Sunday, January 11, 2015

Why I write part x

A cold and slushy day out there. Just had some coffee to warm me up, and now I'm looking to tackle another day full speed. The mass demonstrations in France seem to have inspired the world. The acts of violence carried out there have been horrific. More horrific, of course, is the lack of insight, or willingness to look at history for an explanation. Instead what we get is: there is no excuse (read: explanation, because apparently many are still infants unwilling to even look at explanations? Or are scared of them, or of adding context? Since when has this atomized view or perception of the world been the standard? I think I missed something, so please do add something in the comments if I am) or there is no time to think this through. This is simply wrong. That it is wrong is obvious to most. That it is a mere grain of sand on a beach of black and white sand is also the point. To not be willing to step back seems to be the what those who want a singular action want. In other words, it's an manipulation of the international psyche.
Edit: This is not to say that people's reactions to the attacks are unwarranted. They are not. And the positivity that has come out of France is something I applaud.

France, of course, has its own special history. Yes, that includes a very harsh secularism, and it also includes colonialism and neo-colonialism. Now, if in response to this you think defensively, in other words, you think: does that mean two individuals of nihilistic quality should be applauded? Well, then, friend, you simply are too far gone (like the perpetrators of this attack) for a discussion. Or is that not what's wanted here? I suppose I'm not sure. I will say that those who find safety in groups (on the internet, as in real life, I'm of the thought that these aren't groups, but rather mobs—for they're acting like it) are simply following the herd and, again, not thinking this through. Yes, yes, I know: there is strength in platitudes. But I yearn for a different world.

Nevertheless, what my thoughts lingered on was the need for multiple moralities as well as multiple narratives within one book (from culturally different people). That, indeed, is what I've wrestled with in the past. I won't say that I've perfected it, but I will try to come to some grips with a way to do so. I've been reading about hypertext fiction and am of the thought that this, or something like it, will possibly be one of the better ways to show this world (or a fake one) in such a fragmented way. To that end, I will try to get up an ebook that attempts this, but for now I'll look into other books to learn. And in the next few weeks I'll also put up something on this blog that attempts to create a world through hypertext. I will start short, but look for it soon.

Be safe out there, everyone.


Enjoyed the writing? Here's a tip jar!

Then Subscribe to my mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


  1. Best to look to Mr. Coates at the Atlantic on this matter. There are—in the Hedbo case, and I think that's what you're talking about, as it's the latest in a series of platitudes that go back to the Bronze Age—many reasons to balk at the recent attacks, and most of the reactions to them. But if there are, be specific and say something to that end.

  2. There are a few things you should check up on, besides reading more (but that's everyone, and so how can we expect silence from those who know more than those who are filling the airwaves, isn't that a sort of cowardice?). Then step forth, I say. Step forth. In this case, silence is not some sort of cloak of integrity. Not when everyone is screaming the wrong thing. When the mob lurches the wrong way, even at risk to self, is silence right?

    1. So what, do you speak when you haven't read enough on a topic? Come on.


Please comment to add to the discussion. Be kind. But let the democratic ideal lead you. And no spamming!