Limit to Authenticity, and Letting Things Be

I’m not really in the mood to write today.  I read a lot of good things.  I reblogged some of them.  One article, I’d like to share, but I fear that it would offend a lot of people, and I am in no mood to qualify things, or to explain where I agree with the article, and where I disagree (or where I am supposed to disagree).  Maybe I’m a wimp.  Or maybe there is a limit on how authentic I as a blogger can be.

“Then why did you write today, James, if you’re not in the mood to write?”  Because this is a commitment I have made.  When my next blogging anniversary comes, I may pursue a different policy.  I may just focus on writing book reviews and my weekly quiet time readings through biblical books.  I’ve not been particularly comfortable blogging about my church’s Bible study.  The same goes for my church’s weekly service.  It has nothing to do with my level of enjoyment, for I actually enjoy the latter.  I just get tired of critiquing and analyzing, of asking what I believe and why, of probing whether or not I am a true Christian, of nitpicking Christianity, of asking where I agree or disagree with a sermon or song.  Often, I just want to let things and people be, without offering my comment.

Plus, I am a pretty shy person nowadays, even online.  I used to be able to be vulnerable online.  Nowadays, I’m reluctant to do so.  One reason is that I’m tired of writing the same stock posts about my problems with Christianity.  An internet troll once said that maybe my problems would not look as bad to me, if I did not write about them all the time.  Well, to each his or her own!  In this season, I’m inclined to agree with the troll, at least when it comes to myself!  (There I go, always having to qualify what I am saying, always feeling as if I am walking on eggshells!)

Book Write-Up: How to Write a Lot, by Paul J. Silvia

Paul J. Silvia.  How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing.  Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2007.

I decided to read this book because I have been wanting to do more academic writing, academic writing that can get published and that I can put on a CV.  As I read books and articles, I wonder how their authors do what they do.  They site so many books and articles.  Have they read all of those?  If so, how did they find the time?

Paul J. Silvia mainly discusses academic writing in the field of psychology, but I think that many of his insights can be applied to aspiring writers in other fields of study.  (Mine pertains to the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.)  Come to think of it, some of his thoughts may even be applicable to people who want to write non-academic material, such as fiction or articles, for publication.

What Silvia returns to over and over again is the importance of having a set writing time during the week, and sticking with that.  He recommends that writers devote at least four hours a week to writing, and they can divide up that time any way they wish.  And “writing” does not just mean writing the words of the manuscript: it can also include research, setting writing goals, organizing footnotes, revising an article, and reading books about how to improve one’s writing.  Silvia tells his colleagues reading the book that their article will most likely be rejected, since most submitted articles in psychology are.  They may even read harsh peer reviews about their article.   (Submitted articles are generally given to reviewers to get their feedback about whether or not the article should be accepted for publication, and the authors of the submitted articles usually get to read those reviews.)  Still, rain or shine, success or failure, motivated or not, one should keep at that writing schedule, according to Silvia!

This, in my opinion, was the most motivational aspect of Silvia’s book.  The day after I finished it, I got up early and devoted an hour to one of my writing projects.  I did the same the morning after that.

What if one has writer’s block?  What if one wants to write, but does not know what to write about?  I think that Silvia assumes that most of his colleagues reading this book already have done a lot of research, but they are stalling at the writing part.  They have something to write about, but they are reluctant to sit down and write, due to the challenges of the writing process itself, and also their feeling that they lack the time to write.  Silvia also believes that sticking with the writing schedule itself can generate ideas.  I thought that Silvia could have gone into more detail about how one can find topics for one’s writing.

Silvia also discusses the importance of outlines, how being in a writing group can keep authors accountable to their goals, keys to effective prose, how to organize a psychological research paper, steps to take in resubmitting an article, and how to write a book.  Silvia also refers to other books about writing that his readers may find useful.

Excellent book!

Nixonland 7: Plain Speech vs. Eloquence

On page 224 of Nixonland, Rick Perlstein quotes George Wallace’s comments about riots and lawlessness in the late 1960′s:

“You people work hard, you save your money, you teach your children to respect the law.  Then when someone goes out and burns down half a city and murders someone, swaydo-intellectuals explain it away by sayin’ the killer didn’t get any watermelons to eat when he was ten years old….The Supreme Court is fixing it so you can’t do anything about people who set cities on fire.”

