Well maybe you ARE just plain lazy, Julie Dunham, but if you are then I'd at least say you've found a most curious and--well probably some people would classify it in this way--"backwards" way of showing it.
Who other than you, the Real Julie Dunham (of course which seems like sarcasm, which it cannot now and cannot ever be--at least insofar as you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE *AVOID* reading anything that *I* ever write on a Sunday if you're not much up for the sarcasm--because I have a secret I think I should like to tell you, and because I've read this once--but not yet once "quite carefully enough"--I can tell you that
in MY lexicon, to read what you have here just ONCE rather than twice or even three times and do so carefully (at least more carefully than most people seem wont to do) is in itself a lazy thing, because if I make my guess (yes, I usually do) I'd say it took you a LONG time and a lot of heartache besides biting your lip when people climbed all over your shit like I've just seen you rather eloquently describe that they sort of have.
Because they sort of have, right? They need someone whose shit is worthwhile to climb over like they're a bunch of ants at a picnic with nothing but roughly conical piles of sugar crystals to attend themselves to.
Which does bring up a related question:
If we're to regard an endless picnic such as that one, and within it the seemingly endless upside-down and roughly conical in their collection of particle-bits conformation, and ask ourselves whether all of this here that we "have" at our "disposal" will last until the end of the life of the last person to be born about two or three generations from the ants around us who are climbing all over *each other* as though it were the sweetest thing since cotton candy to do that to another person...
...well, in that case wouldn't it be time to turn on The Days of Our Lives program? That most soapy of the soapy soap operas which I used to watch with my mother between attempts to "just plainly cause trouble; he always "shows up" right at the WRONG time, you know, when human beings have all hisselfs and herselfs and theirselves and not-those-people-because-those-are-the-ones-to-blame-for-"just this"--miserable aspect of all "OUR" lives?
I tell you, if I could only see that hourglass, I mean that real actual hourglass right now, I'd say the inside part of it looks like people who are climbing all over one another trying to get down a railroad tracks that is as much as the toy trains we used to play with when we were *actually* children.
You know, the kind that only go around in a circle.
[For the purposes of author clarification: This piece, written specifically for the girl who it must not be other than necessary to actually name--for both the reasons we (which means *I* in this case) have previously specified AND the additional reason that
we could all be saying the same thing as she, Julie Dunham, has just said here, but the reason we DON'T all say the same thing--well, not quite precisely--is because *NO ONE* wants to hear that TYPE or CLASS or VERSION of plain old noise anymore, and thus it falls upon the writers among us [of which she is certainly one in the number, whether others might say so or not] to do the *actually hard* work of looking beyond the process....
I mean, well, *I* think it's a process that virtually everyone does. I think it's ONE single process, not "a series of processes, all of which are variously complex, engaging, rewarding, boring, tiresome, vindictiveness-inspiring, and a whole cacophony of other things might it also be" but really just the one. Here it is, in steps, what people do (yes, I've roughed it out just here):
1. They 'walk' from point A to point B
2. Once they get to point B from point A, they complain of the suffering. They say such things as "oh, my back is just KILLING me! I've had an uproariously "tough" week and it's only right now just a Wednesday! However, I will make it"
3. They leave out just enough of the punctuation and they throw in only just one-half of the so-so approach to paying attention that they normally grant toward the things which 'deign' to take up their attention
and then finally, drumroll, please...
They just forget all about the point of *their* getting THEMSELVES from the B back to the A or from the A back to the B (unless they've gotten through with doing that, of course, in which case why would they ever stop *themselves* to complain? What crazy sort of utility might complaining actually get for you? Is it some sort of "extra secret" short cut to the fabled land of the Miserables, where all of us enjoy one another's company, at the very last?
I am sure it is so, and I thank you for taking some of your time out to write it, Julie. Fucked if I'm not experiencing precisely the same thing, and I say that without a trace of the usual "wow, crazy internet guy sees a pretty face and a follow and then a pretty nice piece of writing...
WHICH *IS* work and you know what? JD and I are just going to laugh together in public about thaaaat one, because:
1. If we don't we might just as surely cry
2. We don't really *CARE* care whether you get it or not, because you really have just worn us all out with telling us your plebeian "love story" with the "isn't that just delightfully complex?" fairytales all people tell.
And since I suspect neither of us likes a rhetorical any more or any less than any other person (such a stupid comparison I'm really not at all sure why people so frequently make it. What, are they actually so incomparably bored with life that they have to deliberately phrase things in the most confirmationally biased kind of confirmation biased fashion?
Have their parents been so utterly devoid of the capacity to give them attention that they become a bit "stir crazy" and shout at the top of their lungs,
Would you please just quit doing that?
In all seriousness, J-dawg: YOU are not crazy. You are not perhaps "the furthest thing from crazy" or I suspect you'd say so yourself, but you are NOT not crazy.
No, wait, you have to do THREE 'nots' in a row in order to make it say the opposite of what others have expected or should expect you have said, not TWO, because TWO would then imply that you might be using reverse psychology or might alternatively not be using it, which would be confusing.
Of course! I agree completely. I don't understand why people don't 'get it' when they obstinately refuse to read something (typically a thing which is a "ten minute or less" read when it's actually taken well on 5 hours start to finish to compose it.
But YES, we writers DO make it look easy. OUR JOBS are to make beautiful words all the more beautiful by their carefully considered or even their not considered carefully much at all approaches to actually doing that work, and so if you SEE an "out of work" writer, please understand that the Bradley Cooper rendition from Limitless is reasonably what fits us.
Which means I know all of you are *guessing* I am a similarly debonair and--to some--impossibly handsome man, am I, Brian Kent, and this would never be yet another crazy fishing expedition to find the woman I might together unite with so that we can make figurative [no definitely not non-figurative] children with. That one may one day grow up to actually BE The Next Herman J.D.W. Winchester Melville,
Haw haw haw! I've got a thorne in my side it's so damned funny, but then no it isn't. Not to a lot of you, which means the direct utility that I can gather, glean, collect, score, or otherwise cause myself to obtain from writing is near zero.
Yeah, job security, it seems, is inversely related to job satisfaction.
