💡 Things I looked up today. Obsidian. Conchoidal fracture… apparently there are names to the many ways that minerals can fracture. Materials science (is always fascinating): malleability, toughness, ductility, brittleness, plasticity, shock. Why crazing happens. Water hammers, hydraulic rams.  Heron’s fountain, invented in the first century AD.  The physics behind water rockets.

Now, how to incorporate these ideas into a fantasy magic system…

To mend the rifts in friendship and social media.

A few months ago, I witnessed a rift in friendship. They were once good friends who were close, but then an incident arose. One hurt the other one. In response, the other one hurt the one back. And so, they fell out.

I was not there to witness the falling out, but later I heard the story from the parties involved. Separately, on different occasions, each party told me about the incident and their motive and their perception of the other person’s motive, from their point of view. Neither one knew that the other one had spoken to me, and neither knew that I had heard both sides of the story, from their own mouths.

I had the privilege of hearing all the rawness revealed in the safety of confidentiality. If I hadn’t known better, I could well have been hearing completely different incidents. But that was the same conflict. The facts were the same, yet the viewpoints and interpretation of the deeds done and hurts given and received were wholly different between the two people.

About their conflict, I kept to their sides of the rift. What could I say? Taking sides with one against the other one, or pressing matters to a head, was not my role. To do so would’ve caused grievous harm. So I listened, and helped them individually, and prayed a great deal for both, but did not attempt to cross the rift.

The rift remains to this day. Both friends looked at the rift of their friendship, and decided to leave it be and move on. Life went on, and both are fine. I am still friends with each person, even if their own friendship isn’t the same anymore.

And yet… I see the rift, and wonder if it could be healed.

+++

A few days ago, I witnessed a rift in the social-media fabric on Micro.blog. An incident arose in a M.B conversation thread. One ended up hurting the other one, and the other one responded and made a decision. And so, a rift.

I looked at the conversation which sparked the conflict. These two online folk are not people I’d call “friends” by any stretch of the imagination, at most friendly strangers that I’ve interacted briefly with. But the conversation is there to see. The facts are in front of me, but I perceive that the two people’s viewpoints are wholly different, and the hurt that one inflicted was perceived wholly differently by one receiving it.

The rift is now there, and it has left a gap in the fabric of M.B. Onlookers have gazed upon it and spoken and pondered. I’m doing that too. What can I say? Taking sides or pressing matters is not my role here. To do so would cause grievous harm. Besides, I’m just an onlooker watching and praying and trying to make sense of what happened.

But with one party out of the picture, there’s nothing we onlookers can really do about the rift except leave it be and move on. Life will be fine, and the two parties involved may be fine, we hope.

And yet… I see the rift and wonder if it could be healed.

+++

From my point of view, the parties involved in these two rifts were not maliciously and purposefully out to cause pain or harm to the one on the other side. (The issue would be very different if there was evil intent.) But there was a degree of mutual incomprehension, and an imbalance when evaluating the weightiness of words, and a whole raft of differing and unspoken expectations and assumptions surrounding the conflict.

Could these rifts have been avoided? Maybe. But right now I’m not interested in that discussion, I’m more interested in the matter of the current rift. Here it is. Here is hurt and offense. Now, what is to be done about it?

It is easy to leave a rift and move on. Especially so on social media, when people are shrouded behind usernames, screens, and fragments of thoughts expressed in meagre words. Life will be fine for the people in the conflict, we hope.

But there are outward rifts and inward rifts. Onlookers can see the rift between people. Who can see the concurrent rift opened within a person’s heart? And while life and the outward rift will be fine (we hope), it is the inward rift that is much, much harder to see and to heal.

This is why I wonder.

+++

What does it take to heal a rift in friendship and social media?

Is it worth the effort to heal a rift?

What happens to a person’s heart if a rift isn’t healed?

What happens to a person’s heart if the rift is healed?

As for me, the onlooker, what is the wise path to walk? And what am I to learn from this, for friendship and for social media?

+++

I have my own opinions about these two conflicts played out. But I have great difficulty taking a side with/against anyone, because both conflicts (from what I can see) originated from incomprehension and not malice. There is no “wrong” way or “right” way here. People are complicated beings, and the heart of a human being is deep and complex and full of good and evil, richness and poverty, tenderness and callousness, all to differing degrees. Who can comprehend a human heart, except the Holy Spirit? Because people are complex and have different viewpoints, it’s very easy to remain uncomprehending of a need or a viewpoint that is different from myself. The same facts can be viewed and interpreted differently, as I witnessed with my two friends.

