I've collected etiquette books since the 90s, I have so many I've been giving them away. I'm only keeping the ones from the 1800s and early 1900s. Before I started the collection, I thought of etiquette books as stuffy, now I see that it comes from kindness and respect for other cultures. It's good to crack one open every now and again.
Today's post reminds me of a story I heard about small newspapers closing down around the country, and how reporting/writing about the town's specific problems or celebrations brings citizens together for common goals.
Emily Post is so much fun to read. The older ones, from the 30s and 40s, give such a picture of a particular kind of life: where women bought a year of dresses in Paris, dinner parties with many forks and spoons, but yes it is still relevant: overall it involves consideration and kindness.
I have one called "Speaking of Servants" that is so cringe worthy, and some for bachelors, equally yucky! But most of the books are helpful, especially for people like me who had parents who were not interested in social norms. I found them helpful.
I have an etiquette book from my grandmother, it was written by a general shortly after our civil war here. The general noticed that many of the soldiers, taken away from their farms and families at a young age, had never dined at a table set with silverware. Most people didn't have silverware, especially not in the country, and they certainly didn't have fork, spoon, glassware, etc. The general felt that some of the young soldiers who dined at his house were ashamed that they didn't know how to even...really...use silverware, much less where the napkin goes or anywhere else. His compassion for them led him to write the extremely long book instructing them on what is expected during these occasions, including dances and other social occasions. The book is also filled with nonsense about class (hello 1800s) and bullshit about the decorum of women and men, etc. But the original feeling the general had was one of kindness. He didn't want to see people ashamed because they didn't know, feeling like outsiders.
My thesis advisor, Kevin McIlvoy of blessed memory, made a point of looking for (and finding!) where the story DOES work, and push out from there. Then, all the criticism of what does not work makes more sense in that it does not help produce the story whose germ is worth growing.
He sounds like a wonderful teacher. And I'm guessing you were a wonderful student, because you were able to hear what your teacher was telling you. Some people are not teachable, as they aren't ready to separate themselves from the work enough to listen to an instructor. I'm sorry he has passed away. Hopefully, he was aware that he'd helped others in such a lovely way.
I heard this described once by a therapist as “starting where the other person is.” If we really want to make contact it helps to accurately acknowledge the other person’s position/perspective/perception as the first step, the introduction. It doesn’t help them or or the conversation or lead to change to just deliver admonition.
I read about a New York-based organization that tries to accomplish exactly what you are talking about--taking abstract animosities down to specifics. It's called Braver Angels. "Braver Angels is a New York-based 501 nonprofit dedicated to political depolarization. The organization runs workshops, debates, and other events where "red" and "blue" participants attempt to better understand one another's positions and discover their shared values." (Wikipedia) My sister attended a workshop and felt it very worthwhile. The problem is that the people who attend are already interested in hearing "the other side."
George wrote: "When we urge ourselves toward greater specificity, we’ll find that what we described as “boring” will be found, actually, to be…something else." I'm guessing that what was described as "boring" was, in fact, boring! But the trick is to figure out why it's boring--and then to give that specific information to the writer (instead of saying, "I was bored."). There are times when simply telling a writer that "my energy dropped in this particular section" (in other words, you got bored right there ) is enough! The writer often already knew that section was trouble but was hoping they were wrong. So, admitting you were bored (in your own head) is not a problem. We get bored! Telling a writer why the energy suddenly dropped is a skill that editors and readers often need to practice if they want to truly be helpful. The takeaway: if you are specific enough with your critique, a writer has something to work with (as George already said here in this post). Being non-specific ("I got bored right here") is not helpful and often hurtful.
Yes, and that "where" is so often the most valuable feedback! I've heard more than one artist say a critic is usually off in whatever solution or fixes they propose, but almost always right about when/where they felt a problem.
Exactly. Don't give a fix (unless asked to offer a suggestion). But telling someone "right here, I got lost a bit" Or "right here I'm suddenly confused." Or "right here, the story lost some energy for me and my mind wandered off the page." --those can be very helpful to a writer who is ready to hear them.
Agreed, Mary, though I've found that what is not said about some aspect or section of the story can be a useful pointer. I'm thinking in particular of a beta-reader group of eight people. Two of them clearly said that they lost interest between Point A and Point B. My first rapid take was "only two disliked that bit, cool". But the six others did not say that part was good. Re-reading their comments, I realized they were saying nothing at all (possibly out of courtesy / kindness). The silence began blinking like a red light. 15,000 words (ouch!) to be completely rethought and rewritten.
