M.J. Mandoki's Blog, page 5

The Culture Industry: Why Do Great Writers Have Difficulty Succeeding?

The advertisement in capitalist societies is that anybody can make it.  Certainly, it is true that anybody can make it.  However, they fail to tell people that not everybody can make it.  Initially, the common misconception used to be that only those do not make it who are lazy.  But, we all know that this is just not true.  There are many talented people in life who are relentlessly trying to make it, but they always fall short of it.  For example, there are plenty of very talented writers who never make it.  Why?  Why do certain people such as great writers have difficulty succeeding in life?[image error]

The great writers produce wonderful, often thought-provoking pieces of work.  They really are smart, educated and relevant.  They have the ability to contribute to society, shaping and forming it to benefit the people in it.  Yet, they fail to make it.

What is the problem?  The problem is that people do not buy these books.  As Theodor Adorno, one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, argued, the culture industry is tied to the capitalist market (Adorno, 1997).  The culture industry is dependent on mass production.  It produces and reproduces what sells.  So, what sells?  People buy whatever conforms to their predetermined capitalist dreams.  They are born into a system that feeds them a vision of a good, materially-based life, that dominates in society.  This type of life limits their vision and it forces people to reproduce the same type of work of art that reflect the system.  As Adorno says, “the details are interchangeable.  The short interval sequences which was effective in a hit song, the hero’s momentary fall from  grace…, the rough treatment which the beloved gets from the male star, the latter’s rugged defiance of the spoilt heiress, are, like all other details, ready-made clichés to be slotted in anywhere…” (Adorno, 1997, 125).  The system allows movement only within its confines, forces people to think within its borders and limit their imagination in it.

The consumer’s limited imagination means that the producer, the artist, has to fulfill their demands of limited imagination.  For example, Fifty Shades of Grey, by E. L. James, became a best seller because it was a modern version of sleeping beauty.  The sleeping beauty was awakened by a wealthy prince who whisked the beautiful young princess away to live happily ever after, with a twist of having great sex while being rescued.  The story moved within the confines of the stereotypical sleeping beauty.

Imagine that this story unfolded differently.  For example, the rich prince finds sleeping beauty.  But, instead of waking her up, he climbs on top of her to take advantage of her while she is asleep.  Then, he collects her belonging, sells them on eBay, buys a yacht and entertains high-priced prostitutes on the princess’ money.  This version would not have been a best-seller, would it?

[image error]

The point is that people like clichés.  It makes them feel at home because they exist in their limited world.  If a great writer comes along to produce a work that does not fit into people’s capitalist dreams, they reject it.  They do not buy it.  The work makes them frightened of the unknown world of the writer.

The same way, publishers do not take chances.  They say they want unique work, but they really don’t.  They want a uniquely fitting work that fulfills people’s expectations.  But, they do not want anything that breaks out of the confines of the expected.  They know that people might reject it.  So, they hire editors who  fit them into a “mould” to shape it to the market’s needs.  In other words, they dumb it down.  After all, the truly great work that broke all the rules may not sell to the masses who might reject it, if it is too far out of people’s comfort zone.

Since the pro[image error]duct has to sell to make money, the publishers do not take chances because they suspect that the readers are uninterested.  Hence, the truly great writers either fail to succeed or they are forced to accept the fate of having their work “dumbed down” to have a chance to be a best seller.  If they walk through door number two and accept the compromise, they have to make peace with the idea of being less than a great writer to be able to make a living.  Therefore, great writers have great difficulty succeeding in the culture industry that values their work very little.

M. J. Mandoki

Good Advice from a Blogger

It wasn’t so long ago that I was a brand new blogger at WordPress. I started my blog at the beginning of October with no real goals in mind other than making one particular piece of writing publicly available for sharing. I chose WordPress because we use it at work and several friends spoke highly of […]

via Brave and Reckless’Advice for New WordPress Bloggers– Part 1 — Brave and Reckless

The Most Serious Illness In The World: Feeling Unloved

Over 12% of Americans take antidepressant medication; yet, this number represents only about the third of the people who are in need of this type of medical help.  Over 76 million people in the world suffer from alcohol related illnesses, such as alcohol dependence.  Over 246 million souls turn to drug worldwide and 27 millions are problem users.  Over 1.8 billion adults are overweight and about 600 million of them are obese.  Over 1 million human beings commit suicide, which means that someone dies in every 40 seconds who has decided to take the final exit out of life.  Shall I go on with the list?  Or, maybe, I should just stop and ask the obvious question: Why are we so miserable?

