Jonathan Langford's Blog, page 7

Xenophobia and Punishment

It's time for another of Jonathan's vaguely political/cultural criticism posts! I promise not to get too rabid…

Listening a few weeks ago to a discussion on NPR about the challenges of educating black youth in the United States, I was struck by the comment of one of the experts. We know what to do in order to solve this problem, he said. We simply lack the will to do it.

His comment got me thinking. Is this really the case? And if so, what are the reasons underlying that lack of will? Two related answers came to mind: xenophobia — fear of the other, or more generally thinking in terms of "us versus them" — and a mentality that's oriented toward punishing people for poor behavior rather than teaching them to do better.

#######

One of the besetting sins in The Book of Mormon was division among the people: poor versus rich, learned versus unlearned, members of different religions versus nonmembers, and perhaps above all, division among those of different ethnic and cultural background (i.e., Nephites versus Lamanites). Even after almost 200 years of living in peace as one united people following the coming of Jesus Christ to the American continent following his death and resurrection, when the people became wicked again the old fracture lines opened back up.

Mormon doctrine teaches that all of us are literal offspring of God, a common heritage that should make irrelevant any lesser divisions based on mortal ancestry. Missionary work, redemption of the dead, the evidence of the Book of Mormon that God has spoken to many different peoples at many different times — all are powerful evidence that God's hand is outstretched equally to all people.

In contrast, it appears to be a nearly universal human pattern to divide people up between "us" and "them" — whoever "us" may be. Interacting with those who are different from us is uncomfortable — and so we look for reasons not to do so. Once we've done that, it becomes all too easy to demonize those who belong to "them." I've seen it in multiple places over the past year — in politics, in arguments over homosexuality and the Mormon Church, even in discussions about different types of literature. And I've seen it on all sides of those arguments.

This, I think, is part of the "natural man" mentioned in scripture which all of us must learn to overcome. In particular, we need to learn not to assume that those of a different group from ourselves are lacking in goodwill or intelligence. I think that if we could honestly do that, it would make a vast difference in the tone of our public discourse, and more importantly in the ways we interact with each other individually.

#######

My belief that we tend to obsess about punishment is based on observations in a variety of areas, ranging from how America has conducted much of our foreign policy over the last 10 years to the rhetoric of this past election. Mostly, though, it comes from my perception that in areas such as education, crime prevention, and poverty, we as Americans seem more heavily invested in determining whether people's problems are their own fault — in which case we feel justified in telling them it's their job to fix it — as opposed to doing things that we actually know from experience will make things better.

I can't help but think this is based in a kind of magical thinking: that punishment and reward, by themselves, are sufficient to bring about change — and that if they aren't, it's the person's own fault. Perhaps America's current love affair with the notion of a market economy, where profit and loss are seen not only as outcomes but as driving forces in change, has something to do with this. In any event, it's not a position that's well supported by gospel teaching, which (among other things) typically emphasizes the importance of teaching at least as much as punishment — and specifically condemns those who refrain from helping others on the grounds that they brought it on themselves (see Mosiah 4:16-23).

Being a parent has taught me that unless and until children are taught how to do something, all the rewards and punishments in the world won't change their behavior in any desirable ways. Systems aimed at enforcing justice through punishment and reward are hollow at best. If our true goal is for people to improve, our focus won't be on finding out whose fault it is or trying to find reasons why we're not required to help. Instead, we'll be asking what actions on our part can make the biggest positive difference. And that, once again, would lead to a vast change in how we deal with each other, both collectively and individually.

This is something many of us, I think, have learned about those who are most near and dear to us. We may punish our children at times, but we know that if it stops there, no good will be done. We have to provide positive guidance and reinforcement as well. (I'm reminded of the rule from John Gottman's research that any healthy marriage must have at least five times as much positive as negative interaction.) It's much easier, though, not to apply those lessons when it comes to members of other groups.

Bringing this back to the question of educating black boys: we know there are certain things that actually work to help them become better educated. We know these lead to better results down the road, not just for the boys themselves (better jobs, happier and more successful lives) but for society as a whole (less crime, more social and economic stability). Yet we're unwilling to do the things that will make that positive difference — some of which require a fair amount of money, and some of which don't — in part at least because we feel that it's unfair that "we" should have to pay for something that's "their" fault, or that could be seen as a special privilege for them. We're hung up on a rather juvenile notion of fairness, instead of looking at the common (and individual) good.

