VOR’s Turn: The Loneliness Of The Long Distance Writer

Image via Wikipedia

“Creativity is hugely about stamina.”

I have written this before many times, but it is worth repeating.

The core reason?

Creativity is about innovation and change; and we humans seem to be programmed to resist it. We like our comfort zones, and will resist any and all attempts to drag us out of them. We believe in the devil we know, rather than that new thing, new person, new idea. New means different, and “different,” just in itself, reflects a challenge.

For all that, we crave something new, so creativity is hugely about hacking through the thicket of initial hostility and enduring – sometimes for years, often for decades - until one’s work is recognized. I suspect that sometimes it never is.

What keeps one going?

The work itself. If you are genuinely creative, you will cultivate an inner voice which will tell you, in no uncertain terms, whether you are doing good work or not. That inner voice is an amazingly powerful motivator.

But, is it possible, one could be merely delusional?

Absolutely! But that is why the fates gave you a sense of humor.

 

 

 

VOR’s Turn: Maybe We Should Take The Concept of A Sociopath More Seriously. It Would Explain A Great Deal.

Reading books makes me think; writing them even more so.

And since I have only recently completed the manuscript of book HOW EAGLE & CUCKOO SAVED AMERICA: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF THE MESS WE ARE IN, I have been giving considerable thought to the notion that sociopathic behavior may lie at the root of many of our present troubles.

Could it be that we regularly promote, elect, or otherwise appoint such people to positions of power, authority and influence. Could it be that many of corporate CEOs, politicians, and other mover-and-shakers are sociopaths.

Certainly, much of the evidence supports this hypothesis. Yet, here’s an odd thing. We make absolutely no effort at all to screen those we chose to be our leaders for sociopathy.

When you think about it, that makes no sense at all because sociopaths are innately untrustworthy and dangerous. And their actions are likely to have adverse consequences.

But, what is a sociopath? Definitions vary slightly, but in essence it is someone who is:

• Superficially charming
• Manipulative
• Narcissistic
• Lacking in empathy
• Amoral – lacking in remorse, shame or guilt
• Deceitful
• Untrustworthy
• Prone to socially damaging behavior

The 2003 documentary THE CORPORATION made the point that much of the behavior of the modern U.S. corporation is sociopathic, both because such an organization is focused solely on profit, and because of its pattern of behavior.

Since it defies both commonsense and decency for a corporation not to factor in its obligations to its personnel, suppliers, customers, and society as a whole – yet such is the case - I found its arguments persuasive.

This is not an argument against capitalism. It is an argument against the particular form of capitalism that is currently the norm in the U.S. right now.

It is particularly prevalent in the financial sector. Here we have a group of people who have laid waste to the economies of much of the developed world, and who have fought every attempt to reform their behavior, spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Further, they have displayed virtually no remorse at all. Meanwhile, as a direct consequence of their behavior, the vast majority of the jobs that were lost during The Great Recession have not been regained, and the earnings of the average American family are in decline. The damage to the U.S. as a whole, both financially, and in terms of human suffering, is incalculable. This Great Nation has been set back a decade economically, and, quite possibly, has been pushed into permanent decline.

But have such people suffered any consequences? In the main, the answer is: No.

Why not? Well, they have corrupted both the political process, and those who are legally empowered to regulate them. They have bought enough of our political system to render themselves immune from legal consequences. The Constitution has been suborned.

Apart from Occupy Wall Street, outrage over this man made economic and social disaster has been extraordinarily muted, and does not speak well of the health of this democracy. The sociopaths are clearly in the ascendant.

It might be wise to reflect upon one simple statistic. According to official figures, the amount that the U.S. Government has pledged to support the U.S. financial sector so far exceeds $16 trillion dollars. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are being thrown out of their homes, legitimate businesses can’t get credit, the number of unemployed and underemployed people is around 25 million, and our infrastructure is crumbling.

Perhaps we should take all of that as a hint that sociopaths are, indeed, dangerous; and do something about it.

 

 

 

VOR’s Turn: The Strange Case Of The Telepathic Magazine.

THE BBC’S NORMALLY IMPECCABLY TAILORED JEREMY PAXMAN OF NEWSNIGHT

Image via Wikipedia

I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that magazine, The Atlantic, is telepathic; or, at least, its web site is.

There, you can not only peruse the monthly magazine, but have your brain revved up by reading its daily articles.

They are all eminently readable but, not infrequently require the reader to think. Extraordinary!

Indeed, in that regard they display an almost un-American attitude. The dumbing-down of the U.S. is not accepted. Perhaps that is where the name, The Atlantic, comes in.

But where does telepathy come in? Well, although it is ostensibly a general interest publication, rarely a day passes that it doesn’t come up with at least one piece that gives a fresh perspective on a subject that I’m keenly interested in. They have me triangulated. Beyond that, its writers seem to have mastered The Art of The Second Question.