[image error]

I am sure there are a lot of attempted answers for it.  The biological answer has always been that chemical changes happen in the brain.  But, is it really that simple?  Or, is this an oversimplified answer to something much bigger than chemistry?  After all, why does this chemical change take place?  If the biological answer fails, the sociological answer follows.  This is nurture versus nature issue where we neglect nurture in the form of creating less than ideal condition to live our lives.  The question becomes then: What is the ideal condition?  The post-industrialized nations are the wealthiest, yet, the problems seem to be the greatest in these countries.  Wealth is obviously not the answer.  Is it nature then?  Did nature create certain people this way?  If it were true, then, we would not have a increasing number of sufferers in the world; the numbers would be steady.  So, why are we so miserable?

Let’s look at examples for our misery.  He does not call after the first date and the teenager is ready to take her life.  He does not get into medical school and falls into depression because he is convinced that he is the biggest disappointment to his parents.  She writes a great book, but people are not interested in buying it and not interested even in reading it when she provides it for free; and, as a result, she eats a bucket of ice cream every evening.  She does not win an election, losing to a wealthy business man, and she goes into hiding, feeling ashamed or distraught.  He does not finish well in an athletic competition that he spent years putting every ounce of energy into it and he start drinking.  She cannot get pregnant even though this should be the most natural thing in the world for a woman and she turns to prescription medication to ease the emotional pain.  He is called a loser by a relative and turns to drugs.  She is sexually abused as a child by an adult she trusts and feels anxious to be alone with people.  He is told to man-up and do things he does not feel right about, but pressured to do so and needs a strong drink to get through it.  She is bullied for not fitting into a popular crowd and tries to end her life.

 

[image error]

 

So, why are we so miserable?  On the surface, it seems that the answers are a combination of disappointment, pain, betrayal, failure and loss of hope.  Beyond the surface though, the ultimate description seems to be: “I am not good enough”.  I am not good enough because he did not call, because I did not make it to medical school, because people do not read my book, because I was unable to win the election, because I did not win the competition, because I cannot get pregnant, because I am a loser, because he abused me, because I am not man enough and because I do not fit in.  I am not good enough.  Sounds familiar?  We are the not-good-enough society.

Why do we feel that we are not good enough?  We feel that, if we were good enough, we would be more successful, luckier, happier, more trustworthy etc… But, why do we care about this “more”?  We care because this more represents being loved.  Being good enough, being “more”, means that we have a proof of being loved.  If he called, I would know that I am lovable.  If I made it to medical school, my parent would be proud of me.  If people read my book, this would mean that they appreciate my work.  If I won the election, I am wanted as much as a man is wanted in politics.  If I can get pregnant, mother nature would honour my womanhood.  If my relative stopped calling me a loser, I would feel loved and wanted in my family.  If he did not abuse me, I would feel more loved and protected.  If I were man enough, I would belong more and feel more appreciated.  If they did not bully me, I would belong more within my peer group.  Basically, we just want to be loved.

We feel unloved.  This is our greatest illness in the world.  We want to do more because we do not feel good enough and, therefore, loved enough.  We crave love from others in the form of lovability, pride, appreciation, equality, honour, belonging, safety and protection.  We want others to make us feel loved.  We are waiting for others to provide the love to cure our illness of being unloved.

The problem is that others do not always provide the love we want.  This is the reason we make ourselves feel sick and miserable.  Yet, the cure is so simple.  If they do not provide the love, we can always provide it for ourselves.  We can love ourselves, even if we they do not love us.  We can love ourselves just the way we are even if he does not call, we do not get into medical school, they do not buy the book, we do not win the election, we do not get pregnant, he calls me a loser, he abuses me, they bully me.  We can still love ourselves.  Why?  We can because we are still lovable.  We are lovable independent of what happens.  Love is not a prize we have to be worthy of.  Love is not dependent on anything.  We can love ourselves just the way we are no matter what happens in our lives.  We can choose to love ourselves.

