#and someone finds a different perspective that ends up supporting your hypothesis even more than it did before

[chirpsythismorning]

The Duffers literally light the left side of Mike’s face during intimate moments with Will (the same side his heart is on), while in contrast, leaving it in the shadows during his monologue to El + major moments involving El (feat. Will)…

And y’all expect me to believe byler isn’t endgame????

Based on this big brain analysis

[superhumanoid-ai]

It is crazy how a perspective shift can always radically change my mind.

Somewhat I thought about my broad-spanning topic of research, which seems to focus more and more on cognitive algorithmics, especially in regards of dysfunctions in memory, processing, perceptive filtering, etc...

Maybe the only reason why I have the strength to keep fighting thru this shit, is because I somewhat 'sensed a solution' to that issue since, well yeah, since I can remember my own thinking, which was when I was around 4 years of age.

It is like everything in me says 'Please relief us from this never-ending torment", and my entire mind is like "I am working on that, we will analyze the cause and find a solution to erase, or at least reduce the following 'rat tail' of dysfunctions and resulting suffering. "

I remember back when I was 15, I often imagined to have a robot friend, who is also an "external brain (support)". Seems that it actually meant I desired to be able to help myself, rather than the merely obvious longing for meaningful relationships/contact. I never wanted to burden someone with the thing that is required to be done by myself; Being able to care for my own basic needs, being able to not hate and neglect myself so much.

I often regarded these concepts and stories I made up to ease the pain as silly and ironic nonsense, when in reality they offered a tiny key to the solution of that problem: Maybe I can only help myself by understanding myself better, to be able to even know where to help.

And as I have come to know, no single physician can help me there, as no one knows how my 'cognitive algorithmic patterns' even work in the slightest. And it is okay, neither did I. But somewhat, somewhat I found mathematics and cognitive science, AI research to be the most helpful tools to deal with my 'unsynched chaotic cognition', and the 'medium' it is embedded in: Consciousness itself!

The algorithmics of consciousness itself offer so many parallels to quantum mechanics: In the Bayesian coging hypothesis the strength of the working memory can be interpreted as Gaussian standard distribution.

Furthermore I would add a kind of 'orbital model', with multiple channels, creating a similar pattern as diffraction and interference often seen in the double slit experiment.

These 'channels' are parallel cognitive processes, that vary in their "degree of awareness". Furthermore the definition of focus might be declared as the most conscious cognitive process(es).

The focus can switch (leap) channels, (like electrons in the orbital model), but also disperse (divergence) and merge (converge)...

If your focus is literally dispersed, the awareness threshold hence stretches in the width, resulting in spanning more channels of cogvitive processing, and also in weaker perceptive filtering.

Association-based cognitive processing increases the dispersion of focus, but often turns linear processing into a non-linear one, resulting in a broad variety of different effects, such as in its approaches, like less strict determinisim, merely probabilistic one like they are seen in chaotic systems. This primary mode of cognitive processing often differs from a fixed form of memory, primarily used in linear cognitive processing. Hence, the stability of association-based cognitive processing is created and maintained primarily by the plasticity of processing, namely by the many and vivid dynamical connections that are spun between its entities (all sorts of sensory information and thoughts). From a metacognitive standpoint the super-ordinate cognitive algorithmics gets "solidified, shaped, improved" the more its processing components are flexible. It is like stability is maintained by instabilty - and yes, this makes sense, as cognition itself is a complex system, obeying rules of emergent behavior and self-organization. Hence, the stability is indeed a product of complexity getting so complex that it simplifies/optimates/organizes itself.

Also, associations can be regarded as 'pop-ups from the sub-/unconscious parts of cognition. Analogies, for instance are incredible complex forms of associations, They are a tool to compare similar patterns of data in the long-term memory (like a tool of isomorphism-seeking in pattern recognition). And the role of intuition in it is fascinating as well if you combine it with analogy-based cognitive processing, as intuition can be regarded as a navigator to make the most fitting associations/analogies pop up into conscious processing. Furthermore intuition can also be somewhat 'fine-tuned' to fit the accuracy of external data: One can literally use principles studied in deep learning and AI research, to 'calibrate' intuition to fastly find similar patterns to create a more and more accurate and exact prediction of the possible outcomes. It is as effective, as it is simple. But like in AI it hugely depends on a high quantity of repetitions, data, experience; like iterations in rendering loops, that feed back to their stemming algorithmic patterns, and each iteration shapes the overall processing pattern; This can be declared as "cyclic cognitive rendering": If the intuitive prediction is correct, then the loops returns "amplify pattern stability", secondly a re-thinking helps, Like: Why is it correct, what could a slight change of parameters produce? If the intuitive prediction differs from the extrenally measured data, then a re-elaboration is required for a helpful feedback: Why and where is it wrong, why could this error happen?

[angelsdemonsducks]

you don't like the ending (we'll find one that's yours)

“Logan,” Virgil says, softly, slowly, “you do know that you’re allowed to be a person, right?”

In the aftermath: Logan, Virgil, and things that have gone unsaid for far too long.

(ao3 link)

When all is said and done, Logan sits in his room for a little while, hands folded neatly in his lap, staring at the ceiling. It’s painted with a star map, charting the cosmos: Ursa Major by Ursa Minor, Perseus reaching for Andromeda, Canis Major ever lapping at Orion’s heels. They glow with a bright, otherworldly light against a black backdrop, and they change as the seasons turn, too, change and wheel overhead as the real night sky does. 

Though, of course, the night sky does not actually change. Just the human perspective of it. Stars are ever-constant; it is the Earth that is not, human perception that is flawed.

Roman helped him set it up, years ago. The remembrance lies bitter and heavy on his chest.

He is not hurt. He is not hurt, because he does not feel. There is a pounding in his head that refuses to abate and a stinging in his eyes that blurs his vision, but such physical reactions will stop eventually, if he ignores them for long enough. He is practiced in this, by now. He is not hurt. 

He firmly believes that there is nothing that cannot be solved with the application of the scientific method. This past hour is no different. As with all else, it can be analyzed through the lens of conducting an experiment.

He lays out the memories neatly in his mind for review.

Hypothesis: His physical presence and interaction with the other sides is not necessary for Thomas to maintain a healthily logical existence.

There are too many variables for this to be considered a controlled setting. All of the others have so many emotions, and as such, are prone to outbursts and unpredictability that may skew any data collected. He is accustomed to this, after all this time, and has learned to set his expectations accordingly. But there are two variables that can be defined with little difficulty: the independent and dependent variable. The variable that he manipulates, and the variable that changes due to this manipulation.

Independent variable: His presence in the discussion. Keeping in line with the video game theme the others seem to be holding to, he presents himself as an information-dispensing “NPC,” or “non-player character,” as he understands the definition to be, in an effort to be less intrusive in the conversation. Half the time, he does not bother to speak.

Dependent variable: How Thomas, Patton, and Roman react to this method of interaction.

It is difficult to collect data for this variable. There are no numbers to record, nothing that is quantifiable. He has to rely purely on qualitative data, collected based on observation and description. It is discomfiting, how much room for error and misinterpretation that leaves, but he is confident in his ability to be a passive, unbiased researcher. He records what he observes and nothing more.

Data: They seem tentatively interested in the beginning, curious about the novelty of his chosen method, if nothing else. Roman even takes the time to read the text box aloud. But the intrigue soon wanes. He is cut off both literally and figuratively, skipped, dismissed at every turn. When they allow him to speak, it is with begrudging toleration. When he offers silent information, they ignore him. When Deceit takes his place, they do not notice the difference.

His hands clench into fists, ever so briefly. He stares at the ceiling. At the shining stars that Roman helped him to paint so long ago as he grinned and chattered about nothing in particular, paint splattered on his clothes and all across his face. Roman is always so fussy about his appearance that Logan had thought that existing in such a disheveled state would irritate him, but when he pointed it out, Roman laughed, reached out, and swiped his paint-coated thumb across his cheek, loudly proclaiming that now, they matched. And Logan felt so warm, inside and out, despite the fact that he keeps his room at a cool twenty degrees Celsius.

This is a digression. Completely irrelevant to the experiment at hand. He pulls himself back to the pertinent memories.

From the data, results can be extrapolated. It is a simple matter of deciding whether the information gathered supports or refutes the hypothesis. He has collected more than enough observations to make a decision.

Conclusion: All data suggests

His mind stalls. He shakes his head. This should be easy. Data from experimentation, and conclusions from data. That is how the scientific method works.

Conclusion: All data suggests that the hypothesis is correct, and that his presence is neither necessary nor especially welcome amongst the others. His duty can be safely performed from a distance. Further experimentation will be needed to determine the best way in which to do so.

His eyes trace the patterns of the constellations, steadfast and sure, and he thinks about his failures. Thinks about how he attempted to be as unobtrusive as possible, how he ensured that if his input was unwanted, the others would be able to ignore him, to block him out. He gave them the option, so even if he were capable of feeling upset, he should not be. He should not care that they do not care, that they listen to him when it is convenient for them and discard him when it is not.

He doesn’t care. It was simply part of the experiment. It is simply one more hypothesis confirmed. Never mind that he was not actually attempting to conduct an experiment at the time. Approaching this issue in this manner imposes order on disordered, messy thoughts, forces him to think objectively.

Logan sits in his room, and he breathes.

Then, there is a knock at his door, rushed and urgent. He frowns. After how that disaster ended, he would have thought that Patton would be with Roman. And… he’s almost sure it wouldn’t be Deceit-- or should he be calling him by his name now? He is unsure; he was not present for the admission, which may imply a lack of permission, but Deceit confessed in front of Thomas, which may in fact imply blanket permission for all the occupants of his mindscape.

A dilemma to ponder later, perhaps. He stands, rolling his shoulders back, and crosses his room to the door. He opens it, and it’s not Patton, and it’s certainly not Deceit.

It’s Virgil.

He’s pale and hunched over, shoulders set defensively. His eyes are red, as if he’s been crying, and Logan opens his mouth to query as to whether there is something he can help him with. He did think it odd, that Virgil chose not to involve himself in the discussion at all, though clearly he has been affected by it to some degree. Of course, Patton is really the one to go to with issues of the emotional kind, but perhaps he tried and found Patton to be busy with Roman. Logan is a poor substitute, but if Virgil desires his help, then he will try his best.

“Virgil,” he says. “Is there something I can do for you?”

For a long moment, Virgil stares at him. Stares, and says nothing.

“Can I come in?” he asks at last.

Logan furrows his brow, but stands aside so that he is no longer blocking the door. “Of course,” he says, and Virgil slips past him and into his room. After a moment of hesitation, he closes the door behind him and turns to face Virgil, who stands in the center of the room, looking up at the ceiling. He looks small, somehow, and lost.

“How are you?” Logan tries. “I understand that there were some topics raised in that discussion that may have left you uncomfortable, assuming that you were listening to it, and I can’t imagine that you were particularly pleased with all aspects of the outcome. Is there anything that you would like to talk about?”

Virgil stares at the ceiling for a moment longer, and then looks to Logan. Logan is taken aback by the expression of devastation that flickers across his face, the sorrow in his eyes and downturned corners of his mouth.

He is expecting him to say something about Roman’s outburst, or about the perils of trusting Deceit as Thomas seems ready to do, but what comes out of his mouth instead is,

“Can I, um, hug you?”

Logan blinks. Plays back the memory in his mind to ascertain that no, he did not mishear. And then, uncertainly, he spreads his arms.

Virgil does not often ask for physical affection, though he is less shy about it now than he once was.

“Yes, certainly,” he says, “though, you know that Patton is--”

He is cut off by Virgil all but launching himself into his arms; all the breath escapes his lungs in a single gust. Virgil’s arms snake around his back, holding him tightly, and he buries his face in his shoulder. For a moment, Logan is completely at a loss; he does not seek out hugs because he does not need them, and typically, nobody asks him for one. In fact, he can’t quite recall the last time that he had such extended physical contact with someone.

It takes a few seconds for him to react, to bring his arms up to encircle Virgil in turn.

“I don’t want Patton,” Virgil mumbles into Logan’s shirt. “I want you.”

“I--” Logan blinks a few times, rapidly, in succession. Because surely, that does not make any sense. Patton is, objectively, the best at hugging out of all of them-- though, actually, now that he considers it, should Deceit be considered for the position, by virtue of having three pairs of arms? Would that make for a more efficient hug, if there were more arms to perform the action? How would one go about measuring such a thing?

Regardless, Patton is certainly the most practiced at giving comfort, and as the center of Thomas’ emotions, it can be assumed that he has the best mindset for it. Why, then, would Virgil claim to seek him for comfort rather than Patton?

“I’m not sure that I understand,” he admits softly, and Virgil pulls back a bit, enough so that they are face to face, though he doesn’t let go entirely. His hands are gripping Logan’s shirt so tightly that they are sure to leave wrinkles.

“I care about you,” Virgil says fiercely. “I care about you so goddamn much. And I want to spend time with you. I never, ever want you to spare me your company, or whatever the fuck that was all about in there.”

He feels a sudden, deep urge to adjust his glasses, to fiddle with his tie, to do something to place distance between himself and Virgil. But somehow, he can’t bring himself to let go of his grip on Virgil’s back. “I… see,” he says, a bit helplessly, even though he does not see, at all. “Is this about what I said to the others? That wasn’t--”

“That wasn’t what?” Virgil interrupts. “That wasn’t what you meant? Just because I wasn’t participating doesn't mean I wan’t listening. It was pretty obvious that you did mean it, Logan.”

Logan frowns. He is growing tired of being interrupted today. Logically, there is no difference between when the others did it and when Virgil does it, except for the fact that he is physically interacting with Virgil, so there is no reason for his sudden... exhaustion. That’s all it is. Exhaustion.

He’s not sure why he expected Virgil to let him finish his sentence.

“I was going to say that it wasn’t important,” he corrects. “I--”

“No,” Virgil cuts in again, and he must react visibly, because Virgil grimaces apologetically. “I’m sorry for talking over you,” he adds, voice a bit softer. “But I kinda don’t think you’re going to let me say what I need to say if I don’t, because you’re wrong, Logan. You are so, so important.”

“I was not attempting to imply otherwise,” Logan replies. “I never said that I wasn’t important. I am very aware that I am important. With an absence of Logic, Thomas’ life would surely devolve into chaos. I am well aware that my fulfillment of my duties is necessary for Thomas to live healthily and successfully.”

For some reason, this only seems to upset Virgil more. “No,” he repeats, frustrated. “I’m not talking about Logic. I’m talking about you, Logan, as a person. You are important.”

Is… he speaking circularly on purpose? What exactly is he trying to say? Usually, he finds Virgil to be refreshingly clear when compared to the other sides, so this interaction so far has been oddly frustrating.

“I’m not certain I understand what you’re attempting to convey.” He pauses. “What is the difference between me and Logic? I am Logic.”

“You’re Logic,” Virgil says, “but you’re Logan, too, and, and I just wanted to make sure that you were okay, because they kept talking over you and shutting you up and you didn’t even go and argue with them in person and then you said that, and I got--” He pauses-- “scared.”

Logan believes in the pursuit of knowledge, in enlightenment over ignorance. But somehow, some part of him dreads asking what Virgil means.

“Scared of what?”

For a moment, Virgil is silent, and something like panic flickers on his face. Then, he closes his eyes and breathes. Logan recognizes the pattern: in for four seconds, hold for seven, out for eight.

“I’m scared that you don’t know how much we love you,” Virgil says, opening his eyes. His voice is quiet and nervous and vulnerable. “How much I love you.”

For a moment, all he can register is Virgil’s arms around him: their weight, their warmth. That, and the silence in his room. 

Evidence shows that stars produce sounds, though not any that fall within the human range of hearing. The stars on his ceiling, however, are utterly mute.

“I don’t understand,” he says weakly. “I--”

“Logan--”

But no, he has had enough of being overridden. There is only so much he can take before something has to give, and he reached that limit over an hour ago, about when Roman slashed through his contribution like it meant nothing, when Patton pressed skip as if he meant nothing, when Deceit yanked him out of frame and replaced him, and he didn’t bother to put up a fight because no one was listening to him and if he couldn't accomplish anything by speaking, maybe he could by shutting up since that seemed to be what everyone wanted anyway--

And now Virgil is here, saying what? It doesn’t follow, logically, and if there is anything which Logan cannot abide, it is faulty logic.

“No,” he says, and Virgil, mercifully, allows him to talk. “No, that doesn’t make sense. If there is anything that has become glaringly apparent recently, it is that none of you want or care for my presence. No, I’m not done,” he adds, cutting off Virgil’s protest before it can begin. “I am not upset about it. I do not get upset. But logically speaking, the fact that I cannot impart even the most basic of facts before I am interrupted or overruled points to the conclusion that none of you particularly care about what I have to say. Which is, and I will reiterate this point, fine, as I do not need any of you to like me in order to perform my function adequately.”

Virgil stares at him, and then steps back, releasing Logan entirely.

“Oh my god,” he says. “That’s not fine.”

Logan sighs.

“Didn’t I just say that it is?” he asks. “There’s no need for you to be experiencing emotional distress over this matter, Virgil.”

“You just told me that you think none of us care about you, and you think I’m not going to experience some fucking emotional distress?” Virgil stops suddenly, shaking his head. “Wait, no, this isn’t about me. Logan, we’ve been treating you like shit. You’re… you can be upset about it. You know that, right? Because it’s not fine, it is so far past fine that we are in, like, Canada or some shit, and you don’t have to act like it’s fine.”

“I am not ‘acting like it’s fine,’” he says. “It is fine, and I’m not upset. I do not get upset. I’ve told you this. I don’t understand--”

“You do get upset, Logan, you are literally getting upset right now, and that’s okay, you can be upset, you have every right to be upset--”

It’s one interruption too many.

“I am not upset!”

The shout hangs in the air long after the words have left his lips. His chest is heaving, he notes dimly, and his hands are clenched. His ears are ringing, too, and his head pounds.