I don't think I'm saying that readers should not be kind. But that writers should be very attentive to what readers say or don't say. Listen to the gaps.
John, I thought this was interesting because I agree silence is powerful. But then I thought, “this was a group of beta readers, wasn’t it their responsibility to respond if they felt a problem?” So then I thought the problem was their laziness, not your writing. I guess I’m saying that context counts.
I've become attuned to what isn't being said as well. Silence is deadly, because we don't know what to think and begin to make presumptions and second guess our work. And for me, all my little negative demons come out to play within my mind. I know what you mean about looking at all the pages that didn't work. I've got a huge chunk of them sitting in my desk drawer right now. To tell the truth, I still don't know if they work.
One of the best writers in the debut novel writing workshop class I took gave a line to one of his characters who was fixing an old car. It was something like "How am I supposed to know how it works if it's perfect the way it is?" So feedback can be very productive for writers if it's done in the right spirit...kind, respectful, honest, attentive. For the time being, I am writing without workshop and it feels a lot like I don't know exactly where I'm going. I'm looking forward to feedback from other writers and my teacher when I get to the point where I'm revising my novel.
Interesting. Sometimes not commenting is just not commenting! (Were your readers supposed to comment on every section?) Not to psycho analyze you or anything, but i'm guessing there was a part of you that also found that section needed work, so when two people said so, you agreed. I've got a story i've given to others to read and only one person made a certain comment, but I immediately agreed with them as I'd had the same thought. Others did not say anything at all about the same issue. But....I think I was waiting for at least one person to notice.
I try to remind myself to ask a question instead of respond with a statement, particularly when someone is spewing angry, vague statements. It always evokes a heated response from me, but in times when I am able to stay civil and aim for specificity, it actually turns out that often, those with the loudest, angriest arguments don’t always even know why they believe what they believe or what their beliefs look like in real, day to day life.
I love this, Amy. It's one of the best methods I've found as well. Ask a fuming out of control person a question, and somehow, for some reason, it immediately defuses them. Maybe it's because in that one magical moment, you are gently stopping them, which then makes them look at their own anger to figure it out and answer the question. But as soon as you shift from anger to curiosity, you've won.
Another thing that helps is direct, face to face encounters. Most of the really uncivil stuff in my experience occurs online, where you can't hear the tone in which the message is delivered and there are no facial expressions to read. I had a job as a global communications director of a nonprofit. I was getting slammed on listservs, facebook, and elsewhere in angry, unspecific, personal ways. So I began a daily discipline of finding the phone number of 1 or 2 of those people who were slamming me every day. I'd call and say, "I hear you're not happy with my performance. How can I do better?" There were maybe 1% who didn't respond graciously and in good faith. Some of their suggestions were implemented immediately. Some were not workable and we talked through that. One guy burst into tears and said his wife had just died, he knew he wasn't himself, and he should probably stay offline for a while. Some of those people I called became my biggest advocates. We're all human and we all need this reminder from time to time.
What a powerful experience you're unveiling here, Anne. I get it, too. Especially powerful is the man who broke into tears because he was grieving. I wrote a memoir (2012) that dealt with this whole experience of grieving so I think I know what compelled him to come down on you like that. And right after the book went into circulation, I got an email from a woman who accused us (I wrote this with a co-author) of lying. She wrote, "How dare you talk about anything positive that can come of all this hell," or words to that effect.
We have another anthology coming out end of this year in which that same woman's story is included. She ended up being a great comrade. Because I wrote her right back, expressing my horror that her son had just died (that response to grief and shock again; and by the way, this entire conversation takes me back to Gina Berriault's story, "The Stone Boy,"), and thanking her for contacting me. We never think experiences like this will come to any good, but I always have believed people cross our paths for reasons, and sometimes the thing you think is never going to happen does happen.
But the social media world is truly challenging to navigate, because as you quite rightly point out, we lose so much of the tone and affect, the emphasis on specific words, the facial expressions that can exude either contempt, pain, or confusion. This is a topic close to my heart as I also teach online and it is so much more time consuming as I read and reread every response to a student, reading it from their point of view, and hoping the message I intend to send is actually received in that way. Ugh!
Your response is a lesson for the rest of us! I had an acquaintance of over thirty years who posted a video of her granddaughter doing a very difficult gymnastics routine on Facebook. I thought I clicked the ‘wow’ emoji, but I accidentally clicked the laughing emoji. She cut me off. I apologized and explained it was an accident; I only meant to show how impressed I was. Nope—the end of that relationship.