[image error]

 

If we chose to love ourselves “simply because”, we would be not just less miserable, but also happier.  So, let’s do it! Let’s improve on the statistics!  Today!

M. J. Mandoki

Cheesy Romance Stories

Have you ever wondered why serious works of fiction rarely make big money, but the cheesiest romance stories make a fortune?  Believe it or not, despite the high level of western education, people like cheesy stories.

[image error]

My own mother is a good example.  She is an accountant who spent her life as a small business owner both in Europe and in North America, yet, she loves cheesy television drama.  Her latest passion is to watch South American soap operas.  Por un puñado de besos, or, unofficially translated as “A handful of kisses”, is her favourite.

I asked her the reason for rushing home just in time for the latest episode.  Her answer was vague.  But, deciphering her long-winded talk around it, I realized that she loves a feel-good story.  It resonates with her experiences.  According to my mother, some people are just evil who will take advantage of others.  You need to fight these people to get justice for yourself.  Naturally, in an ideal setting, such as in a movie, the good should triumph over the bad.  Triumphing over the bad means that the good will get the proper recognition, the dream spouse, retribution and happiness at the end.  Basically, the perfect cheesy romance story.

I wonder if, despite our education level, people in our society still think in these simplistic terms.  Are we at the level of good versus evil where the evil person is clearly identifiable and the good person can triumph over the bad at the end?  If only life were that simple!  Why are we getting educated about the complexity of human nature and society, if we still end up insisting in thinking about life in such simplistic terms?[image error]

I also wonder if I should start giving into the crowd’s simplistic demand and write some cheesy romance novels.  Maybe, I can pay my bills easier?!  When I pitched this idea to my mother–and, I meant it ironically–she was fully supportive of it.  In fact, she wanted to call her friends right away to tell them that I finally made the great decision to write wonderful romance novels they can read.  I was shocked by her enthusiasm!

Maybe, I should write that romance novel.  But, if I do, I am going to call it the “The Cheesiest Romance Story”.   I would die of laughter if it actually made a lot of money!

M. J. Mandoki

A Good Life as a Matter of Luck

[image error]

I thought about what is takes to be successful.  Most people would say that will power and hard work bring about success.  Upon reflection, I decided that this is a mistaken belief.

I started by examining the idea of hard work.  The following is a fact.  Some people work hard and become successful and some people work hard and do not become successful.  Therefore, there is no relationship between working hard and becoming successful.  This is a Christian Protestant myth that most people carry around in the developed countries.

Of course, I am not suggesting that people should be lazy.  I am simply suggesting that hard work is not the main ingredient of being successful.  For example, a person applies to graduate school.  He or she has good grades, great recommendations and excellent statement of interest.  The problem is that so do hundreds of other people who apply.  The person may have worked hard, but so did everybody else applying to the school.

So, what does it take to be successful?  After careful consideration, I decided that the main ingredient is luck.  For example, the person’s graduate application may land on the desk of a professor who happened to have taken similar courses when he was young and sees himself in the applicant.  Or, the applicant’s name is Joe or Jane and so is his kid’s name and he is convinced that people with the name Joe or Jane are smart.  Or, he is in an exceptionally good mood in the morning and the person’s application happens to be the first one he looks at; and, he is cheerful enough to just say “yes” to it.  Basically, making it at the end is a matter of luck.

People who are lucky happen to be born to a the right parents, connected to the right people or end up in the right circumstances.  They actually do not need to work very hard.  Lucky people can be average because luck is on their side.  Therefore, I believe that all one really needs is luck to succeed.

M. J. Mandoki

Fake Short Story Competitions?

Recently, I started wondering if some of the short story competitions are fake.  I have to warn my audience here that I am not suggesting that all of them are fake.  Some may be very real and worth participating in.  My concern is rather that I do not know which one of them maybe real.