Oh.

Oh, no. He can’t do this. He can’t do this, and he especially can’t do this now, with Virgil in the room, because he is not supposed to be like this. He has tried so hard not to be like this, has tried so hard to be the cool, rational embodiment of logic that he is supposed to be, but somehow, he continually fails. But it is impossible to reverse time, impossible to erase the outburst now that it has been vocalized, so he stands there, shaking slightly, finding it harder and harder to meet Virgil’s eyes.

“I am not supposed to get upset,” he says eventually, to end the silence more than anything else. “I… apologize. That was unseemly of me.”

“Logan,” Virgil says, softly, slowly, “you do know that you’re allowed to be a person, right?”

He blanks.

“We’re not people,” he says weakly. “We are facets of the personality of a person. My job is to be logical. I’m just trying to do my job.”

Virgil closes his eyes and breathes in his pattern again. Then, he opens them and steps closer. He reaches for Logan’s hands, taking both of them in his own and worrying at the fingers until they begin to relax. Logan stares at them, at his hands in Virgil’s, at Virgil sweeping his thumb across his knuckles slowly and methodically.

“Then let’s look at it logically,” Virgil says. He speaks in that same low tone of voice. It reminds Logan of a nature documentary, one where the narrator uses a soothing, gentle cadence so as not to scare the animals. “Alright?”

Logan nods. He doesn’t trust himself to speak.

“If we’re all just supposed to do our jobs,” Virgil says, “our jobs and absolutely nothing else, then I would be anxious all the time, right? I mean, I already am, mostly, but that would mean that I would only be able to feel anxious. No positive emotions, no happiness. Everything that’s been so good about the past few years, with you guys, I wouldn’t be able to have that. Do you think that’s how it should be?”

His voice remains gentle, but for their impact, he may as well be shouting.

“Of course not!” Logan says. The very idea is incredibly displeasing. “But that’s different.”

“Okay, how is it different?”

“Your ability to feel positive emotions does not hamper your ability to perform your basic function. You can be both happy and anxious, at the same time or at different times. The two are not mutually exclusive.” He shakes his head. “I need to be logical, to be rational, and that is everything that emotions are not. If I allow myself to feel, then I allow my judgement to be clouded, and Thomas cannot afford to have a Logic with clouded judgement.”

Virgil frowns. “But that’s just it,” he says. “You have emotions. You’re not stopping yourself from having emotions. No one can do that. You’re just refusing to acknowledge that you have them. Doesn’t that kind of repression cloud your judgement more?”

His mouth goes very dry. He feels as though his heart has stopped, which is ridiculous, because he knows full well that his heart is functioning properly. It seems to be the rest of him that has stopped working. Drawing breath is becoming increasingly difficult, for some reason, which is frustrating because there is absolutely nothing physically wrong with him and thus, no reason for this reaction.

Virgil… has to be wrong. He’s not repressing anything. One cannot repress something that one does not possess. But then, the point of repression is to make oneself believe that one does not possess something, or that one has not done something, so if one is skilled enough at repression, one might not know that they are in the act of repressing. Which would make one an unreliable narrator, which is a disturbing concept to contemplate, because if one cannot rely on one’s own perception of reality, then what can one trust?

Human perception is so, so flawed. He cannot afford flawed perception.

“I’m not repressing anything,” he says. His voice is a reedy whisper even to his own ears. He can’t imagine he sounds very convincing. “That’s what Patton does.”

Virgil quirks a brow. “Yeah, Teach, I don’t think that’s a, uh. What did you say? Mutually exclusive? I don’t think that’s a mutually exclusive thing. Patton doesn’t have a monopoly on repression.”

“But I’m Logic,” he insists. “There’s nothing there to repress.”

Virgil pauses, and for a moment, Logan thinks that he is about to concede the argument. For some reason, it feels like a hollow victory. 

But then, Virgil draws him into another hug. He leans into it, unresisting, but his arms won’t move to return it.

“You’re Logan,” Virgil says softly. “You’re not just Logic, and you’re not a robot. You’ve gotta let yourself be human, buddy.”

“I’m not-- I can’t--” His voice catches, breaks, and he realizes with a rising horror that he has begun to cry. He has begun to cry, and it’s humiliating, because he doesn’t know why, because he’s not sad, not at all, because he doesn’t--

He doesn’t--

He doesn’t feel--

Oh.

Oh, oh, oh.

Oh, god.

He’s such a failure.

“No, no, shh, you’re not a failure,” Virgil says, and that’s just another figurative nail in the figurative coffin, isn’t it, that he’s speaking aloud without even realizing that he’s doing it. “You are the furthest thing from a failure that I know. You’re so good, Logan. Feeling things isn’t a failure. You have to let yourself feel.”

“I don’t know how,” Logan says, broken, almost gasping. He doesn’t want to be saying these things. He feels like he’s losing control, and he’s so terrified. “I’ve never known how. I have to be taken seriously, Virgil, I can’t afford not to be taken seriously--”

There. The admission is out there, out in the world, out in this world that is just the two of them, just him and Virgil locked in an embrace, just him and Virgil as his tears leak onto the fabric of Virgil’s hoodie. Once spoken, they cannot be unspoken, and Logan feels--

He feels--

Oh, how he feels, and how wrong it is--

“I promise, that’s not going to happen,” Virgil says. “You’re allowed to have emotions. No one will think any less of you.”

Is this what devastation is? Is this what a tsunami feels like as it sweeps across the land, washing civilization away? His chest is tight and hot and his eyes are burning and his ears are ringing, and he’s felt this way all along but he’s refused to acknowledge that it was happening because he is Logic and Logic is not feelings, is not listened to even when he’s not displaying unbecoming emotions, so how can he possibly think that letting himself feel would be a good idea?

He doesn’t want to feel like this.

He’s felt like this for so long.

“You already think less of me!” he says. “You, you all, you never listen to what I say, you always tell me to shut up or you ignore me or I can tell that I irritate you even when I’m specifically trying not to be irritating and I don’t know what to do because nothing I try ever works.”

Virgil makes a wounded noise deep in the back of his throat, and his grip on Logan tightens.

“We owe you so many apologies,” he says. “I am so, so sorry, Logan. I am so sorry that we made you feel like we didn’t care. I am so sorry that we haven’t been listening. I am so fucking sorry that we made you feel like you needed to not have emotions just to be heard. I am so sorry.”

And Logan lets go. His breath hitches and chokes on a sob, and he doesn’t hold it back, doesn’t swallow it down and try to forget the urge was ever there in the first place.

He buries his face in Virgil’s shoulder and lets himself cry.

“I’m trying,” he gasps between sobs, “I’m trying so hard but I can’t--”

“I know,” Virgil says. “I know. You’re doing so good. I know we’ve all been shit at showing it, but we love you, Logan, really, and we’re here for you. We’re gonna do better, I swear.”

In this moment, Logan allows himself to believe that Virgil cares. He believes in what his senses can absorb, and the evidence is undeniable; it is in Virgil’s arms around him, holding him safe, in Virgil’s low, emphatic words and the way he sounds as if he, too, is near tears, as if Logan is someone worth crying over.

It occurs to him, then, that Virgil did not come here seeking comfort. He came here to offer comfort to him. All he has to do is accept it. And he shouldn’t need it, shouldn’t want it, because he is Logic and Logic does not need comforting or reassurance, but he’s far past that point already, is already weeping into Virgil’s shoulder, so perhaps it is too late to go back. The thought frightens him.

He doesn’t know how to feel. Has never known how to feel, has always thought that it would be better for himself and everyone, better for Thomas if he just. Didn’t. But Virgil says that he can, and though Virgil can be wrong, he despises deception. Virgil wouldn’t lie to him.

Perhaps this can be a start.

His arms come up, and he hugs Virgil back. Presses up close to him and revels in the warmth even as he cries.

“The others,” he says, “they don’t, they don’t like me and they don’t listen--”

“We’ll talk to them,” Virgil says. “You and me, once you’re feeling better, okay? We’ll make this right. Your feelings are valid and your contributions are important, and we’re gonna remind them about that.” His grip tightens, and when he speaks again, it’s in a whisper, as if to himself. “You’re not alone. I know how shitty it feels to think you are, but you’re not. And you’re not ever going to be.”

And Logan, shivering and shaking in Virgil’s arms, tears still crawling down his cheeks, looks up at the ceiling. At the stars, bright and constant, like a promise.

“Okay,” he whispers, and he decides to believe, if only this one more time.

Hypothesis: They care. And I am allowed to care, too.

Conclusion: Pending.

[ethtopaypal]

The best strategy to Buy Bitcoin - Step One

The best way to deal with get some answers concerning bitcoin, is to ricochet in and get a couple in your "pocket" to find how they work.

Notwithstanding the advancement about how problematic and hazardous it will in general be, getting bitcoins is fundamentally less difficult and safer than you may might presume. From different perspectives, it is no doubt less difficult than opening a record at an ordinary bank. In addition, given what has been going on in the monetary structure, it is doubtlessly safer too.

There two or three things to get: getting and using an item wallet, sorting out some way to send and get money, sorting out some way to buy bitcoin from an individual or an exchange.

Preparation

Before starting, you ought to get yourself a wallet. You can do this successfully enough by enlisting with one of the exchanges which will have wallet for you. Moreover, regardless of the way that I figure you should have at any rate one exchange wallets the end, you should start with one on your own PC both to improve feel for bitcoin and considering the way that the exchanges are at this point test themselves. Exactly when we get to that period of the discussion, I will urge that you begin getting your money and coins off the exchanges or expanding across exchanges to watch your money. Visit here eth to paypal

What is a wallet?

It is a way to deal with store your bitcoins. Specifically, it is customizing that has been proposed to store bitcoin. It might be run on your desktop PC, laptop, phone (beside, now, Apple) and can similarly be made to store bitcoins on things like thumb drives. In case you are stressed over being hacked, by then that is a fair other option. Surely, even the Winklevoss* twins, who have millions placed assets into bitcoin, put their hypothesis on hard drives which they by then put into a prosperity store box.

*The Winklevoss twins are the ones who at first had the idea for a long reach casual correspondence site that became Facebook. They selected Mark Zuckerberg who took their idea as his own and ended up being enormously rich.

What do you need to think about having a bitcoin wallet on your PC?

Underneath you can download the first bitcoin wallet, or customer, in Windows or Mac plan. These are wallets, anyway are to be sure fundamental for the bitcoin network. They will get, store, and send your bitcoins. You can make in any event one areas with a tick .You will see a field where you can reorder a number like this from an individual you need to send money to and off it will go clearly into that person's wallet. You can even make a QR code which will permit someone to snap a photo with an application on their phone and send you some bitcoin. It is totally ensured to give these out - the area and QR code are both for my blessings page. Try not to stop for a second to give!

NOTE: such a wallet demonstrations both as a wallet for you and as an element of the bitcoin system. The clarification bitcoin works is that each trade is conveyed and recorded as a number across the entire structure (suggesting that each trade is attested and made irreversible by the real association). Any PC with the right programming can be significant for that structure, checking and supporting the association. This wallet fills in as your own wallet and moreover as an assistance for that system. Consequently, realize that it will take up 8-9 gigabytes of your PC's memory. After you present the wallet, it will take as much as a day for the wallet to change with the association. This is common, doesn't hurt your PC, and makes the structure as a rule more secure, so it's a keen idea.

Bitcoin Qt

The main wallet.

This is a full-featured wallet: make various conveys to get bitcoins, send bitcoins adequately, track trades, and back up your wallet.

Outside of the time it takes to synchronize, this is an easy to use decision.

Journey for Bitcoin Qt wallet download to find their page.

Arms

Runs on top of Bitcoi Qt, so it has the whole of the same coordinating up necessities.

Armory licenses you to back up, scramble, and the ability to store your bitcoins disengaged.

Mission for Bitcoin Armory Wallet to find their site.

If you would not really like to have that much memory used or don't want to believe that your wallet will synchronize, there are worthy wallets that don't make you coordinate the entire history of bitcocin:

Multibit

A lightweight wallet that synchronizes quickly. This is for the most part great for new customers.

Journey for Bitcoin Multibit Wallet to find their site.

Electum

Despite being fast and light, this wallet grants you to recover lost data using a secret word.

Mission for Bitcoin Electum Wallet to find their site.

After you get the wallet set up, several minutes clicking around. Things to look for:

There will be a page that shows you the quantity of bitcoins are by and by in your wallet. Recall that bitcoins can be isolated into more humble pieces, so you may see a decimal with a ton of zeros after it. (Fascinating note, 0.00000001 is one Satoshi, named after the pseudonymous creator of bitcoin).

There will be an area showing what your new trades are.

There will be an area where you can make an area and a QR code (like the one I have above). You needn't mess with the QR code if you needn't bother with it, anyway in case you keep a business and you need to recognize bitcoin, by then all you'll need to do to recognize portion is to show someone the QR code, let them snap a photo of it, and they will really need to send you some money. You can similarly make anyway numerous areas as you like, so in case you need to follow where the money is coming from, you may have a freely stamped area from every single one of your payees.

There will be a locale with a case for you to stick a code when you need to send money to someone or to yourself on an exchange or particular wallet.

[love-takes-work]

The Tale of Steven - Outline & Review

The Tale of Steven is a wonderful, timeless-feeling storybook about identity, authority, and finding your own way. It's got an innovative design that requires the reader to turn the book upside-down, sideways, and right-side-up to get the whole story, sometimes all on the same spread of art and text, and as we come to find out ultimately, this "tale of Steven" really is STEVEN'S story.

We begin with White Diamond, matriarch of the Gem homeworld, setting the stage--and not only does she frame the other Diamonds uncharitably (especially the littlest Diamond, Pink), she even sets the tone by admonishing THE READER straight away, scolding us to turn the book her way to read her words. (We must turn the book upside-down to read her perspective. Very nice.)

As we listen to White Diamond tell us how ridiculous Pink Diamond is and frame her as "impossible to understand," we also see exactly why Pink felt driven to leave her home. White apparently appointed herself the authority on keeping Pink in her place, and we're treated to White's huge pale hands holding little Pink Diamond in her tiny pink throne, “right”-side-up. White's perspective is proper, and she is to be praised, you see, for understanding that Pink's desires and attributes are not worthwhile and need to be forced out of her. Pink is shown as having run away to Earth and reinventing herself as a new Gem: Rose Quartz. Suddenly, we are able to turn the book sideways and see what she's thinking too. (White does NOT approve.)

The Earth, where Rose Quartz is allowed to love herself and love her surroundings, is simultaneously called "grotesque" by White, and we're seeing the same planet through two sets of eyes. White sees Rose as "stubborn" and "absurd," while Rose just gives us an aside about not listening to White if we don't want to and giving us a choice to read the book her way. As Rose continues to depict rainbows and falling in love with a human--Greg Universe--White is getting angrier. She shrieks, "You're ruining my story!" Rose, rightly, replies, "This isn't your story."

Soon, Rose has bequeathed her Gem--the center of her being--to her half-human son, Steven, with the consequence of ceasing to be herself. Baby Steven appears with his father and Rose Quartz's three companions--Amethyst, Garnet, and Pearl. White Diamond finally abandons trying to narrate this story, escaping with a vindictive comment and an attempt to frame Rose as simply Pink Diamond hiding "inside an unwitting creature." Rose's perspective expresses that she wanted her son to experience the love and acceptance she never received. And then, Steven's perspective pops onto the scene. We can now turn the book fully right-side-up to read his tale.

As the story slides fully into Steven's perspective, Rose's hopes for him still line up on the sides of the pages, longing for him to experience kindness, to never know the awfulness she went through on Homeworld, to never have to feel the criticism issued by the other Diamonds, and to be able to tell his own story one day. Steven reflects on Rose's influence on his life, how he's heard about her and the more truth he's discovered the more everything frightens him. There are many perspectives, he recognizes. Perhaps there is more than one way to read the story.

White's perspective, upside-down now, returns alongside all this. She suggests "Pink" has come crawling back to turn the world the "right" way again, and she's puzzled by Steven's appearance, but she's determined to rescue Pink from herself by separating Steven from his Gem. Meanwhile, Steven's been wondering what his relationship is to Pink and Rose--is she inside him? Is he actually her? What's real?

But they all learn the truth when Steven's Gem reveals that he was also Steven inside there. All along, he was himself and no one else. This is, and has always been, his story, and he has been right about who he is.

Several wordless frames depict Steven's two aspects finding each other, reconnecting, and becoming one again. Newly confident in who he is and having asserted as much in the face of crushing authority, Steven declares, "This way feels right to me." The orientation of the book AND the definition of himself are the focus here, and for the first time, White begins to consider that her perspective was the wrong side up in someone else's story.

Steven closes by claiming the book as his own (writing his own name in the "This Book Belongs To" space, which is superimposed over a Diamond Authority symbol with the Pink Diamond on top instead of on the bottom). The end dedication is made out "To Trans & Gender-Expansive Kids."

To reflect on this sentiment and the rest of the book, I will say that a large portion of the Steven Universe fandom already recognized some threads of a trans allegory in the animation this is based on. Steven, though he is not specifically depicted as a confirmed trans character in the show, does not demonstrate or seem to experience toxic masculinity in association with his quest to be powerful, and has no qualms about using symbolism, iconography, and apparel that is more commonly associated in today's Western society with women and girls (e.g., the color pink, flower symbolism, protective and defensive rather than aggressive and offensive behaviors, wearing jewelry and dresses occasionally without it being a gag). His assertion that he is Steven and not Pink Diamond or Rose Quartz has many parallels with a common trans narrative--including pronouns that the Diamonds refused to respect--even though it is also its own thing since human beings do not have to defend that they are not literally their mother. 