Perlstein then remarks: “It sure made Nixon look respectable when he couched the same sentiments in four-syllable words.”

Perlstein makes this point more than once in his book: that Nixon was expressing George Wallace’s sentiments in refined, eloquent language.  That makes me wonder: What is the better means of communication?  Is it plain speaking, or are eloquence and big words the way to go?

I recall a scene on The Cosby Show, which I watched years ago.  Rudy had a friend over, and this friend’s father was the editor of a newspaper.  Rudy and her friend were bothering Theo, who was working on a paper about his first day of school.  Theo was writing was he was at the brink of his destiny, and Rudy’s friend did not know what that meant.  Theo explained that it meant he was scared.  “Then why don’t you just say you were scared?”, she asked.  Theo responded that his teacher would not like his paper as much if he did that.  Rudy’s friend then shared with Theo her father’s wisdom: “My Dad says keep it simple: Only people with small minds use big words.”

And, in the newspaper business, keeping it simple is the way to go.  Granted, newspaper articles don’t express things quite like George Wallace did, for newspapers have to sound objective and respectable.  But they try to explain current events and ideas in easy-to-understand language.

But there is an appeal in eloquence and big words, within certain contexts.  While what George Wallace said undoubtedly resonated with a number of voters, Nixon sounded more like a statesman with intelligence.  When writing academic papers, plain speaking is not necessarily the way to go, for I have to sound like I’m smart and have a grasp of complexity and nuance.  I will say, though, that there are plenty of times when academics don’t want to sound abstruse, when they express their thoughts in a down-to-earth, accessible manner.  This is helpful to me, not because I can’t understand them when they are abstruse, but rather because their plain, down-to-earth language reminds me that their ideas are part of the real world and relate to the real world, not some inaccessible world that is above most people’s heads.

Leaders 1

I started Richard Nixon's 1982 book Leaders, which profiles various world leaders, many of whom Nixon knew.  In this post, I'll use as my starting-point something that Nixon says on pages 25-26.  Nixon is talking about Winston Churchill, and how Churchill in 1922 was really depressed because he could not serve in the House of Commons at that time, due to an "emergency appendectomy [that] prevented him from campaigning for reelection."

"Talleyrand once said, 'In war one dies only once, in politics one dies only to rise again.'  Churchill's career certainly bears out the truth of this observation.  But an adage is precious little comfort for a man who has just lost an election.  Having lost a couple of them, I know how it feels.  Friends tell you, 'Won't it be great to have no responsibility and to be able to travel, go fishing, and play golf anytime you want?'  My answer is 'Yes----for about one week.'  Then you have a totally empty feeling that only one who has been through it can understand.

"The immediate aftermath is not so bad because you are still numbed by the exhaustion of the campaign, and you are still operating with a high level of adrenaline.  Weeks or months later the realization hits you that you have lost and that there is nothing you can take back or do differently to change the outcome.  Unless you are wealthy, there is also the necessity of beginning another career in order to pay the bills that keep coming in every week regardless of how you feel."

Politics was in Churchill's and Nixon's blood, so of course they would come back to it!  Would I have?  I don't know.  I can easily picture myself relaxing and chillin', and thinking to myself, "Man, I hope this lasts forever!"  I'd be happy to be out of the public eye, away from people's nitpicking and attacks, away from having to socialize with all those people.  But would that relaxation get boring after a while?  Would there be something within me that would drive me back into the arena?  And then there's another factor that Nixon mentions: how real life comes crashing through!  The bills keep coming, even to those who are burnt out.  Unless one is wealthy, one has to make money!

I think of Garner Ted Armstrong.  He was the head of one of the churches that I attended when I was growing up.  He served in his father's church as a preacher and as one of the personalities on the church's radio and TV show, The World Tomorrow.  But he was excommunicated from his father's church, and he was confronted with the question of what he would do then.  He says that he was offered jobs as a TV news anchor, since he had experience and some success on a TV show.  But he concluded that those jobs were not for him.  He would have to tell people the news, without bringing the Bible into his discussion.  Instead of taking a news anchor job, he would go on to start his own religious organization, and he would have his own radio and TV programs, where he could discuss the news in light of his own understanding of the Bible.

