September 8 2014. Why does society resent solitude? Does solitude mean you are lonely? No!

Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer’s loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day.

For a true writer each book should be a new beginning where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. He should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. Then sometimes, with great luck, he will succeed.

Ernest Hemingway

The man who is isolated, who is unable to share in the benefits of political association, or has no need to share because he is already self-sufficient, is no part of the polis, and must therefore be either a beast or a god.

Aristotle

---

If I didn’t have any friends, I would probably be decidedly unhappy—but that doesn’t mean I need to see them that often. I just need to know they are there—and contactable if necessary.

Break glass in case of loneliness!

I think of them surprisingly often—normally through association. For instance, if I see red wine, I often think of my school friend, Anthony du Vivier—perhaps the most charming man I know—who once commented when we were young men and primarily focused on the opposite sex (as opposed to old men (and primarily focused on the opposite sex): “My dear fellow, the greatest aphrodisiac is a  bottle of red wine. Never fails.”

ANTHONY & JUDITH DU VIVIER

Anthony was the best man at my wedding (I’ve been divorced for many years). He really shouldn’t have been because he was ill with a form of Leukemia—which, at the time was normally fatal. He went straight to hospital after the ceremony. There, he nearly died, but the decision was taken to try an experimental drug on him—and it worked. He went on to become a famous skin doctor.  He told me he chose to specialize in skin because: “My dear chap, one’s patients rarely die from a skin complaint.”

Anthony speaks like that—in a classic, languid, upper-class English accent. He is a very stylish fellow. Delightful man.

Was he right about red wine? Pretty much in my experience.

When I think about the Vietnam War—which I often do because I’m interested in the military—I often think of retired LTC Greg Wilcox, a truly delightful human being who was not only severely wounded there, but went back for a third tour.  He is a brave man—and a good friend.

Do I have enough friends? I have enough for my own needs. I have no idea how many one should have—nor do I think much about the matter. Is there a standard? What an appalling thought. I know that I have the capacity to make friends if need be—and I know I need a great deal of solitude.

The strange thing about solitude is the degree to which it is resented. People, who need the reassurance of the company of other people (which seems to be most of us) tend to become querulous to the point of becoming downright angry when the subject comes up. 

This is what Maria Popova says about that tendency.

The choice of solitude, of active aloneness, has relevance not only to romance but to all human bonds – even Emerson, perhaps the most eloquent champion of friendship in the English language, lived a significant portion of his life in active solitude, the very state that enabled him to produce his enduring essays and journals. And yet that choice is one our culture treats with equal parts apprehension and contempt, particularly in our age of fetishistic connectivity. Hemingway's famous assertion that solitude is essential for creative work is perhaps so oft-cited precisely because it is so radical and unnerving in its proposition.

A friend recently relayed an illustrative anecdote: One evening during a short retreat in Mexico by herself, she entered the local restaurant and asked to be seated. Upon realizing she was to dine alone, the waitstaff escorted her to the back with a blend of puzzlement and pity, so as not to dilute the resort's carefully engineered illusory landscape of coupled bliss. (It's worth noting that this unsettling incident, which is as much about the stigma of being single as about the profound failure to honor the art of being alone, is one women are still far more likely to confront than men; some live to tell about it.)

Solitude, the kind we elect ourselves, is met with judgment and enslaved by stigma. It is also a capacity absolutely essential for a full life.

I don’t know why so many people seem to resent those of us who like solitude. I can but theorize. Part of it, I’m sure, has to do with a sense of not being needed—or being rejected. But there seems to be more to it than that. It is almost as if the solitary person awakens some kind of primal fear in one’s more social peers.

But, does solitude mean that you are lonely?

No. This doesn’t mean that those of us who value solitude never get lonely—but more that one condition does not depend on the other. It is also my experience that you never feel more lonely than in incompatible company.

I need solitude for both practical and emotional reasons.

• Writing requires absolute focus.
• Reading is a solitary occupation.
• Researching by way of the internet is essentially a solitary business.
• People are innately distracting.
• People are socially needy. I enjoy the freedom from such pressure that solitude brings.
• I need and like to be alone for extended periods. It is the nature of this particular beast.

I’m virtually never lonely when I’m writing. Why would I be? I’m doing something which totally occupies my mind—and which I absolutely adore. Also, even though other people are not physically present, they are very much present in my mind. In that sense, writing is very much a social activity—even if some of the company you keep is fictional.

In truth, I need people as much as anyone. They just don’t have to be real people—or, if they are (my friends, my readers) they just don’t have to be physically present. But I love nothing more than going out to dinner with friends. I’m not a recluse. I’m quite social. But, I compartmentalize.

You might well understand why I’m not lonely during my working day, but what about about the evenings? Well, that’s a valid point, but the reality is that I work a long day, have an active mind, and seem to be remarkably self sufficient. Also, I don’t necessarily stop writing even when I cease physically. Writing is really a 24/7 activity. You subconscious continues to squirrel away even when you are dead to the world. Most convenient.

Nonetheless, I have given serious thought to sharing my life again—and quite possibly will. I miss that special intimacy that comes from being with a woman you love. Besides that, generally speaking I enjoy the company of women. As I have stated many times before, I think they/you are smarter than we males—and you are almost always better communicators. And then there is sex—a very good thing (not that you have to live with someone to have plenty of sex—but it doesn’t hurt).

But, I will continue to need solitude.  

I think I’ll let Charles Bukowski have the last word. I don’t agree with everything he writes, but he has a magnificent anger—and, in essence, the man gets it.

“I've never been lonely. I've been in a room -- I've felt suicidal. I've been depressed. I've felt awful -- awful beyond all -- but I never felt that one other person could enter that room and cure what was bothering me...or that any number of people could enter that room. In other words, loneliness is something I've never been bothered with because I've always had this terrible itch for solitude. It's being at a party, or at a stadium full of people cheering for something, that I might feel loneliness. I'll quote Ibsen, "The strongest men are the most alone." I've never thought, "Well, some beautiful blonde will come in here and give me a fuck-job, rub my balls, and I'll feel good." No, that won't help. You know the typical crowd, "Wow, it's Friday night, what are you going to do? Just sit there?" Well, yeah. Because there's nothing out there. It's stupidity. Stupid people mingling with stupid people. Let them stupidify themselves. I've never been bothered with the need to rush out into the night. I hid in bars, because I didn't want to hide in factories. That's all. Sorry for all the millions, but I've never been lonely. I like myself. I'm the best form of entertainment I have. Let's drink more wine!”
Charles Bukowski

You know I’m far from sure about the beautiful blond bit—I’ll have to do some research on the matter—but he is absolutely right about: “Let’s drink more wine.”

