Welcome to the cranky uncle’s website & microblog!

What stories are about  “Stories are about change.  Positive or negative. The status quo must change by the time the story ends,” says Torshie Torto on Medium.  Sounds about right!  And continues: “Here’s a rule of thumb: be a fucking sadist when it comes to the well-being of your characters, especially the protagonist.  This is how you ensure that a reader never puts your book down until The End.”

Morning pages  A very funny writer quotes Hemingway: “I write every morning as soon after first light as possible. There is no one to disturb you and it is cool or cold and you come to your work and warm as you write.” [V.]  They say you should write your “morning pages” for the allotted time.  I can’t, if I don’t have anything to say!  But it could be useful to “train the writing muscles”, in a way. The idea is to write a lot consistently, then discard the most, hoping something good would come from it all Maybe I should try it.

She also recommends disconnecting the internet from the machine you’re working on.  Not a bad idea at all!  No “I’m going to do a little research now just a sec”; jot it down in a paper and research later.  We’re writing now!

She goes on: «Writing morning pages has driven me to grow very fond of good notebooks, especially ones with skinny lines and thin paper. A good notebook can drive you out of bed in the morning. I tried for two months to write in a dirty composition notebook leftover from being a teacher, and I found it akin to trying to have sex with an unintelligent, generic-looking person with a beer gut and no sense of humor: it got the job done, but there was absolutely no pleasure in it.»  Hahah!  She has a way with words.

The new niggers  For most of humanity, there wasn’t such thing as adolescence; there were children and adults.  Teenagers were expected to start finding their way into the world of adults via apprenticeships (though women were expected to prepare for marriage); and to show their mettle by taking responsibility.

It was only the children of the elites who went to boarding schools, and suffered the neurosis of prison-like education, hazing & bullying, repression from severe & stern teachers etc.

Now society expects every teenager to experience the same fate as the decadent rich; and we deprive teens of their agency.  Society as a whole doesn’t see them; they are expected to remain quiet & invisible in the background until they become adults and can legally work, vote etc.

So we consider as much as a fifth of society, non-people!  Children are to be looked after; adults are expected to take care of themselves, but teenagers remain in a “twilight zone” where they yearn for meaningful activity, to be productive, to learn in the real world, but we insist in confining them to a child-like, meaningless existence, with scarcely any responsibilities.  Meaning comes from responsibility!

Just as “a fish doesn’t see the water,” or the ancients saw slavery as natural, we think it is “the way of the world” to treat teens as infants.  But it’s only been like that for the last three generations; it’s only the children of the poor in rural areas who become men quickly as soon as they hit puberty.  “What privilege!” you might think; “We don’t want it!” is the unanimous cry of teens everywhere!

It’s no wonder that teens live in a perpetual state of neurosis: adolescence itself is a neurosis!  It’s in the very name —it means “to suffer”— and it shouldn’t exist!  A teen should start progressively assuming as much responsibility as they want and are able to.  If no-one takes you seriously, you can’t thrive!

It’s been a while, but I think the worst thing a teen needs, is a lot of free time to mull on the inanity of their existence.  The plandemic and online learning have wrecked havoc in teens’ mental well-being.  It’s time we stop this madness and allow them to become —progressively and with their parents’ monitoring— productive members of society.

BTW it already happens in some well-off families.  Bourgeoisie families pride in their “your only responsibility is to study” stance, but in a few families that own businesses, I’ve seen that they have their children work in the family business since early ages.  They learn quickly and can later inherit the business or open branches.  They seemed to me very mature, polite and well-rounded kids, with none of the rudeness and moody nonsense we associate with adolescence.  I wish more could have had that experience.  The kids yearn for the mines!  Ha-ha.

Structure narrates as well  Finally I understood a missing piece in my writing.   Reading a piece from Medium:

Think in terms of structure. This is a HUGE topic, which I’ll tackle in more detail in future posts, but I want to include it here even in an abbreviated form. Chances are, if you think of yourself as a writer, you are very accomplished on the micro level — that is, you can put together a very nice sentence. The difference between that and really soaring as a writer is structure. By that I mean you are able to build a compelling, interestingly paced story. You know how to tease your reader along; you know how much to explain and when to explain it; you know how to reach a narrative peak and how to settle down into a conclusion. This is incredibly challenging — much more than just writing a nice sentence. It’s the essence of being a good storyteller (as opposed to being a good sentence-writer). The first step towards achieving that is to be conscious of it. Does your story unfurl in an intriguing way? Will a reader want to keep reading because you’re teasing them along? Do you introduce new characters and settings smoothly? Yes, it’s important to pay attention to word choice and all the tiny details in your writing, but you also need to zoom out frequently and see how the whole thing is working in its entirety.