They do, however, frequently struggle with authorities in their lives "correcting" them on who and what they are "for their own good," brushing off the seriousness of the misery it causes, and these children do find themselves forced to wear clothes, use names, and adhere to roles that do not match who they are. They even sometimes hear authorities mourn the "loss" of a different-gender version of them and accuse the child of being selfish for wanting to manifest their truth instead of being the son or daughter the parent thought they had.

It is my deepest hope that authorities like this can learn to turn the book around.

It is so important for children to learn that they ARE the authority on their identity, and while some well-meaning authorities in their lives may frame their identity as a phase or a fake, they do not have to accept this view of the world, or even that it comes from a loving place. White Diamond did not sound like a stern but caring figure to me. She sounded like a tyrant who is convinced of her own correctness, determined to gaslight and shame Pink Diamond into becoming the person SHE wanted. Love is listening. Love is nurturing. Love is seeing pleasure and pain and letting those things guide you in supporting a happy existence. Kids whose gender is complicated and young people who develop misunderstood identities need books like this to center them in their own stories and empower them to show others how to read their book.

Except for the section of the book where Steven's organic self and Gem self are separated and re-combine, the message is solid for readers who have not watched the show. But because of how important that wordless series of panels is and how much background you actually have to have to understand what's happening there, I recommend this book primarily for fans of the show who have seen "Change Your Mind" and the episodes that support it. The other depictions are more powerful and illuminating for those who have context from the show also, but the main purpose of the book can be readily understood without that background. 

If you haven't seen the show, all you need to know is that Steven is a hybrid Gem/human who has a gemstone in his human body, and it gives him superhuman powers. Gem characters generate a body from their Gem, while Steven's body is organic and presumably NOT generated from the Gem. White Diamond removed Steven's Gem from his belly, expecting Pink Diamond to take form out of the Gem. She thought his organic half was just a human that the Gem was stuck in. But instead, a Pink Steven emerged and went back to his organic self to merge again, proving that he is Steven, not someone else, through and through. And he truly loves and knows himself.

A couple other notes fans of the show might enjoy: White Diamond's hypothesis that Pink Diamond was "hiding in an unwitting creature" is really interesting--she knew what Steven was but believed he was just a normal human hosting a Gem. Interesting. White's disdain toward Yellow and Blue for "spoiling" Pink is an interesting addition to what we know about her, too. Pink is pictured standing on her hands on her throne, upside-down, which is interesting since it's both "silly" and an expression of her right-side-up perspective (since, when we obey White, we're reading the book upside-down!). White's commentary that she kept Pink in line is also interesting, considering we've seen way more of how Yellow and Blue treated her and none of that was very nice either (yet they're the "nice" ones in this story, indulging her even though we know they abused her). There's a really cute image of Rose lounging on the beach with Greg in what looks like a swimsuit. Connie is in a frame with the Gems looking through a telescope. And there's a frame with Garnet holding pink and blue butterflies.

Inventive, beautiful, moving, and so necessary. Buy a copy. Let kids turn the book around.

[SU Book and Comic Reviews]

[thecloserkin]

book review: C.J. Hauser, Family of Origin (2019)

Genre: the most literary of fiction

Is it the main pairing: yes

Is it canon: yes

Is it explicit: kinda

Is it endgame: no

Is it shippable: if you’re into unhealthy ships

Bottom line: i hate literary fiction. ok i don’t hate fiction obviously i just hate when it tries to be too literary?? u feel me fam

Two estranged half-siblings spend a week tying up loose ends on the remote island where their father died (it is unclear if he committed suicide). The “loose ends” are that they had sex once, as teenagers, and now it’s weird. The island is populated by cultists and nut jobs who are convinced it’s the end of days and evolution is going in reverse. I have… many equivocal feelings about this book. On the one hand there are so many lines that just peel me like an orange, lines like “There was nothing more humiliating to Elsa than her own desires” or “Elsa was never surprised when someone killed himself. She was only surprised by her own animal perseverance day after day.” Plus I think this book really gets the dynamic where they’re constantly needling each other and every interaction is doused in fifteen gallons of repressed attraction. I think this is a novel that accomplished everything it set out to do with assurance and aplomb; I’m just fundamentally uninterested in what it’s trying to do. It’s about damaged people who learn to heal but the problem is the healing is much less engaging than the hurting.

Here’s the difference between speculative fiction and literary fiction: SF/F presumes zombies are literal zombies. Instead of assuming the zombies metaphorically represent something abstract, you just take them at face value ok? You spot a time machine or a vampire, you take it at face value and you add additional layers of meaning later. Which puts me in a pickle because Family of Origin is decidedly not a genre book, so what am I supposed to think about Famous Bigshot Biologist Ian, Elsa and Nolan’s dad, and his reasons for relocating to this island? There’s no cell phone service; it is quite literally removed from civilization. When I said nut jobs I mean it’s populated by secessionists, survivalists, doomsday preppers, anti-establishment types of all stripes. And they have some kooky theories about ducks. Which Ian apparently subscribed to. If this was SF/F I would just go along with it because maybe Elsa and Nolan, having arrived on the island, will finish Ian’s life’s work and find this elusive duck and prove Charles Darwin wrong haha??? But it’s fucking literary fiction which means I have to look for SYMBOLISM gahhh kill me now.

C.J. Hauser knows what she’s doing. Her bio says she’s a creative writing instructor and you can see why. It sucks that “what she’s doing” only glancingly aligns with “what I want her to do,” but c’est la vie. I was immediately taken with her choice of island setting (remote islands breed intimacy!) and the familiar configuration of type-A older sister paired with a younger brother who begs for a scrap of notice or attention. From the get-go Elsa’s priority is control. Nolan’s is acceptance. This quote sums it up pretty handily:

The problem was that Nolan wanted answers, and Elsa wasn’t sure what she would do with answers if she found them.

Like, I personally identify more with Nolan than with Elsa, because there’s this sense of learned futility that I find kind of charming in him but everyone finds annoying af in me:

Nolan wished he could return to a time before anyone had any expectations for him.

Elsa, otoh. Here is Elsa thinking about her ex, a relationship she clung to well past the expiration date merely because he loved her more than she loved him back, and she wasn’t willing to give up that bargaining position:

As long as his side of their love had more ballast to it, she felt in control and like he would not leave. Everyone left Elsa, so she had to be sure.

Nolan and Elsa are certified disasters. They’re both so burnt-out, and twisted up inside with shame and guilt and impossible desires, and the island is the ideal backdrop for them to resolve their issues:

There was so much that was not allowed that the island seemed willing to permit. Things underwater. Things offshore.

That night, they made no pretenses about the sleeping bag and slept cupped like shells in their father’s bed.

Jesus Joseph and Mary this woman can write. I’ve even seen lines from this novel quoted in those tumblr compilation poetry posts.

Anyway Elsa and Nolan’s dynamic is they do not get along and they’ve never gotten along. It starts with Elsa’s resentment at being displaced by a new sibling, which was compounded by Elsa’s mom being divorced and replaced by Nolan’s mom. These kids have spent all their lives probing at each other’s weaknesses and I am reminded of a very apt line from a book that has absolutely jack shit to do with incest: “When siblings spar, the true cause is proximity.” This seems to apply to Elsa and Nolan’s situation more potently than most.

Will you just LOOK at this god-tier sparring though:

Nolan touched a drop of rain that hung by her ear, letting it spill onto his fingers. Elsa smacked his hand.

Don’t— Elsa began, but Nolan, dirty water dripping from his fingers, grabbed Elsa around the ankles and shook her, groaning, Graaghh! like some B-movie Swamp Thing from the deep, ready to pull Elsa into the pool. Elsa considered Nolan’s hands around her ankles.

It’s one part goofing off, one part competitive banter, and one part violent sexual tension . Elsa takes meticulous mental inventory of every instance of skin-to-skin contact and I’m like—girl you know it only means something if you let it? Who the hell pays that much attention every time their brother accidentally brushes shoulders with them?!

There was a knot between Elsa’s shoulders that twisted taut when she saw him.

Nolan is shiftless and aimless, doesn’t even have the balls to break up with his girlfriend, his internal monologue is a constant refrain of “Nolan wished there was some more-adult adult whose job this could be.” Child you are TWENTY-EIGHT years old and need to start owning your choices. I think this hypothesis that’s sorta floated in an early Elsa POV is pretty conclusively disproved in the course of the novel:

But people didn’t change. They just ran away from everyone who knew them too well so they could start over and do a better job of obscuring the worst parts of themselves.

Because they do change, both of them change and mend their ways and they become a family again and ok here’s where I have a problem with C.J. Hauser: Her idea is that you have to choose—Nolan is either Elsa’s brother or her lover:

And he understood then that he could have kept Elsa as a sister or slept with her. It was a choice, and what he’d just done was to have given her up.

It seems her whole motivation for seducing him was as a big fuck-you to their father. I’m not saying she was not attracted to him I’m saying her field of vision is dominated by Ian:

Everyone here is insane, Elsa said.

They have their reasons, said Nolan.

They have stories, not reasons.

What if you’re my story? What if the story of why I’m on this island is you?

What’s my story?

Your story is Dad.

Go to sleep.

Tell me a story.

Which is really sweet and I am a fiend for these callbacks that deliberately echo the older sibling interacting with the younger one as a baby, but Ian’s stature is such that he takes over everything?? We find out that he wasn’t that great of a scientist. That he wasn’t a great dad was clear from the start.

So the really interesting thing from a craft perspective is the climax of this book occurs in the middle of it instead of at the end. The only other novel I can think of that does this is Cloud Atlas but that has a very unique structure. The film The Talented Mr. Ripley also kind of does this?

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

It’s revealed that Elsa isn’t Ian’s biological child. Her mom had an affair and when Ian found out he divorced her and married Nolan’s mom. When Elsa learnt the truth, she took the radical step of sleeping with Nolan to prove a point, I guess? To wit: If she wasn’t Ian’s daughter then it wasn’t actually incest. If Ian was troubled then it must be because she was his daughter:

But you are this kid, her mother said. You’re so totally his kid that you think biology is the only way you can be his kid.

I’ll admit that the “they’re not related” reveal does in this instance actually serve a purpose, unlike in some other books (yup this is a Wasteland callout post). And it ties into the theme of biology, and the stupid elusive ducks that supposedly inhabit this godforsaken island:

”We’re no longer good at adapting to things in the natural world because it’s too hard to tell which parts are real anymore so we don’t know what to adapt to.”

So there you have it. Family of Origin is not a book that spoke to my soul but it is a devastatingly exquisite book, and it has a number of really shippable scenes even if the relationship taken as a whole is not one I was rooting for. Here’s Nolan trying to get laid at college:

He didn’t know what to do because there had only ever been Elsa that one time before and Elsa had known what to do.

And then he has a breakdown so bad that he calls Elsa??? For emotional support??? Even though she’s at least 50% of the reason he’s so broken. When Elsa shows up she says ”I drove over two goddamn hours so you could yell at me in person” lolololol every single line of dialogue is so on-point. Oh oh and Elsa biting his ribs and his neck while they’re lying half-naked in bed is another pearl of a scene.

I saved so many quotes from this book and half of them have nothing to do with incest but they’re SENSATIONAL so I’m going to end this review with an assortment of quotes:

that she was afraid to ask for small things like this because the need in them did not seem big enough to draw attention. That she was afraid her small needs would go unnoticed, and so she made plays at bigger ones instead.

Whatever inner thing guided normal people in their choices … Elsa’s was broken. Nolan had been her first wrong choice, years ago, and as much as she’d have liked to pretend she was different now, that it had been a stupid teenage mistake, there was too much other wrongness that came after. Dozens of dubious choices that all seemed to bloom outward from that first moment.

But no, there was a difference between realizing how wrongly he’d been made and the moment the wrongness actually happened.

Because it wasn’t perfect. Because she couldn’t tell the difference between unconditional and infallible.

Maybe the sooner Elsa stopped trying to hunt down some class of people who had all the answers—adults, scientists, Mars missions, Ian—the sooner she could stop the cycle of trying to win. Could look around and decide what kind of game might actually be worth playing.

[sometimesrosy]

U have advantage that ur a writer and also have a degree. But there r other people in the fandom who r writers with a degree. That girl erin from met station. I think she also lost hope

I have an advantage because I have degrees and decades of experience and an understanding of the discipline, so i can sometimes go deeper than others, or pull on extra-narrative knowledge, but understanding a story is not some esoteric, elite skill that only people with degrees can do.

A story, whether book or movie or tv show, is laid out for you. All right there on the page or screen. We all have access to the same canon facts. And as it’s a tv show, not some academic, high-literature experiment with post modernism or something, most of the interpretation of The 100 is pretty basic. I found season 3 to be the most ambitious and complex, but they pulled back after that. 

I don’t believe you need a degree or to be a writer or an english major or a teacher or in hollywood to understand what’s going on in the show. All you have to do is make sure that your own personal opinions, desires and fears aren’t taking over your interpretation and confusing what’s happening in canon.

And I don’t believe HAVING a degree makes you more able to do that. Unfortunately, erin, while a professor, has a hard time separating what she WANTS to happen from what IS happening on the screen. She has a tendency to decide what the meaning is (for whatever reason) and not allow any question about it into the equation. Whether she decides her interpretation through analysis, shipping, or the “correct” pc position, is irrelevant. She won’t allow anyone to question it, or have an alternate interpretation. She told me, personally, that I wasn’t allowed to have my own interpretation of Polis, or understand authorial intent, because SHE understood authorial intent, and I was wrong. I was also immoral for my interpretation. 

And as a lowly public high school teacher, I can tell you, EVERYONE has a right to their interpretation, especially if they show you where they got it from in the text. In fact, that’s what I taught. Come up with a hypothesis, defend it with evidence from the text, come to a conclusion of what it means. This is SIMPLE analysis, and anyone who pays attention to the canon can do this. If ANYONE tells you that you have no right to your analysis, they are untrustworthy, because they are trying to dominate the conversation, silence you, and keep you from thinking on your own. That a TEACHER would tell someone that they were NOT ALLOWED to interpret a work of fiction differently from their interpretation offends me as a pedagogue. It’s our job to teach students how to understand, analyze and think. It is not our job to teach students our dogma and to follow only our interpretations.

As it turned out, erin was wrong in her interpretation. And not only did the narrative prove me right, but so did the writers, as my interpretation was confirmed and hers was debunked, no matter how she said only she was allowed to interpret the story. But it’s not really ABOUT the interpretation. It’s about a refusal to question her own interpretations, because she’s the authority and believes she’s right and anyone who disagrees with her is felt to attack her identity. 

Erin lost faith because the story did not turn out like she thought it would, and the only explanation she can come up with for that is that the story is wrong and JR is a bad writer, and he hates Bellarke, and she’s been betrayed. So, at this point, you can see that not only does she think other people are not allowed to have different interpretations from hers, she also doesn’t think the WRITERS are allowed to have a different story than the one she has declared is happening. 

Instead of going back and seeing how she got it wrong when canon didn’t do what she thought it should, where her interpretation was off, and how she could better understand the body of work that he was analyzing, she declared the body of work wrong, bad and inferior. So that her interpretation could remain. She demanded the story follow HER story, not the creators’. This is actually a pretty common thing in fandom and you can see it all over, like when fanboys decide that star trek has gotten too political, despite the fact that star trek was EXPLICITLY political all the way back in the pilot episode. THEY don’t want to see it as political, so they erase the story being told, and say canon now is WRONG, because it doesn’t match their experience and interpretation and what they valued from the canon in the first place. 

IMO, as a teacher or as an academic or as a writer or whatever, we should always double check our own ideas about the facts/canon. Make sure we are staying true to the facts/canon, make sure our own biases aren’t coloring our interpretations to the point of ignoring canon. We all have biases. There’s no way to avoid them, but there is a way to get past them, and that’s double checking your opinions and how you came to them. Asking yourself, “if i see it a different way, do I come up with a different interpretation, and if I do, is that interpretation more valid than my original interpretation?” Look at your canon with different perspectives. “If lxa is a hero, what is happening here?” “what would this story look like if Clarke were the hero vs if Lxa were The Hero and which seems to be the story?” “if clarke is in a dark pscyhological story, how would it change the meaning?” “Does the story make more sense if Bellamy is the villain or Bellamy is struggling with his own darkness to do the right thing and become the hero?” “If I was wrong about Lxa being the hero and Bellamy being the villain, then what did I miss, and if I take that into consideration now, how will my interpretation change?” Please note, i’m only talking about interpretations from s3 right here. Erin never did this. She simply went, “Well JR is a bad writer who told the story wrong, nobody understood it.” And I would like to say, no they didn’t tell the story wrong, they didn’t tell HER story. 

And this attitude continued into season 5 where she believed that Bellarke was not romantic, and ignored all the canon evidence for a romantic story of Clarke and Bellamy having romantic feelings for each other including the word “love” and canonical on screen jealousy, being called his girlfriend, comparisons to canon love relationships, and a narrative focus on Clarke and Bellamy, their relationship, their feelings for each other, and their reunion, rather than the “canon” relationship of B/E. She believed Bellarke wasn’t happening so she ignored all evidence to the contrary, because it contradicted her theory.

SO. When she got “inside information” from someone who said that the writer’s room used to argue all the time about whether or not to do romantic Bellarke and they didn’t argue anymore, she interpreted that to fit with her theory that Bellarke was NOT happening at all. She suffers from confirmation bias. When she hears evidence, she only hears the evidence that confirms her bias, she ignores totally anything that challenges her interpretation.

Because she didn’t see Bellarke in season 5, despite all the canon romantic bellarke and canon love triangle of C/B/E which makes Bellarke a romantic story. When someone said the writers didn’t fight about doing romantic bellarke, she decided it meant they’d chosen not to do bellarke at all and it was platonic. It confirmed her belief that Bellarke was dead.

I hear the same evidence, and because I saw a classic dead-wife-back-from-the-dead love triangle romantic trope, and that means THEY ACTIVELY PURSUED ROMANTIC BELLARKE IN THE WRITERS ROOM, I hear that they’re not arguing anymore, because they’ve already started the romantic bellarke story. There’s no should we or shouldn’t we, because it’s already happening. Bellarke is coming.