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

September 7 2014. The estimable Joe Galloway (of both the book and the movie, WE WERE SOLDIERS ONCE..AND YOUNG) posted this. It’s hilarious and the best thing I have seen on the subject of ISIS—and then I have some thoughts on maneuver war (something of an ISIS specialty)

Neither the new technology nor your status as officers will keep you above the danger. Sergeant Major Plumley and I come from the paratroopers, where the officer is always the first man out of the plane. Because to follow your instincts and inspire your men by your example, you have to be with them — where the metal meets the meat...

LTC Hal Moore

---

ISIS (the Ebola of terrorist organizations—the parallels are striking) seems to be particularly adept at maneuver warfare—specifically by massing a large number of pickups fitted with heavy machine guns (a hundred or more ‘technicals’ at a time)—and then moving fast and hitting with overwhelming force at some crucial point.

A hundred heavy machine guns equates to awesome firepower—and I have no doubt they have mortars and RPGs as well—and, inevitably, AKs. The point is that they can, and do, move very fast—and require only minimal logistical support.

Much bite. Little stomach.

Can U.S. forces move as fast? We can—but normally we don’t.  But we have air power in spades—both fixed wing and rotary, together with drones and Precision Guided Munitions.

Add in their fearsome—and well justified—reputation for brutality, and it is scarcely a surprise that ISIS forces have been as successful as they have been. And now they have been able to add a large amount of American-made weapons and equipment taken from the Iraqi army.

Despite our flaws—which can be considerable—they haven’t a hope in hell—IF WE ACT!  Maneuver warfare is base on decisiveness, and speed. OBSERVE, ORIENT, DECIDE, ACT. This is John Boyd’s famous OODA loop—and it is no more than common sense.

But deciding and acting can be awesomely difficult.

Nominally, the U.S. Army espouses maneuver warfare. In practice, we seem to be disconcertingly prone to “bombard and occupy” as my friend, Mike Sparks, puts it.

That means we are more into breaking things—and killing people through sheer firepower—than out-psyching an enemy through speed of maneuver. 

Iraq illustrates this disconcerting tendency all too well. Twice, by the way. Back in 1992, when we ejected the Iraqis from Kuwait, we let the bulk of the Republic Guard get away—thus letting Saddam Hussein stay in power for another 11 years at phenomenal cost in human lives and misery. The disturbing thing about this omission was that the destruction of the Republican Guard was a strategic objective. We knew perfectly well that it was pivotal—and it was entirely achievable.

The dilatory behavior of some of our generals at that time is described in my friend, Doug Macgregor’s book, A WARRIOR’S RAGE, which I worked on for about six months. Doug and his unit were the tip of the spear and his frustration at the slow speed of the advance is graphically described. I am biased, of course, but it’s a terrific book. It’s climax is a detailed description of THE BATTLE OF 73 EASTING—a classic armored encounter of extraordinary violence (which demonstrated what could, and should, have happened to the Republican Guard).

Our second failure to implement maneuver warfare in Iraq concerned the advance on Baghdad in 2003. Despite the relatively short distance, our overwhelming strength, our total command of the air, and the lack of any serious opposition, we advanced at the speed of a slow walk.

Why do we favor bombard and occupy?

There are a number of reasons for this. Some are psychological. some are practical.

• WE CAN. A truly huge number of things happen—primarily for just that reason (including terrorism). We have access to such more firepower it is tempting to use it. Also, it is easier, and seems less risky, than maneuver warfare. Maneuver warfare demands a really smart leader. Bureaucratic competence isn’t good enough. Unfortunately, it is the norm. 
• AN EMBARRASSMENT OF RESOURCES. We have so many resources, we are actually constrained by them.
• ROAD BOUND. We are disturbingly road bound. There are all kinds of disadvantages to this. Roads are easier to block and ambush—and they make us predictable. They narrow our options. We tend to think ‘road.’
• BIG BASE FIXATION. We have a tendency to be big base oriented—and then to have to use substantial resources to equip and defend these bases (which means we then need more people). We have a high overhead approach to war.
• MANY OF OUR VEHICLES CANNOT KEEP UP. All our vehicles cannot maneuver at the same speed—particularly when off road. For instance, a whole range of vehicles—such as the M-113s some of which carry mortars) cannot keep up with our tanks (though they could if they were upgraded). That is not a good situation because a unit is much more successful when its various elements are combined. Tanks, for instance, need artillery, mortar and infantry support.
• FUEL HOG TANKS. Our M1A2 Abrams tanks are excellent in most ways and are highly survivable—but they are fuel inefficient. Their gas turbine engine is a fuel hog. Its gallons per mile not mpg. That means they have to stop all too often to refuel—which can mean waiting for logistic support to catch up. To compound the problem, wheeled fuel trucks aren’t as off-road capable as tanks.
• VULNERABLE LOG TAIL. We tend to have a vast logistics tail. This is mostly lightly armored or not armored at all. It is a huge vulnerability. If we armor all our log support, we will use even more fuel—and log vehicles will still be vulnerable, just less so. We really need a paradigm shift—a whole new way of working.
• WE THINK BIG, NOT FAST. We tend to think big rather than think fast. This is a matter of mindset, but suffice to say that in this writer’s opinion, the importance of speed in the U.S. Army is undervalued. Speed allows you to out-think and confuse the enemy so that he is constantly being surprised. An out-thought enemy soon either gets killed or surrenders.
• COMMAND MICROMANAGEMENT. There is a tendency for command to micromanage. Our technology gives us—generally speaking—excellent communications which higher are tempted to use. This slows down our decision making and makes us less agile.

For all the above reservations, if the Army really put its mind to it, it could practice maneuver war with a vengeance—and then we have Army Aviation and the Air Force. And we have Special Forces.

As stated previously, my general feeling is that ISIS have been over-hyped. Though they are undoubtedly well led, experienced, extremely well organized, agile, ruthless, and dangerous—and need to be stopped—their reputation exceeds their current capabilities. In addition, their brutality will prove counter-productive.