Big agree. In any sort of debate it’s always best to first know the other’s logic. Like the more understanding we have of their pov, the better equipped we are to argue against it. Assuming of course there is logic to what they believe.
There is a technique for thoughtful problem solving called the "Five Whys" that anyone can use for ones own thinking and for discussions with others. In essence, you ask "why" to arrive at root causes, often asking "why" as each answer is given, thus going deeper into the issue or problem. It's remarkably effective.
First, I wish I had run into you as an instructor in my early--or even middle--years of learning how to be a writer. Your comment on specificity and its gift to the one being critiqued is a hallmark of generous readers and the feedback they offer. And to bring it to the political arena felt brilliant, as I read this today. Especially "we might even see civility as a form of enforcing specificity on ourselves." A post worth reading again and again. Thank you.
I have also experienced the masking quality of the word boring, specifically, in the classroom. I asked my student what they meant by "boring" and after about 10 minutes of digging, it turned out that the piece made her feel sad. This was a revelation for me. The unspecific "boring" was serving as a screen, behind which was a deeper, more uncomfortable feeling.
Well, it's exactly as Mr. Saunders was saying about being more specific. If you skip ahead to what engaged you, the idea of X being interesting is subsumed. In other words, saying that something is interesting doesn't give your listener anything to work with. They're going to have to ask you why, which is an extra step, so to speak.
Going to the specific and the personal can completely reveal the lack of a common ground, unfortunately. If someone says "I don't have kids, so I'm not voting for that increase in a sales tax for public schools," you can point out that having a well-educated society is a public good. If subsequent conversation shows they don't believe in public goods, then that's about the end of it.
Just reading this comment made my heart start to pound. It is sometimes simply impossible to have a discussion with someone on the opposite side of an issue from you. For one, maybe they aren't looking to find common ground, the way you are. For two, there is no way to diffuse the defensiveness that may arise for both sides--simply by raising the question, the other side may feel attacked. For three, making any progress or coming to an agreement is nearly impossible on issues that reveal a person's basic world view or values. Because of all of this, the gulf between sides just gets bigger and bigger and discussions are avoided. The only way I can think of to deal with all of this is to volunteer in ways that make me feel better about myself and the world. But yeah, I hate that I can’t have a civil conversation with my Q-Anon neighbor. It pains me, but that’s the way it goes.
Many are emotive when it comes to political issues. Like sports, they have their teams and allegiances and react entirely with their gut - and damn the facts or a mutual ground. I agree, there’s simply no point in these situations. Walking away is a perfectly fine response.
The flag is being flown by far-right hate groups. It's sort of under the radar, but it's definitely a hate symbol. It's like putting up the Confederate flag, but since most people don't grasp that it's a dog whistle for like-minded folks, no one says anything. But, yes, it's a hate symbol and a call back to the time of slavery. (You may recall that there was a controversy when Nike wanted to put a Betsy Ross flag on certain shoes.)
It is interesting how people SEEM to change over their lifetime. When the kids are little, they want good schools. When they are on a fixed income, they can't afford good schools. But for those individuals, I think they mostly cared about themselves to begin with; it wasn't good schools for the public good but good schools for my kids. When do we educate our children about "public good" if they don't get that value at home?
I have a favorite question I ask selfish people in this situation: “I don’t drive on the streets near your house, so why should my tax dollars be used to pave them?”
Your take is the most common result I've found from trying to engage people on the alt-right. Anything I ask them causes them to double down further on their beliefs.
Again, another insightful piece of writing. Thank you, George. There have a been a couple of highly public examples of political ideologies in confrontation around music lately. Tyler Childers's, beloved "outlaw country" artist wrote a song that his conservative fans fell deeply in love with. When he released a video for it that depicted a powerful and authentic love affair between two men last week many of those fans took to social media, not with the hatred you would expect, but with some shockingly vulnerable reactions. His audience genuinely felt betrayed by someone they loved and trusted. You could see the inner conflict playing out in their TikTok videos. No one they had ever loved and trusted had challenged their bigotry or shown them any other way to be.
Childers's public response to this outcry was thoughtful and specific. It wasn't insulting. He genuinely wanted them to understand that love transcends gender. He pointed out that his song had not changed since they first heard it and filled them with love for their opposite sex partner. It was beautiful to see this very thing George is talking about unfold in a way that can actually bring people closer together.
Has any one person ever won the Nobel Peace Prize AND the Nobel Prize in Literature? I nominate George. (Still trying to figure out how to talk to my in-laws, so thanks for today's clues!)