In my case, there have been times when I have had to turn off my computer during the day due to thunderstorms, and I've enjoyed the time away.  I could read.  I didn't have to worry about what people were saying (or, actually, not saying) about me on the Internet.  I even thought for a second that I could walk away from my blogs, and perhaps never come back!  But could I truly?  I don't think so.  Granted, there may be seasons in which I'd rather not participate too heavily in the world of blogging and social media.  But there is something within me that makes me want to write, to reflect on a movie, a TV show, a book, an idea, life, scholarship on religious studies, or a political personality by sharing my thoughts via writing.  I doubt that I could walk away from that.  I think it's in my blood, like politics was for Nixon and Churchill, and like religion was for Garner Ted Armstrong.

Nixon in Winter 5

For my blog post today about Monica Crowley's Nixon in Winter, I'll quote something that Monica says on page 149:

"During the first week in February, Nixon and I did a final edit of Beyond Peace, the two main themes of which were brought to the fore by the end of the cold war: the need to support Russia and the need for the United States to define a new mission for itself.  On February 9, he read the entire manuscript 'cover to cover, and I'm delighted.  It's really something.  It pulls no punches.  I can't believe I'm saying this after almost tossing it out the window, but I think it's good.  I really do.  But I won't read it again.  I never do after turning it in.  You think, 'Why didn't I do this differently?'  I'm not into second-guessing.'"

This reminded me of an interaction I had a while back with a student who had been at West Point.  We had to write a paper for a class, and he was giving me tips on how to write a paper.  At the time, I didn't think that I really needed advice on how to write a paper, for I wrote papers as an undergraduate and also at the previous graduate institution where I had studied.  But I actually found this student's advice to be helpful.  It had been months since I had written a paper, so getting back into the game was slightly intimidating, and this student's advice was a sort of compass for me.  And it was good advice: get out what you want to say, regardless of how it sounds.  Later, read what you wrote----and you'll probably see that what you wrote was not half bad, even though you might want to phrase things differently, in areas.  I'd probably add that there are cases in which what one wrote may need more dramatic restructuring than that!  But that doesn't mean that the first draft was a waste of time, for what one wrote there can be useful for subsequent drafts.

Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician 22

I finished Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician, 1962-1972.  One thing that I read in my latest reading was the Acknowledgments section.  And, to be honest, this was actually my favorite part of the book!  Ambrose talked about a variety of topics:

----Ambrose said that writing this book was a lonely process for him, and that he was wondering while writing if all of the solitary effort he was expending on the project really mattered----if that many people would care to read about Richard Nixon.  Then, Ambrose would get a letter or two from a reader saying that he or she was looking forward to Volume 2 coming out.  Ambrose says that "There is nothing like that to keep a writer going."

----I liked what Ambrose said about his editor: "She is also demanding and can be difficult, but as time goes by she becomes easier to work with (this is our fifth book together), because I have learned that she is always right (well, almost) and that by doing what she says/suggests rather than fighting her, the book is vastly improved."

----Ambrose worked extensively with H.R. Haldeman, who had been a high-ranking aide in the Nixon Administration, in researching for the book.  Haldeman was quite generous with his time, agreeing to interviews and even reading and commenting extensively on Ambrose's manuscript.  Ambrose relates that Haldeman was still loyal to Nixon, even years after Watergate, and that Haldeman disagrees with a number of things that Ambrose says in his book.  Still, I was impressed that Haldeman was generous in helping Ambrose out.

----Ambrose thanks Michael Beschloss, who read the manuscript and gave suggestions.  Ambrose says that "Michael is not only a brilliant young historian but also an inside-the-Beltway addict, who, like me, is ready, nay eager, to talk politics from noon until MacNeil-Lehrer comes on."  I can get that way, at times!

----Ambrose talks about a dinner he went to that was hosted by Steve Hess, who had served on President Nixon's staff.  Some Nixon alumni were there: Pat Moynihan, William Safire, and Mort Allin.  According to Ambrose, these men after the Nixon Administration had become successes in their own right: Hess was at the Brookings Institution, Moynihan was a Democratic U.S. Senator representing New York, Safire wrote for the New York Times as a senior columnist, and Allin was rising within the ranks of the U.S. Government.  Ambrose says that these men did not owe their success to Richard Nixon, and that "Each had some reason to feel that Nixon let them down."  Yet, notwithstanding their ideological diversity, "they agreed that Richard Nixon was a kind man, a considerate man, a rewarding man to work for, and a good if not great President."  This impressed Ambrose, and he kept it in mind, even when in his research he did not reach positive, glowing conclusions about Richard Nixon.