Quite what will happen if they are not stopped is another matter. The appeal of a caliphate runs deep. ISIS has the potential to grow very fast very quickly through the strength of its message. It is also Sunni. A look at the map below will demonstrate its potential. That said, it is already clear that many Sunni’s do not support ISIS.

Very recently ISIS forces have been defeated several times in Iraq—and not always with the aid of U.S. air power. The Kurds (mostly Sunni, by the way), inadequately armed though they are, seem to have their measure. However, in Syria ISIS forces continue to go from strength to strength.

Why are we being so slow to up-arm the Kurds? I can see no rational reason for this—and numerous advantages.

Syria practically defines the term ‘wicked problem.’

GREEN = SUNNI majority

WINE  =  SHIA majority

BLUE = ABADI majority

---

 

 

 

 

September 6 2014. The extraordinarily quotable Charles Bukowski—and how right he is (specially about writing, the commitment it demands, the need for solitude, and the unacceptability of alternative ways of life).

“He asked, "What makes a man a writer?" "Well," I said, "it's simple. You either get it down on paper, or jump off a bridge.”
Charles Bukowski

“Writers are desperate people and when they stop being desperate they stop being writers.”
Charles Bukowski

“There's nothing to stop a man from writing unless that man stops himself. If a man truly desires to write, then he will. Rejection and ridicule will only strengthen him. And the longer he is held back the stronger he will become, like a mass of rising water against a dam. There is no losing in writing, it will make your toes laugh as you sleep, it will make you stride like a tiger, it will fire the eye and put you face to face with death. You will die a fighter, you will be honored in hell. The luck of the word. Go with it, send it.”
Charles Bukowski, The Captain is Out to Lunch and the Sailors Have Taken Over the Ship

“It was a joy! Words weren't dull, words were things that could make your mind hum. If you read them and let yourself feel the magic, you could live without pain, with hope, no matter what happened to you.”
Charles Bukowski, Ham on Rye

“When I begin to doubt my ability to work the word, I simply read another writer and know I have nothing to worry about. My contest is only with myself, to do it right, with power, and force, and delight, and gamble.”
Charles Bukowski

“Without literature, life is hell.”
Charles Bukowski

“In the morning it was morning and I was still alive.
Maybe I'll write a novel, I thought.
And then I did.”
Charles Bukowski, Post Office

“Great writers are indecent people
they live unfairly
saving the best part for paper.
good human beings save the world
so that bastards like me can keep creating art,
become immortal.
if you read this after I am dead
it means I made it.”
Charles Bukowski, The People Look Like Flowers at Last

---

I was introduced to Bukowski by a very beautiful Irish redhead—someone who remains very special to me to this day. I lusted after—loved—and won the woman—but only fleetingly. She has another man’s wife. Love is a wonderful thing, but painful—damnably painful.

Sex is like love—without the pain. Sex, when you are in love, defines ecstasy. We made love a great deal, and  when I recall our intimacy, I can but feel joy—and weep. So much passion. So much loss. So much love. So much emotional confusion. So much tenderness.

For whatever reason, Bukowski didn’t have much impact on me the first time around. I think I was fully focused on the lady in questions. Perhaps I just needed to live a little longer—and a whole lot harder.

I have done my best.

Bukowski certainly set the tone. He had one of the most lived-in, ruined, faces I have ever seen—and, by all accounts—it was well earned, hard won—and entirely reflective of the man’s lifestyle. The man lived, thought, rebelled, smoked, drank, fucked, created, and wrote—to admirable excess.

This was a man who believed in—and lived---total commitment to the creative way of life.

I am lost in admiration—yet I feel entirely unable to do him justice..

This is what Wiki says about him.

Henry Charles Bukowski (born Heinrich Karl Bukowski; August 16, 1920 – March 9, 1994) was a German-born American poet, novelist and short story writer.

His writing was influenced by the social, cultural, and economic ambience of his home city of Los Angeles ('LA').^[4] His work addresses the ordinary lives of poor Americans, the act of writing, alcohol, relationships with women, and the drudgery of work. Bukowski wrote thousands of poems, hundreds of short stories and six novels, eventually publishing over sixty books. The FBI kept a file on him as a result of his column, Notes of a Dirty Old Man, in the LA underground newspaper Open City.^[5]

In 1986 Time called Bukowski a "laureate of American lowlife".^[6] Regarding Bukowski's enduring popular appeal, Adam Kirsch of The New Yorker wrote, "the secret of Bukowski's appeal. . . [is that] he combines the confessional poet's promise of intimacy with the larger-than-life aplomb of a pulp-fiction hero."^[7]

Shakespeare apart—and I’m not even sure about that—Bukowski may well be the most quotable author I have ever run across. His observations have a sniper’s accuracy. This was one exceptionally talented, empathetic man.

His words resonate with particular emphasis when he writes about writing—and what I think about much of life. We have similar understandings. We share beliefs—and an understanding of the commitment required. 

“If you're going to try, go all the way. Otherwise, don't even start. This could mean losing girlfriends, wives, relatives and maybe even your mind. It could mean not eating for three or four days. It could mean freezing on a park bench. It could mean jail. It could mean derision. It could mean mockery--isolation. Isolation is the gift. All the others are a test of your endurance, of how much you really want to do it. And, you'll do it, despite rejection and the worst odds. And it will be better than anything else you can imagine. If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the gods, and the nights will flame with fire. You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It's the only good fight there is.”
Charles Bukowski, Factotum

“I don't hate people. I just feel better when they aren't around.”
Charles Bukowski

“An intellectual says a simple thing in a hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way.”
Charles Bukowski

“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead.”
Charles Bukowski

“This is very important -- to take leisure time. Pace is the essence. Without stopping entirely and doing nothing at all for great periods, you're gonna lose everything...just to do nothing at all, very, very important. And how many people do this in modern society? Very few. That's why they're all totally mad, frustrated, angry and hateful.”
Charles Bukowski

“I was a man who thrived on solitude; without it I was like another man without food or water. Each day without solitude weakened me. I took no pride in my solitude; but I was dependent on it. The darkness of the room was like sunlight to me.”
Charles Bukowski, Factotum

“It was true that I didn’t have much ambition, but there ought to be a place for people without ambition, I mean a better place than the one usually reserved. How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?”
Charles Bukowski, Factotum