I really hear you, George. I'm guilty of abstractions constantly as I am so news weary and easily traumatized (i.e. fragile and self-protecting) that I can barely wade into the facts of my own progressive notions.
This is why I love my book group. We are of all ages and backgrounds and every book is looked at so differently. We try not to get into politics, but it is hard to avoid. Seems everything written could have a political spin if we dig deep enough. I have chosen the book Less by Andrew Sean Greer for our next meeting. I love this book and I do mainly because of the writer’s style. It also won the Pulitzer in 2018. And it’s so fun to read. Then I realized as I started re-reading it that I’m now looking at this book in a totally different light then when I first read it in 2017. All because of current politics. So I felt the need to send the group a synopsis of the book. I have never done this in my 63 years on earth~Questioning myself on recommending a book, a book! It’s crazy how politics rears it’s ugly head now into everything, even an innocent fun read by a gifted writer.
“Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.” ~ Ambrose Bierce
My mother's book club is similar except they are very open about their different views and that those views inform their readings. One of my favorite things is when my mother is done with her book club meetings (the group has been together for 15 years at least I think) and she tells me how her and others' opinions changed about the book based on the lens others shared. Great quote by Bierce.
Thank you. This, in my opinion, is a stronger, more nuanced essay than the first one, which got me thinking as I read the comments that followed it. A few (personal) thoughts:
Never underestimate the power of Confirmation Bias, particularly our own. These days, confirmation bias drives most political discourse, as each of us hears any bit of political news through channels that simply reinforce existing beliefs. Nuance and reasonable debate fly out the window. (Actually, they never get in; the windows are now closed.) As George suggests, there are numerous, often complicated issues that SHOULD be open to debate, problem-solving, and consensus building: border security and immigration, China policy, parental rights, voter rights, etc., etc. It's a long list. Sadly, how we think about those things is essentially predetermined, or, if not, we turn to the same "analysts" to understand how we should think.
I am the author of a book of political humor, You Know You're a Republican / You Know You're a Democrat If..., now in its third edition, that pokes fun at both sides of the political spectrum through paired comparisons. Readers from both sides have gotten laughs, often about their own predilections. Why I mention this: Recently, the publisher declined to publish a 2024 edition, in large part because they believed politics had become, in essence, unfunny and bitter. Alas, the jokes, mostly not vicious, are funny, but they didn't think there was a market. In short, no one wants to laugh about politics except in anger.
RE: Fiction bias. It seems (to me) that contemporary fiction too often reflects biases about "good and evil" that flatten characters. In particular, Bad Guys (often male) seem one-dimensional, even caricatures of badness. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but a degree of correct-thinking seems to permeate writing and the publishing world.
Everyone should read The Sellout by Paul Beatty. The core framework of the story is striking--a young Black man in Los Angeles "owns" a voluntary slave, another Black man--and it is both funny and thought-provoking. (BTW, Beatty is Black.)
I suspect I'm fond of my own biases, but I enjoy exploring alternative viewpoints often. Cheers.
This was a beautiful post. Yep, I've often wondered what stories are for, what fiction is for. My feeling is that stories offer a doorway of specificity that opens onto the universal. It's almost as if specificity gives us somewhere to stand that is adjacent to insight. Without the specificity we're unable to position ourselves beyond ourselves enough to receive insight. To be receptive.
I've collected etiquette books since the 90s, I have so many I've been giving them away. I'm only keeping the ones from the 1800s and early 1900s. Before I started the collection, I thought of etiquette books as stuffy, now I see that it comes from kindness and respect for other cultures. It's good to crack one open every now and again.
Today's post reminds me of a story I heard about small newspapers closing down around the country, and how reporting/writing about the town's specific problems or celebrations brings citizens together for common goals.
So true. Joan Didion hits on this in “The Year of Magical Thinking”
Another book that spoke to me.
I still have my Emily Post from the 40s, and honestly, Sea, it's still relevant. Maybe more so.
It is. Emily Post's family is still running an etiquette company, with blogs and advice on modern situations, texts, emails, etc.
Emily Post is so much fun to read. The older ones, from the 30s and 40s, give such a picture of a particular kind of life: where women bought a year of dresses in Paris, dinner parties with many forks and spoons, but yes it is still relevant: overall it involves consideration and kindness.
I have one called "Speaking of Servants" that is so cringe worthy, and some for bachelors, equally yucky! But most of the books are helpful, especially for people like me who had parents who were not interested in social norms. I found them helpful.