As with friendships so with social media. Each person brings with them a whole lifetime of paradigms, patterns, relationships, and a subconscious scale for measuring the weightiness of words. The closer and more intimate a friendship is, the more open one is to the risk of hurt and incomprehension. Likewise, a more intimate and meaningful a social-media setting opens one up to the same risk.

I suppose that is the simultaneous glory and agony of intimacy.

While there may be neither “wrong” or “right”, both parties were responsible for creating the rift. And while an onlooker may bring the parties back to look at the rift, there is only so much onlookers can do. Only the ones who created the rift have the power to mend it, or keep it open and gaping.

+++

So what does reconciliation and mending look like?

On my part, all I know is this. One gave the hurt. One received the hurt. One must atone. One must forgive.

Jesus our Lord said in the Gospel of Matthew,

So if you are offering your gift on the altar, and there you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled with your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.
— Gospel of Matthew, ch. 5, verse 23.

Then Peter approached him and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? As many as seven times?”
“I tell you, not as many as seven,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven.”
— Gospel of Matthew, ch. 18, verse 21.

If Jesus my Lord said that he would prefer an offering left unfinished in favour of reconciling with a brother or sister, I ought to remember that on the other side of words and a computer screen is also a brother or a sister, wrapped in flesh and blood. Perhaps what I already do in realspace to deal with rifts in my life, I ought to do in cyberspace too.

I have been on both sides of giving hurt and receiving hurt. Atoning and forgiving are both very hard to do.
But is a rift worth mending?
What rift lies in my heart? Is my heart not worth mending?
And is their heart worth mending too?

+++

If social media is a place where people are found and where we expect to have human interactions, then we ought to treat people in cyberspace as we do in realspace and enact actions befitting to humanity.  Moreso, as the space becomes more intimate and the risk of vulnerability increases.

I don’t know how best to enact atonement and forgiveness on a social-media space. I suppose it’s just like handling people: people are different and complex, every situation is different and complex, and calls for different responses. And every other person who’s not me will conduct themselves differently on social-media by their own principles. It’s the pain and glory of diverse humanity.

I just know what I ought to do, based on my beliefs and convictions and paradigms.

+++

This was tough to write and I’m still not sure if there was anything worthy in it.

But there was sadness and regret amongst some of the onlookers around the rift, and I thought maybe I can, as a fellow onlooker, say something into the sadness. Those two rifts in friendship and social media certainly gave me pause: to consider what I needed to do if I was part of a rift (whether giving or receiving hurt), and consider what I can do to help mend rifts around me, in a tough world and a tougher online world.

“What is my responsibility as a creator to the thing I create?”

Whether that’s a child, or a book, or an album, or a painting. I think if I create something, it’s my responsibility to love it and give it its best chance in the world. And if I don’t do that, not only am I betraying it, but I’m betraying my gift. And […] if you begin to hate the thing you’ve created, it can indeed become monstrous.

—A.S. Peterson, on his play Frankenstein (interview)

At the wedding.

It was the latest in a string of incredibly cold days this week: frigid, overcast, drizzling continuously. But it didn’t stop the wedding from being, in a word, splendid.

Both are not native to this land. She speaks five languages, and spoke all five that evening, welcoming family and friends from all over the world come here to celebrate with her. He speaks one language which is not his mother tongue, yet the majority represented there were family and friends from all corners of the city and all parts of his life, also come to celebrate with him.

She was a vision of beauty — but when is she not? She is, and will be, always beautiful and elegant and refined and a friend like no other. I’d only ever seen him in tracksuit, shorts, or the most casual of clothes, but as his brother said during the speeches, he looked sharp and handsome and wore the suit wonderfully on his wedding day. Splendour, embodied.

Many splendid sights were beheld, but the most endearing sight was seeing L., white-haired and slightly stoop-shouldered, carrying off an enormous bouquet of roses at the end of the evening.

(Each table at the reception had a huge vase of white-and-blush roses, each bloom larger than my two fists pressed together. There would’ve been hundreds of roses in that room. The guests were taking them away afterward. Who would not want to take home a memento of that day’s beauty?)

And as he was bearing away this giant bouquet for his wife and daughter, this man who’s not of any blood or ethnic relation but who has become something like a father to me in this city, said to me, “All things work for the good of those who love him, our Lord Christ. Don’t forget that.” A current caught, a thread pulled, a pot stirred, a word in season.

What a wonderful day.

BEN: … so then [the radio] won’t mute while it scans between stations.
BOB: OK. Cause that’s where they live, right?
BEN: Um. No, you just want that constant static noise.
BOB: Right. The noise, that’s where they live.
BEN: They don’t “live” anywhere, dude. They’re ghosts.