Another example: bilingual education. I haven't looked at the evidence myself, but I understand that experts in this field have found fairly consistently that teaching students in their native language at the same time they're learning English leads to better educational outcomes — and helps them learn English better. Yet bilingual education is vastly unpopular in some areas, even to the point of having been prohibited by state law. Why? Because "they're in the United States; they should learn English or leave!" Because "we shouldn't have to pay for it!" We cut off our noses to spite our faces, focusing on the rights and wrongs of the situation (often wrongly, in my opinion, but that's a different issue) rather than thinking about what actions on our part will lead to the best outcome.

It's not just a matter of cost. In fact, sometimes throwing money at a problem can be a substitute for getting down and dirty with trying to come up with actual solutions. We want to keep others at arms' length, either because they're different from us (and thus uncomfortable) or because we don't know how to solve their problems — or because getting involved with people at the level needed to help them with their lives means more work on our part.

One of the things I remember from being a missionary is that you can't hold people at arms' length and expect to make a difference in their lives. Inevitably, making a difference in someone else's life means opening up yourself to let them make a difference in your own life, whether positive or negative. That's something we resist — I as much as anyone. Meaningful interaction with other people — the kind that can lead to positive changes in their lives — is likely to change us as well. That's something we generally try to avoid.

Hence my perception that this is a two-part problem. We see people as "other," attempting to distance them from ourselves. And we uphold a notion where other people's actions and their consequences are a closed system, apart from us — and thus involving no obligations on our part. All of which would be well and good, except that it flies in the face of everything we know about how to create a healthy and happy society. Not to mention everything we know about the kind of people Jesus wants us to be, in imitation of Him.

Interviewed by Annette Lyon

Not a lot of time to write today, and not a lot to say. However, I wanted to point anyone who might happen on this blog to my interview at Annette Lyon's blog, which was posted yesterday. She asked me several things I don't think I'd been asked before, and it was fun answering her questions. (Annette hasn't reviewed No Going Back, but had commented positively on its non-didactic approach in a post over at the AML blog last January.)

Have fun everyone! Be good, stay warm, and try not to fall too far behind on your Christmas stuff! (as we've done).

I'm a Mormon Mommy! (Blogger)

Work responsibilities notwithstanding, my relationship to the 21st century is (as some of you will know) a somewhat reluctant one. I spend a lot of time on the Internet, but most of it's for specific, fairly well-defined purposes. I haven't done Facebook or Twitter. I've slowly been pulled into blogging, but it was only with publication of No Going Back that I acted on my longstanding intentions to create a personal website, and later this blog.

It therefore shouldn't surprise anyone that it was (once again) my book that pulled me into involvement in yet another blogging venue. A while back, I emailed an acquaintance requesting suggestions on ways to both (a) spread news about my book, and (b) make readers more inclined to read it — particularly Mormon readers, many of whom seem naturally reluctant to pick up a book on a topic this controversial. She suggested that I try guest blogging at some of the wider-circulation sites within the Bloggernacle (as I gather the LDS blog world is sometimes called). A few emails later, and I was lined up to post a couple of guest posts at Mormon Mommy Blogs.

I should start by saying that Mormon Mommy Blogs is more than just a blog. The homepage describes it as "a place for women bloggers to register their blogs and find other blogs to read and follow, in a safe and fun environment." (And believe me, there are a LOT of Mormon mommy blogs.) One of the features of the site is a multi-contributor blog, which I suppose technically should be known as the Mormon Mommy Blogs blog.

For my first offering, I recrafted a column I had sent out to family and friends back in 2007, originally titled A Style of One's Own and now retitled Apples and Individuality. For the second offering, I wrote something original titled Spicing Up the Christmas Newsletter (though with excerpts from family newsletters of years past, with all revealing names except my own removed).

Response to the two posts was modest. The first yielded a comment from only one reader. The second did better, with comments from 10 readers. Nonetheless, I decided to press on, and signed up to contribute regularly, which I believe means at least once a month. My latest piece, titled Señor Don Gato Rides Again! (about watching YouTube videos showing relics of one's youth with one's children), was posted on Tuesday.