----Ambrose thanks the Nixon Presidential Materials Project.  Ambrose says that it was helpful in terms of his (and others') research, even though its quarters were not as magnificent as those of certain presidential libraries, and even though it got no cooperation from Richard Nixon himself.  At the time, there was a legal battle going on between the National Archives and ex-President Nixon: "Although Nixon has managed to block access to tens of thousands of documents, the Archives has managed to open significant sections of the basic record" (page 702).  By the time that volume 3 of Ambrose's Nixon trilogy came out, Nixon had his own Presidential library, and with that control over which documents and tapes scholars could see.

----Ambrose's wife helped him on this project, and Ambrose says that this volume was difficult for her "because of her passionate opposition to the war in Vietnam."  She was a Nixon supporter in 1960, but she could not stand Nixon's Vietnam strategy.  Ambrose told her that Lyndon Johnson was as much at fault as Nixon!

On what Ambrose himself thinks about the Vietnam War, he did not seem in Volume 2 to critique it from only one ideological angle.  Rather, he critiqued it from a variety of angles.  He thought that Nixon exaggerated the country of Vietnam's significance on the global scale, yet he appeared to agree with the hawks that some of Nixon's bombings did not go on long enough to cripple the Communists significantly.  He portrayed Vietnamization (having the South Vietnamese take on more slack in defending their country) as a failure in areas, yet he acknowledged that Vietnamization eventually did make the South Vietnamese military into a powerful force.  He argued that the U.S. supporting General Thieu of South Vietnam was problematic, yet he could still identify somewhat with Thieu's concerns about the truce that Nixon and Henry Kissinger were pushing (that it could leave South Vietnam vulnerable to Communism).

The next Nixon book that I will read will be Volume 3 of Ambrose's trilogy.  Stay tuned!

Do I Write for an Audience of One?

Rachel Held Evans had a good post yesterday, entitled I don’t write for an audience of One.  Rachel was critiquing the popular Christian notion that we should write or perform our worship music for an audience of One, namely, God, without worrying about what other people think.  Rachel went into how we are relational creatures, and how she is happy when others value her work and consider it to be helpful.

The Parson's Patch then had a good post entitled Why do I/You Write or Blog?  I identified with some of these thoughts in the post:

"Maybe we can only truly be free to be who we are when we release ourselves of our own need to be read or heard and think of writing as expression of who we are...I started writing/blogging as a way of discovering who I was within the context of the pastoral-vocation. For me blogging has been extremely beneficial and helpful. I have tried to give voice to my questions, struggles, celebrations and, of course, my love of coffee so that I might work out what it means for me to be a pastor, and secondly because there may be others who feel like I do. Some blog as a way of interacting with scholarship and learning, others write to simply share. All good and faithful responses to 'why I blog'."

Do I blog for an audience of One, namely, God?  To be honest, I don't.  Why?  Because I don't see how my thoughts can impress God.  God already knows everything!  What can God get out of reading my blog?

Do I blog for others, then?  Well, I'm like most people: I would love for my work to be affirmed and to be deemed helpful.  I'd like for my posts to be read and, even more, acclaimed.  Sometimes, this desire is satisfied.  Sometimes, I am disappointed.  And, most of the time, I'm somewhere in between those two extremes.  I will say that, whether my blog is popular or not, I do find it to be useful, at the very least for myself.  For one, I don't remember the contents of every book that I've ever read and blogged about, so it's good for me to have a record so I can remind myself of what I learned.  Moreover, I find it helpful for me to read about my ideals and the type of person I'd like to be, because so often I stray from that path.

The Contender: Richard Nixon, The Congress Years 1

I started Irwin Gellman's The Contender: Richard Nixon, The Congress Years, 1946-1952.  As I said in my last post for my Year (or More) of Nixon, Gellman essentially argues that the image of Nixon as a corrupt and shady Red-baiter during his early political career is inaccurate and unfair.  In my posts about Gellman's book, I won't always go into what many readers would consider to be the juicy parts, namely, Gellman's attempts to refute what he considers to be myths about Nixon.  Maybe I'll get into that when I blog through other books about Nixon, by referring back to how Gellman covered a particular event in Nixon's life and comparing and contrasting that with other authors' treatment.  But overall, in my posts that are specifically about Gellman's book, I'll simply be mentioning what stood out to me, or resonated with me.

