographies, let alone studied the differences among sixteenth century biographies and twenty-first century ones. But the above paragraph made me think of how much attention we direct towards the personal lives of public figures.

The categorization of a public figure may vary widely from person to person. While we would all probably agree that the President of the United States qualifies as one, we might have heated arguments on the inclusion of specific painters, writers, actors, etc. This discrepancy will depend on our definition of public, our familiarity with the specific artist and his or her work, and how reclusive he or she is. For example, I'm quite confident that we could all agree that JD Salinger is not a figure whose name is plastered on the gossip columns weekly, yet he may easily qualify as a public figure because as the writer of a famous novel, his work is read by many and his name is familiar to the public.

I don't know if this has historically always been so, but what a public figure does during his or her private time is considered to be sought-after information today. A quick glance at the tabloids would suffice to prove my statement. There consistently is at least one headline in reference to a well-known actor. Stories range from distasteful to absurd. But anyone who's studied economics will tell you that the articles would never have been printed unless the readers found them interesting, or at least worthy. Obviously if no one cared about who Meg Ryan's current boyfriend is, no one would read the tabloid that prints stories on that subject matter and the paper would soon go out of business.

But it doesn't.

On the contrary, tabloids thrive. The paparazzi are well paid and keep their jobs without many struggles. They both continue making money even after the lawsuits and the badmouthing.

We don't care about Julia Roberts' acting career (well, acting students possibly do but not the regular population) we care about her relationships, her family, her misery. We feel that since she's chosen a career that's in the public eye, she owes it to us to make her life public. We feel that we already know her.

Yet we don't.

What the public sees of an actor is his or her character, scripted by someone else and simply acted by that individual. We read the stories invented by a writer (in the case of fiction). These public sides don't necessarily (or even often) correlate to the person behind the face or name. Just because I like John Irving's stories it doesn't mean we can be buddies or even that I would like him as a person. While each of his stories might contain some of him, they don't tell me who he is.

Also, these are one-sided experiences. I might have read all of Irving's books or watched every Julia Roberts movie, but they've never heard of me. They have never been inspired by me. And they don't necessarily care to welcome me into their lives. While they chose to have careers that affect the public, they didn't opt to not have any private life. And I believe it's unfair of us to assume otherwise. I can easily relate to the drive to want to get to know the person whose work inspires the reader and I can see the value of documenting the inner life of a person who's had a unique outlook on life. But lately, it seems we've become much more interested in the person, even to the point of obsession.

Peter Robb's words are not judging. They are merely a statement on the differences in styles of writing biographies between the past and now. However, to me, his words highlight a crucial difference in the society and its views on artists. They show how attention shifted from the work to the person behind it.

And I'm not confident that's a positive change.

Previously? New Day.

The same mentality of utter indifference to costs can be seen in a newly refurbished elementary school in the little village of Ichinosetakahashi, on the slopes of Mount Fuji. The principal's office has a gleaming new bell and loudspeaker system to broadcast messages and summon the student body from recess. But during my visit in 1998, I quickly realized that it would be simpler to yell through the window for Daiki Saito to come in.

Daiki, a seven-year-old with a mischievous sparkle in his black eyes, is the only student in the entire school.... It costs $175,000 a year to run Daiki's school....

As a Japanese taxpayer, I was appalled at this waste of money and at the resulting 65 percent marginal personal tax rates, but it was difficult to find Japanese who were equally outraged. Many Japanese seemed profoundly torn, for they worried that efficiency would come at the expense of egalitarianism and social harmony. I found this view enormously admirable and utterly impractical. When I spoke to Daiki's principal, Tomishige Yazaki, he was not in the least apologetic about the expense. "If we just pursued efficiency," he said, "the world would become a very dry place with no sensitivity." - Nicholas D Kristof in Thunder from the East

Yesterday, I was at my acupuncturist's and I mentioned to her that I was reading a book on Asia and that she might be interested in it since she's traveled to different Asian countries and her work is closely tied to Asian culture.