“I couldn't get myself to read the want ads. The thought of sitting in front of a man behind a desk and telling him that I wanted a job, that I was qualified for a job, was too much for me. Frankly, I was horrified by life, at what a man had to do simply in order to eat, sleep, and keep himself clothed. So I stayed in bed and drank. When you drank the world was still out there, but for the moment it didn't have you by the throat.”
Charles Bukowski

“My dear,
Find what you love and let it kill you.
Let it drain you of your all. Let it cling onto your back and weigh you down into eventual nothingness.
Let it kill you and let it devour your remains.
For all things will kill you, both slowly and fastly, but it’s much better to be killed by a lover.”
Charles Bukowski

“What matters most is how well you walk through the fire”
Charles Bukowski

---

September 5 2014. Terrorism? Is never-ending war our only option? How to think about, and deal, with terrorism—and terrorists. Rule #1: Retain the moral high ground. Rule #2: Don’t over-react. Rule #3: Remove the causes of terrorism (if possible). Rule #4: Don’t become a terrorist yourself. Rule #5: Don’t be predictable. Rule #6: Be implacable. Rule #7. There are no rules—but there are some useful principles.

“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. ”
George W. Bush

“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
George Orwell, 1984

---

I have lived with, and studied, small wars, guerilla wars, irregular wars, and terrorism for most of my life. I have done other things too—but this area has remained a consistent interest. I have put myself in harms way to fill in the gaps—and have been nearly killed for my pains on several occasions. I have experienced terrorism directly in Ireland, the UK, Cyprus, and Italy. I flirted with it in Japan.

I have written five books featuring it (and five books on other matters).

Am I an expert? I make no such claim. Terrorist experts appeared as if by magic after 9/11. Those who really knew—who had fought and warned—were sidelined. It was yet another American tragedy. If they had been listened to—we would be in a better place. Their crime was to know too much of how the threat had been ignored. Some were friends of mine—and I take that ill. They were American heroes who were treated badly. They were—and remain—great people. I feel honored to know them.

At a certain point, being an expert becomes academic. You are a veteran. You develop instincts. You suddenly realize: “I know this shit.” And you do. You don’t know everything—that would be impossible—but you have a deep understanding of why, how, when, and where, terrorists do what they do. You also know a great deal about how to stop them—and the related tactics, techniques, and procedures.

What is your greatest qualification? You are still alive.

In the Nineties, I warned that something like 9/11 would happen—but few people paid any attention. In those days, as far most Americans were concerned, terrorism was the stuff of movies—not life.  It was entertainment. It was distraction. But it wasn’t a real threat. It couldn’t be. This was America—Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.

I never understood that mindset. This was isolationism gone nuts. Why should the U.S. be exempt? Terrorism was a global phenomenon.

Also, the first World Trade Center Bombing happened in 1993. It was a pretty clear warning. I’m going to blow you up.  These people were serious. They did exactly what they had promised—and had a track record of persistence. They also had certain patterns. For instance, they liked to mount simultaneous attacks on different targets. Greater shock value.

Why did we not understand? Their message was scarcely subtle.

The Bojinka plot (yes, it really was called that)—devised by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should have given us an indication of the threat from hijacked aircraft. Among other things, it involved crashing a plane into CIA at Langley, VA. It was discovered by the Philippine National Police in January 1995.

We were told—and we didn’t listen.

Osama in Laden was a known enemy who had publicly declared war on the U.S. after moving to Afghanistan in 1996.

The dots were there, but our numerous intelligence agencies and massive law enforcement apparatus were not connecting them. In fact, it is far from certain some were even paying attention. Bureaucratic wars—the primary occupation of the Pentagon, for instance—tend to be all consuming. They are wars of resources—and, within the Beltway—what else matters?

One day in the Nineties, after just having lunch with Jim Fox, then an assistant director in charge of the FBI in New York, while walking back to his office, Jim and I actually discussed the World Trade Center—and the probability of a second attack.

We stopped walking and looked up at the twin towers for a minute or two.

In Jim’s opinion, we were woefully ill prepared. He told me a story about Grand Central Station where we had escaped catastrophe by pure luck. The bomb just hadn’t worked. We both thought a follow up attack was likely.

Jim Fox was in charge of the 1993 investigation and was also the man who put John Gotti away. He was a talented man who spoke Mandarin. He had made his bones in counter-espionage. He was an exceptional human being. I became very fond of him. He died in 1997 at the age of 59.

Deeply distressing. In truth, much, more. When I think of him, I feel a great sense of loss. You just don’t meet people of Jim’s caliber that often.

I spoke to him at length shortly before that. What he told me was disturbing.

It had to do with the political reasons why we refused to connect the dots. And I’ll say no more about that for the time being.

As you will gather from my comments below, I don’t think we’ve handled counter-terrorism particularly well since 9/11. We have over-reacted massively—and, in the process, have done this country a great deal of damage in terms of both spilled blood and wasted treasure. And our invasion of Iraq has proved to be a disaster for us, for our allies (such as the British) for the Iraqis—though not for the Iranians or Islamic fundamentalists.

The law of unintended consequences? More the consequences of deliberate ignorance.

Though Al Qaeda has undoubtedly been severely degraded, our Jihadist enemies—as a whole—are now more numerous and stronger than they were back in 2001, and the conflict has spread geographically (to parts of Africa, in particular). Our international efforts, in many ways, have been counterproductive. Actions have a disconcerting tendency to  breed reactions. By acting like the crusaders we are accused of being—for instance, through drone strikes—we validate the claims of our accusers, and aid their recruiting efforts.

How do we break out of this mutually destructive cycle? Frankly, it’s not easy when you are dealing with an enemy who espouses an entirely alien ideology—but it is notable that we have devoted scant efforts to determining whether there is any core validity to the Islamist concerns.

Here I would like to make the point that what appears to be a clash of ideologies often has, at its root, much more practical origins—and that they are frequently economic. For instance, the egregious behavior of oil corporations in Nigeria has had a great deal to do with the rise of terrorism there. Similarly, the Troubles in Northern Ireland—often portrayed as a clash of religions—had much more to do with the fact that the Protestants, who used to have a monopoly of the levers of power, blatantly favored fellow Protestants when it came to jobs, housing and economic matters in general.