What stood out to me in my latest reading was Gellman's statement that Nixon's father, Frank, taught a Sunday School class that drew a lot of people.  Gellman says on page 11 that "His room was always filled and had to be expanded to accommodate others who wished to listen."  Frank was energetic and dogmatic, and author Jessamyn West (who attended his class at age 16) said that his "absolute conviction appealed to her" (Gellman's words).  Gellman relates that Frank was "truculent" yet congenial, and West said that Frank "was the first person to make me understand that there was a great lack of practicing Christianity in civic affairs" (West's words).

(UPDATE: Frank Nixon himself was a Republican, but the documented wikipedia article on Jessamyn West states that West "later wrote that Frank Nixon's version of the social gospel inclined her politically toward socialism.")

One thing that I admire about Richard Nixon is his reported ability to understand and lucidly articulate various ways of seeing an issue.  I guess that's the academic side in me!  And yet, absolute conviction draws a number of people.  Does it draw me?  Yes and no.  On the one hand, I feel slightly uncomfortable or un-nourished when I'm sitting in a class and a professor presents so much ambiguity that I doubt whether or not there is any firm ground to stand on, let alone to build on.  I feel like I'm in a desert rushing towards a stream or a hamburger, and it vanishes into thin air because it turns out to be a mirage!  On the other hand, I get turned off when people (especially those who believe differently from me) get on their dogmatic high horse, rather than considering the possibility that there are other ways to see an issue.  But perhaps I would have enjoyed Frank Nixon's ardent (yet congenial) jeremiads against immorality in the civic arena!

My blog tends to be the sort that looks at various positions and considers their strengths and weaknesses.  Sometimes, I arrive at a conclusion about what I believe.  Sometimes, I fail to do so.  Some of you may like the way that I discuss issues; some of you may prefer a more dogmatic approach----for me to preach what you believe, or for me to take a firm stand, period.  But, for me, my blogging is part of my search, as I seek to discover what I should believe, and why.

Mitt Romney's No Apology 11: Writing

I finished Mitt Romney's No Apology: Believe in America.  In this post, I'll highlight some things that Romney says on page 323, in the Acknowledgments.

"Ann and my family always began conversations about the book by saying that they really enjoyed it, but then suggested some important revisions----they have learned that 'a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.'... Bob White, my career-long wingman, sent me several pages of notes, all designed to help keep me from flying into a mountain.  Hugh Hewitt, whom I had met when he interviewed me about my 2008 prospects, offered helpful language, edits, and perspective, undoubtedly gleaned from his listening experiences as a prominent talk-show host.  The aptly named Jim Talent, former U.S. Senator from Missouri, kindly contributed policy thinking and insights, as he has done for me many times before.  Eric Fehrnstrom, my press and communications professional for seven years, made sure that what I wrote accurately reflected what I actually wanted to say.  And Beth Myers, my chief of staff when I served as governor and my campaign manager in 2008, read and reread what I wrote, reminding me of relevant experiences to relate, tightening my writing, and providing key insights.  She made the book happen."
Writing can be a bear.  There's the challenge of trying to put into words the muddled thoughts in my mind, without saying something that can be misconstrued as offensive.  There's also the challenge of trying to be readable----not only in the sense of being understood by the readers, but also in the sense of readers actually wanting to read what I write.  And there's the challenge of organization----of not flying into a mountain, as Romney puts it, for writing can lead to all sorts of places that you did not expect, and perhaps didn't want to go.  On many occasions when I have blogged and written papers, I find myself on some writing-tangent wondering, "How did I get here in writing this, and how can I write my way out of this pit?"

I don't know how so many people on the Internet can write such letter-perfect comments and blog posts.  Often, to be honest, I decide not to comment on posts, for I can't figure out how to put into words what I want to say.  It ain't easy!  Consequently, I can identify with what Romney says in his acknowledgments: he needed help in making his language tighter, in making his book readable and entertaining, in making his book more organized, and in showing that he knew what he was talking about when it came to policy.