I got a glimpse of the fact that composition can be a storytelling device when watching Siete cajas (2012), a Paraguayan movie that my friends and I noticed mastered the edition process as a means to tell a story.  Vargas Llosa’s last short story Los vientos at first got me wondering: these trivial musings, is this the best a Nobel-prize-winner writer can do?  But as I kept reading, the pacing of the story, the concatenation of events, were showing Vargas Llosa’s mastery of the craft!  A lot was said that was not put in words, so to speak.

Another article [V.] expounded onto the same topic: it’s not just bricks, mortar, metal and cement, but how you put them together, that makes an architectural masterpiece, something people with gaze at with pleasure.  Though I don’t write much fiction, I hope I can incorporate that into my writing.

Just as movies convey emotion & mood not only with the events and dialogue, but also with lighting, camera angles, filters etc., one should try to do the same with how one presents the ideas.

🇪🇸 Control de precios: pasajes de bus  Durante un tiempo no sabía cómo refutar la idea de quienes se oponían al alza de pasajes de bus, diciendo: «les autorizaremos alza cuando mejoren el servicio».  Respondía que era un círculo vicioso, un Catch-22; es imposible mejorar el servicio sin subir los pasajes.

Al principio se me ocurría una reductio ad absurdum, usando otros bienes y servicios como ejemplo.  Imaginemos que el gobierno fija precio máximo a los celulares: $30.  Por ese precio sólo puedes comprar un teléfono “feature”, un teléfono con radio, linterna y reproductor mp3, nada más; por ese monto NO puedes comprar un smartphone.  La gente empieza a quejarse que los teléfonos inteligentes no se hallan ya en las tiendas; sólo teléfonos baratos de tecnología obsoleta.  ¡Pero la gente tonta sigue apoyando el control de precios!  «Permitiremos la subida de precios de celulares, cuando veamos que los iPhones se vendan a $30.  No antes».  Eso es imposible; los iPhones tienen un precio mucho mayor; una cosa no puede mágicamente convertirse en otra, ¡y esperar que la ley lo haga, es creer mágico al estado!

Otro ejemplo: hemos visto a tinterillos ofrecer sus servicios legales en pasillos de las cortes.  Muchos no son abogados, sólo saben hacer trámites o tienen “contactos” en los tribunales.  Imaginemos que gobierno pone control de precios a los honorarios de abogados!  «No pueden ganar más que el salario básico, por hora», dice la nueva ley.  ¡Eso no es ni siquiera lo que gana un tinterillo por sus “servicios”!  ¿Esa ley garantizaría acceso a servicios legales de calidad (que sabemos son caros), o más bien lo contrario?  Los abogados de élite emigrarían o se dedicarían a otra cosa.  «Permitiremos subir los honorarios, cuando los tinterillos sin título ni estudios provean un servicio de calidad similar a los abogados de élite», dicen los mentecatos, sin darse cuenta que eso es imposible e irracional.

Una cosa no puede convertirse en otra; ¡por algo será que los médicos brujos son más baratos que los doctores especialistas!  Los controles de precios sólo prohíben que se ofrezcan bienes y servicios de calidad; obligan a ofrecerlos clandestinamente; impiden la segmentación de mercado (que se ofrezcan diferentes calidades, a diferentes precios) y aseguran un monopolio para únicamente los proveedores de peores calidades.  ¡Así no se mejoran los servicios!

Es así que la violencia gubernamental no puede mejorar casi nada, pero sí puede empeorar muchas cosas!  No sólo eso, sino que la creencia religiosa en “los poderes mágicos” del político y burócrata entontece a la gente.  Apenas alguien sale con que “el gobierno debería…”, sé que dejó de pensar hace mucho.

Otro ejemplo es el alcalde de Durán [V.].  Reconoce que la compañía de agua potable no tiene suficientes ingresos (no cobra a la mayoría de quienes reciben el servicio, y a los que sí, cobra demasiado barato); ni siquiera cobra lo suficiente para pagar nómina; y admite que sus asesores lo animan a subir lo que cobra por el agua, pero se niega a hacerlo, ya que «el suministro no es confiable y la presión es baja».  Trata de imaginarte la estupidez: reconoce que el servicio es malo porque cobra muy poco, pero se niega a cobrar más porque el servicio es malo, y recién subirá cuando el servicio mejore, lo cual no puede hacer porque cobra muy poco…  ¡Una situación Catch-22 irracional!  Y eso que el alcalde es profesional en Negocios y Finanzas.  ¿Qué les enseñan?

Un vídeo de TikTok mostraba que en El Salvador —donde también usan dólares— buses destartalados cobraban 50¢; es imposible por lo tanto que Metro quiteño sea rentable cobrando sólo 45¢.  Bueno, posible sí es, de hecho es lo que ocurre; lo que sí es imposible, es que cobrando eso puedan darle mantenimiento o pagar a los empleados.