The Second Question issue refers to the fact that an alarming number of U.S. journalists, after asking the first question about an issue, fail to ask a follow-up question, even when the answer they have been given, is either incomplete, false or inadequately explained; which is more common than not.

Why is this? Are they inadequately knowledgeable, or is there a convention in U.S. media that it’s impolite to push too hard. Advertisers might get upset. Future interviewees might decline to see you. I don’t profess to know the answer (though I have my suspicions). I do hold the view that U.S. democracy would be better served if American journalists were more tenacious. If you want an example of what I mean, listen to the BBC, or watch Jeremy Paxman on BBC’s Newsnight (which makes an appearance in the U.S. once a week).

Paxman not only looks world weary and sceptical, but has a voice and body language to match, and is cowed by no one. Some might regard him as aggressive. I think the words “Well briefed, frighteningly intelligent, and thoroughly professional,” describe him better. Nonetheless, I will admit that just before an interview starts, he can look like a beast of prey awaiting his dinner. And he eats his fill.

Which brings me back to The Atlantic. Today, amongst other gems, there is a marvelous article by Derek Thompson headed: What Does A U.S. Worker Really Cost which, typically, adds fresh insight; and then a gem – clearly written specially for yours truly by Clive Crook – headed: How To Write Fiction.

What can I say! I need all the help I can get. Let me close by quoting from the piece.

Speaking of novels, I'm a fan of Geoff Dyer, ("Jeff in Venice, Death in Varanasi") as you may recall. I recommend this short article of his on how to write fiction.

The satisfactions of writing are indistinguishable from its challenges and difficulties. It is constantly testing all your faculties and skills (of expression, concentration, memory, imagination and empathy) on the smallest scale (sentences, words, commas) and the largest (the overall design, structure and purpose of the book) simultaneously. It brings you absolutely and always up against your limitations. That's why people keep at it - and why it's far easier to give advice about writing than it is to do it.

The word “awesome” is used far too much. It is applicable here.

 

 

 

 

VOR’s Turn: The Creativity Bug Lingers.

Image via Wikipedia

If you have read some of my recent posts, you will know that creativity is very much on my mind right now.

I guess it is prompted by a long held view that the notion that money is commensurate with success – as measured by one’s peers and society in general – represents both a corruption of values and defies commonsense.

The former is self explanatory. The latter is illustrated by the fact that numerous people do things for reasons other than financial reward. Creative people are one such group – and here I include the spectrum from writers to belly dancers. Since belly dancers are prettier, the illustration features one of them.

Arguably, most of us hope for fame and fortune, but, in truth, most of us are realistic enough to know perfectly well that the majority of us will achieve neither. Or that success is fleeting.

But we love what we do – when we get a chance to do it - and we gain enormous satisfaction from it.

‘Satisfaction’ is probably selling it short. If you knew how much pleasure I get from writing – if I was a braver writer, I would use the word ‘happiness’ - I’d probably have pickets outside my door wanting a share.

Creative people apart, many of us find numerous other activities incredibly fulfilling. The list is endless. Just as well because this world of ours has a wide spectrum of needs.

And yet somehow we have elevated the accumulation of riches to a special status virtually regardless of how such wealth is accumulated. The concept that we all all have a duty to society, and that the phrase ‘ the common good’ has real meaning, seems to have been stripped out of our culture.

I don’t grudge anyone becoming wealthy, or at least comfortable; but I think the consequences of our three decades long experiment at pampering the rich at the expense of society as a whole speaks for itself. Under almost every heading one might care to name – it has proven to be both corrupting and disastrous.

The truly worrying thing is when people, who are fundamentally quite content with their occupations, bow – and I use the word metaphorically - before wealth. And feel dissatisfied.

Achievement is a fine thing; but the possession of wealth, in itself, deserves no respect. And the manner of its accumulation is relevant.

Since I have raised the subject, I’m now tempted to tell a tale or two about belly-dancers, but … they can wait for another time.

 

 

VOR’s Turn: Further Thoughts On Creativity; And More David Loew Photographs

America For Sale: “One Day All This Will Be yours”

You have only got to watch children play to realize that virtually all children are creative. Here, I speak with some authority as the eldest of twelve, and the father of five. They are not all creative in the same way, or to the same extent, but the creative spark is there nonetheless. Frequently, it is more than a spark; it is a flame.

All too often, neither spark nor flame survive our educational systems.

Why is that?

To answer that adequately would take a book, but let me offer some thoughts.