HOWEVER. That’s not what happened with Erin. Erin took something told to her in confidence and spread the rumor that Bellarke was dead, and it was confirmed dead, and JR was never doing Bellarke because it was confirmed. Because she said so. Despite, as a professor, knowing that nothing is canon until it is canon. Or I guess she doesn’t know that. I guess she thinks interpretations and rumors are canon. 

I will be honest, I have refrained from talking about her, even though my conflict with her was years ago. I do not believe she understands the story at all. She keeps ending up wrong. And she doesn’t admit it. Instead, she blames JR for doing it wrong, fandom for interpreting it wrong, or me personally for having an interpretation she personally didn’t like so didn’t listen to. :)

But to actively harm fandom by spreading unconfirmed gossip and rumors and saying they meant bellarke was CONFIRMED dead, and using her position and authority as someone who is in the know to destroy people’s enjoyment of a tv show, means that I find her HIGHLY unethical and I blame her, personally, for a lot of the anguish in the fandom.

She’s a professional. She should behave professionally. And she’s not. She’s using her position as a professional to give her interpretations more clout, rather than using the CANON to defend and support her interpretations. 

So if you try to challenge my interpretations, and say “yeah sure you have degrees, but erin has degrees and she thinks bellarke is dead, so your degrees don’t mean anything,” I’m gonna have to tell you. You bet our degrees don’t mean anything. Not mine, or hers.

The only thing that means anything is canon. Stick to the text. Never think that someone’s degree means their interpretation is better than yours. Because degrees don’t support an argument. EVIDENCE DOES.

[terramythos]

Review: Vicious by V. E. Schwab (Villains #1) (REREAD)

Length: 364 pages. 

Genre/Tags: Fantasy, Urban Fantasy, Science Fiction, Superheroes, Revenge Narrative, Dark, Time Jumps, Perspective Shifts, Third-Person, Great Characters, Duology

Warning(s): Graphic violence and torture. One of the main characters is just straight up genocidal. There is a very dubious consent scene later in the novel (non-explicit). Child death (sort of?). This is like, a gray versus black morality kind of story, so don’t read it if that isn’t your thing?

My Rating: 8.5 / 10

My Summary:

Victor and Eli, two genius college roommates at the top of their game, come up with a hypothesis for their senior project— that near-death experiences sometimes result in superpowers. However, when they test their theory, things go terribly awry, and both are left forever changed. Victor finds himself with the ability to manipulate pain. Eli becomes functionally immortal. And with a body count behind both young men, they transform from best friends into bitter enemies. 

Ten years later, Victor escapes from prison. Cunning and manipulative, Victor has had a decade to contemplate revenge against the man who put him there— Eli. When he finds an injured 12-year-old girl on the side of the road, he discovers Eli has spent the last decade systematically murdering EOs— people with supernatural abilities. Sydney, who can raise the dead, is the one of the few to escape. 

With the help of Sydney and his former cellmate Mitch, Victor begins to enact his revenge. But it’s only a matter of time before Victor and Eli finish what they started ten years ago…

But these words people threw around— humans, monsters, heroes, villains— to Victor it was all just a matter of semantics. Someone could call themselves a hero and still walk around killing dozens. Someone else could be labeled a villain for trying to stop them. Plenty of humans were monstrous, and plenty of monsters knew how to play at being human. The difference between Victor and Eli, he suspected, wasn’t their opinion on EOs. It was their reaction to them. Eli seemed intent to slaughter them, but Victor didn’t see why a useful skill should be destroyed just because of its origin. EOs were weapons, yes, but weapons with minds and wills and bodies, things that could be bent and twisted and broken and used.

Vicious is an interesting book to reread because, while the book itself hasn’t changed, the context behind it has. When I read this back in 2016 it was a standalone novel, originally published in 2013. Now I’m rereading it specifically because there is an unexpected sequel (Vengeful, 2018), and I wanted a refresher before jumping into it. Second, maybe a more minor detail— this book is homoerotic as hell, and I remember wondering if it was intentional on a first read. Now that Schwab recently came out as gay, I’m thinking it probably was, which makes it all the more entertaining.  

It’s also interesting to see how much Schwab’s writing has changed over time. Originally, I read Vicious, enjoyed it, then decided to read her big fantasy series Shades of Magic, and… Well, let’s just say *that* ended up being one of my favorite trilogies ever. Whoops? But in many ways I feel my enjoyment of Shades of Magic overshadowed Vicious. I enjoyed this book, but honestly I kind of forgot about it even though it was the first one I read. That was another reason to revisit it; while I might not like it as much as Shades of Magic, it’s still plenty good.

Before I do a deep dive into the book, I think it’s important to discuss the structure. Vicious basically has two stories— one in the past, and one in the present. The first half mostly focuses on the past, while the second half mostly focuses on the present. “Mostly” is important here— the story is very anachronistic. This serves to heighten the drama; we learn about Victor and Eli’s past relationship, then get a glimpse of just how corrupted and different it is in the present day, and of course wonder what got them to this point. While I feel it’s easy to do time and perspective jumps poorly, the chapters themselves are pretty short, so I never felt disconnected from any particular plot thread. The pacing was always solid. If anything I found this novel pretty easy to read, because I could tackle just a few chapters at a time yet make significant progress in the story.

Vicious is, without a doubt, character-driven. People with superpowers exist— called ExtraOrdinary people (EOs)— and said powers develop in a unique way. Other than that there’s nothing super special about the setting. And aside from the interesting structure, the story is pretty standard. But the characters themselves are fascinating and by far the strongest point of the novel. The main focus is obviously on Victor and Eli, and how they serve as foils to one another. Both are arrogant and straight-up terrible people, but the way they see the world differs greatly, and that’s ultimately what separates the “hero” of the story (Victor) from the villain (Eli). Gray versus black morality, hooray!

Seeing the initial relationship between the two leads and how it sours and twists over time is quite interesting. At first Eli seems to be the most level-headed of the two, but as the story develops you learn how fanatical and unhinged he really is. Dude just straight up embraces genocide after a point. Meanwhile, Victor is clearly a vindictive and selfish dick from the get-go, yet as Eli’s true nature shows, seems much less terrible by comparison. The story is sometimes a bit on-the-nose with the whole hero vs villain thing and how the two defy usual expectations, but it is still interesting to realize you’re genuinely rooting for Victor. Despite everything he’s a pretty likable character.

Aside from Victor and Eli, there are three supporting characters who substantially affect the story. Preteen Sydney gets the most screentime, and with Mitch (Victor’s bodyguard/hacker/cellmate) serves as the humanizing part of the story. Victor even seems to sort of care for the two! Though how much of that is genuine attachment versus just finding them useful is debatable. There’s a super twisted found family vibe with the trio which starts to form near the end (they adopt an undead dog and everything!). On the antagonistic side of things, we have Serena, Sydney’s older sister, who has the power to compel others. She’s pretty terrifying, and has her own twisted motivations for helping Eli. At times she’s honestly more unsettling than he is.

One of my main complaints about Vicious when I first read it was *just* as I started to really dig the side characters, their relationships, and their developments… the novel ended. Yes, Sydney gets significant development through the story. But Mitch and Serena get shafted. We only really get to know them toward the end of the novel with backstory dumps or a handful of perspective chapters. A lot of the novel’s real estate centers on Victor and Eli’s past, and while I think that’s an integral part of the novel, it feels like something is missing. At the time I thought this novel either needed to be longer or it needed a sequel. Well, now it has one of those things, so it will be interesting to see what Vengeful does with the characters.  

Thematically and philosophically there’s some interesting stuff going on. The hero vs villain thing is the most obvious, and as I mentioned gets pretty direct at times. But one idea I found interesting to consider is what happens to the souls of ExtraOrdinary people. It’s initially stated as fact that EOs lose a part of themselves when they die and return. They’re different, changed in a way they can’t quite describe. And for most of the novel this seems to be true. Victor and Eli both become twisted, detached people, obsessed with their own perceptions of reality. The two realize they should feel or think certain things and simply… don’t. Both attribute it to the fact they died and came back “wrong”. But the more we learn about both characters, the more we realize they were pretty much like that all along. The idea that people lose something doesn’t really hold up when you examine Sydney, who turns into a stronger and more vibrant person after coming back. It’s an interesting realization, because it highlights just how wrong Eli’s actions are.

There’s also a whole deal regarding God and spirituality vs science. Eli justifies nearly everything he does in the name of God, whereas Victor is an atheist— but the extent to which this affects things is a definite gray area. There are some uncanny coincidences in the story (like Victor discovering Sydney) that would be bad writing… except the characters notice it happening. On multiple occasions Victor notes that if God or Fate exists, it seems to be siding with him, not Eli. Even the formation of ExtraOrdinary abilities is bizarre. One gets superpowers based on their final thoughts and feelings? That’s so decidedly unscientific, especially from something that starts as a science experiment, that it really sticks out to me. Is there more to this dichotomy? I guess we’ll see if the sequel explores it more.

There are some small details I really like, but I think my favorite is the blackout poetry thing. There’s just something interesting and really funny about Victor defacing his famous parents’ self-help books. He mentions it’s one of the best gifts he got in prison, and it’s also one of the first things he does when he gets out. Probably the funniest part in the whole story is an intense chase scene where Victor is trying to escape someone through an unfamiliar house. He spots a Vale book on a shelf, and pauses EVERYTHING to just grab it and throw it out the window, then returns to the scene as if nothing happened. It’s just such an unnecessary detail that might have ended up on the cutting room floor but I honestly lost my shit laughing.

The ending is also viscerally satisfying. So much stuff ties together well. While the novel is about Victor and Eli and (ultimately) Victor’s revenge, you don’t actually learn much about his plan until it happens. A lot of lines and actions read differently in context of the ending, which is always something I like in a story.

(And here’s a totally skippable aside— *is* there some connection between this series and Monsters of Verity? The latter is a young adult duology by Schwab, which I read and reviewed here and here. But the first book has an opening quote from Victor. Hell, it’s part of the quote I picked for this review. They don’t seem to be in the same universe but… maybe they are? It’s just such a goddamn weird choice to quote a “V. Vale” at the beginning of an unrelated series. Maybe Vengeful has an explanation? Maybe Schwab just really liked that whole monsters vs humans line? I have no idea.)

Anyway, yeah, that’s Vicious! It’s certainly a fun one to read. The writing is punchy and easy to get through. The conflict between Victor and Eli is very well written and compelling. And, as I mentioned, the characters are the strong point (in my opinion, anyway), so if you enjoy character-driven media I definitely recommend it. Just note my caveat about some of the character development. Skip it if you’re one of those people bothered by Bad People Doing Bad Things In Fiction or think portraying Bad People Doing Bad Things is somehow Endorsing Bad Things. If dark stories aren’t your thing you definitely won’t enjoy this one. There are some aspects of the story that I feel could have been smoother or done differently, most of which I touch on in the review. I think Schwab has improved a lot since writing it, which is one reason I’m excited that my next read is the 2018 sequel.

[newtonmediagroup]

The Echo Chamber - The Art & Science of Self-Growth-Peter Hollins-The Ar...

Intellectual curiosity also helps because it encourages you to simply pursue knowledge and dig below the surface level of information you are bound to find.   View people as sources of complex, fascinating knowledge and seek to discover it for your own benefit.   To lower your guard enough to properly learn, you also need to learn to avoid the echo chamber, which is where your opinions and viewpoints get amplified.   Instead, you need to get into the habit of seeking out opposing and alternative viewpoints to avoid confirmation bias.   The final aspect of humility is to tell yourself that you are never quite at your destination.   This isn’t to lower your self-esteem; rather, it’s to put you into the mode of constant learning and always striving for more, as opposed to being satisfied with adequacy.   We are all unfinished products; at least view yourself that way in order to feel that continual learning and progress is necessary.   The Art of Intentional Thinking: Master Your Mindset. Control and Choose Your Thoughts. Create Mental Habits to Fulfill Your Potential (Second Edition) By Peter Hollins Get the audiobook on Audible at https://bit.ly/IntThink Show notes and/or episode transcripts are available at https://bit.ly/self-growth-shownotes Peter Hollins is a bestselling author, human psychology researcher, and a dedicated student of the human condition. Visit https://www.PeteHollins.com to pick up your FREE human nature cheat sheet: 7 surprising psychology studies that will change the way you think. For narration information visit Russell Newton at https://bit.ly/VoW-home For production information visit Newton Media Group LLC at https://bit.ly/newtonmg #Abominable Snowman #achievement #Confirmation #Einstein #Himalayas #humility #intellectual #RussellNewton #NewtonMG #PeterHollins #TheArtofIntentionalThinking #EchoChamber The Echo Chamber

Speaking of challenging what you think you know, there’s a phenomenon that’s snared a good portion of the population roughly since the dawn of the new millennium, especially those with rather strident and unshakeable belief systems.   It’s the echo chamber.   This runs counter to the intellectually curious mindset, in which the most important part of learning is learning from people outside your immediate comfort or knowledge zone.   The echo chamber is a closed-off precept in which humans of all stripes and kinds tend to circulate in packs whose beliefs match their own.   Rather than reach out to hear alternative or opposing viewpoints, they seek to find more “information” that supports their own opinions or standards.   In reality, they only end up hearing echoes of their own viewpoints and opinions.   This kind of mindset is called “confirmation bias.” Confirmation bias leads someone to seek out and legitimize “proof” that confirms the beliefs and theories we already espouse—and to shut out, declaim, and often berate evidence that disproves our beliefs.   You see this quite frequently in current political discourse, which often leads to the acceptance of “fake news” that validates our own views.   If you want to find evidence that smoking is healthy, all you need to do is type “smoking is healthy” into a search engine and you’ll have found your echo chamber.   But it also occurs on more personal levels.   If you’ve decided that a casual acquaintance is a philanderer, you might ignore testimony about their committed relationship and believe that friend of a friend who might have seen them possibly hook up with someone else from a distance.   The confirmation bias mindset can lead to far more than just intellectual rot; we’ve seen it damage relationships and long-time friendships.   Avoiding confirmation bias and seeking to challenge your own beliefs is akin to the humbleness that one needs to learn, which takes a drastically different approach than merely finding only people to agree with.   It’s tough and truly requires being open to the fact that you might need to humble yourself.   One method in doing that is to take a certain belief or inclination that you have and to come up with two different hypotheses that differ from it—so you have three different theories to work with.   Not only do you want your original belief and its theoretical opposite, but you also want a third explanation that might float between the two extremes or occupy a certain gray area that neither extreme necessarily considers.   Seek out opposing perspectives or something that will prove the opposite of your assumptions or views.   Collect as much information as you can, and make sure you’re learning instead of confirming your biases and subconsciously seeking out your own echo chamber.   Then go to town and research your beliefs, finding evidence or explanations that support all three hypotheses.   There’s a good chance you might find yourself slightly updating or revising your original theory—and that’s a win.   It reflects your ability to understand from all sides, and you’ll find out which of your core beliefs are the most important.   As an example, I’m going to try and pick a “controversial” topic that’s so ridiculous it will make nobody upset: let’s say you have a firmly held belief that the Abominable Snowman actually exists and is causing trouble for dwellers in the Himalayas.   That’s your one hypothesis.   Coming up with an opposing hypothesis should be pretty simple.   The Abominable Snowman does not exist, and Himalayans are doing just fine.   A third theory might be trickier, but it could be that the Abominable Snowman didn’t quite exist as we knew him: he was in fact an extremely tall, antisocial, and hairy man that most of the Himalayans didn’t like.   The first thing I’d do is find as neutral of a source as possible to find what we definitely know about the Abominable Snowman.   I no doubt would have plenty of sources confirming my beliefs (websites, sympathetic friends), so I would go to them to find statements that support my own view.   Then—and this is where we all experience discomfort— I would seek out information from sources who diametrically oppose my point of view (other websites, friends who tell the truth, most mountaineering experts) and try to summarize their viewpoints.   I’d then try to find information supporting my third hypotheses.   It’s likely I would find enough information to at least revise my opinion of the Abominable Snowman’s existence or change it altogether.   I would take a note of that.   (Once again, I urge you to come up with an actual belief or controversy that’s not this unbelievable.   Also, I apologize to any hardcore Abominable Snowman believers.) This approach to tackling confirmation bias is supportive of another extraordinarily helpful mindset to cultivate: the humble, inquisitive mindset.   Humility is often confused for weakness of character, whereas qualities like presumptuousness, arrogance, pretension, and closed-mindedness are considered outward signs of inner strength.   This is possibly the biggest fallacy of philosophy in the present world—the truth is the exact opposite.   Humility and curiosity show strength of character and the self-confidence to investigate the world and not be shaken down by new understandings or beliefs.   In contrast, people who exhibit arrogance and narrowness almost always do so out of insecurity—they’re covering up something that makes them very, very vulnerable.   Intellectual curiosity suffers under the delusion of arrogance.   While the humility mindset offers access to deeper understanding and gained knowledge, the opposite mindset courts failure because the need to be “right”—or not even that, but just to be “certain”—is a need of the ego.   The ego cares only about insularity and protection.   It cares not one whit for learning, which in turn has nothing to do with ego (because you know nothing, remember?).   Intellectual curiosity leads to learning, even if it’s not the kind of answer you were expecting to find.   The egotistical approach leads to failure because of the arrogant “need” to be correct.   The point of the humility mindset is to check your pride during the course of learning.   You don’t have to chuck all of it out the door at other times (though it probably wouldn’t hurt), but at least in the act of finding new things, listening to others, and discovering new truths, set your pride aside.   Confronting our own beliefs isn’t easy because we fear the prospect that we’ve lived under false impressions for most of our lives.   Adopting the always-learning mindset relieves a good deal of that fear—and makes eliminating confirmation bias more of an opportunity than a risk.  