Una rápida búsqueda nos muestra que en 1996 el recién inaugurado “Trole” quiteño cobraba S/.600, cuando el salario mínimo era S/.95.000; es decir, el pasaje del Trole costaba 0,63% de un salario mínimo.  Eso equivaldría a $2,90 hoy!, y eso que el país era mucho más pobre hace 28 años.  Con esos precios, tanto Metro como Trole sí serían rentables!  Pero somos demasiado cobardes para mantener los precios iguales, ajustando a inflación, no se diga cobrar más por un servicio de mejor calidad.

La Metrovía en Guayaquil inició operaciones en 2006, cuando salario mínimo era de $160.  Para mantenerlo indexado al salario mínimo, el pasaje debería ser 72¢; curiosamente muy similar a lo que cobra la Aerovía, a la que afortunadamente se le permite en el contrato ajustar sus precios a la inflación.

De ahí que no resulte asombroso que servicio se deteriore, ¡si por culpa de la inflación se está pagando la tercera parte que hace 18 años!  Pagando menos, NO se puede mantener ni siquiera igual el servicio, peor mejorarlo.

Sería injusto exigir a un trabajador el mismo servicio, si le bajamos el sueldo a una tercera parte; sería injusto exigir la misma cantidad de arroz, si sólo pagamos la tercera parte de lo que vale, si pretendiésemos pagar hoy con precios de hace 18 años.  Todos los precios han subido, incluyendo salarios; pero irracionalmente esperamos que los pasajes de bus permanezcan estáticos eternamente.  ¡Si pedimos algo irracional e imposible —un servicio de buses decente, pagando sólo ⅓ de lo que cuesta— no debería asombrarnos que no lo consigamos!  #pasajes

🇪🇸 Mamón, el dios del hombre contemporáneo  Marx y Nietzsche propugnaban incansables el fin del "opio del pueblo".  Yo creo que lo han logrado, ¿no?  La religión, para las masas, no es más que una simple costumbre familiar para ocasiones especiales, como quemar el año viejo o poner el árbol de navidad: cuando alguien nace, se casa, muere, se hacen ritos religiosos, pero pare de contar: no influye en los valores sociales.

Hoy, las masas y las élites ya no se preocupan de asegurarse un más allá, sino de su bienestar material prseente…  ¿Pero no crees que ha generado una sociedad de individuos "enloquecidos por el dinero" como decía C.J. Arosemena?

Vemos la ultraviolencia irracional de las bandas criminales: “me pagas la vacuna o te mato, me pagas rescate o te mutilo y luego te mato… Si te opones a mis negocios chuecos, te mato, si me perdiste un alijo de droga, también te mato”, etc.…, como que nos hemos ido al extremo opuesto, ¿no crees?

Obstaculizar el enriquecimiento de un psicópata, le resulta algo tan grave, ¡como poner en riesgo la salvación eterna, para un creyente de antaño...!

Como sociedad, o adoramos al Dios cristiano, o inmediatamente degeneramos en adorar a Mamón o al oro con forma de becerro.  No hay más: los ateos siempre fueron una minoría.  ¡Las masas siempre creerán en algo!

Just two  “A story should do two things: it has to help, and it has to be about us.” [V.]  Entertaining is helping enough; putting a mirror in front of the reader with your story, is another way of helping.  And expressing some truth about the world or human condition, and it’s about “us.”  “Every story is an act of trust between a writer and a reader … that we may glimpse, at least occasionally, how to live without despair in the midst of the horror that dogs and unhinges us.”

Yeah that sounds about right for a purpose for writing & reading: an incantation to dissipate —albeit temporarily— the horror

So journos won’t have to learn to code  The solution to newspapers’ plight must be something akin to Medium.  For a fistful of dollars, you get to read your favorite journos’ pieces.

Gone are the days when people paid $15 a month for home delivery of a newspaper or two, each.  Millenials never subscribed, and zoomers won’t, either.

So the future, as I see it, is some platform similar to Medium, or Medium itself (aren’t writing cooperatives in Medium similar to regular publications, already?).  One will follow one‘s favourite journos and pay for them to write & make videos.  One will subscribe to a “constellation” of authors, so to speak.  Then you should get the choice: pay an extra $1 to add access to sports news & commentary, or add $2 to access French reporters, for instance.

The thing is, people will sooner or later tire of having too many subscriptions; moreover if garbage entertainment content is available 24/7 for free on tiktok (you pay with your soul).  Offerings must centralize soon.  Right now we have Medium (flat fee, can’t “improve” it or tip creators), Patreon (easy to add new creators, but a dollar or more each it gets dear quickly, and are trigger happy canceling creators who go against the mainstream), Substack (at $5 or more per creator, soon you’ll run out of money!).