At the time the section I was reading gave insight into the reasons of the recent Asian crisis and I was telling her about some of the reasons when she said, "Well, maybe that's not what matters to them, Asia has some of the most developed spiritual and cultural identities in the world."

Her comments combined with the lines above made me ponder why a sensitive and caring business and a thriving and successful one has to be mutually exclusive. Is it really impossible for a company to do well without compromising the happiness of its employees?

I'm hoping the answer is No or life is really depressing for those of us who work in corporate America.

Earlier this week, Jake and I watched an episode of The Charlie Rose Show where Herb Kelleher, the CEO of Southwest Airlines was the guest. Here's a rare example of an outstanding company in almost every way. A culture that brings people together and doesn't single out company executives with special perks. A corporation that has record profits year after year. A CEO who is humble and caring. A company that recognizes major personal events in the lives of each of its employees.

And, unfortunately, as of now, a rare exception.

Herb Kelleher is retiring soon and he mentioned that he might write a book to tell the story of Southwest Airlines. I certainly hope he does.

Maybe, then, his company might move from being the exception to being the norm.

Previously? Hiding.

"The sense of dislocation was sharpened by the presence, in the center of town, of a single major Western-style high-rise hotel, called the Jing Ling. It was anonymously grand conference-holding, revolving-bar-and-atrium-ridden modern hotel of the sort that generally I heartily dislike but suddenly it was like an oasis to us." -Douglas Adams in Last Chance to See

Your sense of foreigner and friend is heavily dependent on your environment.

Imagine you live in a small neighborhood and are close friends with Amy and Jenna. All three of you attend the same school, and such spend copious amounts of time together each day. At school, they are your closest friends.

On weekends, you generally tend to hang out with James and Katie. Well, your whole crowd consists of ten people but you're closest to those two. Katie has another close friend in the group and we'll call her Angie.

Ordinarily, you don't consider Angie a really close friend but you probably know a bit more about her than the other seven since she's friends with your close friend. If you run into her when you're with Katie, the two of you stop and chat for a few minutes. Katie might even invite her along, depending on what your plans are.

Without Katie, you probably wouldn't talk to Angie for long, you might acknowledge her with a nod and pass by. Depending on how you feel about Angie, you might not even do that (though, I must say I consider that bad manners.)

Now let's imagine you're in Japan and you don't know a soul. You're walking down the street and you run into Angie. Assuming Angie hasn't been a complete bitch to you, you're quite likely to treat her as a long-lost friend on that crowded street. Relative to the current environment, you and Angie go way back.

I'm even willing to bet that if Jenna, your friend from school, runs into Angie they will treat each other as if they're good friends. When surrounded by strangers a girl you've met once is a buddy.

In the case of Japan, a soul who speaks English or who's from America might be enough to qualify someone as a friend.

So, as in most things, friendship is relative.

Previously? Humble vs Doormat.

Previously? Out There.

The above sonnet is Sonnet 43 by Gaspara Stampa. She was influenced by the well known poet Petrarch.

Reading this poem reminded me of a pattern I frequently observed in my female friends since high school. For some reason most of my female friends were attracted to typical "bad boys" and quickly got bored with the nice, caring men who liked them. I never fully understood the fascination of the 'bad' but I noticed it with enough consistency that I can be sure Gaspara wasn't the only one who suffered from this phenomenon.

It seems the nice men have a low dangerousness quotient and are therefore less interesting to be around. They often make great friends but are rarely ever picked as a potential boyfriend. Of course, choosing the guy who makes your life more challenging becomes a major hazard in the long term. Invariably the guy cheats on you, abuses you verbally or, worse, physically or just ups and leaves. If he didn't do any of the above, he wouldn't qualify as the dangerous and exciting partner to have.

Almost all of my friends were acutely aware of the stupidity of their decisions, but yet they kept making the same choice over and over again, falling to pieces at the end of each one.