EMILY: I didn’t hear a voice at all.
BEN: I guess it doesn’t matter – the ghost voices don’t really come out until you play back the recording later.
BOB: They only exist in recordings, like a copy without an original. A mirror reflecting something that isn’t in the room.
EMILY: Like the mounds.
BOB: The burial mounds here in town? You think they’re haunted?
EMILY: No … or, sure, probably. But I meant they’re like the reflection. The people who made them lived hundreds of years ago. That whole society is long gone, and now we just have these lingering echoes, without any trace of context.
BEN: Yeah, that is kind of eerie.
BOB: So the ghosts speak and we can’t hear it, but the tape recorder can hear it? Is that right?
BEN: I don’t know. Sometimes I think it’s more like the recording itself is a ghost. Like, that’s what ghosts are. Recordings of events that didn’t happen. When something keeps leaving new marks even after it’s gone. False memories.

EMILY: A ghost is just an absent person, whether they’re dead or not.

Un Pueblo de Nada (Episode 4.5), Kentucky Route Zero 💬

🖋️ To write a novel is to grow a tree.

Jess (@herself at Micro.blog) wrote a post on her writing process, which struck a chord with me. It’s turned into a rumination of my own ongoing writing journey.

She wrote:

Over the summer I spent a week or so seeing if I could fit my novel into the seven-point story structure. I did this for each sub-plot, and then even went so far as to step out each scene, staggering the various sub-plot developments along the number of scenes I decided I had to write.

Then I went away on holiday. Came back, three weeks later, and couldn’t bear the sight of the thing. A spreadsheet — what was I thinking? Even now I look back at it and want to shake myself. It’s just too much.”

Truth. Truth.

A novel is not a house to be built, but a tree to be grown.

+++

At first, I was going to respond to Jess’ post by documenting and sharing my own writing process. I wanted to share my outlining, the 7-point-plot-structuring I do, the world-building wiki I’ve created, and how all of this “process” helps me and facilitates my own novel-writing.

But the truth is, it doesn’t.

I’ve recently come to terms with this fact: my process is quite ineffectual. Instead of facilitating my writing, it’s hindering it. I haven’t written for several months. More recently, I attempted to edit and continue writing the story I was working on, and every time I sat down, I felt an overwhelming sense of malaise and despondency. Writing is just too hard, and I’m not up to it.

Some of it is procrastination and avoidance on my part, but I think it’s also a problem of comfort.

Now, I actually like putting up such structures that organize information. It’s familiar, enjoyable, and I’m well-versed in doing this kind of architectural work. But when it comes down to writing, this structure backfires: there’s too much of it, and it causes friction with writing. Whenever I write, the writing is usually fun and free-flowing. But when I start putting up outlines, wikis, lists, etc, around the writing, all that scaffolding ends up stifling the actual doing of the work, to the point that writing is no longer fun.

I’ve tried to reinvent my process many times, try out different strategies to see what works, if there is a silver bullet for my writing process. And just when I thought I had it figured out, I discover that it’s not producing the ultimate result: finishing a novel.

It is frustrating. To the point that I look at all this scaffolding and feel that overwhelming urge to throw it all out. Burn it down. Start afresh. What was I thinking? Even now I look back at it and want to shake myself. It’s just too much.

Burning everything down is well and good. But what will I do after I’ve started afresh? If I burn down this ineffectual house I’ve built for the novel, am I just going to build a new house on top of it?

And that’s where things have to change. I’ve been going about it all wrong. I should not be building a house, but growing a tree.

+++

The Everyday Novelist, hosted by author J. Daniel Sawyer, is my favourite writing podcast. I’ve been listening to it since its inception. One thing Dan has said since the beginning, and continually stresses, is this: The hardest writing obstacle to overcome is to get out of your own way. To rid your mind of all its obstacles (whether in-built inhibitions or imposed from external sources) and let the subconscious self flow into the story. This head game is always the biggest challenge, every author contends with it throughout their career. And the more intellectual you are as a person, the harder it is to get out of your own way.

In my conceit I keep insisting that Dan is wrong, and I’m the exception to this rule. And I keep discovering that he’s right, and everything I’m doing to “scaffold” my novel and systematize my process has only served to obstruct the writing of them. Sure, the scaffolding helps for a while, but in the long run, all I have to show for it is mental chaos, half-finished drafts, and a sense of being roughly shaken out of a fever dream and back into ugly reality. Oh, what was I thinking? It’s just too much.

And Dan is also right about it being harder the more intellectual you are.

I’m a born systems thinker. I think in processes, and my inner life is a network where everything is connected to everything else. Everything in life is slotted somewhere into this network.

