JJ Litke

the neural pathways less traveled

Your blog is bad and you should feel bad

by

Face it, no one gives a crap about 99.9% of blogs. Most people blog because they think they should, or because some marketer convinced them they should. Here’s some of the typical reasons you’ll hear in favor of blogging.

“Blogging is a great way to help market or promote your business!”

No. Customers really want information about prices, location, and contact info. Unless your business blog has truly helpful articles, it will go unread.

“Use your blog to connect with like-minded people!”

Blogs are more likely to be a soapbox than a discussion. If your goal is connection, there are better outlets.

“You can stay connected with friends and family!”

Are you serious? Again, better places exist for that.

“Blog to express yourself!”

Okay, you got me there. As long as you don’t mind talking into the ether, go right ahead.

Studies show that 97.4% of blogs never get read and eventually die a sad and lonely death. I made that up, but it might as well be true. The point is, don’t waste time and resources blogging if you don’t need it.

This may beg the question (or it would if anyone ever read this blog), why do I bother blogging? Thank you for asking, imaginary reader! I do it simply to practice writing.

So there you go. Two actually good reasons to blog are: 1) articles containing useful information related to your business or expertise, and 2) practicing writing.

If I ever think of any other good reasons, I’ll let you know. Not that you’ll read them.

We suck at relationships

by

I have a fascination with Confucianism. That shows in my writing, though you wouldn’t notice if you aren’t familiar with it yourself. And most people aren’t.

I should clarify that Confucianism is non-theistic. Just so you know, I’m not peddling religion here. It’s an ethical system, primarily concerned with correct behavior, and even more primarily with behavior toward other people. This where that relationships thing comes in. According to Confucianism, there are five basic relationships, which I will list without strict regard for political correctness:

  • Ruler to subject
  • Parent to child
  • Husband to wife
  • Elder sibling to younger sibling
  • Friend to friend

Within these relationships, the person in seniority has a moral obligation to behave with benevolence toward their juniors. That means looking out for their well being and generally taking care of them. The person in the junior position should treat their seniors with respect. As any given person could be in multiple of these relationships at the same time, they would adjust their behavior and expectations toward others depending on those relationships.

A great example of how this thought process works is two brothers with two apples, one large and one small. The elder brother offers the younger brother the large apple because he is still growing. But the younger brother offers the elder brother the larger apple because he is bigger. Aw!

That’s a lovely philosophy, isn’t it? Just a couple of problems, though. While Confucianism is fairly clear that one should know one’s place and stick to it (and that’s a pretty huge problem on its own), it’s a lot less clear about what to do when the other person in the relationship isn’t following the philosophy. But in general I think we can agree that a lot of us really suck at following these general guidelines, at least on a regular basis (certainly the Tea Party doesn’t ascribe to the concept of caring for others). It’s still a good goal, and a good way to think of how we should be acting toward others who depend on us.

Circling back to my writing (you knew I’d do that, didn’t you), all of those relationships are represented in my books. I actually didn’t consciously plan it that way, it just made sense because I deal with a lot of family issues and relationships. Just like in real life, my characters don’t always behave as they should. Yet even the most selfish of my fictional family still see their obligation to look out for their people. They would never deny food or shelter to those who depend on them. If I did write them that way, my story would be foolishly unbelievable.

Funny how real life can be more twisted and absurd than fiction.

Retribution bullying is still bullying

by

You may have seen the case of Lynn Shepherd and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Attitude article, in which she suggests that J.K. Rowling stop writing adult fiction and give other writers a chance already. It’s no surprise that negative reaction ensued. Shepherd’s non-apology didn’t do much to help, at least in part because it was so disingenuous—if your intent is to highlight how tough it is for new writers to get noticed, you really need to write about that instead of trashing a well-known writer. If Shepherd genuinely thought she was writing about what she claimed, it’s evidence that she’s really not very good at writing, because that’s not the message anyone seemed to get.