I remember a friend who kept turning down really wonderful guys who were interested in her. Guys who cared about who she was and what her thoughts and feelings might be. Instead she'd go for the good-looking guy who chose her for her looks and never really cared about her words. For some inexplicable reason being with this guy would make her feel good about herself. Even if the guy drank too much and trashed her place, she was dating the cool guy and that's all that mattered.

I've made a few misjudgments of character in my life, held on to people for a little too long but I can easily say I never went for the type who was obviously going to break my heart. I guess the biggest reason must be cause I was never really good looking enough to be chosen by such men and also cause I'm not really any fun: I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke and I rarely dance. I'd much rather spend the night reading a book. So I guess in this case, it all worked out to my advantage as I ended up with the nice men and in durable relationships.

But I still don't understand why a person would knowingly go for someone who is obviously going to be disappointing. Isn't that sabotaging a relationship before it even begins?

Previously? Behind.

"Everyone must leave something behind when he dies, my grandfather said. A child or a book or a painting or a house or a wall built or a pair of shoes made. Or a garden painted. Something your hand touched some way so your soul has somewhere to go when you die, and when people look at that tree or that flower you planted, you're there. It doesn't matter what you do, he said, so long as you change something from the way it was before you touched it into something that's like you after you take your hands away. The difference between the man who just cuts lawns and a real gardener is in the touching, he said. The lawn cutter might just as well not have been there at all; the gardener will be there a lifetime." from Fahrenheit 451

When I read passages like the above, I try to look at my life and figure out what I plan to leave behind. Having children is an obvious answer. Assuming everything turns out okay biologically, I plan to have children and, hopefully, I plan to have them outlive me. So even if I accomplish nothing else, I can have that as a backup.

The fact is, I want more than that. I want to change the world. I want to touch people's lives, I want to save the planet, I want to create things, I want to make a difference. I think that's one of the main reasons I am displeased with my job. While it makes my financial life smooth sailing, programming applications for an investment bank isn't what I'd call 'saving the world.'

Don't get me wrong, I don't think I need to start a movement to save the world. On the contrary, I believe a tiny thing is all it takes. If everyone did a tiny bit, we'd all be so much better off. I've talked about this before and I still believe in what I said. But I also have this urge to do something great. Something bigger than I am. Something that isn't selfish and all about making my own life better. Something that will make me and my family proud of who I am. Something that will show the world that if I can, so can everyone else.

The question is what? Of course, I have no clue, cause if I did I'd be out there doing it instead of here, writing about it. But I promise you here and now that I shall leave something behind.

What will you leave behind?

Previously? I Am.

A man had left a Czech village to seek his fortune. Twenty-five years later, and now rich, he had returned with a wife and a child. His mother was running a hotel with his sister in the village where he'd been born. In order to surprise them, he had left his wife and child at another hotel and gone to see his mother, who didn't recognize him when he walked in. As a joke he'd had the idea of taking a room. He had shown off his money. During the night his mother and his sister had beaten him to death with a hammer in order to rob him and had thrown his body in the river. The next morning the wife had come to the hotel and, without knowing it, gave away the traveler's identity. The mother hanged herself. The sister threw herself down a well. I must have read that story a thousand times. on the one hand it wasn't very likely. On the other, it was perfectly natural. Anyway, I thought the traveler pretty much deserved what he got and that you should never play games. - excerpt from Camus's L'etranger.

Playing games is always dangerous.

At the beginning of my relationship with one of my boyfriends, I thought to surprise him for Valentine's day. I ordered a rose through the college charity program, with the attached card reading, 'happy valentines from a secret admirer.' That evening I walked over to his place, quite proud of my sweet idea. He greeted me happily and we chatted for a while, but he never mentioned the rose. I finally broke down and asked him about it and he turned crimson.