Traditional newspapers for pennies gave you access to a roster of renowned authors and news.  Netflix gives you access to countless movies for pennies each (once I reckoned 25¢ per hour watching).  Newspapers must follow the same model, or perish.  #newspapers-new-model

Next post I’ll go back to a papyrus-style posting, that is, chronological and scrolling down, last posts at the end, not at the beginning.  Maybe it’ll make for easier reading?

🇪🇸 Eatin’ the rich won’t fill the state’s belly  Lo oímos constantemente de los zurdos: «¡Que la crisis la paguen los ricos!», gritan indignados.  Mas los fríos números nos dicen que no será suficiente, ni siquiera confiscándoles todos sus ingresos!

El déficit total del estado —incluyendo pagos de deuda por vencer— asciende a $17.2 milliards, según diario La Hora.  Casualmente esta cifra equivale a todo lo que el estado recauda en un año, entre impuestos y petróleo; es decir, el gobierno pretende gastar en un solo año lo que normalmente recauda en dos.  Imposible.

Supongamos que “ricos” son los que ganan más de $4.500 mensuales, según la revista Gestión:

Vamos a aplicarles una tasa impositiva progresiva a partir del 25% hasta un confiscatorio 80%, como son los sueños húmedos de los zurdos.  Para facilitar el análisis, usaremos un promedio de rango de ingresos como representantivo de todos los individuos; y le aplicaremos “a las bravas” el tax bracket, sin tomar en cuenta fracciones básicas ni excedentes, ni tampoco deducciones.  ¡Impuesto puro y duro, baby!

Como vemos en la esquina inferior derecha de la tabla, la escala confiscatoria sólo recaudaría $1,9 milliards, equivalente a la novena parte de las necesidades de financiamiento de este año.

Si nos volviéramos comunistas radicales y les confiscáramos toditos sus ingresos a los ricos, sin dejarles un centavo —$4,5 milliards—, sólo cubriríamos a duras penas la cuarta parte del déficit; y eso sólo en la teoría, pues al segundo mes de confiscaciones ya no quedaría ningún futbolista de élite, ningún ejecutivo de transnacional, ningún banquero: todos habrían emigrado a puertos más acogedores.

Concluimos así que los problemas del estado ecuatoriano son estructurales; nos ha prometido gastar en tantas cosas, pero no recauda sino la mitad de lo que necesitaría.  Es como un joven que conquista a una chica con generosas promesas de viajes, lujos y caprichos, pero sólo gana el sueldo básico: tarde o temprano habrá de sincerarse con ella, y ella decidir aceptar un recorte de su estándar de vida, o dejarlo.  En nuestro caso, acordar como sociedad qué gastos vamos a recortar, o generar un nuevo pacto social…

En contraste con lo que habitualmente se oye —«somos un país rico, sólo que mal administrado»— hemos de aceptar que sí somos un país medio pobre, donde pocos pagan impuestos; y no, no son “los ricos” los que no pagan, sino la mitad de la población que sobrevive en la informalidad de bajos ingresos.  Ellos no pueden costearse los servicios que esperan, ¡y los ricos tampoco!  ¿Qué hacer?

Ante la imposibilidad de lograr acuerdos como país, hemos de buscar las soluciones a nivel local.  Tarde o temprano ha de aceptarse que el grueso de los impuestos se quede a nivel local, y que sean municipios quienes proporcionen la mayor parte de los servicios, como ocurre en EEUU.  Pero a esta ficción llamada Ecuador, donde todos pretenden vivir a costa del estado central, se le están viendo las costuras desde hace rato, y no será viable.

Una vez más para mis zurdos de bajo IQ: el recorte es inevitable; es más, ya está ocurriendo, en forma de atrasos cada vez peores de sueldos, proveedores, transferencias a GADs, universidades, IESS etc.  Hemos de preguntarnos si estamos bien así y deseamos conservar esa situación, o tomamos decisiones duras sobre dónde recortar.  Y mostrarle a violentos e irracionales como Iza el garrote de la ley, que la violencia que él promueve no proporcionará los dólares que se necesitan; más bien los ahuyentará (¿sabían que Iza ya ha causado al país pérdidas similares a las que sufrió el estado en la crisis bancaria?).   #eat-the-rich

Brave New World  I finally read it.  What a good novel.  The dialogue with the Controller is superb: you see the perspectives of the elites, and you are inclined to agree with them!  You see they’re devoid of malevolence; they’re not comic book villains, as we sometimes picture them.  The Controller is cogent and even likeable!

Of course if you find yourself disagreeing with such a world, you’ll be steamrolled by it; it can’t be anyway else.  Such is the banality of evil: harm does not require malevolence, at all!

We are but mere vessels  Jung said it well before Dawkins: “We don’t have ideas; ideas have us.”  Dawkins drew attention to the fact that we can see the living world as a very complicated effort of genes to multiply; a very ornate effort, in the case of us humans and our civilisation.  Genes being but information, can’t we conclude that similarly the marketplace of ideas is a Darwinian survival of the fittest ideas?  