Then, the backlash. Rowling fans mercilessly trashed Shepherd in return and left one-star reviews of her books. Books they have not read, just as Shepherd admitted she had not read Rowling’s before dissing them. Okay, here I have to admit I found that pretty damn funny. What comes around, goes around, right? Except part of the justification people used for doing that is it was unfair when Shepherd did it. So, when Shepherd did it, it was wrong, but when they did it, it was retribution and therefore justified.

And you know where I’m going with this because you’re a decent person with morals. You don’t get to twist your morals around and do something you know is wrong just because now you’re the one doing it to someone else. It’s that old “two wrongs don’t make a right” thing.

This is just the most recent example of people using bullying as a retribution tactic. It happens with a startling degree of regularity. People are really good at justifying their own horrible actions. I’m a good person, so the things I do aren’t bad. They’re just. Yeah, but, no. It doesn’t work that way.

This is part of the scary truth behind why we can’t eliminate bullying. Bullies almost never think they’re bullying. They think they’re justified, for whatever twisted reasons they can come up with to justify it. But let me assure you, no matter who you are, no matter how Good or Right you believe yourself to be, you are absolutely capable of becoming that bully. The more you think you are not, the more likely you are to do it, because you won’t examine your real motives, or the results of your actions.

So, what, we’re supposed to let people get away with their crappy behavior? No, frustrated do-gooder, I’m not suggesting that. And incidentally, I share your frustration, it sucks when you feel like someone is getting one over on us. What we should do is what we all said that Shepherd should have done–state our opinions without insults and think through the consequences before we speak. We need to strive to meet the standard we expect from others.

If only Shepherd had done that, she wouldn’t have so many people angry at her now.

The ways in which we are wrong

by

The current rounds of controversy started with the petition aimed at SFWA. It continued with attacks against Mary Robinette Kowal on sff.net. Rather than rehash the issue directly (which is being done plenty already), I’ll attack the argument itself.

This is the exact text in question, by Sean P. Fodera, directed at Kowal:

I find it very funny and ironic that she would jump on this bandwagon. For
a long time, her website featured an array of photos of her in a diaphanous
white outfit, posing on a beach. No metal bikinis or such, but they were not
innocuous writer headshots either. One of them, with her recumbent on the sand
with legs exposed, made her somewhat attractive. I also recall she’s fond of
wearing tight-fitting gowns and plunging necklines when she attends cons and
award ceremonies.

I’ll have to add “phony” to “incompetent” and “arrogant” in the mental tags
I’ve assigned her.

What, you may ask, does her choice of clothing have to do with what she believes about the content of the SFWA’s member newsletter? The correct answer is: nothing. Of course it has nothing to do with it. What we see here is an example of a logical fallacy, in which Fodera attempts to discredit Kowal’s credibility on the basis that her clothing is not respectable enough. (Note that he does not describe his own clothing as a counter to why he is more credible.) There are also strong elements of cognitive bias going in these arguments.

By the way, that “legs exposed” bit in there refers to the fact that her ankles were showing. Her. Ankles. I’m not kidding.

Kowal’s defenders have posted statements and screeds attaching many fine traits to her. Which is great, and I’m glad that she’s getting support. At the same time, I’m uncomfortable with how we’re all leaping to that side of it. Did you see that I just did it myself above? I pointed out that the photos in question weren’t the slutty pics that Fodera implied they were. I caught myself writing it and then left it in just to make this point:

It shouldn’t matter what a woman wears. It shouldn’t matter whether she’s well-liked. But there it is, and we’re still judging women by a different standard than we’re judging men.

And we’re doing it even when we’re on the “right” side of the issue.

We’ve still got a long way to go.

Incidentally, Sean Fodera posted a threat to sue everyone who linked to that Daily Dot article. If you do, Mr. Fodera, please include me, because I could really use the publicity, and I’m pretty sure such a lawsuit will hurt you a whole hell of a lot more than it will hurt me.

Immortal characters and the people they know

by

If someone lived long enough, they must have met some interesting historical figures, right? Famous names that anyone now would recognize. It just makes sense that it works that way, and it’s big fun to read those bits of alternative history in fiction. It’s even more fun to write them. Which is the only good reason to do it, because it’s definitely not realistic.