He had thought it was someone else, and to not hurt me (or maybe to pursue the other person as well) he had decided in favor of not telling me about it. I, of course, got really upset and told him that he should never lie to me. He got mad thinking the entire idea had been a test to see if he'd be forthcoming or not. Which it wasn't. I had merely tried to be exciting and sweet. Needless to say, I had failed miserably.

Since that day, I've been extra careful not to play games. I feel that honesty is the best policy in a relationship of any kind. If I don't like someone what's the point in my working so hard to make her feel otherwise? If my boyfriend is interested in seeing other women, why should we continue to date? If I feel the need to lie or make up truths to keep up a relationship, I'm afraid what we have is not a relationship.

So, with me, brutal facts are all you get. I won't act like I like you if I don't. When dating, I never did the 'oh I should wait till he calls me first' thing. If I like him, I'll call him. If he likes me back, great, if not, oh well. I don't have the time to waste on misunderstandings. I can't keep track of how many days I need to wait till it's appropriate for me to call. I can't be bothered with thinking of good lies. I won't act nice if you make me feel bad and I won't act demure when I feel happy.

Life is too short to play games.

Previously? Fame and Fortune.

Last week, I started reading Dangerous Liaisons. Between that and the Decameron I'm remembering why I used to love such books.

They mastered the art of suggestion.

These novels are dripping with sexual acts yet the word sex is not mentioned once. The creativity of the author in weaving the appropriate words in with the beautifully amusing and intelligent characters makes me smile each time. I love these people. I admire this author. Not just for his ingenuity and wit but for not assuming that his or her readers are dumb.

I have the same problem with movies. What bothers me about recent movies is not as much their lack of creativity as their assumption that the audience is stupid. Characters have no depth, plots are rarely complicated and just about anyone can figure out the ending of most current movies.

I don't mean to imply that I want movies to have open endings. On the contrary, I enjoy when the story has an ending. I don't need every single knot tied but I don't like the ending left to the moviegoer's imagination, either. But the recent movies are so shallow that just viewing the preview is enough to get the entire plot. There are no surprises.

I'm offended by the implications of the recent movies and novels. Either the authors and moviemakers are dumb or they think that the population is. The characters are so unbelievably one-sided. No good characteristics on the bad guy and nothing bad about the good guy. It's so sad.

If the characters aren't going to be totally realistic, like in The Taste of Others, then I want them to be witty. I want them fun and interesting. I want them unpredictable. I want them to be worth my time.

I know it takes longer to read novels that dance around the issues. You need to pay attention to the words, you need to read between the lines. But that's what makes the reading so much more rewarding. You can read it once and then strip the layers and discover another level of meaning, like in Shakespeare. These novels are fun to read on the surface but they offer so much more to the person who's looking for it.

Especially since these deliciously wicked people are so much fun.

Sometimes what you don't say can mean so much more than what you do.

Previously? No More.

You're always free to change your mind and choose a different future, or a different past. from Illusions by Richard Bach

Many years ago, I went through a Richard Bach stage. I read almost everything he wrote and devoured his thoughts. Until Jake's parents ruined it for me, Jonathan Livingston Seagull was my favorite book.

After a while, I started to grow tired of his style and his ideas became less and less plausible. For some reason, the above quote always stuck in my mind. Obviously choosing a different future is no big whoop. Most people believe in the idea that they have the ability to change their future.

On the other hand, changing your past might require some more work. I'm not sure what exactly Richard Bach meant by that but here's my interpretation:

What I call my past is a collection of memories my brain stores from events that I believe occurred. It's pretty much proven that, in some cases, what we remember is an accurate version of the event and, in many cases, it's not.

Most popular sayings tell you to forget the past and the future and concentrate on today. They claim you have no ability to change what has already occurred or what's yet to come. But I disagree. I know that I don't like the way I remember my past and I've decided I'm going to change it. Memory is selective and I'm electing to no longer remember things in their distorted way.