• Our education systems are far more concerned with forcing children to conform than with nurturing creativity. We call this ‘socialization.’ By that we mean conditioning our children to accept the American Way of Life. That, in turn, is much more oriented towards mass conformity and consumption than creativity.
• True education has much more to do with supplying children with basic tools, and then encouraging them to think for themselves, and to question everything. All children want to learn though not necessarily to accept what we want to teach them. Conversely, the last thing our current system wants is to be questioned.
• Managing creative children is vastly more demanding than looking after socialized children, and requires teachers of a higher caliber than are generally available today. It is also more satisfying.
• Socialized parents tend to produce socialized children thus perpetuating a society in which creativity is suppressed to a significant extent. To change that requires fundamental change. The need for it is becoming self-evident.
• The U.S. is a surprisingly authoritarian culture and our schools reflect that fact. As a consequence, we don’t allow children enough autonomy and responsibility to permit creativity to flower. Here I would like to emphasize the point that there is a difference between authoritarianism and discipline. One is a rigid top-down approach. The other, ideally, is inwardly generated and involves trust. U.S. society is worryingly short on trust.
• Much of our education is implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) directed towards preparing our children for either the professions or corporate employment. Subject to some exceptions, both environments are oriented towards the status quo, and are the antithesis of creativity.

I came to these views from observation and first principles. Subsequently, I saw a TED lecture by Sir Ken Robinson and wanted to cheer.

Sir Ken Robinson, PhD is an internationally recognized leader in the development of education, creativity and innovation.  He is also one of the world’s leading speakers with a profound impact on audiences everywhere.  The videos of his famous 2006 and 2010 talks to the prestigious TED Conference have been seen by an estimated 200 million people in over 150 countries.

Sir Ken Robinson's URL

Back to David Loew. He is a stunningly good portrait photographer, in addition to his other talents, but the two images I’m showing today are particularly timely given the long overdue emergence of OWS. The captions are his.

We have traded quality for price and jobs for corporate profits.   We are no longer governed, we are ruled.

David Loew's URL

 

 

 

 

 

VOR’s Turn: As A Society, We Don’t Pay Nearly Enough Attention To Creativity. Time We Did. Introducing The Genius Of David Loew.

Broken Lost And Abandoned - January 1st 2011

Up until Occupy Wall Street, the most admired of our society were either celebrities, who were instantly identifiable – and sometimes famous only for being being famous; or generic classes which we aspired to join because they earned the most money.

Such classes include bankers, doctors, lawyers, and corporate CEO’s. At the top of the tree, most members earn millions – sometimes billions – and for the last few decades have been marketed as our role models.

In repayment for this adulation, we are experiencing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, one of the worst and most expensive medical systems in the developed world, the corruption of our legal and political systems, and a corporate culture that is so suffused with greed that it no longer identifies with the National Interest; and is so short term in its thinking, that it is busy destroying the Middle Class and its very own market.

Simply put, we have been worshipping false gods; and will be paying the price for generations. That fact has been evident for decades, but it appears that at last it is beginning to be recognized. Changing it won’t be easy. Greed, by definition, lacks a moral compass.

I don’t wish to decry the utility and importance of money, but fundamentally what really drives progress in a society is confidence – a belief that tomorrow will be a better day. And confidence is instilled by achievement – a pattern of success that is innately inspirational. Sometimes that success is financial, but mostly it has to do with creativity in all its forms. Creativity uplifts in a way that nothing else does. It awes, motivates and inspires. It touches our emotions in a way that financial success alone does not. Sometimes the two are combined but all too often creativity is not accorded the recognition it deserves.

It’s time to change our mindset and to appreciate that creativity is what drives our society. In business, it is called innovation. It’s exactly the same thing.

Creativity is manifest in many different forms. In my last post, I commented on the totally awesome World Trade Center Memorial.

Today, I’m introducing you to the extraordinary talent of David Loew, Photographer, Designer, Artist and Visionary. I’ll be writing more about him in the future.

You may contact him at www.davidloewphoto.com The man is brilliant.

 

 

Antique Beauty – January 2009

 

 

 

VOR’s Turn: Fortunately, the U.S. Is Not Just About Money. Sometimes, It Is About Unsurpassed Excellence.

Paul Erdman has long been one of my favorite authors. Sadly, he died in 2007. He wrote financial thrillers with great wit and clarity. He could make complex financial instruments and maneuvering seem almost comprehensible.

Just as well he had a sense of humor. The Swiss put him in jail after the bank he ran in Basel, Switzerland, collapsed after speculating in cocoa futures (something I know a little about from a previous life).  He was released on bail, fled, and was convicted in absentia.

While imprisoned he wrote his first novel THE BILLION DOLLAR SURE THING. His second novel, THE SILVER BEARS, was made into a 1978 movie starring Michael Caine.

Erdman made a memorable observation about America.

"The entire essence of America is the hope to first make money--then make money with money--then make lots of money with lots of money." -Paul Erdman

The thought that life here is just about money – though it contains a great deal of truth - is depressing. Fortunately, this extraordinary country redeems itself in surprising ways. Last night I watched a Nova documentary which illustrated one of them. It was about the World Trade Center Memorial and was absolutely riveting.

People at their best are extraordinary.