In theory, this is all intended to introduce me in a venue where people can see my writing as nonthreateningly normal (in a Mormon sort of way). Then when they get to the bio blurb at the bottom where No Going Back is mentioned, they'll say to themselves, "Why, I never would have imagined that such a nice person would have written a book about this topic! Maybe I should read it!" Or they'll think to themselves: "I've heard about that book! I always thoughts it must have been written by someone who sacrifices goats on a pagan altar in his backyard! But now I see that he probably only sacrifices rabbits and squirrels!" Wait, that wasn't what I meant to say…

In practice, of course, it's highly unlikely that much will come of this in the way of sales or book publicity. But the fact is that I like this kind of domestic/personal essay writing. I'd been wondering for a while if I ought to turn my own blog into an outlet for this type of stuff — except that it would be a pretty big jump from the type of stuff I've been posting here so far, which is almost all writing-related. And coming up with stuff like this often enough to keep up a blog could turn into a part-time (unpaid) writing gig of its own.

Posting stuff like this on the Mormon Mommy Blogs blog is a kind of nice compromise. Anytime I feel like writing something along these lines (or adapting something previously written), I can do so — and not worry about it the rest of the time. The only downside, really, is that it's one more thing to do — another obligation to feel guilty about, and something else to distract me from my fiction writing. But that probably isn't much of a downside, considering that I'm quite capable of coming up with such distractions regardless.

In the meantime, it occurs to me that I should probably create a place from which you, my Loyal Followers, can easily access on an ongoing basis my literary contributions appearing on other blogs. And so, viola! (Kind of like voilà, but more musical and less French.) I have now added to this blog a page titled "Posts on Other Blogs" (listed up there on the right-hand side, under "Pages" on my blog homepage — I'd love to be able to get the menu to appear on all my pages, but that seems to be beyond my technical capability at present), where I will strive to keep an updated set of links to posts composed by me but appearing on other blogs. What could be more convenient? I'm just an all-around cool guy, I am…

A Consecrated (Artistic) Life

Mormon thought includes the concept of the law of consecration: that is, that each fully committed Latter-day Saint (i.e., member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as LDS or Mormons) should devote all of his or her time, talents, possessions, and effort to building up the kingdom of God. Early in the LDS Church's history, there were efforts to live this law on a community basis. Today, the notion of a consecrated life is still at the heart of LDS thought, but Latter-day Saints are expected to figure out what it means on an individual and family basis.

Hand-in-hand with the concept of consecration is the concept of stewardship: that is, the notion that each of us has one or more assigned areas of responsibility for which we are accountable to God. Some stewardships are formal and obvious, such as the responsibility of parents to provide for their children and the responsibility to fill Church callings and assignments. Other stewardships are more personal, such as the responsibility to develop one's talents in ways that are pleasing to God and serviceable to one's fellow humans.

Together, the law of consecration and the concept of stewardship mean that none of us truly owns any of our time, talents, or possessions — and that every part of our lives is part and parcel of our relationship to God. The consecrated life, in Mormon thought, is not necessarily distinguishable in any outward way from the non-consecrated life. It still consists largely of work, spending time with family, and service to others, including service in the Church. The difference is all internal.

#####

As an LDS artist, my artistic efforts — my writing — is, or should be, consecrated to God's service. That doesn't necessarily mean that everything I write will be religious. Nor does it necessarily mean that what I write will be any good, morally or artistically. It does mean that what I do should be the best I'm capable of doing, in every sense — subject to the limitations of time and other higher priorities, such as the need to support my family: a higher stewardship, we Mormons believe, than serving Arte. Creating artistic masterpieces while my family starves or goes lacking for my attention is not, in the LDS view of things, an acceptable tradeoff.

Given the amount of time that gets wasted on nonessential things, like video games and the Internet, there really shouldn't be a need to choose between the two. (I should clarify here that in talking about a consecrated life, I'm describing the way things ought to be, not necessarily the way things are in reality — and certainly not the way they are much of the time in my own life.) In back of everything else, though, there's always the question: is what I'm doing really the best use of my time? Is it worthwhile for me to spend time on my creative writing, especially when (so far at least) it's not something that's really worked to bring in any money? If it's not contributing to my family's temporal welfare, can I justify the time and effort of writing another book or two, when I could be doing other things like housework or volunteering or spending time doing fun things with my family? Particularly when there are so many other writers out there already, filling the world (sometimes to overflowing, it seems) with worthwhile stories of their own?

There aren't any easy, fill-in-the-blank answers to these questions. The nature of mortality is that often times, the hardest choices are between multiple good things, not between one good thing and another bad thing. The right answer one time may not be the right answer the next time around. Sometimes, too, my own attitude may make the difference in whether a particular answer is right or wrong. All I know for sure is that it's important for me to ask the questions — and try to carry out the answers I get.