Almost everyone has some horror stories from their past. One kid was teased mercilessly, another beaten by bullies regularly, and yet another had to go through much more severe problems. Some of these people get hung up on their past and others move on. I don't know how one 'gets over' it and the other doesn't and I've always subscribed to the notion that if you're the type who clings to the past, you can't just 'get over it'.

I am now changing my mind. I've decided to get over it. And I'm going to. Enough is enough. It's time to stop holding on to the negative memories. It's time to remember the good times, the kind people, the laughter. It's time to move on and make new memories.

It's time to let go.

Previously? Right Moment.

If you read Metafilter or McSweeney's , you might have heard about Dave Eggers's recent clarification. I've read several of Dave Eggers's works and I'm quite a fan. Since I'm not really a humor reader, I've always wondered why I like his work so much and while reading this clarification, I remembered why.

Here's the sentence that goes to the core of things.

David, you wrote that without heart. There is no heart in your piece.

In the end, it all comes down to heart. People who make solid friends, good movies, novels and music all have to have heart. Cause if the passion, the burn is not there than nothing matters. If you can't be enthused and thrilled and amazed about what you're doing, why are you doing it? If you don't care about your friends, why would you have them? If you're not giving it all you have, you're wasting your time. And ours.

Tonight, I finally watched Billy Elliot and I loved his answer to the judges from the ballet school. He said dancing makes him feel like electricity. I've always admired artists cause they have the balls to do the thing they truly love while the rest of us and just working so we can put food on the table. They have heart.

Another point by Eggers which is close to my heart is the following:

In your correspondence, you sound like a normal, even warm, person, who cares about truth, who enjoys books, etc. But in your journalism your persona is very different. Where does that tone come from? How can any reasonable person speak so snidely about books? Books!

I couldn't agree more. Each time I read a book critic that totally bashes a book in the most snotty, all-knowing way, I think the exact same thing as above. How pathetic must these people's lives be that they feel the need to bash others. If they know so much about books, they should sit and write one themselves! I guarantee their viewpoint and harsh judging criteria would change. How much bitterness and anger must these people have to do this for a living?

When I finally finish my novel, that's all I want out of it.

I want it to have heart.

Previously? The Universe and Me.

I couldn't have put it better. I've always been trusting. For the longest time, I expected nothing less than kindness and good intentions. I spent my whole childhood being made fun of and singled out. Karen the weird one. Karen the ugly one. Karen the bookworm. I never fit in. I was blessed with conniving and cruel friends who took every opportunity to talk behind my back and make fun of me to my face. Yet I still didn't lose my trust in the humankind.

I grew bitter and private. But finally I met people who appreciated me more and more. I came to the States and found people that even understood me. It became easier to trust people.

The thing is, if you don't trust people, you're not even giving them a chance. Assuming that people will disappoint you and let you down will only invite such people into your life. I think that when you give them the opportunity, people love to surprise you. Most people are too scared to trust. It's too hard and too painful.

I believe we're all born trusting and that somehow something happens that changes our mind about what the core of a person is. We become mistrusting, we become cynical, we become afraid. But you can't run away from people. You can't spend your life alone. You can't give in to fear. This is your life and you need to take control and live as you please. Trust, in the right hands, has magical outcomes. Giving up on trust is like giving up on the humankind.

You might as well give up on life.

Start small. Risk things you can afford to. Let people amaze you.

Previously? Fighting.

I spent a good chunk of my day reading someone’s online diary or something along those lines. Now, I’ve never met this person. He doesn’t even know my name. I only know his cause it says it on his web page. Yet I spent several hours of my day, work day nonetheless, reading about his life. These entries were dated, too. Around last February.

After all that time, I wondered why I was interested in reading about details of his life. Why did I care about the affairs of this guy whom I will most likely never meet? I’m not even into published non-fiction, why did I enjoy this stranger’s writings so much?