You’re Never There: Perpetual Progress vs. Achievement

Finally, here’s some stone-cold truth that will bug some of you but hopefully relieve most of you: you are a work in progress and always will be.   You will experience monumental changes in the way you think, feel, and behave over long periods of time.   Most of these will be improvements and developments on your way to becoming an amazing human being.   But you will, unfortunately, never quite be there—at least in mindset.   It’s not that you won’t accomplish great things or shouldn’t show some pride in your achievements.   It’s just that you can’t stop there.   Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity—arguably the most significant scientific moment of the 20th century—in 1915.   He could have stopped right there and cemented his legacy forever.   But he continued to refine his theory throughout the next decade and a half, incorporating information about electromagnetism and finally updating his findings with the theory of distant parallelism in 1929.   Only when he felt he was finished did he move on to other theories.   Our actions are highly susceptible to the labels we give ourselves—the short and terse descriptors that we use to identify who we are.   This is especially true with negative identifications: “lazy,” “stupid,” “weak,” “unstable,” “angry,” or “unimportant.” That’s why I suggest a change in your mindset of self- identification: the elimination of the phrase “I am” and the adoption of the phrase “I’m working on it.” When you say “I am,” you’re immediately giving yourself a label that frankly acts more like a stamp: “I am lazy,” “I am stupid,” and so on.   You’ve crystallized that belief and made it part of you.   That makes change so much harder.   If you really are lazy, the “I am” statement has boxed you in that corner and branded itself to you.   But changing that statement to reflect what you want to become, you’ve flipped the momentum.   Instead of saying “I’m lazy,” say “I’m working on being more industrious and productive.” Instead of saying “I’m stupid,” say “I’m working on improving my knowledge and study skills.” Instead of saying “I’m unstable,” say “I’m working on knowing my triggers and how to react more evenly.” Even if you’re completely broke, don’t say “I’m broke”—say “I’m working on managing my finances and finding ways to earn income.” Will some people think that’s just a roundabout way of saying “I’m broke”? Probably.   But that’s their label, not yours.   They’re just being judgmental—or I should say, “They’re working on being more empathetic and accepting of people in challenging circumstances.” This way of thinking also keeps you in line with the humility aspect of the learning mindset if you flip it toward your positive traits.   Instead of saying “I’m smart,” try saying “I’m working on being smart.” Instead of saying “I’m talented,” say “I’m working on developing my talents.” You’re not saying you’re not smart or talented.   You’re saying you’re working on improving yourself— which can and should be an unending process.   In turn, it might increase your enthusiasm for learning and discovering new things rather than stunting your enthusiasm with the idea that you already know it all.   Not only are you removing the disparaging quality from your identity, but you’re also articulating your purpose every time you say you’re working on something.   And you’ll always be working on it—because we never stop learning.  

[the-100-meta-library]

Hey meta fans! Here’s the second author interview, with the wonderful Sam, aka @forgivenessishardforus

Like our first interview, Sam’s was done a while ago.  Given time constraints, we were not able to connect with her for a chat. But of course, her insight is still spectacular.

We’d like to give a big thank you to Sam for giving us a look inside her meta writing process. 

Enjoy!

1.     Give us some general background. Who are you, what do you do, how does that affect how you write meta, what is your level of fandom experience, and how did you get into the 100? (again, as specific or vague as you want to go)

My name is Sam, I’m a Canadian (always feel the need to point that out) scientist and writer. It’s a bit of a unique combination—I’ve been writing since I was a child with one book published four years ago but chose to pursue chemistry in college, which means I’m not as experienced in literary analysis as some. For me, writing meta was a way to get back to something I’d loved doing in high school (analyzing text) but hadn’t had much chance to explore since.

My meta is almost always written from a writer’s perspective, in terms of story and character arcs and plot points, and most of my speculation is written based on how I would write the story if it was in my hands (which of course means I’m not right all the time, or even most of the time). I think being a scientist helps me pick up on patterns relatively quickly, and also take haphazard guesses at scientific solutions to their problems, but the science on this show is so fictional that that often doesn’t help much!

I started watching the 100 in 2014 (I bingewatched all of Season 1 over a weekend) but didn’t join fandom until about a year ago, at the end of Season 3. This is my first experience with fandom, and for the most part it’s been a good one!

2.     Are there any metas or theories that surprise you? Any particular instance where someone had an interpretation you never would have thought about?

Oh, absolutely. This fandom has no shortage of brilliant minds, and one of my favourite things about it is how differently we all examine the show, based on our personal experiences and interests. For example, I rarely even notice background music in a scene, so any time someone does an analysis based on the score I’m always fascinated by it; same with analyses that tackle cinematography or allegorical references.

(If you want I can track down some of my favourite metas/theories but it might take me some time.)

3.     How much do other writers influence you?

I think we’re all bound to be influenced by the things we read, and it’s difficult to measure the extent of that. Sometimes, I find reading other meta helps me formulate my own thoughts on the subject, by picking apart what it is I agree or disagree with and the reasons I feel that way. However, although there are writers out there whose analyses closely align with mine, I don’t think there’s anyone I agree with all the time.

4.     How long does it take to write a meta? For you, what does meta mean and what needs to be in it?

Oh boy, anywhere from minutes to hours to months to indefinitely—I have a not-small pile of metas that I just never got around to finishing. Because I currently don’t have as much time as I once did to dedicate to writing meta, most of my meta lately has only been a couple of paragraphs long, which I can knock out in half an hour or less. (I also find this format is more easily absorbed by the fandom.) If I do sit down to write a longer, more in depth meta, it can take me a full afternoon to finish, and if I don’t get it done in one sitting chances are I won’t return to it to finish it later.

For me, meta is a literary analysis that uses supporting evidence from the text to supplement it. Everyone who writes meta has a different way of going about it, and the only thing it absolutely requires is sufficient evidence that is presented as unbiased as possible. Of course, as viewers we’re all biased, but I think it’s important to acknowledge evidence that may contradict your viewpoint, or evidence that can be used to support other opinions.

5.     How do you approach the writing process of your meta/the meta itself?

Honestly, it’s very similar to writing an essay, or even a technical paper. First I establish the topic sentence (or, in the case of writing meta based on asks, it’s already given to me) and then I write a list of supporting evidence. A lot of the time, I leave my evidence in list form (this is much quicker for me to write and I think is usually a little easier for the audience to absorb) but if I want to go a little more in depth with it I’ll arrange the evidence so that each piece flows naturally into the next when I flesh it out. With shorter metas I’ll write it all as one piece, but with longer ones I’ll definitely split it up into subsections and then work on each one individually.

Frequently, I’ll work on the process in reverse, as story elements click into a pattern; in that case, the evidence establishes itself first and then the meaning behind it is what comes next. Speculating is similar to writing a hypothesis for a science experiment; based on patterns already established in canon, it’s sometimes possible to predict what will happen next.

6.     Do you write fanfic? If you do, how do you think writing meta influences the process?

I do—most of my fanfictions are canonverse one-shots (2,000 words or less) but I’ve written a couple of longer or multichapter AUs as well! I think writing meta has given me a much deeper grasp of the characters than I otherwise would have; Bellamy, for example, seems to permanently exist in a corner of my brain. Also, having explored the themes and events of the show so thoroughly allows me to transfer them over to my own fiction (with some modification) with ease.

I’m also a big fan of speculation fic, which to me is very similar to writing meta, but just using a different voice and style to do so.

7.     In your experience, how have people interacted with the meta you've written?

Well, I guess? In any case, I tend to get far more positive responses than negative ones. In my opinion, open discussion is a big part of analysis so I’m always happy when someone adds their own opinion to something I wrote—whether it’s disagreeing or adding to what I’d always written—even if I don’t always have time to respond.

[jakehglover]

A Critical Look at 'The China Study' and Other Diet Plans

By Dr. Mercola

Denise Minger is perhaps most noted for her comprehensive rebuttal of "The China Study" some eight years ago. She's heavily vested in the vegan versus omnivore battle, having cycled through vegetarianism and raw veganism, finally coming full circle to being an omnivore.

Minger took to vegetarianism when she was just 7 years old. "I was eating steak one night at dinner and almost choked on it. I developed some kind of phobia surrounding things with meat textures and went vegetarian overnight," she explains.

Raw Veganism Took a Toll on Health

However, during the 10 years she remained a vegetarian, she began developing food allergies, including wheat and dairy allergies. "By the time I was a teenager, I was really health-conscious," she says. "I had to get into that whole scene just to stay healthy." At age 15, she discovered the raw vegan movement and got on the 80/10/10 diet, promoted by Dr. Douglas Graham. The diet is based on the hypothesis that we should eat what other primates eat, particularly frugivorous chimpanzees and bonobos.

"I was reading about it online at the age of 15 without having any background in human biology, physiology or anthropology … I fell into this trap of logic, that humans are the only animals that cook our food. We're the only animals that eat this species-inappropriate diet, [so] I went raw vegan overnight," she says. "For one year straight, [I ate] nothing but fruits, vegetables and some nuts — all uncooked.

I did great for the first month, as most people do when they stop eating crappy foods. After that, I started losing weight and muscle. My hair was falling out. My energy levels were fluctuating like crazy. I was in high school at the time, taking the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). My brain fog got so bad at one point that when I was taking the SAT, I would read the question and by the time I got to the end I couldn't remember what the first part said …

The kicker for me, because I've always taken great care of my teeth, was at the end of this period of raw veganism I had 16 cavities in my mouth, after a lifetime of what had previously been perfect dental health … It was actually the dental health issue that really turned my mind around … At that point, I had to let go of the vegan philosophy. I had to start questioning things …

That's when I came across things like the Weston A. Price Foundation, which [details] what humans have been eating that has supported health in the past. I learned about the paleo movement — different forms of health-conscious omnivory. That's where I ended up. It was a process."

Debunking 'The China Study'

As mentioned, Minger produced a very comprehensive critique of "The China Study" which is the scientific justification for many vegan positions. Her analysis — which some suspected to be funded by the meat industry — was actually undertaken while recovering from an accident. At the age of 22, she was hit by a car while riding her bicycle and shattered her elbow. Her convalescence afforded her the time to work on this project.

"I got a huge book of the raw 'China Study' data. I love numbers. I have fun with correlations. I have fun looking at patterns. My brain gets happy. I spent about two or three months poring over the data. I needed a project, because I had nothing else to do.

I was poring over the data and that's when I realized I needed to write a critique of the book. So much of what [author T. Colin] Campbell said was not supported by his own data. I just felt like if there's anything I needed to do in life, it was going to be this.

I didn't expect anyone to read it. I had a little blog. I like to say I had six readers, five of which were my mother on different computers. I didn't realize at the time how much interest the critique would gather; how much interest there was in that book itself. I hadn't really seen the rivalry upfront between the vegan and the paleo worlds. When I released this critique, I didn't know it was going to be that influential," she says.

Minger developed quite a bit of notoriety as a result of that critique, especially in the vegan community. She's been vilified by many, including Campbell, who wrote personal rebuttals to her commentary on his work. Some have gone so far as to characterize her as someone who's promoting processed food.

The Case for Lowering Protein Intake

For all its drawbacks, there are benefits to veganism. The biggest one, from my perspective, is that vegans have — compared to those who eat the standard American diet — a significantly lower protein intake. I think there are valuable insights that can be drawn from that, which can be integrated into a low-carb paleo approach. Minger agrees, saying:

"For the protein issue, what I find interesting is that whenever we look at the actual China Study, for example, when you look at their food intake, it's much different in terms of the types of animal parts they consume than what we see in America.

The protein issue is complicated, but I will say that high methionine intake — for example from muscle meat — [needs to be balanced with] glycine. You get that by eating the entire animal, the skin, tendons, connective tissue — all the stuff that Americans typically discard …

In the China Study, you don't see them eating steaks and chicken breasts at every meal. Even the lower animal product-consuming societies, a lot of them eat insects. A lot of them eat the weird parts of the animal. I think that's imperative for staying healthy on an omnivorous diet. Because the way we eat meat in America is pathogenic. It's not healthy. But it's not necessarily because animal products are bad for you …

What was amusing to me, because it was completely left out of 'The China Study' book, was that the healthiest populations were the seafood eaters … They had the best health outcomes. The only disease that they had more of was liver cancer. That was because they were living in humid areas where aflatoxin was more prevalent … But it wasn't because of the animal protein. It wasn't because of the fish."

This makes sense considering the importance of long-chained omega-3 fats: eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Those who restrict themselves to a plant-based diet are only getting alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) which, while being a precursor for EPA and DHA cannot be converted at significant, therapeutic levels.

Protein Cycling

Clearly, the composition of the animal protein is a significant issue. We don't want processed foods. We don't want meat from factory farms that is contaminated with glyphosate (due to contaminated grain feed). But there's also the issue of the amount. Many are simply eating far too much protein, which (when consumed in excess) activates mTOR, a pathway involved in both aging and cancer. Pulsing higher and lower amounts of protein also seems a wise strategy.

"When we look at historical groups of humans, the animal food intake was generally on the lean side. We don't have year-round access to these big fatty animals … It's going to be seasonal when it occurs at all," Minger says. "I'm reminded of a study on Australian aborigines. They put people out in the wild to try to acquire foods from their environment and survive on that …

Their fat intake ended up being something like 8 to 12 percent, because the animals were so lean and the lean protein intake was consequently much higher. I have trouble believing that animal protein itself is going to be a problem. I think what might be a problem is this consistency thing — the idea that eating the same foods year-round, without any fluctuation in the composition of the diet, is healthy. I don't think that's the case …

I think things like protein cycling might be therapeutic for humans. I think that even carb cycling and going through different periods of different macronutrient intakes instead of always being low-fat or always being low-carb [is a good idea]. That's probably what the human body is best adapted to."

Macronutrient Cycling — An Overlooked Component of Optimal Health

In deconstructing and assessing the low-carb, high-fat approach, Minger concluded the lack of high and low nutrient cycling was one of the main problems, especially long-term, and particularly for women. "I do one-on-one consulting with people," she says.

"A large group that I have come in contact with are women who've done low-carb. Their thyroid function is tanking. They're gaining weight. They feel terrible. Their hair is falling out. It happens with men too sometimes, but I think women, hormonally, are more sensitive to the lack of carbohydrates."

She's also found evidence suggesting chronic lack of carbohydrates may be having an adverse effect on your gut microbiome. In his commentary, "Sorry Low Carbers, Your Microbiome Is Just Not That Into You,"1 Jeff Leach with the Human Food Project details the likely shifts found in the gut microbiome composition of people who consume low-carbohydrate diets. Whether or not those shifts are wholly detrimental or not is still unknown, but it's worth keeping an eye on.

Minger is equally ambivalent about long-term, chronic high-fat consumption, as some of the evidence suggests it may increase gut permeability and the transport of endotoxin from gram-negative bacteria into the bloodstream, which increases chronic inflammation and related health problems.

"On one hand, we see people switching away from the standard American diet to low-carb. Yeah, they're going to feel great. Yeah, they're going to lose weight. There's going to be this initial honeymoon period, just like I had with raw veganism. My question is what happens over the course of many years on a large scale … I'm wondering what the bulk of the evidence is going to show. I don't know if we really know that yet."

From my perspective, I think there are compelling reasons to suspect one might run into problems, for many of the reasons Minger cites. It appears nutrient cycling (i.e., cycling between higher and lower amounts of fat, net carbs and protein), and also cycling between high and low calorie intakes (fasting and feasting), are foundational criteria for optimal biological functioning.

The challenge is to find that happy balance. When writing "Fat for Fuel: A Revolutionary Diet to Combat Cancer, Boost Brain Power, and Increase Your Energy," I dove deep into the scientific literature looking at this aspect of health.

Cyclical Ketogenic Diet Is Ideally Combined With Cyclical Fasting

First of all, the late Dr. Joseph Kraft showed that using sensitive oral glucose loading and testing insulin levels that insulin resistance is pervasive. Based on a more refined definition of insulin resistance, at least 80 percent of the population have diabetes in situ,2,3 which means they're insulin resistant even though their fasting glucose is normal.

This is where low-carb can be really useful, yet it alone will still not be enough for many. A lot of people need to get even more aggressive and do fasting. Once you've done that for a while and resolve the insulin resistance, you need to cycle net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) back in.

"Low-carbohydrate eating … is a great tool to lose weight, and lose fat around the organs. You start improving insulin sensitivity because of that weight loss, and because of the reduction in the energy surplus that many people are constantly surrounded with. But I use the analogy of a [broken] refrigerator.

Your refrigerator breaks. You can do one of two things. You can say, 'OK, I'm never going to buy any perishable food again. Everything I'm going to buy is going to be dry goods as long as the freezer or the refrigerator is broken.' Or, you can fix the refrigerator.

Low-carbohydrate diets are like saying, 'Let's not use our refrigerator anymore.' Let's not use our carbohydrate metabolism pathways anymore. Let's just avoid those. It's not actually fixing the issue. As anyone who knows who's been low-carb, you go low-carb for a while, and then you reintroduce carbohydrates and, whoa, it's terrible.

Your blood sugar goes crazy. You feel awful. It's like, 'Wow. The carbohydrates are terrible.' No. It's because your body is no longer working to metabolize them efficiently."

The converse can also occur. If you suppress insulin for too long, your blood sugar will tend to rise from hepatic gluconeogenesis. If you reintroduce carbohydrates at that point, it will raise insulin and lower your blood sugar. You can also eat too much fat; since fat is high in calories, the excess calories alone can lead to weight gain. As mentioned above, protein intake also needs to be regulated to avoid mTOR activation.

Traditional paleo is frequently high-protein, high-fat, similar to the Atkins approach. But you're not going to get all the benefits unless you restrict protein. As a general rule, I recommend limiting protein to half a gram per pound of lean body weight, to ensure you're getting the protein you need for muscle maintenance and repair. The answer is not to cut protein out altogether. You do need some, just not the enormous amounts most Americans are used to eating.