I have an etiquette book from my grandmother, it was written by a general shortly after our civil war here. The general noticed that many of the soldiers, taken away from their farms and families at a young age, had never dined at a table set with silverware. Most people didn't have silverware, especially not in the country, and they certainly didn't have fork, spoon, glassware, etc. The general felt that some of the young soldiers who dined at his house were ashamed that they didn't know how to even...really...use silverware, much less where the napkin goes or anywhere else. His compassion for them led him to write the extremely long book instructing them on what is expected during these occasions, including dances and other social occasions. The book is also filled with nonsense about class (hello 1800s) and bullshit about the decorum of women and men, etc. But the original feeling the general had was one of kindness. He didn't want to see people ashamed because they didn't know, feeling like outsiders.
Very interesting—and I think that motivation of kindness may be at the heart of many etiquette books.
I agree. Paving the way for us to succeed in new spaces.
😆
My thesis advisor, Kevin McIlvoy of blessed memory, made a point of looking for (and finding!) where the story DOES work, and push out from there. Then, all the criticism of what does not work makes more sense in that it does not help produce the story whose germ is worth growing.
Yes - I've noticed that a good ratio is three parts praise to one part "blame." At that ration, the corrections get really heard.
He sounds like a wonderful teacher. And I'm guessing you were a wonderful student, because you were able to hear what your teacher was telling you. Some people are not teachable, as they aren't ready to separate themselves from the work enough to listen to an instructor. I'm sorry he has passed away. Hopefully, he was aware that he'd helped others in such a lovely way.
I heard this described once by a therapist as “starting where the other person is.” If we really want to make contact it helps to accurately acknowledge the other person’s position/perspective/perception as the first step, the introduction. It doesn’t help them or or the conversation or lead to change to just deliver admonition.
Oh, Mc. So sorely missed in this world.
Agreed.
I read about a New York-based organization that tries to accomplish exactly what you are talking about--taking abstract animosities down to specifics. It's called Braver Angels. "Braver Angels is a New York-based 501 nonprofit dedicated to political depolarization. The organization runs workshops, debates, and other events where "red" and "blue" participants attempt to better understand one another's positions and discover their shared values." (Wikipedia) My sister attended a workshop and felt it very worthwhile. The problem is that the people who attend are already interested in hearing "the other side."
Still, it's a start. Thanks for telling us about this organization.
George wrote: "When we urge ourselves toward greater specificity, we’ll find that what we described as “boring” will be found, actually, to be…something else." I'm guessing that what was described as "boring" was, in fact, boring! But the trick is to figure out why it's boring--and then to give that specific information to the writer (instead of saying, "I was bored."). There are times when simply telling a writer that "my energy dropped in this particular section" (in other words, you got bored right there ) is enough! The writer often already knew that section was trouble but was hoping they were wrong. So, admitting you were bored (in your own head) is not a problem. We get bored! Telling a writer why the energy suddenly dropped is a skill that editors and readers often need to practice if they want to truly be helpful. The takeaway: if you are specific enough with your critique, a writer has something to work with (as George already said here in this post). Being non-specific ("I got bored right here") is not helpful and often hurtful.
Yes, and that "where" is so often the most valuable feedback! I've heard more than one artist say a critic is usually off in whatever solution or fixes they propose, but almost always right about when/where they felt a problem.
Exactly. Don't give a fix (unless asked to offer a suggestion). But telling someone "right here, I got lost a bit" Or "right here I'm suddenly confused." Or "right here, the story lost some energy for me and my mind wandered off the page." --those can be very helpful to a writer who is ready to hear them.
That’s the best feedback, I agree. So helpful.
Agreed, Mary, though I've found that what is not said about some aspect or section of the story can be a useful pointer. I'm thinking in particular of a beta-reader group of eight people. Two of them clearly said that they lost interest between Point A and Point B. My first rapid take was "only two disliked that bit, cool". But the six others did not say that part was good. Re-reading their comments, I realized they were saying nothing at all (possibly out of courtesy / kindness). The silence began blinking like a red light. 15,000 words (ouch!) to be completely rethought and rewritten.
I don't think I'm saying that readers should not be kind. But that writers should be very attentive to what readers say or don't say. Listen to the gaps.
John, I thought this was interesting because I agree silence is powerful. But then I thought, “this was a group of beta readers, wasn’t it their responsibility to respond if they felt a problem?” So then I thought the problem was their laziness, not your writing. I guess I’m saying that context counts.