If we applied this analytical approach to the grievances of the various Islamist groups—and initiated some remedial action—I suspect that it might work to our advantage. It wouldn’t be easy, and wouldn’t yield immediate benefits, but the alternative is endless war, and mutual destruction. Right now our counter-terrorist strategy is almost completely based upon repression and destruction. We need to think more creatively and try carrot as well as stick.

By and large, the reorganization of our security services—including law enforcement—has been a success. Unfortunately, in the process, we have created something of a surveillance state. We need to think about the implications of that and buff up our freedoms. Mind you, they are equally at risk from various corporate activities.

CAVEAT.  The following comments have to be modified in the light of particular circumstances. They are guiding principles, no more—but I don’t pretend that the situation in Nigeria is exactly the same as that prevailing in Northern Ireland during the troubles. On the other hand, some of the parallels are striking.

SUSPECTED BOKO HARAM LEADER ABUKAR SHEKAU

 

ABU GHRAIB

GUANTANAMO

 

COUNTER-TERRORISM PRINCIPLES

• BEHAVE LIKE A DECENT HUMAN BEING AND KEEP THE MORAL HIGH GROUND. This is incredibly important—and common sense. It really should not need explaining. Suffice to say, that we have lost a great deal of it since 9/11. By using torture, and frequently treating those we have arrested very badly, we have handed our enemies a massive propaganda victory—and undermined our own professed values. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and our general treatment of those we have imprisoned represent a stain that won’t go away—and which is extensively documented on the internet. Where prisoners are concerned, we have an additional problem. We incarcerate way too many people in the U.S. itself—and treat them badly.  In short, our values do not seem to include a tradition of treating a prison population decently. This fact—like our continuing racism (which really shows up in the economic plight of African Americans) —is widely known and further serves to undermine our moral standing.  As a society, we have great strengths—but, in many ways, we are found wanting. Where the moral high ground is concerned, what counts is not just how we fight terrorists, but the totality of our culture and consequent behavior.
• WHERE THREAT IS CONCERNED, KEEP A SENSE OF PROPORTION. Governments like to claim that their foremost obligation is to keep us safe. If that was really the case, they would prioritize threats and deal with them accordingly. On that basis, terrorism would not be high on the list. Medical error almost certainly would be—as would the dangers of legal drugs. An American hospital is a vastly more dangerous place than an American airport. Fast food kills way more people each year than terrorists have in the last hundred.
• TAKE REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST TERRORISM AT ALL TIMES. Prior to 9/11, our various law enforcement and intelligence services were scarcely talking to one another. If they had been, 9/11 might not have happened. It is hard to be sure because perfect security is neither desirable (it constitutes repression) nor possible (cost and the human factor) but there were, in fact, plenty of indications as to Al Qaeda’s intentions.
• DETERMINE THE CAUSES OF TERRORISM AND—INSOFAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE—ELIMINATE THEM. Terrorists, almost always, have some validity to their claims. Such root causes need to be addressed—or they fester on. We have virtually ignored this approach. It is a major—and unforgivable—omission.
• DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE FANATICS AND THE MODERATES.  People get involved in terrorism for all kinds of reasons—including idealism. Appreciate that one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. However, at a certain point, some just cross the line and terrorism become an end in itself. Violence is brutalizing and can be addictive. You get to like cutting off heads. The first group can (sometimes) be won over. The second group normally have to be killed or imprisoned for life.
• DON’T DEMONIZE TERRORISTS—AND CERTAINLY DON’T DEMONIZE THE GROUP THEY COME FROM.  It’s never a good idea to demonize anyone. Your judgment goes to hell. You need to think of terrorists as people—albeit you loathe what they do. Though it is very hard to do, you also need to respect their dignity.
• LEARN TO THINK LIKE TERRORISTS DO. EMPHATHIZE WITH THEM.  Thinking like a terrorist means you can begin to predict what they will do. That is vastly helpful. Empathy does not imply agreement. It merely means you have an emotional understanding of your opponent’s mindset. You can appreciate their cause, their courage, and their strengths. You can assess them realistically. You can, if necessary, communicate with them. This latter attribute is the key to eventual resolution.
• BE GUIDED BY INTELLIGENCE AT ALL TIMES.  INFILTRATE THEM. Intelligence is really the key to counter-terrorism. Lashing out blindly, as we tended to do in the early days in Iraq—by arresting all men of military age, for instance—just builds enemies.
• CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE MOVING.  The law of unintended consequences plays a significant role in counter-terrorism. Things go wrong. Actions and statements are misinterpreted—or deliberately re-interpreted.
• DETERMINE WHAT TERRORISTS EXPECT AND WANT YOU TO DO—AND DON’T DO IT.  A great deal of terrorist activity is based upon the notion of provoking one’s enemies into unwise actions.
• DON’T OCCUPY OTHER COUNTRIES. Unless you are prepared to act with complete brutality—as the Romans were in their day—occupations rarely work. People just don’t like being occupied—and the terrorists are regarded as freedom fighter by the local population.
• APRECIATE THAT TERRORISM CAN BE CONTAINED BUT ALMOST NEVER ELIMINATED.  Here, a great deal depends upon whether you have eliminated the causes of the terrorist campaign.
• SETTLE IN FOR THE LONG HAUL. TERRORIST CAMPAIGNS TEND TO LAST FOR A LONG TIME.  I had lunch in the Pentagon with the Vice chief of Staff of the Army shortly after 9/11. I have never seen such shocked faces as when I pointed out that the campaign against Bin Laden and his followers could well last decades. At that time, the other lunch guest were thinking months, perhaps a year or two. As of now, Bin Laden may be dead, but his cause lives on—and we have already been at it for 13 years.
• DON’T OVERREACT.  We have broken this rule repeatedly to our great cost.
• CONSIDER NOT REACTING AT ALL ON OCCASIONS. This is politically very hard to do—but you can out-psyche your enemy by not reacting on occasions. Not reacting does not mean you never react. It merely means that you proceed in your own way in your own time. It means you have the initiative. 
• DON’T BE PREDICTABLE.  It’s actually amazing how predictable the official response to terrorism normally is. Typically, it is heavy handed and just makes the whole situation worse. Restraint and imagination are called for.
• IT DEPENDS UPON THE COUNTRY, BUT UNDERSTAND THAT TERRORISM IS RARELY A MAJOR THREAT IN A DEVELOPED COUNTRY.  You’ll have more freedom of action if this is explained to people. Politicians like to hype up things like terrorism. They distract from the more serious issues.
• APPRECIATE THAT WHEN YOU LOCK UP TERRORISTS, YOU ARE, IN EFFECT, SENDING THEM TO A TERRORIST UNIVERSITY. Prison allows terrorists to network, train, and plan. Internment without trial was a disaster in Northern Ireland. Imprisonment after due process is not much better. No, I don’t have a solution.
• DON’T SPEND TO EXCESS TO FIGHT TERRORISM.  This is a fairly obvious principle—which we have violated. In fact, one of Bin Laden’s primary goals was to damage the U.S. economy. We handed him victory on a plate. Our present level of National Security expenditure—over $1 trillion a year—is insane.
• DON’T MILITARIZE COUNTER-TERRORISM (IF YOU CAN AVOID IT).  Armies are prone to be a crude instrument when it comes to counter-terrorism. They tend to be excessively violent and to alienate the population. You do need special forces for certain tasks, but there are risks to using regular soldiers and marines en masse. And, in themselves, they become targets. Of course, when you are dealing with a full scale insurgency, then you have no choice but to use troops. If you do, they should be out there protecting the population—not in big bases.
• AVOID THE CONVENTIONAL. The conventional military (as opposed to special forces), in particular, have a bad habit of doing things because they feel they should—not because they work. Searching for weapons is one example. If that is done too thoroughly—which involves smashing drywall and ripping up floors, it is one of the fastest ways of alienating the local community. It tends to be forgotten that British troops were initially welcomed by the Catholics in Northern Ireland. Overzealous searches, by the Parachute Regiment in particular, turned regard into hatred—and laid the groundwork for further decades of conflict. Another convention is patrolling. Soldiers like to patrol because that’s what soldiers do—and it is a “show of force.” Arguably there are situations where patrolling is a good and necessary thing, but often it is military make-work which makes the patrolling soldiers targets and—as far as the local community is concerned—represents in-your-face repression. Generally speaking, the military should operate in support of the civil power and be as unobtrusive as possible.
• BE RUTHLESS IN A HOT BLOOD SITUATION. In a hostage situation, or similar, it can make sense to shoot to kill. This tends to be accepted by all concerned. This is the stick side of the equation. The U.S. tends to be long on stick and short on carrot. The stick is certainly needed—and may, at times, be needed to be employed ruthlessly—but balance is required.
• BEHAVE AS WELL AS CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT AND STAY WITHIN THE RULE OF LAW.  Common human decency is a powerful weapon against terrorism. Bad behavior by you just strengthens your enemies. Special laws may well be needed to deal with terrorism but such laws much be seen to be fair, and need to be adhered to.
• KEEP PUBLIC OPINION ON YOUR SIDE. After a major incident like 9/11, people will accept a great deal—but eventually they will resent a heavy-handed government.
• SHOULD YOU NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS? Short of killing every terrorist—which tends to be both impossible and politically unacceptable—the only way a terrorist campaign comes to an end is through dialog. Talking is not the same as giving in. I believe the West makes a grave mistake by refusing to talk to terrorists—specially since we actually do (though not enough). Failure to talk encourages extremism, polarization—and ignorance of what the other wants.