Talking About Mormon Lit

I'm a Mormon. And I like fiction, and literature in general. And I like talking with people who share my interests. It should hardly be surprising, then, that I like talking about Mormon literature — and Mormon perspectives on literature — with people who share my interests.

Back about 15 years ago, if my memory serves me, I got involved with the AML-List, an email discussion group sponsored by the Association for Mormon Letters. It's probably not a coincidence that this was about the time I gave up on my PhD program in English: I'd seen the writing on the wall with respect to my becoming a literature professor, but still felt the need to engage in talking about storytelling from perspectives that felt important to me. Not to mention the fact that it was a darn good conversation back then, featuring a lot of bright and interesting people.

Since then, I've been involved in Mormon lit in a variety of ways. I put in a couple years' stint as the moderator for AML-List. I've published some reviews. I've even written a Mormon-themed novel, based on an idea that was sparked by my involvement with AML-List. And now I'm at it again, volunteering to act as coordinator of the AML blog (which has now largely taken the place of AML-List). For this post, I want to talk about things I've read recently that help illustrate why it is that I think Mormon lit is such an interesting sandbox to play in.

#######

I'll start with the AML blog itself, Dawning of a Brighter Day, which most notably (from my point of view) over the last several weeks has been host to a discussion on authenticity in Mormon literature (based on a good original post by Irreantum co-editor Jack Harrell which led to a vigorous conversation in the comments section); another lengthy discussion in the comments section for a post by LDS novelist (and current or incoming AML president) Margaret Young that wound up talking about a host of other things, many of them also related to artistic authenticity in a Mormon context; and an appreciation of baptism stories as a genre of Mormon literature, veering into a discussion in the comments about the tightrope involved in writing and talking about sacred experiences. Not to mention my own call for suggestions about new ideas for the AML blog, a call for contributions to the AML review archive, and a discussion of baseball and baseball stories by LDS playwright Eric Samuelsen. All good stuff.

And then there's A Motley Vision: Mormon Arts and Culture blog, run by my good friend William Morris (someone I originally met through the AML-List), to which I also sometimes contribute (following no regular schedule). I particularly enjoyed the discussion arising out of a post by William titled "Why the inherent subjectivity of art is a good thing." There was also an excellent piece titled "Writing the Hard History" by LDS playwright Mahonri Stewart a little over a week ago, talking about writing Mormon art based on challenging topics. And there have also been a couple of good Mormon author interviews in the past week, though I haven't had the mental bandwidth to do them justice. And I have to tip my hat to the post a couple of weeks ago about a publication titled "La Piedra Ente La Ñeve," which may be the most obscure work of Mormon literature published to date: a book of poetry written in Asturian, described by the reviewer as "a language spoken principally in portions of Spain and Portugal by some 125,000 people," and printed (as best I can tell) in the old Deseret Alphabet, a phonetic alphabet with its own symbols created in the 1860s in an attempt to help Mormon immigrants learn English more easily.

Finally, there's a three-part essay titled "LDS Fiction: A View from the Fringe" written by Pam Williams at her blog, The Write Stuff. (Follow these links to get to Part One, Part Two, and Part Three.) It's a combination of observations and personal manifesto from the perspective of a reader and writer of Mormon literature, including thoughts about what it means to write Mormon literature of value.

All good stuff. And all reasons why you should join in the conversation, if any of this sounds interesting. We are, I think, in the beginning stages of an explosion of what LDS literary scholar Gideon Burton refers to as "citizen criticism." Get in at the ground floor!

3 More LDS Reviews

So last Saturday (Nov. 20), I got email message from two Mormon bloggers telling me that their reviews of No Going Back had been posted. Then today, I happened on a third review at another website that I hadn't seen before. Below are a few excerpts from these three reviews (plus links to the full reviews), followed by some philosophizing about the value of blog reviews like these for No Going Back.

#######

Lisa at The Book Worm's Library awarded 4 stars out of 6 ("good read"). She wrote in part, "[T]he beauty of this book is that it simply presents the two different perspectives, as well as the difficulties anyone struggling with this moral dilemma encounters. How does a young person, still learning to come to terms with their own sexuality, and still struggling to understand their own identity outside of the sexual definitions of society, cope with being in the minority? How do young people confront the problem of overcoming their desire to remain faithful to their religion, their church teachings, and still come to terms with their sexual orientation?… Mr. Langford is sympathetic in his presentation of a very difficult topic, and he does so in a way that helps shed light on both sides of the picture in this difficult situation."