I’m pretty good at building objects, but I’m not great at growing living things. (Just ask my pet bird. Poor fellow. I take better care of my electronics than I take care of him, sigh. 🙁 )

I’m not giving my novels enough time to grow. When they start sprouting, I immediately come in with all that wiki-ing and outlining and scaffolding, to try and systematize things so that I will know what to do next. Indeed, *I* will know what to do next. But my creative process won’t — indeed, it ceases to flourish, and the story itself is stunted and remains half-grown.

+++

Perhaps this scaffolding is a sign that I don’t trust myself: I will forget the details, or it’ll be too big for my brain to hold. Maybe I will need those scaffolds eventually to help. But the first order of the day is to write. And if I’m not writing because the scaffolds are causing too much friction, they are not helping. I’m just standing in my own way, and what I need to do is to throw away the architectures and learn how to grow a tree.

I think I have to be intentional about resisting this reflex to systematize. It’s so ingrained that I can’t imagine not doing it. But that’s the point that The Everyday Novelist is making. Dan says, and I paraphrase: “your subconscious is the wellspring of all the brilliance of your writing, but you’ve been conditioned by external and internal inhibitions to put a lid on it. What you need to do is to blow the lid and fall down the well and let that water gush out of you. This is the key to becoming an everyday, long-term career writer.” (He says it all the time, in those episodes and many others; “head games” is one of the biggest tags in the podcast archive.)

+++

A novel is not a house, but a tree. You build a house; you grow a tree. There’s no way to build a tree, unless you want a faux-tree that bears an image of the thing but has no breath of life in itself.

I see now that my process is just encouraging the creation of faux-trees. Some of the real stories may live, but ultimately all of them end up being stunted and stifled. The faux-tree looks good, but the real story is suffering and may not grow to its full potential.

The question is: do I want to keep doing what I’ve always done, because it’s comfortable and familiar, end up stifling all my stories, then throw in the towel and say that writing is just too hard? Or do I care enough about my writing and my stories to do something unknown and uncomfortable?

Maybe I should burn everything down and start afresh. And by that, I mean burn everything. Delete all the outlines and notes. Delete my world-building wiki (which contains as many words as all my half-finished novels put together). Throw every single chunk of scaffolding out — or at least, put them onto a USB drive and stuff it into a hole too small for my hand to fit in. Keep nothing except the most recent old unfinished drafts. From here, just write or revise off into the dark. And resist the instinct to build more scaffolding, resist it to the bitter end.

+++

I started writing in 2014, for NaNoWriMo. I started a novella, and finished it. I’ve been writing ever since, during NaNo season and off-season, but ever since that first one, I’ve been unable to finish any long-form story.

That, I think, is the key. When I started in 2014, I didn’t know any better. I didn’t have any clue about How to Write a Novel — I just wrote, and I finished what I wrote. But now I know something, and so I bring in all the strategies I’m learning and architectural tools I’m familiar with, to try and systematize a helpful process. And in so doing, jammed a lid onto the novel-finishing source.

I am very afraid of never finishing a second novel. It is a thought that haunts and hounds me. Which is why I’ve pushed so hard at all subsequent ones. I think this fear is the very thing driving the scaffold-building, which is ultimately killing the things I want to keep alive.

Maybe I will just have to tear down all the scaffolding and risk utter death. Yes, perhaps those half-grown trees may die. Perhaps they have to, for the sake of future trees I’ve yet to plant. That is very painful to come to terms with. Kill your darlings, eh? These are whole novels, whole stories, and all the beloved characters therein, that face utter death.

Then again, who knows? They may die, but equally, they may live too.

Is it better to risk death and the unknown for a chance at gaining true life, or play the familiar and safe and remain in this limbo of quasi-existence?

(Seems like what is true for faith and eternity is also true for story-telling.)

Time to delete a whole lot of files.

Appreciation for Micro.blog.

(I ended my M.B hosting subscription before I thought of making a final post on vega.micro.blog, so this will have to do.)

I’ve moved fully to my own domain. Now blogging at v.hierofalco.net, which includes the posts that were originally on vega.micro.blog. That M.B blog has been mothballed, but I’m still on the M.B social-media front.

Many thanks to Micro.blog for hosting vega.micro.blog for a short while. A few months, but they were important ones. If I hadn’t found M.B, I probably would’ve remained adrift in social media, ignorant of the Indieweb and the decentralized Internet, for a long while yet. If M.B hadn’t hosted me first, I wouldn’t have regained the desire and drive to have my own domain/website again. In a way, M.B was a midwife to reviving my webmastering hobby, and continues to prompt conversation and personal reflection on what social media means to me, and what goods and ills it brings into my life.

Thank you, @manton and Micro.blog. Keep up the good work; you don’t know what kind of impact you’re making on people.