When I consider these principles I find it hard not to conclude that our strategy—in relation to terrorism—is flawed. We seem to have committed to a state of permanent war.

I find that an unacceptable option.

---

 

 

 

 

September 3 2014. Thinking clearly is generally considered to be a good thing—and it is fundamental if you are a writer—but can you think at your best when drugged? Yet virtually half the U.S. adult population is on legal drugs—and virtually all seniors are on multiples thereof. (It’s something like an average of seven meds per senior—and yet we die three years sooner than those pesky Europeans). As for our children, we drug a truly alarming number of them too. Could this be why resolving even the most simple issues seems to be so difficult? Is this a societal problem? Have we become a ‘muzzy nation?’

War is very simple, but in War the simplest things become very difficult.

Carl von Clausewitz

If the mind is to emerge unscathed from this relentless struggle with the unforeseen, two qualities are indispensable: first, an intellect that, even in the darkest hour, retains some glimmerings of the inner light which leads to truth; and second, the courage to follow this faint light wherever it may lead.

Carl von Clausewitz

---

CARL VON CLAUSWWITZ

Clausewitz was a professional soldier who was involved in numerous military campaigns, but he is famous primarily as a military theorist interested in the examination of war. He paid special attention to the campaigns of Frederick the Great and Napoleon. He wrote a careful, systematic, philosophical examination of war in all its aspects. The result was his principal work, On War, a major work on the philosophy of war.

Back in April I injured myself very badly in a rather unusual backward fall (entirely my own fault—and damn stupid of me)—and after enduring considerable pain for several days, went on Ibuprofen. The relief from pain was considerable—but I found I couldn’t think as clearly as I like to—and need to. I felt permanently muzzy.

It wasn’t an all encompassing muzziness. Arguably, that would have been less dangerous because I would have been forced to accept my situation. Instead, though that mentally dull feeling was ever present, I could fool myself into believing that I was pretty much thinking clearly.

I wasn’t. In fact it took me four months to recover fully.

I could think, of course—and nominally I could function in that I could sit at my desk and write—but really I was just going through the motions and would have been better off resting. Better yet, I should have slept more.

Sleep is my favorite medicine. Unfortunately, doubtless helped by the fact that I wasn’t thinking clearly, my work ethic won out.

I didn’t really understand how much my cognitive abilities were impaired at the time. I thought I was about 80 percent operational—but, in truth, I was deluding myself. The fact is that your cognitive edge (the bit that distinguishes you creatively, contributes insights, and guides your decisions) primarily works at the margin. As a consequence,  to function at 80 percent—even if that had been the case (which it wasn’t)—equates to being dysfunctional.

I was like someone who has been without sleep for several days. You can walk and talk and go through the motions of being awake and sentient—but research shows your judgment goes to hell.

It’s a major reason why everything is so difficult in war. Many of the combatants are tired all the time so the simplest thing becomes difficult. I saw it demonstrated graphically when I spent time with the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) in the Mojave Desert—and that was only an exercise. I saw it etched into soldiers’ faces during hostilities in Northern Ireland—which were decidedly not an exercise. It was self evident when I was in Cyprus when the Greeks were showing they were the power—just before the Turkish invasion.