I've become attuned to what isn't being said as well. Silence is deadly, because we don't know what to think and begin to make presumptions and second guess our work. And for me, all my little negative demons come out to play within my mind. I know what you mean about looking at all the pages that didn't work. I've got a huge chunk of them sitting in my desk drawer right now. To tell the truth, I still don't know if they work.
One of the best writers in the debut novel writing workshop class I took gave a line to one of his characters who was fixing an old car. It was something like "How am I supposed to know how it works if it's perfect the way it is?" So feedback can be very productive for writers if it's done in the right spirit...kind, respectful, honest, attentive. For the time being, I am writing without workshop and it feels a lot like I don't know exactly where I'm going. I'm looking forward to feedback from other writers and my teacher when I get to the point where I'm revising my novel.
Interesting. Sometimes not commenting is just not commenting! (Were your readers supposed to comment on every section?) Not to psycho analyze you or anything, but i'm guessing there was a part of you that also found that section needed work, so when two people said so, you agreed. I've got a story i've given to others to read and only one person made a certain comment, but I immediately agreed with them as I'd had the same thought. Others did not say anything at all about the same issue. But....I think I was waiting for at least one person to notice.
I try to remind myself to ask a question instead of respond with a statement, particularly when someone is spewing angry, vague statements. It always evokes a heated response from me, but in times when I am able to stay civil and aim for specificity, it actually turns out that often, those with the loudest, angriest arguments don’t always even know why they believe what they believe or what their beliefs look like in real, day to day life.
I love this, Amy. It's one of the best methods I've found as well. Ask a fuming out of control person a question, and somehow, for some reason, it immediately defuses them. Maybe it's because in that one magical moment, you are gently stopping them, which then makes them look at their own anger to figure it out and answer the question. But as soon as you shift from anger to curiosity, you've won.
Another thing that helps is direct, face to face encounters. Most of the really uncivil stuff in my experience occurs online, where you can't hear the tone in which the message is delivered and there are no facial expressions to read. I had a job as a global communications director of a nonprofit. I was getting slammed on listservs, facebook, and elsewhere in angry, unspecific, personal ways. So I began a daily discipline of finding the phone number of 1 or 2 of those people who were slamming me every day. I'd call and say, "I hear you're not happy with my performance. How can I do better?" There were maybe 1% who didn't respond graciously and in good faith. Some of their suggestions were implemented immediately. Some were not workable and we talked through that. One guy burst into tears and said his wife had just died, he knew he wasn't himself, and he should probably stay offline for a while. Some of those people I called became my biggest advocates. We're all human and we all need this reminder from time to time.
What a powerful experience you're unveiling here, Anne. I get it, too. Especially powerful is the man who broke into tears because he was grieving. I wrote a memoir (2012) that dealt with this whole experience of grieving so I think I know what compelled him to come down on you like that. And right after the book went into circulation, I got an email from a woman who accused us (I wrote this with a co-author) of lying. She wrote, "How dare you talk about anything positive that can come of all this hell," or words to that effect.
We have another anthology coming out end of this year in which that same woman's story is included. She ended up being a great comrade. Because I wrote her right back, expressing my horror that her son had just died (that response to grief and shock again; and by the way, this entire conversation takes me back to Gina Berriault's story, "The Stone Boy,"), and thanking her for contacting me. We never think experiences like this will come to any good, but I always have believed people cross our paths for reasons, and sometimes the thing you think is never going to happen does happen.
But the social media world is truly challenging to navigate, because as you quite rightly point out, we lose so much of the tone and affect, the emphasis on specific words, the facial expressions that can exude either contempt, pain, or confusion. This is a topic close to my heart as I also teach online and it is so much more time consuming as I read and reread every response to a student, reading it from their point of view, and hoping the message I intend to send is actually received in that way. Ugh!
this is so beautiful, Anne. I love that you did this.
It made everything easier.
Your response is a lesson for the rest of us! I had an acquaintance of over thirty years who posted a video of her granddaughter doing a very difficult gymnastics routine on Facebook. I thought I clicked the ‘wow’ emoji, but I accidentally clicked the laughing emoji. She cut me off. I apologized and explained it was an accident; I only meant to show how impressed I was. Nope—the end of that relationship.
Oh my goodness that's so sad!
Truly!
Big agree. In any sort of debate it’s always best to first know the other’s logic. Like the more understanding we have of their pov, the better equipped we are to argue against it. Assuming of course there is logic to what they believe.
So questions, yessir, and specificity.
