“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.

“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.