I so nearly got shot during that confrontation, I sweat to think about it. It’s a strange feeling to walk away when a group of strangers are debating whether to kill you or not. I was too terrified to be afraid.

We now consume so many legal drugs in the U.S. that our water supplies are contaminated by meds, tens of thousands of people are killed, and hundreds of thousands have to visit the Emergency Room. The Center for Disease Control has called the problem an epidemic. It equates to slaughter on a grand scale—and, in terms of threat to our national wellbeing, relegates terrorism to constituting no more than a sideshow.

Legal drugs are killing and injuring Americans on a scale equivalent to full scale war—or one Vietnam War every two years.

Where our water is concerned, currently we have no routine way of removing such medical contamination—though it can be done—so the problem is steadily getting worse. That means that even people who think they are not on meds really are—through the water supply—much as any of us who eat any type of meat in the U.S. are on antibiotics, whether we like it or not. They are fed to industrially raised animals as a matter of routine.

The question I am raising is whether our national ability to think clearly and rationally, to appreciate nuance, to negotiate compromise, to plan and to do, is not affected by so many of us being drugged so much of the time—combined with other factors such as:

• Our cultural obsession with work.
• Our limited vacation allowances combined with the unwillingness of many to take them.
• The poor quality of much of our food.
• The fact that most of us take virtually no exercise—combined with the fact that exercise is one of the best ways of stimulating the brain.
• The generally high stress level, and lack of security, of the American Way of Life.
• The poor quality of the TV that most of us get our news from.

I don’t know of any academic work on this subject—though in the U.S. there tends to be a report on just about everything (a great strength, incidentally, and an inadequately tapped resource) but my conclusion is that it is.

Somehow, we have allowed ourselves to become ‘a muzzy nation.’ We haven’t been diagnosed as such as yet—but it seems only a matter of time.

Do we have to stay this way?

I would like to think not. Not so long ago, the U.S. was genuinely the greatest county in the world. We were the most powerful and held the moral high ground. We have lost some of that high ground over recent years, but this county still has enormous strengths. If they could but be harnessed, matters could change for the better very quickly.

But, first we have to recognize the problem—and it is hard to think clearly enough to do that when you are muzzy.

---

September 2 2014. Really weird aviation projects. I love them. This is the FanWing from inventor, Pat Peebles. It is designed to deliver heavy lift at low speed and low cost—and to carry ISO standard containers and to have STOL characteristics (so minimum runway required). It is already flying in drone form—and it works.

Shipping is the greenest method of transport. In terms of carbon emissions per ton per mile, it emits about a thousandth of aviation and about a tenth of trucking. But it's not benign, because there's so much of it. So shipping emissions are about three to four percent, almost the same as aviation's.

Rose George

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where a wing is concerned, you get lift by lowering the pressure above the wing so that the higher pressure below the wing lifts you up. So how do you lower the pressure? Typically, through forward velocity combined with the shape of the wing which makes the air up top move faster. Faster moving air up top equates to lower pressure.

Everyone knows that—don’t they? I truly wish I had paid more attention to science at school. Wordsmith or not, these days I find that not only I am knee deep in it, but I enjoy it. But back in the day, I preferred Latin. I was obsessed with the Ancient Romans. They really seemed to know how to run things.

The principles of flight all sound so simple you’d wonder why we didn’t discover flying much earlier. Then Columbus could have discovered America by air (which would have been rather appropriate). On the other hand, the prospect of Genghis Khan being air mobile would have been rather intimidating.

A U.S. born  inventor called Pat Peebles (mostly self-taught and a man with an extremely interesting background) has come up with the idea that if faster air via velocity is good—then even more and faster air (assisted by fans the length of each wing—very important) would be better.

It sounds and looks crazy—and you would have to wonder about drag (air resistance)—but the upside “is to provide short-field performance close to that of a helicopter or tilt-rotor with operating costs approaching those of a conventional aircraft.”

In other words, Peebles isn’t after a high top speed (so isn’t overly concerned with drag). He is after massive lift without the cost overhead of a long runway, or the expense and complexity of rotary aircraft (which, so far, aren’t very good at heavy lift anyway). He wants to be able to lift a standard 20 foot container (inexpensively by conventional aviation standards). His goals could end up being even more ambitious. Flight tests indicate that performance improves as the aircraft is scaled up. They also show that the FanWing is particularly stable in the air.

He may not be so crazy after all. ISO Standard containers have to be the most cost efficient way to go where a normal payload is concerned. The fact that aircraft use non-standard containers is a major cost problem because, all too often, goods have to be unloaded and re-loaded twice more than necessary.

Heavy lift at modest speeds and at low stall speed—and at low noise—without the need for a full runway (something like 100 meters looks like being sufficient) actually has endless application for everything from short haul passenger work to border patrolling—or any kind of transport application where there aren’t roads. In fact it could also lead to the centralized construction of some housing, or housing elements. The current heavy lift situation is that:

• Traditional aircraft need huge runways—major up-front investments, particularly where the land is concerned. They also do not excel at heavy lift. You need ever more powerful engines and longer, and longer runways.
• Helicopters are even worse at heavy lift—and are extremely expensive to buy, operate, and maintain. And are noisy.
• Airships show promise, but are bulky and not quite proven in the role yet.

Interestingly, the length of the runway the FanWing seem likely to require will be roughly the length of a freight carrying airship—perhaps 300-450 feet.  By the way, a Nimitz class aircraft carrier is 1,092 feet long—so a Fanwing could take off from an aircraft carrier with ease without even needing a catapult. It could also take off from the deck of an amphibious assault ship without assistance. The deck of a Wasp class is 831 feet long.

FanWings could revolutionize aerial re-supply—and could fly autonomously into the bargain..

The FanWing—especially given its lift capability—will be able to fly long distances as well, but here its disadvantage for much work will be its low speed.

 

PHOTO IS OF USS WASP – LANDING HELICOPTER DOCK (LHD)

AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP

Here is an extract from an Aviation Week article.

Peebles has been developing his idea the way most lone inventors do, by flying small radio-controlled models of increasing scale and complexity. The next step, if funding can be found, was to be a two-seat ultralight demonstrator. Then along came DLR and the EU-funded SOAR (distributed open-rotor aircraft) project to optimize the rotor and wing and explore the feasibility of a FanWing cargo aircraft (see concept).

