Transference and Projection

If there's any lesson I keep having to learn without making any progress, it's the fact that I'm hypersensitive and it gets in the way of communication.  This is exacerbated when coupled with my tendency toward transference, in which my ego, trying to manage and control uncomfortable feelings and sensations, unconsciously projects those feelings onto someone else.  In this instance, my attitude toward my own defects was projected onto another individual.  "My god, she thinks the whole world revolves around her."  This was occasioned by an innocent statement "I feel odd planning my own reception."  I took it as a dig, that I wasn't doing enough to help plan the reception.  When her statement was a simple fact--she did feel somewhat odd planning her own party.  My ego transferred my uncomfortable feelings about planning the party, and projected it onto her.  My uncomfortable feelings about planning the party (it's going to be a lot of work) were transferred and displaced.  I couldn't face the reality of my own laziness, and so my ego cast her as the egomaniac. 

This was all unconscious and subliminal.  And it isn't until I'm shocked out of this disordered thinking that the truth of the matter becomes apparant.  Usually that has to happen through confrontation.

August Wilson Ill

Seattle resident and internationally renowned playwright August Wilson has been diagnosed with liver cancer.  His play 7 Guitars was one of my favorite productions at Ashland and upon seeing it, I knew August Wilson was a genius.  I saw its sequel King Hedley at Seattle Rep and was blown away.  Jitney toured to Seattle Rep. as well and was amazing.  I have yet to see Fences and The Piano Lesson, the two plays for which Wilson has won Pulitzer Prizes, but I hope to some day.  May he be blessed with a complete recovery for the joy and value and humanity he has brought to the world, which is a much better place for him having been here.

So much for a daily entry

So much for a daily entry.  Nice to recommit to failure.  Oh well.  Some good things have been happening.  I did get a green light for the teaching job.  So if you live in the Seattle area and want to work on polishing up that novel you've got sitting in the closet, come and participate. 

In other news, Dad sent me two family heirlooms: the table he made in manual arts (high school) and my grandfather's desk.  The desk is a depression era Chippendale style cherrywood secretary which is completely gorgeous.  I am thrilled to have both pieces.  But now I have to make some hard decisions about what stays in my small apartment and what goes.  I think the massive blondewood hutch is going.  It was always too big for the place anyway.

Inside the secretary:  a white button, a blue poker chip, a book of matches from New Orleans, a spool of thread, a box of toothpicks, and a $5 bill, series 1988.

Back in the Saddle

After taking a few weeks off, I'm going to recommit to a daily entry.  The things that are on my mind today: my obesity and desire to lose weight, a desire for some new clothes, reducing America's dependence on foreign oil, the turning of the seasons, Carl Hiaasen, and the possibility of teaching this fall.

My teacher, Pam, may move to Phoenix in order to pursue her academic career.  She is going to recommend me for taking over one of her classes at BCC.  I won't know until later today, so check back tomorrow for the results.

Carl Hiaasen has a very terse, funny style and I'm enjoying Sick Puppy very much.

I want a Jeep Liberty diesel so that I can drive on biodiesel.

And if it's not too much to ask, a few new wool sweater vests.  Sweater vests are my signature.  They protect and hide.  They are like wearing a breast plate.  I love them and all of my current ones are either too small, acrylic or have seen better days.

Losing weight is a very difficult proposition.  Recently due to lactose intolerance I stopped intaking any kind of dairy.  I still am not able to lose weight.  I suppose exercise might make a difference.

Accepting Critique

Critique is a beast that grows from a cute cub to a preditor that bites.  It's wonderful when you're in the beginning phases of a project, when reactions from readers can cause a cascade of ideas to burn through your imagination like rivers of lava from Mauna Loa.  Later it becomes harder and harder to take, as your project takes on shape and a life of its own, and the resistence to effort becomes greater and greater. 

So, critique last night was a mix.  Very difficult.  I wanted to quit--both critique group and writing.

For those familiar with my ouvre (Steve, among some others) I wrote an epic fantasy that I finished in 1987, and workshopped through 1990 or thereabouts.  It's in pretty good shape.  I read the very first scene of the novel for my group last night because I'm attending the Surrey International Writers Conference in October, and there are going to be so many publishing industry professionals there looking for fantasy.  And since the novel exists, why not pitch it?

One of the plot elements in my novel has to do with magic artifacts.  The "evil" magic artifacts are called Sorcerules.  They are medallions with obsidian centers.  The "good" artifacts are Staves and Rings which are used in conjunction to form a focus to draw power from the elemental planes.  In the first scene, my character Drue, sees one of the good artifacts, the Ring of the Air, embedded inside a Runestone of obsidian (evil stone).  The other fantasy author in the group said that the "ring" concept was too derivative in feeling and tone.  I took that very personally right off the bat.  My inner critic lambasted me with "See, I told you so, it's trite, derivative and worthless."  But I have been learning from Pam to filter feedback and find the kernel of value in it, and that's usually hidden by emotional baggage.  That is certainly true in my case. 