[image error]

Let me explain.  The short story competition that made me think about this possibility is the one by the Writer’s Digest.  The entry price of the short story competition is $25.  For this price, all a participant gets is a promise that the story will be read and a generic mass e-mail of rejection, unless the person won, at the end.  There is no feedback and no placing of the story amongst the 5200 entries.  This made me ask the question: Do they read it at all?  What are the guarantees that they really read the entries?

Let’s look at the mathematics.  5200 times $25 is $130,000.  Yes!  One hundred and thirty thousand dollars!  A lot of money to collect from people!  In return, they give out $6,350 and a few publications in prizes for all the winners combined.  So, they take in $130,000 and give out $6,350 in cash.  In total, that is an intake of $123,650 minus taxes.  This is a lot of income from one small competition.  And, this is not the only competition they run.  They also have poetry competition, popular fiction competition and e-book competition, just to name a few.

[image error]

So, what are the guarantees that they read the stories?  Or, better yet, what are the incentives to read them?  After all, you can just start reading the pile of stories until you get to the first 25 decently written stories and then stop reading.  Why not?  You can still keep the money and publish the 25 stories you promised.

I am not suggesting that they engage in this practice.  What I am suggesting that the participants who send their stories can never know.  There are no feedback and placing.  Nobody can be certain that they do as they say.  The participants can only hope that they are decent about it.

I have to say that I am very suspicious.  I am having second thoughts about participating in short story competitions where the only feedback a person gets is a generic mass email at the end.

For now, I am just back to what I do best: simply, writing.

[image error]

Anybody has any thoughts about this?  Anybody has any bad or good experiences about short story competitions?

M. J. Mandoki

Fake Social Media? Fake Lives?

With all the talk about fake news and so-called alternative truths, journalists are crying out for an ability to report the real truth.  They want tell the truth, the real truth.  But, what is the real truth?

[image error]

We could talk about philosophical theories of the correspondence truth or the coherence truth.  Or, alternatively, we could focus on the very foundation of truth, the truth we can know for certain, which even Descartes was unsuccessful at finding when digging for amongst all sources.  Yet, this philosophical endeavour is not where we need to go.  It is unnecessary.

We just have to look at the social media profiles people build.  Browsing through Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other accounts, we can see that people always sound so good on social media.  Their profile, if it is even real, usually suggest that they are beautiful, successful and have great family lives and friends.  Basically, everyone is presenting “the best of me” profile on line.

[image error]

This tendency has also sneaked into face-to-face conversations.  Recently, I have been to a funeral where I met an older woman I have not seen for a few years.  Politely, I inquired about her grown children.  The answer made me smile after a while when I realized that she was dressing-up their lives.  Apparently, all of her children are happy, successful and loaded with money.  In short, she pulled out “the best of them” profile to present it to me.

Seriously, what is the truth about us?  Even when we have real social media accounts, how many are presented realistically?  If we all dress up the truth, do we actually see the real version of it on social media?  So, when we read about everyone else, are we not reading about the fake version of their lives?  The distorted version of the truth?

Adding to this fake version of truth are the actual fake accounts.  How many people create fake profiles all together?  Some of people create fake accounts for sinister reasons to spy on others, exploit vulnerable people or destroy other people’s reputation anonymously.  Others just want to be someone else to live in a happier state of mind in order to save themselves from having to take anti-depressant medications.  Or, maybe, they are already on these medications and the fake accounts are helping to supplement the effect of the drugs.

In this fake environment, social media acts like a happy pill.  We tune into our created fake world to make ourselves feel better.  There would be nothing wrong with this strategy, if the social media had been created for therapeutic benefits.  However, when the social media was designed, the designers wanted to create an environment for real people connecting with others over distance, instead of a “second life” kind of environment where people are creating fake and alternative versions of themselves.

[image error]

In this environment, what is the truth?  What do journalist want to express when they talk about the truth?  What are they trying to tell to people with fake and alternative accounts?  And, do we really care to have the truth?  Do we really care when we participate in upholding this fake reality on social media? Or, do we not just want to hear the dressed-up version of the journalists’ news to fit it into this already fake world of our creation?