The SOAR project is aimed at a perceived gap in the global logistics infrastructure—an aircraft able to carry the ISO-standard intermodal shipping containers now moved by ship, rail and road, but not by air because of their size and weight. Today containerized loads are broken up for air transport either as bulk cargo or in lightweight airfreight containers that are not compatible with the other modes.

Proponents of the “container-plane” concept argue that the ability to transport the 20-ft.-long ISO containers by air would be valuable in underdeveloped countries lacking road and rail infrastructure, while enabling “door-to-door” deliveries in developed nations and providing flexibility for military cargo operations. The attraction of the FanWing is its potential for cost-effective ultra-short-takeoff-and-landing operations.

SOAR has begun with wind-tunnel tests at VKI in Belgium to optimize the cross-flow fan and wing shape. The 1.5-meter (5-ft.)-span wing section, with 50-cm-dia. rotor, will allow researchers to test different blade airfoils and angles of attack, rotor angles and speeds, entrance and exit heights, and trailing-edge angles, says Peebles. Tests will include flow visualization, particularly of the trapped vortex that creates a low-pressure region within the rotor and contributes a large part of the lift.

DLR’s feasibility study will define takeoff and landing distances, speeds, fuel consumption and through-life costs for a 10-ton-payload cargo FanWing. Peebles and SOAR project consultant George Seyfang estimate the aircraft will have a takeoff run of 300 ft. and cruise at 150 kt. at 18,000 ft.

Aviation is a classic example of an area where good intentions—the FAA regulations which govern all aspects of civil aviation for instance—inhibit innovation and experimentation. Given the impressive safety of civil aviation, it is hard to argue with the FAA’s track record, but a strong case can be made that the certification process for non-passenger aircraft should be less onerous. We need a regulatory framework but it needs to be tweaked creatively.

The current system makes it extraordinarily difficult and expensive for small companies to break into the aviation marketplace—no matter how innovative their thinking. A consequence is that major corporations like Boeing and Lockheed Martin have a semi monopoly of aviation innovation (and associated development grants)—which not a good thing. True, they do innovate up to a point—normally only when government funding is available—but the daring, vision, and passion that has long characterized the cutting-edge innovators like Frank Piasecki (see photo) one of the great developers of rotary aircraft (who had the guts to act as his own test pilot on many occasions) is missing.

Corporations tend to be overly concerned with quarterly results and the share price—which rarely does much for the long game. Inventors are risk takers, impassioned, a little crazy, and are driven by the idea. 

They sound remarkably like writers.

FRANK PIASECKI—DRIVEN BY THE IDEA

The U.S. has a long tradition of pioneering, where aviation is concerned, but—as matters stand—our lead is being eroded due to excessive FAA zeal.

There is a need for a better balance here. Passenger aircraft and airlines clearly do need to be tightly regulated—airlines have demonstrated a willingness to make shortcuts where safety is concerned if they can get away with it—but the processes for other sectors could be simplified and speeded up.

It is worth noting that Peebles is American—and under the right circumstances the aircraft might well be developed here.

---

 

September 1 2014. The aspect of book writing that non-writers have the second hardest time understanding is the time frame. The first is why and how we do what we do.

---

We live in a transient inter-active world where fast feedback is the norm—especially where jobs are concerned.

If you are lucky enough to have one, your doctor will give you eleven and a half minutes.

Accordingly it is extremely difficult—if not impossible—for most people to come to terms with an activity which seems to produce neither visual results nor income for a year or two—or longer. In fact, not infrequently the intangible nature of a writer’s work, compounded by the seemingly interminable length of time a work takes, evokes impatience to the point of irritation—if not anger and contempt.

People get even more testy if they are not readers—because then they have no idea of, or sympathy with, the end result. In effect, they regard a book writer as someone taking far too long to achieve a pointless result.

I mean what’s the point of a book? It’s much better to interact with real people. As for that fellow, Tolstoy—good grief, he was screwing around for ten years and all he came up with was one book. I know WAR AND PEACE is a long book, but I doubt he knocked out much more than a page every three days. That shows how lazy writers are.

This normally results in advice—such as: “Why don’t you write for magazines?” or “Why don’t you teach?” or “Why don’t you write a short book and sell it on Amazon?”

Why don’t you find another line of work?

The common denominator is “Why don’t you?” where the implicit complement is “…do something which will yield a faster result and pay you some decent money?”

Sometimes these questions are genuinely well intentioned—if not thought through—but it never seems to occur to such questioners that expressing such skepticism might well be regarded as hovering somewhere between thoughtlessness and bad manners. And that it can be quite demoralizing to have one’s work dismissed in such a cavalier manner.

Over the years, I have tried to explain various aspect of the writing business to people—but rarely with much success. Typically, they have a mental model derived from movies—which is grossly inaccurate—and that is about it. In such a model, the writer normally has a close relationship with his agent (who does about ten times as much as one really does)—and traditional publishing is treated with reverence.

Frankly, such a model virtually defines fiction (the other well known definition of fiction is a publisher’s royalty statement). In addition, the book world has changed beyond recognition over the last couple of decades—and continues to change. Self publishing is now a viable option, e-books have grabbed a useful share of the market, books are read on anything from the printed page to a phone, and audio books have become direct download digital files. Also, books are now facing completely new forms of competition with the internet delivering most.

Since I pride myself on being a professional communicator, this may well reflect negatively on me—but I think it more probable that it is the timeline that defeats them. 

In fact, I do consider all the advice I am given—just in case a gem lurks there—but I have yet to discover many lay people who have much of a clue how the writing business really works—or are interested. And not too many people—even inside the business—understand it fully either. In principle, it is simple. In detail, it is complex, fast evolving, subjective, and its rewards are elusive. Primarily, the process is its own reward.

People follow sports and celebrities—disasters, wars, and politics. Who, but a masochist, follows publishing?

Am I bitter about this? Not for a moment. I might have been in the past—but the feedback from my readers has been so wonderful (and so prolific) that I am completely confident that I am doing what I am meant to be doing—and that is before I factor in the sheer joy of writing.

I’m also very aware that whereas it is my job as a writer to read,  observe, and analyze--and be generally aware of what other people think and do, so I can write from a position of strength—non-writers have no similar obligation.

They don’t have to understand. We writers do. 

We understand, we explain, we entertain, and we create. And a book takes as long as it takes. All that matters is that it be a good book.

Better yet, if it is excellent.

---