There is a technique for thoughtful problem solving called the "Five Whys" that anyone can use for ones own thinking and for discussions with others. In essence, you ask "why" to arrive at root causes, often asking "why" as each answer is given, thus going deeper into the issue or problem. It's remarkably effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys
Fantastic tool!
First, I wish I had run into you as an instructor in my early--or even middle--years of learning how to be a writer. Your comment on specificity and its gift to the one being critiqued is a hallmark of generous readers and the feedback they offer. And to bring it to the political arena felt brilliant, as I read this today. Especially "we might even see civility as a form of enforcing specificity on ourselves." A post worth reading again and again. Thank you.
I have also experienced the masking quality of the word boring, specifically, in the classroom. I asked my student what they meant by "boring" and after about 10 minutes of digging, it turned out that the piece made her feel sad. This was a revelation for me. The unspecific "boring" was serving as a screen, behind which was a deeper, more uncomfortable feeling.
Perfect.
I live in Europe, and speak Spanish and French. Perfecto and parfait are very normal ways to respond affirmatively. It's like our "okay".
I’ve had the exact same experience, Camila-- and the beauty of teaching is that calling out students forced me to ban the word from my own vocabulary!
'Interesting' gets the same treatment. :D
Well, it's exactly as Mr. Saunders was saying about being more specific. If you skip ahead to what engaged you, the idea of X being interesting is subsumed. In other words, saying that something is interesting doesn't give your listener anything to work with. They're going to have to ask you why, which is an extra step, so to speak.
The word has flattened itself, and is no longer intriguing.
As opposed to boring?😅 Remember that the context of this is writing critical reviews. I think you're talking about off-hand conversation??
Oh, that's fantastic. Sounds like you are a great teacher who manages to get her students to open up.
Thanks! I try. :)
Going to the specific and the personal can completely reveal the lack of a common ground, unfortunately. If someone says "I don't have kids, so I'm not voting for that increase in a sales tax for public schools," you can point out that having a well-educated society is a public good. If subsequent conversation shows they don't believe in public goods, then that's about the end of it.
Just reading this comment made my heart start to pound. It is sometimes simply impossible to have a discussion with someone on the opposite side of an issue from you. For one, maybe they aren't looking to find common ground, the way you are. For two, there is no way to diffuse the defensiveness that may arise for both sides--simply by raising the question, the other side may feel attacked. For three, making any progress or coming to an agreement is nearly impossible on issues that reveal a person's basic world view or values. Because of all of this, the gulf between sides just gets bigger and bigger and discussions are avoided. The only way I can think of to deal with all of this is to volunteer in ways that make me feel better about myself and the world. But yeah, I hate that I can’t have a civil conversation with my Q-Anon neighbor. It pains me, but that’s the way it goes.
I don't think it's possible to have a normal conversation if the person you're speaking to isn't here, on planet earth.
The challenge of our lifetime, right here, beside global warming.
Agree, Andrew, and try talking to someone who doesn't "believe in" global warming. That'd be a tough time.
Many are emotive when it comes to political issues. Like sports, they have their teams and allegiances and react entirely with their gut - and damn the facts or a mutual ground. I agree, there’s simply no point in these situations. Walking away is a perfectly fine response.
Every day, when I see her Betsy Ross flying over her door, I just want to cry.
The flag is being flown by far-right hate groups. It's sort of under the radar, but it's definitely a hate symbol. It's like putting up the Confederate flag, but since most people don't grasp that it's a dog whistle for like-minded folks, no one says anything. But, yes, it's a hate symbol and a call back to the time of slavery. (You may recall that there was a controversy when Nike wanted to put a Betsy Ross flag on certain shoes.)
It is interesting how people SEEM to change over their lifetime. When the kids are little, they want good schools. When they are on a fixed income, they can't afford good schools. But for those individuals, I think they mostly cared about themselves to begin with; it wasn't good schools for the public good but good schools for my kids. When do we educate our children about "public good" if they don't get that value at home?
I have a favorite question I ask selfish people in this situation: “I don’t drive on the streets near your house, so why should my tax dollars be used to pave them?”
Your take is the most common result I've found from trying to engage people on the alt-right. Anything I ask them causes them to double down further on their beliefs.
Again, another insightful piece of writing. Thank you, George. There have a been a couple of highly public examples of political ideologies in confrontation around music lately. Tyler Childers's, beloved "outlaw country" artist wrote a song that his conservative fans fell deeply in love with. When he released a video for it that depicted a powerful and authentic love affair between two men last week many of those fans took to social media, not with the hatred you would expect, but with some shockingly vulnerable reactions. His audience genuinely felt betrayed by someone they loved and trusted. You could see the inner conflict playing out in their TikTok videos. No one they had ever loved and trusted had challenged their bigotry or shown them any other way to be.