Then I realized that this was just like those letters I used to ask people to write. As opposed to what they assumed, I didn’t want them to write about me or how they felt about me. I wanted to know what they were thinking and how they felt. I have always believed that people are more honest when they write. Lack of instant reaction helps ward off worries about the effects of your words. These writings have given me a glimpse into this guy’s soul. Or at least a part of his thoughts.

I love meeting new people. Getting to see how they think, what makes them tick and what choices they’ve made fascinate me. Every person I meet, on or offline, teaches me something new about myself. New people open my mind, broaden my horizons, and challenge my thought process.

The neat thing is, pages where people write about themselves give me a similar opportunity. While it’s a skewed and one-sided relationship, it’s still a peek into someone’s thoughts, feelings or life. I look at their hobbies, their passions and learn about new things. That’s why I prefer personal pages to ones that simply contain daily links.

Even though I might never tell him, I’m delighted about the insights I gained from today’s visit.

So I wanted to thank him.

Previously? Straight Shooter.

Steven Champeon of a jaundiced eye quotes from Justice Steven's dissent. You can read the entire opinion here.

If you ever thought there was such a thing as private email, think again. Yum or not, it probably wasn't meant to be distributed. [ via MetaFilter ]

This Time Magazine cover made my day! Even if it's a total fake. [ via CamWorld ]

Thoughts
I write fiction.

You might not be able to tell from the quality (or lack thereof) of these posts but I do write fiction. I'm currently in the process of writing a novel.

This morning, at my physical therapist’s, I realized two things. One, I'm in the wrong profession for getting juicy tidbits of other people's lives. Two, it's amazing what people are willing to tell a physical therapist.

There seem to be quite a few people to whom we don't mind telling intricate stories about our life. Besides the physical therapist, there is the hairdresser, manicurist, dietician, personal trainer, dry cleaner, masseur... Most of these people are consistently in your life but for only small periods at a time.

This morning as I lay in a curtained-away table with a small electrical rod massaging my lower back, this guy in the section next to mine started talking in detail about his job to his therapist. Two interesting facts: I could hear every word and he worked in the same company as I did. As this person started divulging more and more information about his job, I felt like getting up and telling him that I was sure he didn't want me to know this information. Last week the same thing happened to me with another therapy patient talking all about her life, but she didn't work in my firm so it was less relevant.

The morning's session got me thinking about how we tend to share information with people whom we barely know. I can recall many manicure sessions where another client would talk about her bitchy mother or how she was a week away from quitting but was just waiting to receive her yearend bonus. Amazing how much we're willing to share when we think there is no way the information can be repeated to someone in our work or personal environment.

I was thinking how this therapist must have millions of little stories in his head from all the patients he sees. Considering the fact that he has three appointments an hour and works a twelve-hour day, he's got a minimum of 35 stories every day. Even if over half of his patients are totally silent and half of the rest are boring, we end up with at least 8 stories a day. I guarantee that's more than what I hear as a computer programmer.

Methinks it's definitely time for a career change. Any recommendations?

Previously?

I spent most of the day studying Japanese. It seem that the more I study, the more I forget. I can't even remember basic words anymore. Maybe it's time to stop. Not yet. Only one week left.

I used to avoid reposting links that are commonly available at the most popular logs and metafilter to not repeat the obvious, but I decided against that. A few months down the road, I might want to revisit a certain link and might not remember where I'd seen it and since this is my log, I figure it's only fair that I put links that I enjoy. Just letting you know in case you notice the appearance of those.

I am totally addicted to Cosi sandwiches. I eat a real plain one with just cheddar cheese, lettuce and tomato, but I can eat this sandwich for breakfast, lunch and dinner. It's incredibly delicious. I'm not sure if the stores are only in New York City, but if there's one near you, I highly recommend you give it a try (or maybe not since they are so addictive.)

Before?

One more week and I will get to relax for a few weeks. Yum.