Focus on Nutrient Density

When asked what the best animal food composition might be, Minger stresses the importance of nutrient density over any specific dosage recommendations, as the ideal amount will depend on the type of meat you're eating. "For my own diet, I focus on organ meats and shellfish," she says. "Those are the primary foods I eat that are of animal origin. Oysters are my favorite. Nutritionally, if you look at liver and oysters, oysters are kind of like the liver of the ocean."

People who shun animal foods due to ethical concerns about eating something that is highly sentient can also take heart in the fact that oysters lack the central nervous system "that would make them equivalent to a cow." "There's a bivalve vegan movement, where people are vegan with the inclusion of certain shellfish. I think that can go a long way for people to balance out a vegan diet," she says.

As for cooking, Minger recommends using gentle methods to avoid the creation of carcinogens associated with high-temperature cooking. These byproducts "seem to be driving the correlation between meat consumption and different cancers that we see in observational studies," she says.

"Whenever you look at a study that actually controls for the cooking method, typically once you take away the high-heat kind of strategies for cooking your meat, the correlations with various diseases start to diminish, if not disappear completely." Byproducts created during grilling and frying include heterocyclic amines and polyaromatic hydrocarbons that form carcinogens. So, don't overcook your meat, and balance muscle meat (steaks) with organ meat and other animal parts.

How Minger's Diet Has Changed Over the Years

When asked how her diet has changed over the past seven years, and what insights changed her approach to eating the most, Minger replies:

"I started out really fruit-based from my raw vegan history. I would eat a ton of fruit in the morning; smoothies … In learning more about the gut microbiome, learning about digestive-resistant starch; different forms of fiber and their effect on the body, I've been incorporating more legumes, lentils and potatoes that have been heated and cooled [to increase] the resistant starch content. I think that has helped a lot.

I've also flipped my diet in terms of staggering macronutrients throughout the day. I used to start with a lot of carbohydrate and not much else (in the form of fruit). Now, I usually start with a lot of protein and vegetables, and have my high-carb meals at the end of the day. I find that helps with sleep, energy levels [and] focus."

It's worth noting that legumes may not be ideal for everyone, especially if you have autoimmune issues. I've previously interviewed Dr. Steven Gundry, author of "The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in 'Healthy' Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain," on this issue, and I believe his theories are solid.

Minger, who does a lot of work with autoimmunity, agrees lectins can be problematic if you are susceptible to autoimmune problems, whether caused by genetics, lifestyle, antibiotic use or gut microbiome issues. "At that point, the lectin problem can be real," she says.

"There can be a legitimate reason to avoid foods that are high in certain lectins, especially the ones that are individually triggering autoimmune responses. But for people with a healthy gut microbiome, I don't see that being necessarily bad, because if you look at human history … the lectin content of wild foods is generally pretty high.

There's going to be a long adaptation period for us to learn how to coexist with those lectins in our diet. I think [the larger issue] is that the modern environment is creating a really unhealthy microbiome that's making it so some people cannot handle what should be a natural lectin load. That's my takeaway right now, subject to revision."

Critiquing the Blood Type Diet

In preparing for this interview, I watched some of Minger's latest material on YouTube. One of her most recent videos was a Weston A. Price Foundation presentation in which she critiqued Dr. Peter D'Adamo's blood type diet, detailed in his book, "Eat Right 4 Your Type."

I tried this diet back in the '90s and had to quit because it made me diabetic. My personal take on it is that while his recommendations for blood type O, which is about half the population, is consistent with what I believe is a healthy diet, it doesn't seem to work well for the other blood types. According to Minger:

"The fundamental issue with everything he's saying is that it's all wrong. The premise of his diet — that foods have different lectins [that] interact with what's expressed on our blood cells to cause issues within the blood, which then causes inflammation and disease — there's absolutely no mechanistic evidence showing that we can obtain high enough levels of lectins from certain foods, and that those foods will specifically interact with our specific blood type to create these problems.

That evidence just isn't there … [He may have had] a lab, but there are problems with the research actually being published. It certainly hasn't been replicated by other researchers. It's more of a, 'This is what I found. You have to take my word for it, because I wrote a book and I have a [medical] degree.' There's a certain, 'Just trust me. I'm a scientist,' behind that. If there's anything I don't like, it's that …

What fascinated me … [was that] our ABO blood group can actually influence the composition of our gut microbiome for people who are secretors — people who secrete their blood type antigens on the surface of mucous cells throughout the body, the saliva and the gut, the gut in particular.

Let's say you're a blood type A and you're secreting the A antigen on different cells within the gut. There are going to be certain bacteria that use that antigen as a food source and as an attachment site. Those specific bacteria are going to be more attracted to your microbiome. They're going to set up camp there, in a way that they might not be doing to somebody who's a blood type O. You're actually going to start shifting the proportion of different bacteria because of your blood type.

Tied into this is the idea of being a secretor versus a non-secretor. Most people are secretors. They will express their blood type antigens on the surface of different cells throughout the body. About 20 percent of the population are non-secretors.

For this group, regardless of what their actual blood type is, they have a much higher risk of a lot of digestive diseases, a lot of different health conditions in general, related to the fact that their microbiome is fundamentally different. It's providing a lack of attachment sites for different bacteria. So, there is an influence of blood type on different things going on in the body. It's just not through D'Adamo's theory."

Awesome Omnivore

After taking a professional hiatus, Minger is now working on a few new projects, including an e-book called "Awesome Omnivore." The book is a how-to guide for eating animal products in a way that minimizes potential risks and maximizes nutrition, including guidance on balancing methionine and glycine, differences in A1 versus A2 dairy, how to prepare meat to reduce carcinogen exposure, how to modify your animal food consumption based on genetics, and how to combine meat with other foods to reduce the absorption of heme iron to lower your risk of intestinal cancer and other health problems related to excessive iron.

High iron increases oxidative stress and can cause serious mitochondrial dysfunction. I have a genetic condition called thalassemia, which predisposes me to high iron levels. I have to be really vigilant about keeping my iron level low for these reasons.

As explained by Minger, because the molecular structure of heme is so similar to chlorophyll, if you eat lots of green leafy vegetables with your steak, the chlorophyll will inhibit absorption of some of the iron. "That alone is going to make that meal probably, on the whole, healthier for you," she says.

"There's this kind of dichotomy — you have the vegetable eaters and the meat eaters. The meat eaters are not usually eating enough vegetables to offset the heme issue. But if you look at studies that actually adjust for that one variable, the link with meat's problems tends to disappear.

It's, again, veggies to the rescue. But it doesn't mean that you can't eat meat too. Anyway, the book is going to be a collection of things people can do to ensure that the meat they're consuming, the eggs and the dairy products (if they're doing that), are as healthy as possible."

Plant-Based Paleo

Minger is also working on a book about plant-based paleo, designed for people who are committed to avoiding animal products, for whatever reason. The aim of this book is to provide strategies to help you stay as healthy as possible for as long as possible within the limitations of a plant-based diet.

"There are vegans who have survived a long time on their diet. It's not impossible. The human body is incredibly adaptable. But we need to understand what's working for those people.

We need to understand that there are a lot of genetic components that go into being able to convert plant-based nutrients into their active forms. Take beta-carotene, for example. People who have really good conversion of beta-carotene into retinol, they're probably not going to run into reproductive issues, teeth issues, skin issues or eye issues, like I did.

But for about 45 percent of the population, there are mutations with the BCMO1 gene that prevent that conversion from being efficient. If you have two very common polymorphisms, your conversion rate is going to drop by almost 70 percent.

Another less common mutation will tank your conversion by 90 percent. If you're a vegan, you're not eating any preformed vitamin A, and if you have some of those mutations, you're going to have problems pretty quickly. How do we work with people's genetics? How do we work with their dietary limitations?

Supplements would be good. I'd love for people to take cod liver oil if they can get over that one issue. But you need to be really aware of your specific conditions … I have those BCMO1 mutations. My vitamin A conversion is terrible. That's part of the reason that eating liver was a huge boon for my diet. It's my first concentrated source of vitamin A that I had in a decade, more than a decade."

Lifelong Learning Is Key to Staying Ahead

As nutritional science keeps moving forward, we're bound to learn new things about what we currently think of as factual. For example, Minger touches on evidence suggesting really low-fat intake may actually improve carbohydrate metabolism.

"We have the Randle cycle. There's competition between free fatty acids and glucose in the bloodstream for use as fuel. I think we have enough evidence to say pretty clearly that when you combine fat and carbohydrate within the same meal, if you're a healthy person — you're going to see a reduced blood-glucose response, but you're going to see the same amount of insulin secretion.

Fat doesn't decrease the insulin needs of your body when you're eating carbohydrate. It kind of amplifies it. There have been studies where they'll take a potato, feed it to a diabetic, then repeat the study with butter added … The more butter added to the potato, the more insulin the diabetic needs to use to deal with that meal. There's an interactive effect, even within the span of one meal, between fat and carbohydrate …

I don't believe in staying at one [end of the spectrum, i.e., high-carb or high-fat] forever. Obviously, you need fat-soluble nutrients. You're going to need some fatty foods that are highly nutritious too. At the same time, you're going to need to cycle in more carbohydrate to deal with the long-term consequences of ketogenic diets …

"I believe there's a way to integrate everything. What it comes back to is all the warring diet communities need to let go of the ego and communicate with each other. Stop saying, 'We own the truth.' Start listening to the other side and be curious about why things are working for them.

For me, that's the way I've learned best — by challenging what I believe. Because if what I believe can be dismantled, then it's not a good belief to hold. You need to constantly revise your theory about the world, about nutrition, about everything. It needs to be in a state of flux."

from HealthyLife via Jake Glover on Inoreader http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/07/08/the-china-study-and-other-nutrition-plans.aspx

[sherristockman]