It really only makes sense if you don’t look too close or think too much about it. It turns out that many names we recognize as famous now were pretty far from that when they lived. In the novel Hounded, the first of the Iron Druid Chronicles, the main character–who has been around for 21 centuries–mentions knowing Van Gogh. But Van Gogh was virtually unknown during his life. He sold exactly one painting. Only later was his work noticed, and even later to become the widely-known name that he is. But okay, let’s say that his work became famous later because this long-lived character (strictly, he isn’t a true immortal) knew him, and somehow contrived that postmortem fame. So, there we go, still plausible. Though to be honest, I’m not sure that’s really how the author meant it (Kevin Hearne, if you’d like to correct me on this, I’d appreciate it).

So some examples could be explained away. Some others, not so much. The very worst demonstration of this I can think of is from the movie Hancock. Criticizing Hancock is like shooting fish in a barrel, there’s just so much to vilify there. But I’m talking about the bit right at the very end, when Jason Bateman quizzes Charlize Theron about various historical figures: Attila the Hun, Queen Elizabeth (without specifying which Queen Elizabeth, I’m assuming the dead one), and JFK. She personally knows EVERY PERSON WHO EVER EXISTED and she has opinions on all of them.

Now I know what you’re thinking: with everything that went wrong with Hancock, THAT is the thing you chose to pick at? Well, yeah, odds are good you didn’t even notice that particular flaw after the more glaring stuff that came before it, and the lame heart-moon thing after. Besides, it fits today’s subject.

I admit, that pieces of alternate history like this are really enjoyable when done well. In my own writing, I decided to go the other direction. My characters (like Hearne’s, they are not truly immortal) have spent centuries trying to remain hidden. While they’ve interacted and even interfered plenty, they aren’t given to hanging out at the top with big names. That, logically, would ruin anonymity. My fave depiction of this is a young man meeting someone who is more than seven centuries old (I know, that’s a little on the young side). He could ask about anything he wants. Coming back to their conversation later, they’re talking about football. It’s unfortunately realistic; I imagine that, on the spot, you’d quickly run out of questions, especially if you got a number of responses like, “No, I never met him,” or “I wasn’t there, I don’t know any more than a history text would.” Then the conversation would naturally turn to the sorts of things that any two people might talk about. (Though actually, I think someone who’s been in as high a number of wars and conflicts as that character might have a fascinating view of football, and I would totally jump at the chance to find out.)

All that said, I’d like to get some more historical figure references as I continue through the Iron Druid Chronicles. I’m holding out hope that Hearne will fall into the doing-it-right category.

Don’t call me a good girl

by

When something sneaks into your awareness, you start seeing it everywhere. That’s happening to me with the good girl tag in pop songs. And every time I hear it, I hate it a little more.

It seems so innocent. It’s supposed to be a compliment, even. How could good be bad? Because it stratifies women into the Madonna-whore divide. The moment a woman slips from her pedestal, she ceases to be worthy of respect and becomes a filthy whore.

This is actually part of a broader problem in people’s black-and-white view. There are good people, and there are bad people. If you see yourself as good (as virtually everyone does) then the things you do are not bad, no matter how far beyond the bounds of standard behavior. This relates to the concept of bounded ethicality, when “good” people twist the definitions of ethics to justify their own wrongdoing. The really insidious thing about this mindset is how it blinds people from their own behavior–if I am a good person, then nothing I do is actually bad. Nothing.

The other side of this–circling all the way back to where I started–is the idea that if a person does something wrong, I can label them as bad. Now I can freely vilify them. They are bad, they don’t deserve respect. I can treat them however I want. It is, in fact, a just thing for good me to punish bad them.

No one believes they’re bad or evil. I’ve seen this in action over and over. Good students cheating. Good people taking advantage of friends. On a higher level, nations attacking preemptively out of a perceived need for self-preservation. It happens all the time, and it is us. There is no them. We are the ones who control morality by twisting our crimes into need. We are the ones who believe the ends justify the means.

Don’t call me a good girl. Right behind that is the implication that if I falter, even a little, you’re going to cast me in the role of bad. I’m not that simple or one-dimensional. And neither are you, no matter how much you desperately want to believe you are one of the good guys.