Those ideas that bear the best fruits eventually win over bad ideas that might look more appetizing in the short term.  I remember I said before, that ideology is first and foremost an æsthetic choice, and thus it’s almost impossible to change.  So no-one convinces anyone; irrationality dies when the irrational generations pass away.

The Logos thinks and solves conflicts, through us!

Bullshit  Tony Stubblebine, Medium CEO, has an interesting take on journalism [V.]: «It’s expensive to write about things that you don’t already know. That’s why journalists have to be paid a lot to get a high quality piece up. The reporting is really time intensive.»  That’s the advantage of blogs, he continued, as in them people talked about things they knew and care about; but journos had to have a “take” on the topics du jour.

He was also asked: «Q: Do you think you’ll ever pivot to video?  A: I just had a board meeting. We’ve got a five-year roadmap and it’s all text. There’s something inherently healthy about reading and writing. I’ve been trying to land this joke. It’s never worked. But there’s a reason that Homer didn’t write “TLDR: Odysseus had a hard time getting home.” There has to be a home for people who just love reading and writing more than anyone else. I think we can do that.»

It’s an interesting interview, with someone in the front-line of publishing and reading.  Recommended read.

Writers chose to suffer  A very funny writer in “The 4 Quadrants of Writing Joy” says: «Choosing writing as a career is choosing to go barefoot through the thorny thicket that is life. It’s choosing to live with your parents until you’re 65. It’s becoming an involuntary minimalist. It’s choosing to burden your spouse with paying the bills (sorry darling…). It’s becoming a William Shakespoor, a Hungry Hemingway, a James No-Joyce, a George Owe-well.  Yes, sure, some writers make it big. But, statistically, you won’t.»  Well put!

He goes on to say that one should aspire to write about 1) topics that are interesting for us, and 2) that we’re competent in.  “Competence” can also refer to writing ability; so, if one is skilled enough, one could tackle a boring subject, but write in an interesting manner for the reader, so both —writer & reader— have fun!

🇪🇸 Simios con metralleta  Calculemos qué fue peor: si las “marchas pacíficas” de Iza, o la “Invasión al capitolio” de simpatizantes de tRuNp; enfocándonos en los daños materiales y las pérdidas de vidas, y haremos ajuste según las diferencias de economía y población.

EEUU tiene una economía unas 212 veces más grande que Ecuador (23 trillions vs. 110 billions).  Para que los daños “sean equivalentes”, los daños causados por simpatizantes de tRuNp deberían ser 212 veces mayores que los de Iza.  El paro de 2019 dejó pérdidas por 821,68 millones; el de 2022 por 1,1154 milliards; dando un total de pérdidas de 1,9 milliards.

Por lo pronto podemos decir que las “protestas pacíficas” de Iza costaron al país más que las pérdidas que tuvo que asumir el estado ecuatoriano en el salvataje bancario, que rondan 1,4 milliards; y esas pérdidas fueron concentradas en la sierra norte y centro.

El asalto al Capitolio causó daños por alrededor de 1,5 millones de dólares; si la economía ecuatoriana es la 212 parte de la gringa, los daños ecuatorianos, para ser “equivalentes” debieron ser de sólo $7075, pero fueron como vimos de 1,9 milliards, es decir 273k veces más; por lo que concluimos que las protestas causadas por Iza fueron doscientas setenta mil veces más destructoras que las de tRuNp, ajustando a las diferencias de tamaño de las economías.  Iza fue implacable con este pequeño país.

Ahora veamos muertes.  En el asalto al capitolio, sólo Ashly Babbit fue ejecutada por fuerzas del capitolio durante el “asalto”; el resto de las muertes comúnmente atribuidas al evento, fueron por causas naturales, sobredosis y suicidio, y en días distintos [V.].  En las protestas de 2019 murieron 11 personas y en las de 2022, 6 personas.  En total, 17.

Siendo que la población americana es 18,6 veces más la ecuatoriana (331,9 millones vs. 17,8), para que sea “equivalente” en Ecuador debió morir, por decirlo así, “cinco centésimas de persona”, pero en realidad murieron 17, es decir, 316 veces más.

En conclusión: Iza fue doscientos setenta mil veces más destructivo que el asalto al Capitolio, y sus protestas fueron trescientas veces más mortíferas.  ¿Habrá quien le ponga un freno a ese psicópata?  

Para hacernos una mejor idea de en qué magnitud de la barbarie perpetrada por Iza es mucho peor, imaginemos que Trump hubiera azuzado ya anteriormente otro asalto al Capitolio; que hubiera recibido amnistía por los múltiples delitos y muertes cometidos en aquello; y no contento con eso, que el asalto hubiera durado semanas y semanas…

Otro ejemplo: mal hace un raterillo que bolsiquea un dólar; mucho peor hace un Daniel Salcedo que roba $270.000 de hospitales, indudablemente.  Así es la dimensión de la destrucción causada por Iza.