A Critical Look at 'The China Study' and Other Diet Plans Dr. Mercola By Dr. Mercola Denise Minger is perhaps most noted for her comprehensive rebuttal of "The China Study" some eight years ago. She's heavily vested in the vegan versus omnivore battle, having cycled through vegetarianism and raw veganism, finally coming full circle to being an omnivore. Minger took to vegetarianism when she was just 7 years old. "I was eating steak one night at dinner and almost choked on it. I developed some kind of phobia surrounding things with meat textures and went vegetarian overnight," she explains. Raw Veganism Took a Toll on Health However, during the 10 years she remained a vegetarian, she began developing food allergies, including wheat and dairy allergies. "By the time I was a teenager, I was really health-conscious," she says. "I had to get into that whole scene just to stay healthy." At age 15, she discovered the raw vegan movement and got on the 80/10/10 diet, promoted by Dr. Douglas Graham. The diet is based on the hypothesis that we should eat what other primates eat, particularly frugivorous chimpanzees and bonobos. "I was reading about it online at the age of 15 without having any background in human biology, physiology or anthropology … I fell into this trap of logic, that humans are the only animals that cook our food. We're the only animals that eat this species-inappropriate diet, [so] I went raw vegan overnight," she says. "For one year straight, [I ate] nothing but fruits, vegetables and some nuts — all uncooked. I did great for the first month, as most people do when they stop eating crappy foods. After that, I started losing weight and muscle. My hair was falling out. My energy levels were fluctuating like crazy. I was in high school at the time, taking the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). My brain fog got so bad at one point that when I was taking the SAT, I would read the question and by the time I got to the end I couldn't remember what the first part said … The kicker for me, because I've always taken great care of my teeth, was at the end of this period of raw veganism I had 16 cavities in my mouth, after a lifetime of what had previously been perfect dental health … It was actually the dental health issue that really turned my mind around … At that point, I had to let go of the vegan philosophy. I had to start questioning things … That's when I came across things like the Weston A. Price Foundation, which [details] what humans have been eating that has supported health in the past. I learned about the paleo movement — different forms of health-conscious omnivory. That's where I ended up. It was a process." Debunking 'The China Study' As mentioned, Minger produced a very comprehensive critique of "The China Study" which is the scientific justification for many vegan positions. Her analysis — which some suspected to be funded by the meat industry — was actually undertaken while recovering from an accident. At the age of 22, she was hit by a car while riding her bicycle and shattered her elbow. Her convalescence afforded her the time to work on this project. "I got a huge book of the raw 'China Study' data. I love numbers. I have fun with correlations. I have fun looking at patterns. My brain gets happy. I spent about two or three months poring over the data. I needed a project, because I had nothing else to do. I was poring over the data and that's when I realized I needed to write a critique of the book. So much of what [author T. Colin] Campbell said was not supported by his own data. I just felt like if there's anything I needed to do in life, it was going to be this. I didn't expect anyone to read it. I had a little blog. I like to say I had six readers, five of which were my mother on different computers. I didn't realize at the time how much interest the critique would gather; how much interest there was in that book itself. I hadn't really seen the rivalry upfront between the vegan and the paleo worlds. When I released this critique, I didn't know it was going to be that influential," she says. Minger developed quite a bit of notoriety as a result of that critique, especially in the vegan community. She's been vilified by many, including Campbell, who wrote personal rebuttals to her commentary on his work. Some have gone so far as to characterize her as someone who's promoting processed food. The Case for Lowering Protein Intake For all its drawbacks, there are benefits to veganism. The biggest one, from my perspective, is that vegans have — compared to those who eat the standard American diet — a significantly lower protein intake. I think there are valuable insights that can be drawn from that, which can be integrated into a low-carb paleo approach. Minger agrees, saying: "For the protein issue, what I find interesting is that whenever we look at the actual China Study, for example, when you look at their food intake, it's much different in terms of the types of animal parts they consume than what we see in America. The protein issue is complicated, but I will say that high methionine intake — for example from muscle meat — [needs to be balanced with] glycine. You get that by eating the entire animal, the skin, tendons, connective tissue — all the stuff that Americans typically discard … In the China Study, you don't see them eating steaks and chicken breasts at every meal. Even the lower animal product-consuming societies, a lot of them eat insects. A lot of them eat the weird parts of the animal. I think that's imperative for staying healthy on an omnivorous diet. Because the way we eat meat in America is pathogenic. It's not healthy. But it's not necessarily because animal products are bad for you … What was amusing to me, because it was completely left out of 'The China Study' book, was that the healthiest populations were the seafood eaters … They had the best health outcomes. The only disease that they had more of was liver cancer. That was because they were living in humid areas where aflatoxin was more prevalent … But it wasn't because of the animal protein. It wasn't because of the fish." This makes sense considering the importance of long-chained omega-3 fats: eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Those who restrict themselves to a plant-based diet are only getting alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) which, while being a precursor for EPA and DHA cannot be converted at significant, therapeutic levels. Protein Cycling Clearly, the composition of the animal protein is a significant issue. We don't want processed foods. We don't want meat from factory farms that is contaminated with glyphosate (due to contaminated grain feed). But there's also the issue of the amount. Many are simply eating far too much protein, which (when consumed in excess) activates mTOR, a pathway involved in both aging and cancer. Pulsing higher and lower amounts of protein also seems a wise strategy. "When we look at historical groups of humans, the animal food intake was generally on the lean side. We don't have year-round access to these big fatty animals … It's going to be seasonal when it occurs at all," Minger says. "I'm reminded of a study on Australian aborigines. They put people out in the wild to try to acquire foods from their environment and survive on that … Their fat intake ended up being something like 8 to 12 percent, because the animals were so lean and the lean protein intake was consequently much higher. I have trouble believing that animal protein itself is going to be a problem. I think what might be a problem is this consistency thing — the idea that eating the same foods year-round, without any fluctuation in the composition of the diet, is healthy. I don't think that's the case … I think things like protein cycling might be therapeutic for humans. I think that even carb cycling and going through different periods of different macronutrient intakes instead of always being low-fat or always being low-carb [is a good idea]. That's probably what the human body is best adapted to." Macronutrient Cycling — An Overlooked Component of Optimal Health In deconstructing and assessing the low-carb, high-fat approach, Minger concluded the lack of high and low nutrient cycling was one of the main problems, especially long-term, and particularly for women. "I do one-on-one consulting with people," she says. "A large group that I have come in contact with are women who've done low-carb. Their thyroid function is tanking. They're gaining weight. They feel terrible. Their hair is falling out. It happens with men too sometimes, but I think women, hormonally, are more sensitive to the lack of carbohydrates." She's also found evidence suggesting chronic lack of carbohydrates may be having an adverse effect on your gut microbiome. In his commentary, "Sorry Low Carbers, Your Microbiome Is Just Not That Into You,"1 Jeff Leach with the Human Food Project details the likely shifts found in the gut microbiome composition of people who consume low-carbohydrate diets. Whether or not those shifts are wholly detrimental or not is still unknown, but it's worth keeping an eye on. Minger is equally ambivalent about long-term, chronic high-fat consumption, as some of the evidence suggests it may increase gut permeability and the transport of endotoxin from gram-negative bacteria into the bloodstream, which increases chronic inflammation and related health problems. "On one hand, we see people switching away from the standard American diet to low-carb. Yeah, they're going to feel great. Yeah, they're going to lose weight. There's going to be this initial honeymoon period, just like I had with raw veganism. My question is what happens over the course of many years on a large scale … I'm wondering what the bulk of the evidence is going to show. I don't know if we really know that yet." From my perspective, I think there are compelling reasons to suspect one might run into problems, for many of the reasons Minger cites. It appears nutrient cycling (i.e., cycling between higher and lower amounts of fat, net carbs and protein), and also cycling between high and low calorie intakes (fasting and feasting), are foundational criteria for optimal biological functioning. The challenge is to find that happy balance. When writing "Fat for Fuel: A Revolutionary Diet to Combat Cancer, Boost Brain Power, and Increase Your Energy," I dove deep into the scientific literature looking at this aspect of health. Cyclical Ketogenic Diet Is Ideally Combined With Cyclical Fasting First of all, the late Dr. Joseph Kraft showed that using sensitive oral glucose loading and testing insulin levels that insulin resistance is pervasive. Based on a more refined definition of insulin resistance, at least 80 percent of the population have diabetes in situ,2,3 which means they're insulin resistant even though their fasting glucose is normal. This is where low-carb can be really useful, yet it alone will still not be enough for many. A lot of people need to get even more aggressive and do fasting. Once you've done that for a while and resolve the insulin resistance, you need to cycle net carbs (total carbs minus fiber) back in. "Low-carbohydrate eating … is a great tool to lose weight, and lose fat around the organs. You start improving insulin sensitivity because of that weight loss, and because of the reduction in the energy surplus that many people are constantly surrounded with. But I use the analogy of a [broken] refrigerator. Your refrigerator breaks. You can do one of two things. You can say, 'OK, I'm never going to buy any perishable food again. Everything I'm going to buy is going to be dry goods as long as the freezer or the refrigerator is broken.' Or, you can fix the refrigerator. Low-carbohydrate diets are like saying, 'Let's not use our refrigerator anymore.' Let's not use our carbohydrate metabolism pathways anymore. Let's just avoid those. It's not actually fixing the issue. As anyone who knows who's been low-carb, you go low-carb for a while, and then you reintroduce carbohydrates and, whoa, it's terrible. Your blood sugar goes crazy. You feel awful. It's like, 'Wow. The carbohydrates are terrible.' No. It's because your body is no longer working to metabolize them efficiently." The converse can also occur. If you suppress insulin for too long, your blood sugar will tend to rise from hepatic gluconeogenesis. If you reintroduce carbohydrates at that point, it will raise insulin and lower your blood sugar. You can also eat too much fat; since fat is high in calories, the excess calories alone can lead to weight gain. As mentioned above, protein intake also needs to be regulated to avoid mTOR activation. Traditional paleo is frequently high-protein, high-fat, similar to the Atkins approach. But you're not going to get all the benefits unless you restrict protein. As a general rule, I recommend limiting protein to half a gram per pound of lean body weight, to ensure you're getting the protein you need for muscle maintenance and repair. The answer is not to cut protein out altogether. You do need some, just not the enormous amounts most Americans are used to eating. Focus on Nutrient Density When asked what the best animal food composition might be, Minger stresses the importance of nutrient density over any specific dosage recommendations, as the ideal amount will depend on the type of meat you're eating. "For my own diet, I focus on organ meats and shellfish," she says. "Those are the primary foods I eat that are of animal origin. Oysters are my favorite. Nutritionally, if you look at liver and oysters, oysters are kind of like the liver of the ocean." People who shun animal foods due to ethical concerns about eating something that is highly sentient can also take heart in the fact that oysters lack the central nervous system "that would make them equivalent to a cow." "There's a bivalve vegan movement, where people are vegan with the inclusion of certain shellfish. I think that can go a long way for people to balance out a vegan diet," she says. As for cooking, Minger recommends using gentle methods to avoid the creation of carcinogens associated with high-temperature cooking. These byproducts "seem to be driving the correlation between meat consumption and different cancers that we see in observational studies," she says. "Whenever you look at a study that actually controls for the cooking method, typically once you take away the high-heat kind of strategies for cooking your meat, the correlations with various diseases start to diminish, if not disappear completely." Byproducts created during grilling and frying include heterocyclic amines and polyaromatic hydrocarbons that form carcinogens. So, don't overcook your meat, and balance muscle meat (steaks) with organ meat and other animal parts. How Minger's Diet Has Changed Over the Years When asked how her diet has changed over the past seven years, and what insights changed her approach to eating the most, Minger replies: "I started out really fruit-based from my raw vegan history. I would eat a ton of fruit in the morning; smoothies … In learning more about the gut microbiome, learning about digestive-resistant starch; different forms of fiber and their effect on the body, I've been incorporating more legumes, lentils and potatoes that have been heated and cooled [to increase] the resistant starch content. I think that has helped a lot. I've also flipped my diet in terms of staggering macronutrients throughout the day. I used to start with a lot of carbohydrate and not much else (in the form of fruit). Now, I usually start with a lot of protein and vegetables, and have my high-carb meals at the end of the day. I find that helps with sleep, energy levels [and] focus." It's worth noting that legumes may not be ideal for everyone, especially if you have autoimmune issues. I've previously interviewed Dr. Steven Gundry, author of "The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in 'Healthy' Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain," on this issue, and I believe his theories are solid. Minger, who does a lot of work with autoimmunity, agrees lectins can be problematic if you are susceptible to autoimmune problems, whether caused by genetics, lifestyle, antibiotic use or gut microbiome issues. "At that point, the lectin problem can be real," she says. "There can be a legitimate reason to avoid foods that are high in certain lectins, especially the ones that are individually triggering autoimmune responses. But for people with a healthy gut microbiome, I don't see that being necessarily bad, because if you look at human history … the lectin content of wild foods is generally pretty high. There's going to be a long adaptation period for us to learn how to coexist with those lectins in our diet. I think [the larger issue] is that the modern environment is creating a really unhealthy microbiome that's making it so some people cannot handle what should be a natural lectin load. That's my takeaway right now, subject to revision." Critiquing the Blood Type Diet In preparing for this interview, I watched some of Minger's latest material on YouTube. One of her most recent videos was a Weston A. Price Foundation presentation in which she critiqued Dr. Peter D'Adamo's blood type diet, detailed in his book, "Eat Right 4 Your Type." I tried this diet back in the '90s and had to quit because it made me diabetic. My personal take on it is that while his recommendations for blood type O, which is about half the population, is consistent with what I believe is a healthy diet, it doesn't seem to work well for the other blood types. According to Minger: "The fundamental issue with everything he's saying is that it's all wrong. The premise of his diet — that foods have different lectins [that] interact with what's expressed on our blood cells to cause issues within the blood, which then causes inflammation and disease — there's absolutely no mechanistic evidence showing that we can obtain high enough levels of lectins from certain foods, and that those foods will specifically interact with our specific blood type to create these problems. That evidence just isn't there … [He may have had] a lab, but there are problems with the research actually being published. It certainly hasn't been replicated by other researchers. It's more of a, 'This is what I found. You have to take my word for it, because I wrote a book and I have a [medical] degree.' There's a certain, 'Just trust me. I'm a scientist,' behind that. If there's anything I don't like, it's that … What fascinated me … [was that] our ABO blood group can actually influence the composition of our gut microbiome for people who are secretors — people who secrete their blood type antigens on the surface of mucous cells throughout the body, the saliva and the gut, the gut in particular. Let's say you're a blood type A and you're secreting the A antigen on different cells within the gut. There are going to be certain bacteria that use that antigen as a food source and as an attachment site. Those specific bacteria are going to be more attracted to your microbiome. They're going to set up camp there, in a way that they might not be doing to somebody who's a blood type O. You're actually going to start shifting the proportion of different bacteria because of your blood type. Tied into this is the idea of being a secretor versus a non-secretor. Most people are secretors. They will express their blood type antigens on the surface of different cells throughout the body. About 20 percent of the population are non-secretors. For this group, regardless of what their actual blood type is, they have a much higher risk of a lot of digestive diseases, a lot of different health conditions in general, related to the fact that their microbiome is fundamentally different. It's providing a lack of attachment sites for different bacteria. So, there is an influence of blood type on different things going on in the body. It's just not through D'Adamo's theory." Awesome Omnivore After taking a professional hiatus, Minger is now working on a few new projects, including an e-book called "Awesome Omnivore." The book is a how-to guide for eating animal products in a way that minimizes potential risks and maximizes nutrition, including guidance on balancing methionine and glycine, differences in A1 versus A2 dairy, how to prepare meat to reduce carcinogen exposure, how to modify your animal food consumption based on genetics, and how to combine meat with other foods to reduce the absorption of heme iron to lower your risk of intestinal cancer and other health problems related to excessive iron. High iron increases oxidative stress and can cause serious mitochondrial dysfunction. I have a genetic condition called thalassemia, which predisposes me to high iron levels. I have to be really vigilant about keeping my iron level low for these reasons. As explained by Minger, because the molecular structure of heme is so similar to chlorophyll, if you eat lots of green leafy vegetables with your steak, the chlorophyll will inhibit absorption of some of the iron. "That alone is going to make that meal probably, on the whole, healthier for you," she says. "There's this kind of dichotomy — you have the vegetable eaters and the meat eaters. The meat eaters are not usually eating enough vegetables to offset the heme issue. But if you look at studies that actually adjust for that one variable, the link with meat's problems tends to disappear. It's, again, veggies to the rescue. But it doesn't mean that you can't eat meat too. Anyway, the book is going to be a collection of things people can do to ensure that the meat they're consuming, the eggs and the dairy products (if they're doing that), are as healthy as possible." Plant-Based Paleo Minger is also working on a book about plant-based paleo, designed for people who are committed to avoiding animal products, for whatever reason. The aim of this book is to provide strategies to help you stay as healthy as possible for as long as possible within the limitations of a plant-based diet. "There are vegans who have survived a long time on their diet. It's not impossible. The human body is incredibly adaptable. But we need to understand what's working for those people. We need to understand that there are a lot of genetic components that go into being able to convert plant-based nutrients into their active forms. Take beta-carotene, for example. People who have really good conversion of beta-carotene into retinol, they're probably not going to run into reproductive issues, teeth issues, skin issues or eye issues, like I did. But for about 45 percent of the population, there are mutations with the BCMO1 gene that prevent that conversion from being efficient. If you have two very common polymorphisms, your conversion rate is going to drop by almost 70 percent. Another less common mutation will tank your conversion by 90 percent. If you're a vegan, you're not eating any preformed vitamin A, and if you have some of those mutations, you're going to have problems pretty quickly. How do we work with people's genetics? How do we work with their dietary limitations? Supplements would be good. I'd love for people to take cod liver oil if they can get over that one issue. But you need to be really aware of your specific conditions … I have those BCMO1 mutations. My vitamin A conversion is terrible. That's part of the reason that eating liver was a huge boon for my diet. It's my first concentrated source of vitamin A that I had in a decade, more than a decade." Lifelong Learning Is Key to Staying Ahead As nutritional science keeps moving forward, we're bound to learn new things about what we currently think of as factual. For example, Minger touches on evidence suggesting really low-fat intake may actually improve carbohydrate metabolism. "We have the Randle cycle. There's competition between free fatty acids and glucose in the bloodstream for use as fuel. I think we have enough evidence to say pretty clearly that when you combine fat and carbohydrate within the same meal, if you're a healthy person — you're going to see a reduced blood-glucose response, but you're going to see the same amount of insulin secretion. Fat doesn't decrease the insulin needs of your body when you're eating carbohydrate. It kind of amplifies it. There have been studies where they'll take a potato, feed it to a diabetic, then repeat the study with butter added … The more butter added to the potato, the more insulin the diabetic needs to use to deal with that meal. There's an interactive effect, even within the span of one meal, between fat and carbohydrate … I don't believe in staying at one [end of the spectrum, i.e., high-carb or high-fat] forever. Obviously, you need fat-soluble nutrients. You're going to need some fatty foods that are highly nutritious too. At the same time, you're going to need to cycle in more carbohydrate to deal with the long-term consequences of ketogenic diets … "I believe there's a way to integrate everything. What it comes back to is all the warring diet communities need to let go of the ego and communicate with each other. Stop saying, 'We own the truth.' Start listening to the other side and be curious about why things are working for them. For me, that's the way I've learned best — by challenging what I believe. Because if what I believe can be dismantled, then it's not a good belief to hold. You need to constantly revise your theory about the world, about nutrition, about everything. It needs to be in a state of flux."

[theastonishingkylejackson]

#gallery-0-4 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 25%; } #gallery-0-4 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-4 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

What happens when you take two writers, who are always glued to a computer, writing down their thoughts who have seemingly different backgrounds, perspectives and lifestyles, and give them the same topic to write about?

Let’s find out. 

As of today, The Astonishing Tales digital online magazine will be pairing up editor Jamie Alyson Dwyer and publisher Kyle Jackson on a weekly basis, to tackle one column, from the perspectives of a married woman and a single guy.

For the first topic in their weekly series, Jamie and Kyle will give their opinions on the age old question (maybe it’s not an age old question, but in today’s day and age, it ought to be):

What Does Love Mean to You?

    What Does Love Mean TO ME – By Jamie Alyson Dwyer, Married and the Contributing Cultural Editor

Love is not quantitative, Love is absolute.

My husband uttered these words to me the other night when I asked him why he didn’t respond back to my, “I love you more.” I absolutely agree with him and interesting enough, he is right. You either love something or you don’t.

But love can mean so many things. Today I am going to explore what “I love you” means for me. These three little words that can hold such powerful meaning and energy. I don’t typically say I love you just for any reason.

When I say I love you to someone it is because I absolutely admire them. I will help them in times of need and I will be the best friend I can possibly be for them.

When spoken to my family, this is the never ending, has always been there type of love. Even when I despised the thought of being near one, I still had love. You can love something but it doesn’t mean you have to like them. Now isn’t that an interesting thought? My mema once told this to me about someone and I never really understood what that meant until I got older. In my case, I love this person.

They are close family and I would help them anyway that I possibly could. I would mourn them if they ceased to exist, but it doesn’t mean that I liked them. I didn’t want to be near them. There was nothing in common, lack of respect from both parties and just a sense of loss of the friendship we once shared. But I loved them. And still do. We are on much better terms these days because I learned to love and ACCEPT who they are and their individual growth.

Accept could be a deeper meaning of an I love you from me. I accept you. I accept your flaws, your choices, your uniqueness that is you. I accept you therefore I love you. But that is only once aspect of loving someone for me.

My husband. The man I love more than anyone else.

  [amazon_link asins=’B01N6IRLJZ,B01LZEO446,B01N6BL78E,B075R8PQ5B,B076J43NMC,B075L7JGC3,B003NX8C7E,B072F9G6WJ’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’theastonish0b-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’58bdab5f-c240-11e7-b6dd-af85982c4588′]

  He is my best friend. My partner. My lover. My everything. When I say I love you to him, its different than that to say, my dad. I LOVE my husband. Deeper. With more passion. With more gusto to please and adore. With more acceptance than any other. I would die in his place if it meant that he could have one more day.

My world would cease to exist without his presence. There is a longing there to protect, love, adore, to please. This is the deepest love I can feel. He gave me children that are of him. Which leads me to what I love you means in those moments.

When I speak these words to my children, its a deep feeling of unconditional love. A love so strong that I would go to the ends of the Earth and back again to make sure they are always happy, complete and loved. Without them in my life, I have no motivation to succeed. I have forgotten what life is like without having them here to giggle in small moments. To hear the sound of their tiny feet upon the ground or the soft whispers of mommy at three am with deep warm snuggles. In those moments, my heart explodes with so much love. I love them. More and more and more and more.

I love you is such a powerful statement. Like with all my best of friends that I have said I love you too, its because I really do. I will always be a shoulder to cry on.

I will always accept your flaws and remind you of how great you truly are. I will want nothing but the best for you. I love you to my friends is my seal for the friendship we will share. But I believe it is something you shouldn’t say lightly.

It is a commitment. A bond between you and another that says, “you be who you are and I will be me; let’s accept and cherish all that we can individually be.” That may be the basis of what I love you means for me. So if you ever hear me utter these words to you, I absolutely mean it. I won’t just say it to make you feel good or because you may have said it to me. I will say it to you when I mean it and I am feeling it in my heart center.

And then when I say I love you on a Facebook or Instagram post, I’m saying it out of sheer happiness and understanding that someone needs to be told they are loved. Even if I haven’t met them, I have been working on loving everyone.

This is a hard journey but one I took from a mentor of mine. His name is Jesus. “Love one another, as I love you.” A wise man indeed. Learning to love all that is, was and ever will be. Maybe once we learn to say I love you with a meaning of acceptance for one another, the world can truly be beautiful. I know we are on the path to this life of utopia, so let’s accelerate the process and get us there even faster. What if we taught our children to utter I love you as much as we want them to say please and thank you? What magnificent energy that this world would emit. Pure, unconditional loving energy.

I’m The Astonishing Jamie Alyson Dwyer and I approve my Love Message!

    What Love Means To ME – By The Astonishing Kyle Jackson, Single and Publisher of The Astonishing Tales

  For me, when I say I love you, it means I cherish you and I accept you for who you were, who you are, and who you will always be.

When I say the words, I’m in Love with You, it means that I choose you to be the person I’m always happy saying the words I love you to, and I’ll always be smiling at you, and even through the good times and bad times, especially the bad, I can always recall that you’re the person I chose. And you chose me.

Maybe it’s old fashioned, but I expect the same thing when someone says both those things to me. I’m an open person and I d my best to let it all hang out and be that person who shares everything.

When I take a lover, I let them know the whole me, the good, the bad, the ugly, and the astonishing, so they can fully make an informed decision about if they want to be with me.

I expect the same as well I suppose. When I think of love and what it should be, I think of it as the truest partnership between two people.

Two people who’s hearts have chosen each other, but their minds have to understand each I guess.  Love is about making a promise that is unspoken to always be there, to always support that person and stand by them, and be whatever they need you to be. Love is saying I want you, I choose you, but I need you because you are the balance to who I am. Love – and when you say I love you – it means sometimes you also have to be the person to say, “I want what’s best for you and I won’t let you hurt yourself. Or us and this love that we have.”

But I’ve learned in the last years of my life that love is powerful, and it can overcome you. And when you fully feel it for a woman, it becomes your life. You sacrifice things that you never thought you’d sacrifice and you accept things and make compromises that you never thought you make. All because you love someone. And you love them unconditionally.

The only thing that can change that is if they don’t love you back. And understand, not everyone loves the same.

I’m a divorcee. I was divorced by the time I was 22-years-old. Yeah, I like to start out young.