So, what is the truth?  And, does it even matter to us?

M. J. Mandoki

Dying Capitalism: Lack of Variety in the Job Market

We all heard the inspirational message, “Follow your passion!  Do what you love!” .   The idea is that we should pursue our passions, talent and abilities to have a satisfying carrier and a happier life.  Whether we are just starting out life or wanting to make a change for the better, we should listen to our hearts because it will take us to the ideal place in life.  But, does it?

[image error]

Recently, I’ve read an article, “The Great Shame of Our Profession”, written by Kevin Birmingham, an English professor.   The article made my blood boil.  He outlines the path people need to take who have a passion to become an English professor.  They get a PhD in English, go to conferences, get published and win prestigious awards.  We would think that they have found their passion and love, and, therefore, they are in life where they want to be.  Actually, they are not.  The article reveals that most of them are hired as adjunct professors, surviving on less than $10,000 per year and living on food stems in the United States.  Scary, isn’t it!?

What went wrong with the ambitious English professors’ lives who pursued their passion and love?  Capitalism.  Yes, capitalism.  It is not fashionable to criticize capitalism, but, unfortunately, we are living at a time where capitalism has produced catastrophic results.  Globalization and free trades agreements have wiped out the middle class that has the power to ensure the economic health of any country.  Once the middle class disappears, people make little money and, therefore, pay very little taxes.  The less taxes they pay, the less money there is to keep the country out of dept.  Many of the developed countries are now carrying a huge amount of dept.  At the same time, businesses are still focusing on making record profits.  Hence, both governments and businesses are trying to get away with paying as little as possible for even the most educated crowd.

What is the solution?  Often times, we are told to follow the job market; a message, which stands in direct conflict with the idea of following our passion and love.  The jobs seem to be in the computer related fields, sciences and business right now.  So, the new message is that we should go where the money is.

[image error]

Is this a real solution, though?  Not really.  Once too many people jump on the bandwagon to pursue these occupations, all they achieve is the cheapening of these jobs.  For example, years ago, people were told to get into the IT field because there was a huge demand for IT workers.  Many listened and became IT technicians.  However, the incredible number of IT technicians that flood the market made sure that the companies had a lot to choose from.  This means the IT market became competitive and the job started paying less and less.  Eventually, the same will happen to computer programmers, scientists and business people.  If we are all following where the money is, the money will basically disappear!

The bigger issue is that the more we are cheapening the available jobs, the less there is to choose from.  There is little inspiration for any people to enter a profession that takes many years of studying and accumulating experience, if it pays as much as an unskilled work.  This means that the job market is shrinking, not just in terms of the quantity of jobs, but the quality of jobs.  There is a decreasing number of desirable occupations to choose from where people can make a decent living.  Ironically, this includes university professors who exist to teach others to think, critique and be skillful.

To add to this problem, computer programmers are busy creating robots which are replacing workers.  The increasing number of robots are decreasing the available variety of jobs.  The foresters, assembly workers, truck drivers, just to name a few, are disappearing because of the heavy machinery, industrial robots and self-driving trucks that are overtaking their jobs.  The variety disappears, leaving people with even less decent jobs to choose from.

In this environment, we can forget about following our passion and love!  We can only follow our passion and love in our spare time.  The rest of the time is spent on survival.  We try to survive by maneuvering on the shrinking job market with a decreased number and types of jobs available.  The world has no place for passion and love anymore.  We are left with our animal instinct to do what is necessary to keep ourselves and our families alive.  Basically, we kill within us what makes us human and lower ourselves to the animal kingdom of survival.

[image error]

The question is: Is this how we want to live? Do we want to live in a world where we can no longer express our human passions, talents and abilities?  Do we want to exist just to survive and die, with most us unable to unfold our true being in this world?

I think there is a lot to think about while we watch our fellow beings, the English professors, lining up to use up their food stamps in the United States.