I finished Mean Genes. If you're interested in genetic behavior and whether our genetic makeup can be connected to the lack of ability to save money or lose weight, you might find this book interesting. For some reason, it was a long read for me but I really enjoyed the book. I can't vouch for its accuracy or the data's validity but it did give me some to think about so it was well worth my time.

Almost 20 days after the election and we still don't have a president. I think the situation has gotten so ridiculous that the outcome doesn't even matter anymore. Either way, people are going to whine and argue for the next four years. On the other hand, I'm delighted about the 50-50 senate. Especially if the presidency is gonna end up the way it looks like it will. I think it's wonderful that the American public has been completely calm and willing to wait things out. Considering all the mess going on in the courts, I think the public has been amazing. If this were Turkey, I can't say the public would have been equally sane. I'm still crossing my fingers for my candidate, tho...

Before?

While writing the next scene in my novel, I started thinking about shrinks and how the relationship is so one-sided. Here you are pouring your heart to a person whom you know very little about. You don't even know if this person is married or has children. They never relay any personal stories of their own, yet you sit there and tell them every little thing about your soul. You pay them to listen and, hopefully, give you some clues into your problems and ways to find resolution. I'm sure this is no news to anyone, but it just made me think today.

In my art class, we looked at different paintings depicting the same story. It was interesting to see how the same biblical story was shown in so many different ways. Actually, the similarities were more interesting. The pose in which a character stood over and over again regardless of painter or period is really fascinating to me.

Before?

I'm reading a book in Turkish on improper uses of the language and something the writer said made me ponder. I translate, "If you think that someone who doesn't use language correctly thinks properly, logically, conceptually, immediately give up that belief. A human is as much as he talks, as much as he writes, how he explains, nothing more. Language is what forms thoughts. No one can think without language." Do you agree? I've had several friends tell me how they cannot put their thoughts properly into any language. According to my author, that would not be possible. Since I started writing, mastering English has been crucial to me. Reading this book makes me feel the same way about Turkish. It takes very little effort to speak your own mother tongue properly and, if you ask me, it's really worth it.

Diane Ackerman, in her book, talks about how a smell can transport you to a specific place and time and bring back an entire memory. For me, music does that. Each time I hear songs from Roxanne's Joyride, I get transported to the boat taking me from Burgaz to Istanbul and images of the comic book I used to read back then dance before my eyes. I cannot imagine my life without music.

Before?

Last night, I stayed up late and finished Pay it Forward. I started it at 2pm yesterday and was done the same day, which must mean some positive things about the book. The interesting thing is that I didn't really enjoy the way the book was written and organized. I didn't like the jumping of viewpoints amongst several characters and I didn't like that she switched from 1st Person to 3rd and back. But the story was engrossing, at least for me. The idea that you can change the world is always a good topic of discussion for me.

I love the rush of reading a book all day long cause I can't possibly put it down. Especially when it's not pure trash. .

3 days till I go home! Yeeeaaaaay!

I enjoyed the Michael Lewis book because it inspired me to do something extraordinary. He has found ways to discover the new new thing over and over again. Once he decided what it was, he delved into it totally and made it happen. He did it his way but he kept succeeding. A person with as little formal education as he proves that it's not schooling that matters in real life. It's how much you believe in something.

The Eggers book is more personal, maybe because it's an autobiography or maybe due to the angle he took with the book. The voice is that of a funny, self-conscious twenty-something who has had more than his fair share of misfortunes in life. It's heartbreaking and hilarious packed in one. It gets longwinded at times but it never ceases to be fascinating.

I also just finished How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. The 112 page book made me laugh so hard that I cried. As an amazon reviewer said, the drawings are the best part of this book.

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." --Mark Twain

I totally believe in the above sentence.

People who are truly good at what they do will never undermine others. They make it seem easy and possible. They can explain things in a clear, concise and easy to understand manner. The only person who can't break something to chewable portions is someone who doesn't truly understand it.