While unsure who might be the natural audience for No Going Back, Melissa at One Librarian's Book Reviews was mostly positive in her review. She wrote in part, "With a main character professing to be both gay and Mormon, there are lots who could take offense. I found myself entirely impressed with the skill and ability that Langford was able to capture the essence of what it must feel like to be torn in such a way. Paul felt very realistic to me — a teenager with the regular problems and a whole lot more stacked on his plate…. I especially liked how the ending was not so much happy as hopeful."

In a sidebar under the heading Worth Your Time to Read, Pam Williams at The Write Stuff wrote in part, "No Going Back by Jonathan Langford is a difficult novel to read, but worth it…. Definitely not a young adult book, this is a must-read for adult leaders who deal with teens…. Most outstanding in the book is Paul's bishop who loves and guides him with the kind of compassion many of his peers don't have."

So yay for me! And yay for book blogger/reviewers too, who read and share their thoughts and provide a way of publicizing books that's not tied to mass media or corporate marketing budgets. May their tribe increase.

#######

So just what am I hoping for from these blog reviews?

Chris Bigelow, my publisher, made an interesting comment. Lamenting the fact that blog reviews don't seem to add many actual sales, he wrote: "But we have to also count the great responses as rewards unto themselves that make it worth it." The fact that each reviewer is one more person who's read and talked about No Going Back has some (non-monetary) value in itself.

I suspect that readership among LDS-focused book blogs overlaps enough that few if any readers of any particular blog that reviews No Going Back won't have heard about it before. Instead, I suppose what I'm hoping is that a generally positive buzz will develop among the community of LDS readers — that people who hear about No Going Back will also get a kind of vague sense that it's good, and possibly worth reading. Not so much a matter of picking up new readers right now, but rather of building a base for oingoing positive referrals.

I think we're now past that point where any new pool of readers is likely to be discovered out there (though I'd be happy to be proven wrong). Over time, though, I think there's a good possibility for a moderate number of new readers to encounter the book: people who heard about it but didn't jump on it right away, and people hearing about it for the first time. For those readers, a relatively widespread net of positive approval could (I'm guessing) exercise a gentle pull that makes them just that bit more willing to give the book a chance.

LDS Family Encyclopedia

Fed Ex delivered a big box on the doorstep today. It was full of books — contributor copies of The Latter-day Saint Family Encyclopedia, published this month by Thunder Bay Press. I'm listed as coauthor — together with Chris Bigelow, a longtime friend from the Mormon literary community who also coincidentally happens to be the publisher of No Going Back. Or not so coincidentally, as it turns out…

First, I should make it clear that my work on the LDS Family Encyclopedia was in no way a quid pro quo for publication of No Going Back. They were separate ventures. However, I confess that when Chris came to me asking if I would help him out with this project — something he'd planned to do by himself originally, before discovering just how much writing was involved in it — one of the thoughts in the back of my brain was that if Chris was tearing his hair out over this, it might be harder to get his attention to help market No Going Back. Besides, it sounded kind of fun. Or insane. One of the two. Or maybe both.

The book certainly turned out to be the latter. Way too many hours for way too little pay, in way too short a timeframe. I also would have been happier if we'd had more of a chance to get the book vetted by content experts, though we did what we could.

But it was fun, too, when I wasn't going crazy (and sometimes even when I was). About a half-year ago when we were close to the end of the writing, I wrote the following in a letter to family and friends:

It's a kind of work I work I like doing. Explaining the interest of hobbits in genealogies and lineage books, J. R. R. Tolkien wrote: "Hobbits delighted in such things, if they were accurate: they liked to have books filled with things that they already knew, set out fair and square with no contradictions." I find a similar pleasure in writing tasks of this sort, setting forth familiar information in a comfortable straightforward way. There's an elegant, clean persuasiveness to facts and ideas laid out plainly and clearly. I hope that's what my work for this project has accomplished — along with adding interesting lesser-known tidbits of information every now and then.

Writing short informational articles is a bit like eating popcorn. (Bear with me here.) You do one, and then another, and another . . . Each just seems to whet the appetite for more.

And that was true. But it was still a headache. Given the constraints we were working under, I debated for a while whether I wanted to be listed as a coauthor. (Another contributor chose not to be, though more I believe due to possible eyebrows being raised by an employer.) But then I decided the publicity might be valuable in bringing more work of this type. And I didn't really have much of a reputation as a Mormon scholar anyway. I'm sure there are some inaccuracies, but we did the best we could.