So, ultimately, the pain gave way to a new solution.  Rather than magic artifacts be rings and staves, the "good" wizards will also have sorcerules--only their stones will be different.  For the Earth: Chalcedony, for the Air: Crystal (which has caught the light of the Aurora), and for the Water: Nacre. 

So, by filtering the feedback and abstaining from self-flagellation, I managed to find a solution which may not be unique and completely original, but certainly seems more in keeping with my theme, and the title of my novel.  This method of accepting critique is a supreme victory for me, and demonstrative of a wholesale raising of my consciousness.

When is a Witch Hunt not a Witch Hunt?

Answer: When it's outing.  Mainstream press in Seattle has characterized the outing of conservative politicians who conceal their sexual orientation from their constituents as a witch hunt.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  In a Witch Hunt, the victims are either accused of something untrue, such as being witches, or punished for a truth, such as being communists.  In outing however, a community is taking steps to protect itself from someone in a position to do it great harm, a position that is steeped in hypocrisy.  All outing does is state the truth where the truth needs to be stated.  The gay community is not interested in punishing anyone.  Nor are we slandering anyone.  The truth is simply the truth.  To accuse the gay community of a witch hunt, who have historically been the victims of witch hunts throughout history is to turn the facts on their head.  Not all exposures are negative.  And sometimes, the vampire needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the cleansing light of truth.  Then let the chips fall where they may.  All a politician needs to do if they do not want their sexuality exposed, is to abstain from voting against the interests of the gay community.  They don't have to vote for them, but if they vote against, their sex lives become fair game if they are foolish enough to be indiscreet.  On the other hand, a conservative politician who is also "out of the closet" has nothing to fear, now, does s/he?

Out Out damned GOPs

Odd.  I've read two articles about outing in the mainstream press this week.  One, a column by Danny Westneat, columnist for the Seattle Times, the other an article from Fox News online about the editor in chief of the tabloid Star deciding that they would no long speculate on the sexual orientation of celebrities.  I had thought that the issue of outing in the press had been settled, but it appears that only applies to the gay press.  The mainstream press has just woken up to the issue.  It appears that conservatives like to have some closeted homosexuals hanging around, just as they like some Uncle Tom African Americans within reach.  Best of all, they like those homos whose sexual orientation is an open secret, such as the daughter of Dick Cheney or political strategist Arthur Finkelstein, who married his "longtime companion" in a civil ceremony in Boston last year.  That way the neocons get to sound progressive, they get to say that sexual orientation is a private matter and nobody's business.  That's what they say in public, in private, however, they acknowledge that homosexuality is a bar to advancement and the best that homsexuals can expect in the corridors of power is the position of Machiavellian consultant ala Arthur Finkelstein, Terry Dolan, or Roy Cohn.  They simply don't want to think about it.  I've had several conversations with conservatives who like to dance around the issue of sexuality and engage in "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" banter.  Sometimes they want to apply their fantasy to your relationship (I have a friend who does this to me all the time and it drives me crazy).  If you show up on the arm of your same sex partner at some event or other, they want to ignore the elephant in the living room, and reduce the relationship to "friend" or "companion" in that special Victorian sense.  They want to be able to define the relationship so that they can both accept the exterior and deny the reality, or fit you into their fantasy.  In any event, they want to be in total control of all information. 

It is an interesting phenomena of psychological bracketing akin to "compartmentalization."  There are also those, usually of an older generation, who consider gay sex to be on a continuum of sexuality, that it is a taste of something obscene in an otherwise heterosexual orientation.  They go in for boys every once in a while, but they regardthemselves as "normal", i.e., straight. 

These are the most dangerous to the gay community, because they are prone to transfer their guilt and self-disgust onto other homosexuals, their envy for the gay life, and their fury that they are unable to participate in it openly, onto the gay community itself.  This is when outing is most effective.  We saw this last year in the case of Ed Schrock, an otherwise straight man who cruised gay chatrooms and voted against gay civil rights.  This was outing at its most effective. 

On one level I agree with the editor of the Star.  While gay movie stars are not in a position to harm the gay community as a whole, they are in a position to reinforce the idea that hiding one's sexuality is normal.  I believe that if one lives in the public arena, one shouldn't have the expectation of that level of privacy.  Your sexuality is no more a private matter than who you marry.  What you do in the privacy of your bedroom, whether one is a top, or a bottom, however, is, and should remain, private.