Did he succeed in his goals?  Overall, I'd say "yes".  I was initially reluctant to read this book, since I had already read a lot of books by Republican Presidential candidates, but I am glad that I did.  I appreciated how Romney looked into various angles as he talked about policy, critiquing both the left and also elements of the right.  This book is really heavy-duty on policy, and I was actually more impressed by Romney in this book than I have been by Newt's numerous books about policy.  But the book also has a light-hearted side, as Romney intersperses humor, self-deprecation, and anecdotes.  I especially liked Romney's story about how he was a garbage man for a day when he was governor of Massachusetts, and he flubbed up the job by releasing garbage onto the street!

In terms of the book's weaknesses, I felt that Romney could have done a better job in detailing how creative destruction results in a higher standard of living for most Americans (assuming that he's even correct that it does so).  Moreover, the chest-thumping nationalism got on my nerves a few times, even though I appreciated his stories about Americans helping one another.

Good book!

5/1/2012 Links

I have three links for today, focusing primarily on social skills and coping:

1.  Aspergers Girl has an excellent post on 20 things NOT to say to people with Asperger’s, and 15 beneficial approaches.  A lot of what she says can probably apply to how we approach people with other problems as well.  People who say some of the 20 things NOT to say are most likely trying to be helpful—-to offer the person with Asperger’s hope, to motivate the person with Asperger’s, or to demonstrate that they understand what the person with Asperger’s is going through.  But what they say can easily be construed as offensive.  If you want to be supportive, it’s better, as Aspergers Girl notes, to be willing to listen and to convey that you are there for the person with Asperger’s and will provide help that the person wants.

2.  Literary agent (for Rachel Held Evans and others) Rachelle Gardner talks about how you can be supportive to the writers in your family.  What I liked about her post was that it presented writing as (in a number of cases) a thankless job, which makes me feel better, since there are times when I wish that my writing were more appreciated!

3.  Yesterday, I linked to an interview with Temple Grandin.  Temple made two points that I found helpful.  First, she said that we should be willing to try new things, for how do we know if we’ll like them or not if we don’t try?  Second, Temple said that people get fired for getting mad on the job, but not for crying, and so there are times when she goes to a solitary place and just cries.

The Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships 3

In my latest reading of The Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships, by Temple Grandin, and Sean Barron, Temple appears to vacillate some on the issue of how much parents should pressure their kids with Asperger's to socialize.

On the one hand, she believes that kids with Aspeger's should learn basic social skills, such as manners, being polite, and the ability to converse with others outside of their area of interest.

On the other hand, she advocates that some kids with Asperger's be removed from high school so that they can finish their degree online or in another environment. She refers to parents who home school their kids or enroll them in a community college class a few years before they graduate. Temple thinks that teens with Asperger's do not need the social pressures of high school (i.e., teasing), for they will not be socializing with teenagers later in life. (My response to this is that they may still have to interact with jerks later in life!)

Temple is for encouraging kids with Asperger's in terms of their talents, for that can lead to a career. Even if people with Asperger's are deficient in social skills, she contends, they can still gain a fulfilling job through their talents and hard work. Moreover, they can thrive in relationships among people with a common interest. Temple believes that it is necessary for people with Asperger's to know some basic social skills, but she still maintains that they can thrive even when they are not social butterflies.

Politeness, manners, and the ability to converse with others outside my area of interest are certainly things for me to work on. Hopefully, I'm getting better at these things, but it's still something that I need to work on each day.

Regarding relationships with people who have common interests with me, that happens, on some level, but on some level, it does not happen. My interest in religion and politics, for example, does not attract to me everyone who is interested in religion and politics, but I can converse with some people about these topics.

On the issue of developing talents that I can use for a career, I have thought about developing my writing so that I can have a portfolio. I have written a lot of blog posts, but those are not exactly articles. Articles are better-written than my blog posts. I've thought of writing more articles online, for Helium, or other forums. And, as Temple did, I should probably read articles to see what makes them good, so that I can gain tips for my own writing.

Writing and Naturalistic Bees

My church's Bible study group was good last night. We're going through Margaret Feinberg's Scouting the Divine: My Search for God in Wine, Wool, and Wild Honey. Two things stood out to me.

1. We watched the DVD in which Margaret speaks. Margaret was talking about different kinds of bees and the distinct roles that they play in making honey. She then went on say that Christians in the body of Christ perform necessary roles, whether or not they feel that their work is important. She said that there are times when she doubts the importance of her own work. How can that be, when she is an author, speaker, and Bible teacher? Margaret responded to that question by saying that she doesn't see many of the people whom she impacts, and that she spends a lot of her time in research or in front of her computer screen, with no other company than God. In those lonely times, she wonders if she is making any impact at all.