#######

So should you buy The Latter-day Saint Family Encyclopedia? Hm…

Asked to describe the market niche for this book, Chris was reported as saying (in a BYU Daily Universe article for which I was also interviewed), "Other reference books were either more academic or less thorough. This book is something accessible and thorough." My comment from the same article: "It is written to provide clear, accurate and non-controversial information appropriate for non-members and members." Which is, I think, true enough.

I think we did a fairly decent job, all things considered. The $35 list price (only $26.56 from Amazon.com) seems vaguely appalling to me, but I suppose it's not unreasonable for a 400-page coffee-table-size hardback with multiple illustrations. Goodness knows Chris and I aren't being paid royalties, so buying a copy doesn't put money in my bank account (though there's technically a bonus if the book goes to some unlikely amount of copies in a second printing).

So buy it if you want. Or not. I can't really say that your life will be poorer if you never own this book. I think we did a good job of dealing with some challenging topics in a clear, informative, straightforward manner. The book lacks the scholarship of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (published in 1992 and now freely available online), but that wasn't really its purpose. It's not a child of my heart like No Going Back — more like a teenage foster child who stayed in our house for a year or so before turning 18 and striking out on his own — but can't help feel a mild sense of interest in its welfare and investment in its success. I wish it well.

More Reviews

Several more blog reviews of No Going Back have shown up in the past few weeks — mostly positive, and all providing interesting insights into how people perceive and react to the book.

A basically positive review showed up at the LDS Women's Book Review on October 20, although the reviewer mentioned concerns by other reviewers about whether this is a book that LDS gay teens should read about the strong language and discussion of sexual themes. The review author (Sheila) refers to No Going Back as "timely and needed" and says, "Jonathan does a good job of showing the intense feelings and fears of the main character, Paul, and how others react to him…. [T]he story is very well written; especially the main character Paul and his compassionate Bishop…. I was touched by the story of Paul and Chad (His straight life-long friend) and how they came to value their friendship." I've had evidence of one additional reader getting a copy of the book because of this review.

I've had two mostly positive reviews from non-LDS bloggers who read the book: one from The Little Bookworm and one from Words from the Tampa Bookworm. Follow-up contact with both reviewers suggested that the Mormon content didn't present a significant barrier to them following the story. So far, none of the non-Mormon readers of No Going Back have found this to be an issue, though ironically I've had several Mormon (or ex-Mormon) reviewers who thought the novel was "too Mormon" to be followed easily by those lacking a background knowledge of Mormon culture and faith. I'm hoping for more data points on this.

John Gustav-Wrathall provides a thoughtful, well-written review at his Young Stranger blog from the perspective of "a gay man who has been in a committed relationship with his same-sex partner for nearly two decades, who also, thirteen years into their relationship, realized he was still a believing Latter-day Saint" (from Amazon.com) — but who also has not felt right about abandoning his relationship with his husband. While liking much about the novel, Gustav-Wrathall also raises interesting questions about the message No Going Back sends about the Mormon position on homosexuality and about the intended audience for the novel. Nearly as interesting as the review itself was a follow-up discussion in the comments which (among other things) prompted me to write at length about several things related to my own reasoning and perceptions of what I was trying to accomplish in No Going Back.

And then there are the collected reviews at Amazon.com (up to 10 now, featuring a rather fierce mix of positive and negative) and at Goodreads (now up to 18 reviews, with 30 ratings). All reflecting, I suppose, a kind of impact that the novel is having — and the fact that people are writing and thinking about it, which is a big part of what I wanted to happen. Now if only another several hundred — or better yet, several thousand (ha!) — people would choose to buy and read it…

Reminder: No Going Back is also available in electronic formats at a considerably reduced price from Amazon.com (for the Kindle) and from Smashwords (in a variety of formats).

Political Thoughts

I never intended this blog to be about politics, and mostly I don't plan for it to be. But I was thinking this morning, and decided that I just couldn't feel good about myself without expressing at least once my concerns about this current election cycle.

I don't understand the current anti-incumbent (which mostly seems to mean anti-Democrat and anti-moderate-Republican) sentiment. Or rather, I understand it, but I think it's dangerously misplaced.

#######

One of the principal complaints about the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress has been the passage of the health care bill. I'm not going to argue over the pros and cons of health care policy and this bill in particular. But there were reasons why a lot of people (including me) felt that our health care system needed reform. Those reasons continue to be valid. And in point of fact I don't see any evidence that "Obamacare" (as critics like to call it) has broken our health care system or done anything truly damaging, despite the scare tactics I've seen.