Malo es ser más o menos responsable del homicidio culposo de una persona (si le atribuimos responsabilidad de la muerte de Ashly Babbit a Trump, y no al policía que jaló el gatillo); pero mucho peor sería desencadenar eventos que causen la muerte de 316 personas, durante varias semanas, y reincidiendo luego de haber recibido amnistía por lo mismo.  La violencia de Iza es de dos órdenes de magnitud superior, y debe ser detenida.  iza-peor-que-trump

No carpenter’s block  I remember the dictum that “there’s no such thing as carpenter’s block; so there’s no such thing as writer’s block, either.”  That's why I find it ridiculous that some girls talk about their supposed “reader’s block,” where they pretend they liked a book so much that they can’t read anything else for months on end.

To write, one basically needs something to say; and someone to say it to.  Then it’s as simple as writing a letter!  «I speak conversationally like I’m talking after a glass of wine … I write as though speaking directly to a younger me or a friend who’s chill with my secrets … it helps immensely to write as though you are writing to people you genuinely care for … I write in spew mode, not editing mode» says a very amusing writer [V.]

Easy advice to follow!  That way I’ll always have someone to write to; and if I’m to write, um, smut, I can think of any of “all those girls I’ve loved before,” and write to her.  Hey, you know who might be interested in this funny anecdote?  Your friend ***.  Tell it to him, imagine you’re writing him a letter or an email.  Is it a female friend?  Imagine you’re talking to her ear…! ;)

As for something to say, if I’m writing fiction, for short stories it’s usually enough to put the characters in a setting, letting them loose, and the story practically unfolds itself, with daily revisions of what was written the day before.

🇪🇸 Writer’s block, pero en español  Leyendo “La loca de la casa" de Rosa Montero, sale esta parte interesante:

es el argentino César Aira quien, en su lúcido librito Cumpleaños, ha hecho la reflexión que me parece más atinada sobre por qué un escritor es atacado de pronto por el desánimo, el bloqueo, el desaliento, la seca (como decía Donoso), la mudez definitiva o pasajera. Convengamos primero, para entender el análisis de Aira, que novelar consiste en gran medida en vestir narrativamente lo que cuentas, en inventar mundos tangibles. El Premio Nobel Naipaul se lo explicó muy bien a Paul Theroux cuando le dijo: «Escribir es como practicar la prestidigitación. Si te limitas a mencionar una silla, evocas un concepto vago. Si dices que está manchada de azafrán, de pronto la silla aparece, se vuelve visible». Pues bien, Aira llevaba escribiendo un par de décadas cuando, cerca ya de los cincuenta, empezó a sentir esa desgana creativa que tanto se parece a una enfermedad física. Y explica en Cumpleaños: «A la larga me di cuenta de dónde estaba el problema: en lo que se ha llamado la invención de los rasgos circunstanciales, es decir, los datos precisos del lugar, la hora, los personajes, la ropa, los gestos, la puesta en escena propiamente dicha. Empezó a parecerme ridículo, infantil, ese detallismo de la fantasía, esas informaciones de cosas que en realidad no existen. Y sin rasgos circunstanciales no hay novela, o la hay abstracta y desencarnada y no vale la pena».

Este es uno esos casos que los textos dicen una cosa, pero yo leo otra más interesante, jeje.  Por alguna razón lo leí como una solución al “bloqueo” del escritor.

Si en el ítem anterior vimos que siempre tienes a quién escribirle —por lo menos, ¡a tu “yo” de hace unos años!—, si se te hace difícil escribir, tan solo pon una silla, ¡y “añádele azafrán”!, como si fueran polvos mágicos.  De esa manera ritualística has iniciado el proceso, has echado a rodar una pequeña bola de nieve.  Tu humilde y prosaica silla, al ser manchada de azafrán, ahora es parte de un setting literario, has iniciado el hechizo en el lector —el suspension of disbelief— que ha empezado a imaginársela.  Has «vestido narrativamente» tu humilde silla; has empezado a crear «un mundo tangible».

Pon un sustantivo, añádele un calificativo.  ¡Zas!  Has realizado la alquimia de la literatura.  Ahora es cuestión de añadir unos cuantos personajes, echarles un conflicto como quien arroja un jamón a una jaula de fieras hambrientas, ¡y narrar lo que va sucediendo!  ¡Adéntrate en el agujero del conejo, y cuenta lo que ves!

No human rights  There’s this video from a TEDx talk from Yuval Harari that posits that human rights don’t exist.  It is still making the rounds almost ten years later, specially in rage-baiting videos.  Make sure to watch it, he makes a good point.  In summary: human rights are social constructs, as are language, religion, the different forms of political organization, money, etc.  Mere ideas, after all; ideas that live only in our minds.