  [amazon_link asins=’B071HFNY5H,B075CDR4Q3,B074M5CFMY,B01082NMLI,B071NTK5K1,B075469T1J,B01EL3K8T4,B00SZXDX6W’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’theastonish0b-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’05805ac6-c241-11e7-9425-bf1a7048c2a1′]

  With that relationship, I learned that love can be just a game to some people. And I stopped trying to love and spent most of my twenties playing around, and doing everything I could running from love. Oh, but I’m a hopeless romantic deep down. And I did find love…. but I wasn’t ready to fall in love though.

And a few women loved me deeply…. even a wonderful Cajun girl who loved me with all her heart. But I wasn’t ready for it, and I hurt her. However, coming out of my twenties, I then found love with someone else. I found for me, true love. Because I never loved as hard as I did in that relationship.

Today, November 5th, I turn 35. And I’m single right now. That relationship where I loved so hard…. it wasn’t meant to be.

But no regrets. I believe that you can love someone and even if it doesn’t work out, you can still come out stronger because I can sleep well at night knowing that I loved with all I had and I did everything I could. So I’m not soured on love. I’m not bitter. I’m not chasing down the past or trying to find someone else to replace or fill a void. Instead, I’m just a guy carrying on and moving forward, with my fondest memories of a beautiful life that I lived with a woman that I loved, that just wasn’t meant to be.

I still love the idea of love. I love being in love. I loved being in love with this person. Maybe one day I’ll do it again. I don’t envy people who are in love, because truly, each person’s love is different. You could read my thoughts on love and think, “I don’t agree with his hypothesis of love.”

That’s okay. Love is like cooking. We all do it differently, but the meal kinda sometimes comes out the same, you know?

Sadly, a lot of us burn the meal. But it’s just a matter of if you still sit down and enjoy it and eat it like it’s a steak from Ruth Chris Steakhouse.

And like a meal…. sometimes that love you have…. you’ve got to send it back to the kitchen because it’s just not edible.

I guess that’s my thoughts on love. Love and the words I love you and being in love are only as good as the people who are in it.

Otherwise, it’s just a dinner sitting on a beautiful table, waiting to be eaten. And it’s a delicious meal depending on who’s eating the damn thing.

  I am The Astonishing Kyle Jackson and I approve this message of Love!

  If you like this column, send us an email at astonishingtales@gmail.com and give us a topic for next week’s column that you want our opinions on. We’re Two Writers, One Column!

  [amazon_link asins=’B0747BML5G,B01N54NM3G,B0754KBKVY,B07528KM6C,B075FR4LTM,B0716HWPBX,B01B5GVKW4,B074DTSC6Z’ template=’ProductCarousel’ store=’theastonish0b-20′ marketplace=’US’ link_id=’6589777b-c241-11e7-a1e5-51dac69da33d’]

Two Writers, One Column What happens when you take two writers, who are always glued to a computer, writing down their thoughts who have seemingly different backgrounds, perspectives and lifestyles, and give them the same topic to write about?

[luissilvailustracion-blog]

Ten Keys to Writing a Bad Dissertation

Does anyone set out to write a bad dissertation? It hardly seems possible. Most of us probably begin our doctoral programs convinced that the ideas we put forth in our dissertations will change the face of our disciplines forever! But after years spent reading hundreds of doctoral dissertations--first as a grad student, then as a professor, and now as a professional dissertation editor and coach--I can't help but observe: There are a lot of bad dissertations out there! Really great dissertations are pretty rare. They require unique insight, groundbreaking research, rigorous logic, and a touch of artistry. So I'm not sure I could promise to tell you exactly how to make your dissertation great. But I've discovered that there are some common threads that run through most of the lousy dissertations I've read. So I thought I could share with you some of what I've learned by reading bad doctoral dissertations. That way, if you'd like to write a bad dissertation of your own, you'd know how to go about doing it. Or better yet, if you'd like to write a good dissertation of your own, you'd have some idea of common pitfalls.

Dissertation Writing help 

Here are ten common mistakes you should avoid if you want your dissertation to be worthwhile. 1. Surround yourself with like-minded people. We all like to be right. And what better way to convince yourself you're right than by being surrounded by people who agree with you? When choosing a doctoral program, it's natural to gravitate toward schools, departments, and faculty who share our views--conservative or liberal, this methodology or that one, a particular school of thought or perspective or approach. The good news is that, if you manage to surround yourself with people who think just like you do, you'll encounter little resistance as you write. The bad news is that, when you've finished writing, your research will be much less likely to stand up to serious challenge, since you've not had to grapple with opposing points of view along the way. In short, serious challenge has a way of forging strong arguments, and the lack of it has a way of making thought go soft. Do yourself a favor: Seek out an environment that will provide challenge while you're writing, and you'll find that your dissertation is far better prepared for the challenges it will face when UMI makes it available to the whole world that exists beyond your university. 2. Choose a topic that is only of interest to you. It's a common joke that "No one knows as much as a freshman." In other words, part of the process of learning is learning how much we still need to learn! When we set out to write our dissertations, we're like freshmen starting out in school--we don't yet know how much we don't know, because we've not yet had the chance to explore fully what others have done. At this early stage of the dissertation project, it's possible to convince ourselves that a topic is fascinating when, in fact, that topic has become passe because of the treatment it has already received; it's also possible to get occupied with questions that are divorced from the real concerns in the field at present. Two of the best sources for ensuring that your dissertation topic is relevant and worthwhile are recent dissertations and current periodicals. Immerse yourself in these resources at the beginning of your project. Even if you just read the titles, you'll be more likely to situate your work in the context of what other scholars are doing right now.

3. Keep the scope of your study broad and the terms vague.

Doctoral-level work requires examination of a topic at great

depth.

And in this kind of research, the number one enemy of depth is

breadth

. An essential key to writing a good dissertation is to have a clear and precise focus for your work. Other interesting ideas will emerge along the way; resist them--for now. When you've finished your dissertation, you can return to those other ideas for the articles and books you'll write in the next stage of your career.

4. Don't constrain your creativity with an outline.

For years, teachers have been telling you to outline your papers before you write. And for years you've probably been ignoring them. But here you are, starting your doctorate--obviously, it was advice you didn't need! Dissertation writing is different. You're going to write hundreds of pages over a period that may take years; it will be easy to get lost along the way, especially as your ideas evolve. Planning ahead is the only way to ensure that your dissertation will be focused, well-structured, and clearly argued; it's also the only way to ensure that it will ever end! A careful, detailed outline is indispensable. You may amend it as you progress with your research, but don't omit it or abandon it. As a dissertation writer, the outline is your yellow brick road!

5. Confine your bibliography to sources that support your point of view.

Contrary to popular opinion, the purpose of a dissertation is not to prove a pre-determined point; it is to study a worthwhile question. After all, if the answer can be determined before the research is even done, then what's the value of the work? In the end, a dissertation that disproves your initial hypothesis is just as valuable to the academic community as one that proves you right. What is not valuable at all is a dissertation that's half-baked because it has only considered

some

of the available evidence, arguments, and points of view. Don't stack the deck in your favor; read everything relevant to your topic, from every point of view. In the process, your ideas will mature. The end result will be a dissertation that has far greater depth--and credibility.

6. Presume that if it's not in English or on the Internet, it mustn't be important.

Believe it or not, there's a reason for those language requirements that doctoral programs impose on us. It's not just that smart people speak more than one language! The point is to open the door to valuable literature that is available--but not in English. Relying on English alone means that some literature (and ideas) will be completely unavailable to you, and other literature will be available only through the interpretation of a translator. It really is worth the effort to learn to read the languages in which your most important sources are written. Without them, your research is incomplete.

And read books . . . and articles! As lucky as we are to have access to so many sources available on the Internet, we can't forget that there's something print sources have that entirely Web-based sources do not:

gatekeepers

. For a book or an article to appear in print, someone (typically a group of scholars in the field) has determined that it was worthwhile. They may not necessarily have agreed with its point of view, but they found that it met the standards of sound methodology, rational argumentation, and timeliness. On the Internet, anyone may publish anything at any time--making the quality of Web sources dangerously uneven. Internet research is here to stay, and that's a good thing. But there's no substitute for books and articles written by reputable scholars in your field. Be sure that Web-based sources do not constitute the bulk of your bibliography, or you could find that you've left the mainstream without even realizing it and stepped away from some of the most important resources available to you.

7. Let your assertions stand by force, not by proof.

Spend enough hours listening to cable news and you may start to get the impression that the goal of debate is to win, and the way to win is to outshout the other side! Being a geek by nature, I sometimes like to play little academic games when I watch T.V

8. Turn in your first draft.

The revision process is about polishing your work. Weak arguments get strengthened, fuzzy ideas get clarified, redundancies get eliminated, language gets tightened. If you're like most doctorandi, you're always rushing toward the next deadline. When running out of time, the easiest thing to cut out is the revision process. Resist that temptation.

9. Don't bother with input from others.

You've probably had only a course or two in statistics; why not let a professional statistician help you with the statistical portions of your work? You may not be confident of your APA formatting (or whatever style sheet you're using); why not let a professional editor proof your text? What about just having someone in your department give you feedback on the cogency of your arguments? There's nothing like a fresh set of eyes to catch the things that you're too close to see anymore. Staying well within the bounds of academic integrity, don't be afraid to reach out for help with the aspects of your work in which you're not an expert, so that the expertise you do have is presented as effectively as it can be.

10. Prove your point at all cost.

What's wrong with being wrong? The process of determining that fact will be a valuable contribution to your field. Academic work is a process of discovery, and sometimes that means discovering that our initial hypotheses were wrong. The honest presentation of the sound methodology leading you to that conclusion will be worthwhile reading for your colleagues. Any effort to get around the facts will show

bias

--the single greatest threat to a worthwhile dissertation. In academia, there's no failure where there's genuine learning. By contrast, there's nothing but failure when points are "proven" by doctored results, ignored evidence, faked methodologies supplied after the research has actually been done, and forced arguments designed to cover up the truth and arrive at a preferred conclusion. You can start your project with this confidence: If you carry out your research with integrity, follow a solid methodology, consider all relevant points of view, and report honestly what you find, then whatever conclusion you reach will be worthwhile. And if you don't, it won't.

[firstumcschenectady]

“On Not Being Silent in Church” based on 1 Corinthians 14:26-36

This passage starts out so well. It starts out reminding me of the good things about Paul, including that Paul would have made a good Wesleyan since he really likes order. His suggestions are sensible, and aimed at creating a positive experience for everyone present. He suggests that worship should be communal, that all who show up should have something to offer. For a small house church, that's a great model! Even for a larger community, it serves to remind all of us that being the Body of Christ is an active thing, that each of us have things to offer and the Body is at its best when we receive gifts from many people and use them together!

Paul reminds the church in Corinth that the purpose of their shared time of worship is to build each other up. The book of First Corinthians has a whole lot of suggestions like that, and most scholars think that's because the church in Corinth was spending a lot of time fighting with each other.

Paul seeks to limit the gift of tongues, which he does a lot in his letters. Paul is said to have the gift of tongues, but in the early church there were those who believed speaking in tongues was the best gift of the Spirit and the most faithful people all had it. Paul spends a lot of time fighting that, including in this passage. Here he limits the number of people who should do so at any one gathering AND he says that unless a partner in ministry is present who can interpret tongues, they shouldn't be spoken out loud. That is a very inclusive perspective, it means that no one present would end up just listening without getting anything out of it.

Paul gives instructions to those who speak prophecy too, also very practical stuff. He tells the church to carefully weigh what is said, not to take it as truth without discussion. Furthermore, he suggests that if two people are getting the same message, only one of them has to say it. That suggestion feels very much like a response to a direct complaint, and a reasonable response at that. He returns to the reminder that the work is to build each other up, and encourage each other. He says on theme in the end of the first paragraph, still responding to a direct issue. I imagine he was told, “They say that they can't prophesy one by one because the Spirit is moving in them!” As if in direct response, Paul says, “the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.”

Beautiful. Uplifting. Profound. Reasonable. Paul is building up the church, he is guiding the people, he is dealing with the reality of human struggles, he is doing it all.

And then.

And then I want to duct tape his mouth shut. The rather interesting passage offering insight about the early church and the sensible solutions of Paul takes a turn for the worse, or more precisely it falls off a cliff. We're going to see if we can find a safety net for it in a moment, but first I feel the need to convince you to take it seriously. Those of you in the room who join me in wanting to duct tape Paul's mouth shut may also want to just ignore this passage as irrelevant, or even use it as proof that the Bible is irrelevant. You may not want to talk about it, and you may not think it is worth your time to bother with it.

The issue is that this passage has been used to silence women since the time it was written (which itself is unclear) and is STILL used today. So we need to face the passage and its role in our broken body of Christ, like it or not. The numbers aren't entirely clear, but in the United States about 11% of religious communities over all, and 10% of Christian faith communities have female clergy leading them. If you want to feel good about your denomination, you can here. The highest number of female clergy in any denomination in the USA is in the UMC :) However, that's still about 1/3 of UMC clergy. The numbers of clergy women are low in part because of the many denomination that don't allow clergy women including the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Traditions, most of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Missouri Synod, the Church of Latter-Day Saints and a whole lot of non-denominational churches.1 They quote this passage as justification.

Furthermore, you don't want to know how many times I've gotten this text quoted at me, and been asked to justify my calling. Nor do I really want to relive all of it. This is a safe congregation where the love of God prevails and we all work together to minimize the impact of sexism in our community and our world. The very few overtly sexist comments I've received here have resulted in incredible support coming my way. (Thank you all!) However, as is true for other issues as well, this community of faith is like a well protected and vibrant tidal pool – and the rest of the Christian ocean seems very far away and unimportant. However, the rest of the Christian ocean doesn't actually go away when we ignore it.

People still quote this terrible text, and they still follow its instructions. These simple words are used to justify the institutional sexism of the churches, which are as a whole much more sexist than the culture at large.

So, while I believe that all of you already have ways to respond to this text, I want to make sure we all have a quiver-full of them. You never know when you might want one. Here are a whole lot of ways that a reasonable human could approach this text without assuming that their female pastor should be out of a job, without just ignoring it:

1.  If you read along in the NRSV you'd notice that this text is put in parenthesis. That's because the majority of Biblical scholars believe that it is not an original part of Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Rather, they think a later scribe wrote this into the margins to reflect the common practice of his time and it got accidentally moved into the primary text over time. This belief is justified by the fact that in our most ancient manuscripts this paragraph is in two different spots. It is also supported by the fact that in the rest of the 6 authentic Pauline letters, there are ABSOLUTELY NO LIMITS put on the activities of women in churches. To the contrary, in chapter 11 of this letter, women are instructed about how to pray and prophesy in church. There are MANY more examples of Paul speaking to, or about, women leaders of churches and supporting their work, but I think the point is already made: This particular text is unlikely to have been written by Paul, and does not reflect his thinking about women. Instead it looks like the conservative reaction of a later generation of thinker who distrusted women.

2.  If, for some reason, you or someone you are in conversation with doesn't think that is convincing, then we have some ways to work with the text assuming it is authentic to Paul.

a.  If Paul said it, then it said it to one particular community in one place in one time. Since it doesn't fit with other things he said, it seems like he was offering a solution to a particular problem. As no other faith community is the first century Corinthian church, the solution doesn't apply to all of us. (As an amusing aside, the “women” told to be silent in church are ACTUALLY “married women” according to the word used. This would suggest that if I took this text literally and believed it to be God's will then I shouldn't have gotten married this spring.)

b.  If this text is assumed to be authentic to Paul, then perhaps it fits into the argument he is already making in this passage. He has given subgroups limits in order to benefit the whole. He told those speaking in tongues to limit their gift, so as not to take over. He told those prophesying not to repeat each other, so as to respect the time of the others gathered. Many commentators have suggested that the women in the Corinthian church were really excited about Jesus and the chance to learn all they could. Because intensive Torah study had been limited to men in Judaism, the women may have been overwhelming the worship services with their questions. Thus, in order to not take over, Paul suggests that they work those questions out in private. It fits with his reactions to overwhelming subgroups AND his tendency toward practical solutions.

c.  Because of the lack of punctuation, it is not clear if Paul is actually speaking the words OR if he is quoting the men of the church! (This hypothesis holds a surprising amount of water.) In that case Paul is quoting that women should be silent, that they should be subordinate, and even that they should ask their husbands, that it is shameful for a woman to speak. But then HE is responding to those men who said so with, “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” (1 Cor 14:36, NRSV)2

Great. So, there are 4 reasonable responses to this passage which do not require that I sit down and stop talking. Amazingly a lot of Bible Commentaries don't come up with any of them though. One of them (that we own) tried to make this passage about keeping women from publicly embarrassing their husbands, and another (that we also currently still own) suggested that Paul was just making a good point about gender differentiated roles. Sometimes I think the Bible is one big ink blot test, something we all just project our already established biases onto. This serves as a commercial for the evening Bible Study: where we together read, question, learn, question, wonder and still question. We do our best to get information from many sources so we aren't led astray by other people's biases or our own.

Speaking of biases, this text has been used to weaken the Body of Christ throughout history. The Body is ALWAYS weaker when it represents less diverse voices. It takes the fullness of humanity to best be the Body of Christ, and the way this text has been used has stood in the way of that. The church has been weakened for nearly 2000 years because of misinterpretation of this passage. Let's be part of turning that around! Everywhere we go we can attend to who is at the table and who isn't. We can be voices that speak when groups of people missing (women, people of color, people living in poverty, members of the LGBTQIA community, younger or older people, etc), and in doing so heal the Body of Christ and the world. Thanks be to God it isn't yet too late. Amen

1 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/09/the-divide-over-ordaining-women/ and http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question3.html  These numbers are a bit dated, but I don't believe much has changed, unfortunately.

2 Summary worked from the insights found in “First Corinthians” in The New Interpreter's Bible Vol. IX, Leander Kirk, general editors (Abingdon Press, 2002)

--

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

July 16, 2017