People chant about "destroying the best health care system in the world." But judged by the health of our citizens, the U.S. health care system is not the best health care system in the world. Certainly it's not the best at taking care of those who can't afford to pay high premiums. I for one am still willing to say that health care reform may have been a very good idea. Certainly it's not something that has me so horrified that I feel the need to vote anyone out of office who voted for it.

Then there's the financial bailout and the recession, which I think are contributing the most to people's emotional reactions this election. The fact is that it was untrammeled conservatism, a belief that markets should be unregulated, and long years of primarily Republican leadership that got us into this mess. Why are we so anxious to make friends with the dog that bit us last time? For those who blame Obama for not fixing the economy already — it takes time to turn an entire economy around, just as it took time to get into this mess to begin with. There are no easy, quick, painless solutions. Frankly, I'm surprised things haven't been worse. We teetered on the edge of things getting really bad for a while, but mostly it didn't happen.

For those who think the bailout was a bad idea: I don't have the credentials to have an informed opinion one way or the other — but I do know that Obama was only going down the path that the Bush administration had already charted. And not surprisingly so. The Bush administration's natural constituency was bankers and those who lived off their investments; it's hardly surprising that regardless of what else happened, they would act to protect the interests of those people. The argument they made, as I recall, was that protecting investors meant protecting the economy. Okay, fine, whatever. I'm not enough of an economist to argue. But I find it astounding that Obama and the Democrats are being blamed for this — and that Republicans of the sort who supported Bush's policies are poised to make gains from it. Talk about your ironies.

And then there are those who blame Obama and the Democrats for the continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hello? Personally, I praise Obama for not acting precipitously in pulling us out without at least trying to salvage something on the way. The points where we could have done better were early on — during the years of the Bush administration, let us be very clear. At this point, there are no good solutions.

The thing that disturbs me most about all this is that I think the American people are being served a bill of goods. I think that the very people who caused many of these problems are taking advantage of public anger to try and get back into power.

I'm not trying to say that Obama is a saint. I've never believed that. And I don't believe that Republicans are devils. What I really think is that both parties are inhabited mostly by people who mean well. But I also think that the tone of this year's election cycle has brought out some of the worst parts of American politics, including some very misplaced applications of the blame game. That worries me.

I never intended this blog to be about politics, and mostly I don't plan for it to be. But I was thinking this morning, and decided that I just couldn't feel good about myself without expressing at least once my concerns about this current election cycle.

I don't understand the current anti-incumbent (which mostly seems to mean anti-Democrat and anti-moderate-Republican) sentiment. Or rather, I understand it, but I think it's dangerously misplaced.

#######

One of the principal complaints about the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress has been the passage of the health care bill. I'm not going to argue over the pros and cons of health care policy and this bill in particular. But there were reasons why a lot of people (including me) felt that our health care system needed reform. Those reasons continue to be valid. And in point of fact I don't see any evidence that "Obamacare" (as critics like to call it) has broken our health care system or done anything truly damaging, despite the scare tactics I've seen.

People chant about "destroying the best health care system in the world." But judged by the health of our citizens, the U.S. health care system is not the best health care system in the world. Certainly it's not the best at taking care of those who can't afford to pay high premiums. I for one am still willing to say that health care reform may have been a very good idea. Certainly it's not something that has me so horrified that I feel the need to vote anyone out of office who voted for it.

Then there's the financial bailout and the recession, which I think are contributing the most to people's emotional reactions this election. The fact is that it was untrammeled conservatism, a belief that markets should be unregulated, and long years of primarily Republican leadership that got us into this mess. Why are we so anxious to make friends with the dog that bit us last time? For those who blame Obama for not fixing the economy already — it takes time to turn an entire economy around, just as it took time to get into this mess to begin with. There are no easy, quick, painless solutions. Frankly, I'm surprised things haven't been worse. We teetered on the edge of things getting really bad for a while, but mostly it didn't happen.

For those who think the bailout was a bad idea: I don't have the credentials to have an informed opinion one way or the other — but I do know that Obama was only going down the path that the Bush administration had already charted. And not surprisingly so. The Bush administration's natural constituency was bankers and those who lived off their investments; it's hardly surprising that regardless of what else happened, they would act to protect the interests of those people. The argument they made, as I recall, was that protecting investors meant protecting the economy. Okay, fine, whatever. I'm not enough of an economist to argue. But I find it astounding that Obama and the Democrats are being blamed for this — and that Republicans of the sort who supported Bush's policies are poised to make gains from it. Talk about your ironies.