I like to add that the idea of human rights has been hegemonic only for the last 3 decades; before that, it was denied altogether in communist regimes, and for over 99,99% of humanity, it has been an unknown idea; it took roots only in Christendom, and only for the last two centuries has been codified into solemn declarations & laws, oftentimes without much thought into its moral justification without retorting to religion.  Attila, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, etc. would sincerely laugh when faced with such an idea that people have rights!

Harari also poignantly draws our attention to the fact that money is the most common idea!

Don’t be too quick to dismiss his ideas.  By picking our interest with some eyebrow rising, in his talk he recounts the most important task for us moderns: devise new narratives for our culture; narratives that can include a diminishing belief in God and organized religion —while intransigent minorities wish to foist their radical beliefs on us— and still build a functional society.

It’s the first time this —the widespread lack of religious beliefs— happens since the invention of agriculture and history; so there are hardly any historical precedents to follow (the atheistic communist regimes are not examples to follow!).  Let’s not fumble this one!  Our survival as a civilization depends on it.

I contend that the doctrine of human rights has run its course and is not useful anymore to face modern challenges: Muslim immigration (specially from countries with lower IQ), the ultraviolence of drug cartels,

Writing, as evasion  Many read to evade reality. We can write precisely for the same reason: to evade a dull life, and to recreate what we wish we could do. As many parents toil to give their kids the life the wish they had, we write to have our characters do what we wish we could.

Reading novels and short stories, with their complex plots and clever twists, I can't but admit defeat: I'll never be talented enough to conceive intricate stories like those, let alone write them as skillfully.

But then I realized I didn't need to: even if plots and their twists show mastery of the craft, having change in a story had to be good enough.

Just as we listen with curiosity and fruition to gossip or a funny anecdote —they take us out of our ordinary lives and start the trance of suspension of disbelief— readers will read stories that put them in a similar trance; stories that take us away from our dull, ordinary lives.

It's like, despite all our technology, we still are medieval peasants living in "municipal and thick" lives… and then the minstrel arrives to town, and we feel the anticipation: we're going to be entertained!

So if a story lacks clever plots and twists, it should at least have movement, change.

For example: everyday you eat your breakfast, go to school, come back home. That's expected, there's no change there. One could argue that, due to the inertia of the events, there isn't even perceivable motion; as if you were inside a train that goes on tracks.

But if that train got derailed, well, there's your change! There's motion to somewhere else! And there you have at least an anecdote to tell. What event derailed that daily routine?

Another example: a husband kisses his wife goodbye for the day. No drama, no conflict yet. But… what if she had a secret!? Then the story starts.

So there you have them, the elements of the alchemy of simple storytelling: create a setting, put your characters in it, and… move the plot!  There’s no movement without derailing!  The reader needs that asteroid that knocks the expectations of routine, out of the orbit.

🇪🇸 En español, citando a Luis Alberto Bravo en Facebook: «Auster aplicó uno de los mejores recursos narrativos para resolver un bloqueo.  Se la había escuchado a alguien en un taller literario: “Cuando la historia se estanque y no encuentre salida…, haz aparecer en la puerta a una mujer con una pistola”».

In other words, what I’m doing—simply for lack of talent—is painting vignettes (short, usually descriptive literary sketch; a short scene or incident, as from a movie) with the humble intention of entertaining the reader.

Another interesting read from Medium, regarding a common fear among novel writers [V.]: «Although sometimes everyone seems to know everything about everything, that’s not true. If it’s new to you, it will also be new to someone else. And even if it isn’t new to anyone else, remember that people need constant reminders about pretty much everything. So be that reminder.

»Others might have written about it before, but they haven’t written it with your perspective, style, and voice. Anything non-trivial I learned I had to read [about the same topic] multiple times until I found someone who expressed it in just the right way that clicked for me. And your way of writing about the subject might be just the way that will click for someone else.»

The choir must be preached to!

Reading about the mission of Medium, that it’s to “deepen our understanding of the world,” (hear hear, and that’s why it’s become essential reading for many of us!) I come across another article [V.] that, precisely, helps me make sense of my world, experiences of mine:

A decade ago, I dropped out of law school. That’s a tough thing to tell people. I got solid marks and a high-grade point average, and my teachers really liked me. I knew if I stuck it out, there was a chance I could have an incredible career.

But I was struggling. I was losing ground. I was waking up and crying in the shower. Because I had a voice in my head who would kick off the day by telling me everything I didn’t want to hear.

You have no chance. You’re always going to fail. You’re always going to lose.

The years of my life stretched ahead of me like an endless line of dominoes, waiting to fall.

I quit and walked away.

I spent 6 months sitting on a couch, watching Scrubs re-runs and wearing out the patience of everyone I loved.