Childers's public response to this outcry was thoughtful and specific. It wasn't insulting. He genuinely wanted them to understand that love transcends gender. He pointed out that his song had not changed since they first heard it and filled them with love for their opposite sex partner. It was beautiful to see this very thing George is talking about unfold in a way that can actually bring people closer together.
Has any one person ever won the Nobel Peace Prize AND the Nobel Prize in Literature? I nominate George. (Still trying to figure out how to talk to my in-laws, so thanks for today's clues!)
No, but George Bernard Shaw and Bob Dylan are the only two people to have ever won both the Oscar and the Nobel Prize for Literature.
Totally agreed! George is a master of both loving kindness and sharp writing!
Generally speaking, I love specificity.
hah!
I really hear you, George. I'm guilty of abstractions constantly as I am so news weary and easily traumatized (i.e. fragile and self-protecting) that I can barely wade into the facts of my own progressive notions.
Well said.
This is why I love my book group. We are of all ages and backgrounds and every book is looked at so differently. We try not to get into politics, but it is hard to avoid. Seems everything written could have a political spin if we dig deep enough. I have chosen the book Less by Andrew Sean Greer for our next meeting. I love this book and I do mainly because of the writer’s style. It also won the Pulitzer in 2018. And it’s so fun to read. Then I realized as I started re-reading it that I’m now looking at this book in a totally different light then when I first read it in 2017. All because of current politics. So I felt the need to send the group a synopsis of the book. I have never done this in my 63 years on earth~Questioning myself on recommending a book, a book! It’s crazy how politics rears it’s ugly head now into everything, even an innocent fun read by a gifted writer.
“Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.” ~ Ambrose Bierce
Indeed.
My mother's book club is similar except they are very open about their different views and that those views inform their readings. One of my favorite things is when my mother is done with her book club meetings (the group has been together for 15 years at least I think) and she tells me how her and others' opinions changed about the book based on the lens others shared. Great quote by Bierce.
Oh, I loved Less! I envy the book club members who are reading it for the first time!
Thank you for articulating an effective way of being. I can always use the reminder.
Thank you. This, in my opinion, is a stronger, more nuanced essay than the first one, which got me thinking as I read the comments that followed it. A few (personal) thoughts:
Never underestimate the power of Confirmation Bias, particularly our own. These days, confirmation bias drives most political discourse, as each of us hears any bit of political news through channels that simply reinforce existing beliefs. Nuance and reasonable debate fly out the window. (Actually, they never get in; the windows are now closed.) As George suggests, there are numerous, often complicated issues that SHOULD be open to debate, problem-solving, and consensus building: border security and immigration, China policy, parental rights, voter rights, etc., etc. It's a long list. Sadly, how we think about those things is essentially predetermined, or, if not, we turn to the same "analysts" to understand how we should think.
I am the author of a book of political humor, You Know You're a Republican / You Know You're a Democrat If..., now in its third edition, that pokes fun at both sides of the political spectrum through paired comparisons. Readers from both sides have gotten laughs, often about their own predilections. Why I mention this: Recently, the publisher declined to publish a 2024 edition, in large part because they believed politics had become, in essence, unfunny and bitter. Alas, the jokes, mostly not vicious, are funny, but they didn't think there was a market. In short, no one wants to laugh about politics except in anger.
RE: Fiction bias. It seems (to me) that contemporary fiction too often reflects biases about "good and evil" that flatten characters. In particular, Bad Guys (often male) seem one-dimensional, even caricatures of badness. Yes, I know there are exceptions, but a degree of correct-thinking seems to permeate writing and the publishing world.
Everyone should read The Sellout by Paul Beatty. The core framework of the story is striking--a young Black man in Los Angeles "owns" a voluntary slave, another Black man--and it is both funny and thought-provoking. (BTW, Beatty is Black.)
I suspect I'm fond of my own biases, but I enjoy exploring alternative viewpoints often. Cheers.
Alas, I'm crazy about my own biases. Thanks for this.
This was a beautiful post. Yep, I've often wondered what stories are for, what fiction is for. My feeling is that stories offer a doorway of specificity that opens onto the universal. It's almost as if specificity gives us somewhere to stand that is adjacent to insight. Without the specificity we're unable to position ourselves beyond ourselves enough to receive insight. To be receptive.
I've copied your comment into my commonplace book, so I will read it often.