And then there are those who blame Obama and the Democrats for the continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hello? Personally, I praise Obama for not acting precipitously in pulling us out without at least trying to salvage something on the way. The points where we could have done better were early on — during the years of the Bush administration, let us be very clear. At this point, there are no good solutions.

The thing that disturbs me most about all this is that I think the American people are being served a bill of goods. I think that the very people who caused many of these problems are taking advantage of public anger to try

I never intended this blog to be about politics, and mostly I don't plan for it to be. But I was thinking this morning, and decided that I just couldn't feel good about myself without expressing at least once my concerns about this current election cycle.

I don't understand the current anti-incumbent (which mostly seems to mean anti-Democrat and anti-moderate-Republican) sentiment. Or rather, I understand it, but I think it's dangerously misplaced.

#######

One of the principal complaints about the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress has been the passage of the health care bill. I'm not going to argue over the pros and cons of health care policy and this bill in particular. But there were reasons why a lot of people (including me) felt that our health care system needed reform. Those reasons continue to be valid. And in point of fact I don't see any evidence that "Obamacare" (as critics like to call it) has broken our health care system or done anything truly damaging, despite the scare tactics I've seen.

People chant about "destroying the best health care system in the world." But judged by the health of our citizens, the U.S. health care system is not the best health care system in the world. Certainly it's not the best at taking care of those who can't afford to pay high premiums. I for one am still willing to say that health care reform may have been a very good idea. Certainly it's not something that has me so horrified that I feel the need to vote anyone out of office who voted for it.

Then there's the financial bailout and the recession, which I think are contributing the most to people's emotional reactions this election. The fact is that it was untrammeled conservatism, a belief that markets should be unregulated, and long years of primarily Republican leadership that got us into this mess. Why are we so anxious to make friends with the dog that bit us last time? For those who blame Obama for not fixing the economy already — it takes time to turn an entire economy around, just as it took time to get into this mess to begin with. There are no easy, quick, painless solutions. Frankly, I'm surprised things haven't been worse. We teetered on the edge of things getting really bad for a while, but mostly it didn't happen.

For those who think the bailout was a bad idea: I don't have the credentials to have an informed opinion one way or the other — but I do know that Obama was only going down the path that the Bush administration had already charted. And not surprisingly so. The Bush administration's natural constituency was bankers and those who lived off their investments; it's hardly surprising that regardless of what else happened, they would act to protect the interests of those people. The argument they made, as I recall, was that protecting investors meant protecting the economy. Okay, fine, whatever. I'm not enough of an economist to argue. But I find it astounding that Obama and the Democrats are being blamed for this — and that Republicans of the sort who supported Bush's policies are poised to make gains from it. Talk about your ironies.

And then there are those who blame Obama and the Democrats for the continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hello? Personally, I praise Obama for not acting precipitously in pulling us out without at least trying to salvage something on the way. The points where we could have done better were early on — during the years of the Bush administration, let us be very clear. At this point, there are no good solutions.

The thing that disturbs me most about all this is that I think the American people are being served a bill of goods. I think that the very people who caused many of these problems are taking advantage of public anger to try and get back into power.

I'm not trying to say that Obama is a saint. I've never believed that. And I don't believe that Republicans are devils. What I really think is that both parties are inhabited mostly by people who mean well. But I also think that the tone of this year's election cycle has brought out some of the worst parts of American politics, including some very misplaced applications of the blame game. That worries me.

and get back into power.

I'm not trying to say that Obama is a saint. I've never believed that. And I don't believe that Republicans are devils. What I really think is that both parties are inhabited mostly by people who mean well. But I also think that the tone of this year's election cycle has brought out some of the worst parts of American politics, including some very misplaced applications of the blame game. That worries me.

On Being an Emotional Yo-Yo

Quick one tonight:

I was feeling somewhat discouraged earlier today. Someone who had agreed to read and review my novel backed out, because she thought it might have more "questionable" bits than she was comfortable with. And I went on Goodreads and found another 3 rating, which brings down my average.

And then I did my periodic Googling on my name + No Going Back, and I found a tweet from earlier this week from a blogger who's reading my book and liking it more than she was expecting. And suddenly I'm feeling happy again.

It really is true (for me at least) that as an author, I can't really separate my own ego from how people react to my book, no matter how much everyone seems to claim that it ought to be possible…