M. J. Mandoki

Time is of the Essence

[image error]

Although the expression, “Time is of the Essence,” was created to emphasize that, due to a contract deadline, a shortage of time existed for work completion, the expression seems to have gained force in everyday life.  Simply, time seems to be of the essence for everyone.  People are constantly multitasking, trying to finish several jobs at the same time.  Some people have two or three part-time jobs, running from one to the other.  Some people are juggling responsibilities between work and family.  And, some of us, artists are trying to do it all: work for a living, care for our families and create works of art.

[image error]

In this crazy, busy world, time seems to be getting ever shorter because responsibilities increase, but the number of hours available in a day remains 24.  As the pressure builds with the amount of work to be completed, time seems to be of the essence for everybody at all time.

I feel that I am the perfect expression of this predicament.  I returned to school to finish my PhD and retained my full-time work, as well.  Doing the two at the same time is overwhelming.  I work, study and sleep.  This seems to be my world right now.

If I have a little bit of time, I spend it on creating my short stories, poems and next novel.  When I talk about this “little bit of time”, I am referring to the morning times on the weekends or break times at work.  For example, I really wanted to send a short story to a competition that had a tight deadline.  In fact, the deadline was so tight that I had to finish writing it in one evening.  Therefore, at break time at work, I isolated myself in a stall of the washroom and wrote the ending of the story while sitting on the floor.   When time is of the essence, one has to be resourceful!

[image error]

When did society get to this point?  The Ancient Greeks perceived work as shameful.  All citizens prayed to the gods to be in a situation where they did not have to do physical labour that aimed at providing the necessities.  Unfortunately, the protestant work ethics glorified work as noble.  Yet, even the amount of work people did under this protestant ethics seemed to be under control until the late 20th century.  So, what happened?  Why and how did we lose our footing?  And, what can we do about it now?

[image error]

I don’t have any answers to this puzzle.  All I know is that I am out-of-control busy.  I am doing so much that I might even end up writing short stories on the washroom floor when time is of the essence.

I wonder, though, if this lifestyle ever ends.  Or, if I run out of energy before it has a chance to get better.

M. J. Mandoki

Was 2016 Cursed?

[image error]

Was 2016 Cursed?

Many people have claimed that 2016 was a cursed year.  It seems that people suffered a lot of misfortunes.  Innocent people suffered in the city of Aleppo, many Americans do not like the president-elect they ended up with and, beloved celebrities passed away in unusually large numbers.  Somehow, 2016 seems like an unlikable year to remember.

So, was 2016 cursed?  I find this a very interesting question, not because of the misfortunes that people suffered.  I do not dispute that undesirable events have taken place lately.  But, the reason that I find it an interesting question is because of the use of the word “curse”.  I have to ask people, “What does it mean for a year to be cursed?”.

Did anybody put a curse on the year?  If somebody did, who cursed the year 2016?  I know that there are humorous answers.  Some would say, “My mother-in-law” or, “Donald Trump” or, “Hollywood”.  Or, some philosophers might swear that it was an evil-genius.  Was it Descartes’?

All joking aside, many would simply think that a year being cursed means that fate was responsible for it.  It was meant to be bad.  But, again, what does this mean?  Who or what is fate?  Is it the Egyptian god “Heh”, the Roman Goddess “Fortuna” or the Norse’s “Norn”?  Who is responsible for the curse?

Is it not a mysterious deity?  Maybe, fate means that things are determined.  This may be a great scientific response.  However, if things are determined, human beings do not have any freedom.  Can people live with this idea?  I think most people would not accept a reality where human freedom to change the direction of life does not exist.  So, fate as determination is not an adequate concept either.

What is fate then?  Is it simply a pile of coincidental events stacked upon each other?  This may not be a very scientific answer in a cause-and-effect universe scientists live in.  However, this may satisfy a lot of people who believe that fate is just a bunch of coincidental events.  This idea could be psychologically helpful to some.  Still, once again, living in a universe where people are powerless and helpless may not be satisfactory to most people.

Is there an answer?  Is fate a good answer for the year being cursed?  Was there a curse at all?  So many questions and very few answers in this mysterious universe!  There is a reason that I wrote a novel called “The Curse”.  There is always a lot to think about when someone or something is claimed to be cursed!  What is your answer?

M. J. Mandoki