Many people, to cover up their lack of knowledge, will try to make things seem confusing and complicated. They will put down the efforts of others. I've heard people say, "Why does everyone think they know how to write a book?" The same sentence can be applied to many professions, especially ones involving artistic ability.

Why is it so awful if anyone can do what you can? I don't take it offensively if I meet another coder. I don't turn my nose at someone who's just learning how to write programs. I try to help people who are learning a language I can already speak.

If other people can do what you can, does it make it less important? Does it make it less impressive? Less cool?

Not at all.

The fact is, even if someone can also write a novel, they'll never do it the way you do. We are all unique creatures and have our own way of thinking, our own creativity, our own stories to tell, our own voices to tell them with. Even if everyone in the world were a painter, all the paintings would look different.

Next time you see someone making an effort, instead of bashing her, offer her advice and encourage her for trying. Remember that while that particular thing might be your forte, you have weaknesses too. If we all helped each other, we would all improve collectively.

If you try to do something and people make fun of you, remember Twain's words. Only the little people belittle your ambitions.

Cause it's so much harder to be nice.

I bought Fight Club way before the movie came out. Since I'm trying to write, I like to read first time authors. I dunno if you've seen the movie, but I gotta tell you, the book is much much better. I loved his writing style and the whole ending thing was handled in a much better way in the book. If you haven't seen the movie, I'd highly recommend reading the book first.

This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.

Have you read any children's books lately? I checked Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs from the New York Public Library after reading a delightful amazon review of it. I highly recommend it. It's neat to read creative and entertaining children's books. At the back of the book, in the blurb about Ron Barrett, the illustrator, is the following note: "Mr. Barrett says his drawings of meatballs in no way endorses their consumption. He's a vegetarian."

I finally got A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius from the library. I haven't read it yet, but even the blurbs on the back cover are amusing. I'm sure this book won't disappoint me.

Ash: A Secret History has a full version published in the UK while it will be published in four parts in the US. Hmmm, a marketing ploy you think?

A Clockwork Orange was also published differently between the UK and the US. Actually, the US version didn't have the last chapter. In the intro of my book, which did have the entire set of chapters, Burgess talks about how his American publisher thought the book ended better if the last chapter were left out. When Kubrick made the movie, he used the American version of the book, therefore, left out the actual ending. Burgess said that, for years after the movie was made, he got letters from his European readers asking why the ending was excluded. He was quite pissed about it.

Btw, that was one strange book.

I strongly urge everyone to read this amazing response. Specifically the butterfly analogy of criticism. While Jason talks about how he feels he won't be able to understand how beauty is created unless he analyzes and dissects it, I feel that you can't learn that way. Art, in my opinion, is not something that's constructed, therefore it's impossible for someone else to break it into parts that can then be rebuilt by someone else to produce the same piece. I think you absorb and relate to art. It's an emotional process and not a scientific one. As a huge hater of critics in general, I found Dave's words inspirational.

I love the way he chooses to construct his readings. It shows what a full-of-life person he is and finding an artist who is not full-of-himself is refreshing.

His words relating to how you cannot judge other people and what they do is well put. Here's the part that best sums up that subject-matter: "What kind of small-hearted person wants an artist to adhere to a set of rules, to stay forever within a narrow envelope which we've created for them?" Think about that one for a while.

He addresses the issue I find so fascinating about some people I've met who consider themselves a good judge of art. Just because something is popular doesn't automatically make it 'unreal.' What a twisted way to think!

I love that he talks about not saying no and how he mentions that he doesn't get along with people who say no. I've met many people who think refusal is a form of coolness. Real people are never too busy or too important. They don't worry about the messages they send and the way people might judge what they do or say.

"What matters is that you want to see and make and do, on as grand a scale as you want, regardless of what the tiny voices of tiny people say." If we could all live with this frame of mind, not only would we all be happier, but the world would be such a better place.

Thanks to Jason for pointing me towards this amazing article and I am glad people like Dave exist in this world.