I appreciated Margaret's honest comments about what it's like to be a writer. Personally, I like writing because of the solitude. I wonder what kind of difference I am making, and I assume that this feeling will go away were I to become published and more well-known. Not necessarily!

2. Margaret quotes the beekeeper she interviews in the book as saying that an atheist who sees a hive would believe in God, presumably on account of the hive's order. My pastor agreed with that comment, for he noted that each bee somehow knows its distinct role in making honey. He wonders how that could be the case, had God not programmed the bees to do so.

I wouldn't be surprised if an atheist could come up with an explanation. I don't fully know what it would be, but I wouldn't be surprised. I've heard evolutionists say that animals learn that something works, and then they pass on what they learn to their offspring, such that it becomes instinct. Animals that don't do this are the ones that don't survive. In this model, I speculate, bees found a way to support themselves by making honey, which happens to be delicious for humans, and so they were survivors who passed down that know-how to their offspring.

Feel free to comment, only don't put me or anyone else down as stupid. I admit that I don't know much about bees.

Does Blogging Make You a Better Writer?

Does blogging make you a better writer, or does it make you a worse writer? As I look back at my old posts, I wonder. On the one hand, blogging is an opportunity for me to practice writing----to express in words what is going on in my mind. On the other hand, blogging is a freer, more informal form of expression than writing papers, which requires more precision, attention to style, etc. That's why some of my papers flow better than my blog posts.

I'd say that the continual practice of writing through blogging helps me. If I were to take a vacation from blogging and then sit down to write a paper, it would be a struggle for me. But I have to remember that, when I write an actual paper or article, my style needs to be crisper and more elegant.

On Writing: Look at Your Assets

I was reading Frank Viola’s Advice for Christian Authors a few days ago. I was a little discouraged when I read Tip 5:

“Build a readership base.This is vital if a publisher will look at your work. It’s also vital if your book will be purchased by people beyond your best friends and family. Even if it’s self-published. The best way to build a reader base in our day is to start a blog and work on building it well.

“Make your first goal 1,000 regular readers (subscribers) who will be inclined to spread the word about your blog to their friends. Then build from there. See my Tips for Bloggers and What I’ve Learned in Two Years of Blogging. Also begin using Twitter and create a web page. For more ideas, see Daniel Decker’s 14 Platform Building Tips for Authors. Note: If your blog isn’t attracting readers, then you may want to rethink writing a book. Unless you’re writing the book only for yourself and your friends. Which is perfectly fine. And if the book is stellar, it will spread through word-of-mouth to some extent. Maybe even beyond.”

My blogs don’t have 1,000 subscribers (far from it!), and I’m not sure that all of my subscribers would purchase a book that I have written. But should that discourage me from writing a book? I’d say “Not necessarily.”

One reason is that my blogs do get readers. Granted, it’s not thousands per day, but it’s still a fairly respectable number, in my opinion (within the 100-200 range). Second, I have written articles for Helium, and some of them have ranked pretty high in terms of their ratings. Some of them have been duds, mind you, but I’ve written enough well-received ones that I know that I have potential. Third, if I were to write a book, I could promote it on my blog, and that could attract customers. Even if my blog does not have 1,000 subscribers, it does turn up in Google searches. If I write a book that talks about something that people are interested in, and they search for their topic of interest on Google or Yahoo, there’s a good chance that they will arrive at my blog and see my reference to my book, then they can decide for themselves whether or not they want to buy it. My blog is a way for me to get the word out, in short. And fourth, something that I have noticed about Frank Viola is that he writes—-he’s written books that he has published himself, he’s written books that others have published, and he’s written books for the Internet. What I glean from this is that a person who desires to write should write, rather than being discouraged from writing, even if the task is not successful (according to certain measures of success). And it may help if the writer submits articles online or writes guest posts for other blogs.

I’m not writing as someone who has written books. I realize that writing books and getting them published is far from being a cake-walk, and seasoned authors like Frank Viola and others do a service when they offer tips to would-be authors. (BTW, check out Viola’s links in the quote above.) But I think it’s important for people to focus on what they do have and what they can do, rather than being discouraged at what they don’t have. As a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy, that is a struggle for me! But hope is important, as long as one doesn’t expect a cake-walk.