By the time I got my shit together, I had lost almost an entire year to that voice. These days, I’m a lot better at ignoring that voice. I’ve learned how to deal with it. When it starts to whisper, I can ignore it most of the time.

That’s why it’s so difficult to explain the decision of dropping out: "But you were doing so well!  What did it cost to stick to it for a couple more years?", etc.  Those are rhetorical questions; people aren’t interested in an answer.  You’re labeled a failure, wasted potential, and that’s it.  And the answers, the reasons, lie in your own inadequacy, which is never comfortable to admit, let alone share with the world.

Yes, that voice that predicts doom and failure is real.  In my case, I couldn’t see myself succeeding in law, even with deepening knowledge.  I know for a fact that there are a lot of ignorant and low-IQ attorneys out there that make a living botching their clients’ cases, and that my more talented friends would’ve gladly helped me.  But then & there, 23 years ago, I didn’t see it.  And I couldn’t jump into a black void!

In my case I can’t tell I have my shit together —even after two decades!— but I’ve become good friends with "the voice": I know that the meaning of life is the life itself, the experiencing of it; that everybody, despite their Instagram-perfect portrayals, cry themselves to sleep or are ashamed of themselves because of their beliefs or self-image (I’m not the only one in that regard!)… and that the miracle of life is just a spark in the void of eternity.  Whether it’s "our only chance" or just an iteration of many reincarnations that we ourselves choose, in both cases this experience loses the "high stakes" panic that seemed inherent to it!  So why sweat it?  It’s all small stuff anyways!

We all are dominoes that will fall.  We should be understanding of other dominoes that are still anxious about that fact, shouldn’t we?

An 𝕏 poster said it better when he wrote about the “unemployable man” [V.].  Some of us simply can’t just do as we’re told, and that’s both our blessing and curse.

Medium is “the republic of ideas”  The same author from the last post had something to say about what Medium becomes to many of us.  In a beautifully written, nostalgic-laden article —that reeked of AI at first— he said:

“Cancel Subscription” — the option glared at me from the screen, a stark, uninviting button. Each month, as my finger hovered over it, a tide of memories washed over me, pulling me back from the brink.  Medium had become more than a collection of articles; it was a repository of memories

So, each month, as the familiar notification of the subscription fee appears, I find myself unable to let go. It’s not just a fee for content; it’s a tribute to a chapter of my life that shaped me, a connection to a time when words were our world … My Medium subscription, much like this café, remains a part of me — a lingering word in the narrative of my life … My connection to Medium was more than just nostalgia; it was a lifeline to the world of ideas and creativity that I feared losing.

The articles and essays on Medium had seen me through various seasons of my life. They offered comfort when the world seemed too sharp, inspiration when my own words failed me, and a sense of community when isolation crept in. The platform was a mirror reflecting the myriad emotions and experiences I navigated through.

And so, I chose to stay subscribed, not out of a longing for what was lost, but for the value of what remained and what lay ahead. Each article, each piece of writing was a step forward, a step towards understanding, growth, and connection in a world that was constantly shifting.

In the end, my Medium subscription was more than a monthly fee; it was a testament to the enduring power of words and ideas, a tribute to past chapters and a bridge to new beginnings. It was, and continues to be, an essential part of my journey.

Beautifully put, no?  Though the composition might put you off because it’s very common in AI-produced pieces, he talked about relatable human experiences, so he gets a pass (another article of his, similarly titled, was definitely AI).  Medium has become like reading the newspaper with coffee for many: a cherished routine we need to mentally stimulate our minds.

In my case I let my subscription lapse because I was made redundant; but then I was reminded of monthly subscriptions, and it won’t be difficult to come up with five bucks every two months (juggling subscriptions here, as many do).  There’s value in Medium for us voracious readers of articles.  We need to keep up with the Zeitgeist.

AI is hitting the law of diminishing returns  Another article from Medium claims that costs & inputs to train AI increase exponentially, but results improve just marginally. Soon progress won’t be worth the bother.

I reckon that AI has probably already taken in all digitized information available.  Purportedly 45TB of text.  That’s 40 million bibles.  Has man even written that much text?!  I’d say they would’ve ran out of texts by now.

We can’t wrap our minds around numbers that big.  The Bible is around 4Mb.  If every byte/character were a second, a bible would be 48 days ago.  10 million times that, is over a million years ago, the time when the first Homo Erectus roamed the Earth, way before our appearance as species!

Next iteration for AI might be giving it "eyes and ears" (our phones, CCTV) and have it learn on the fly what’s going on in the world.  Then we’d see true AI reporting: "there has been a car accident in 45 & Brooklyn just now.  A delivery truck ran a red light and was hit by a taxi.  No casualties reported, fortunately, but the taxi was totaled…"  This would be of value for ambulance chasers.

Besides some niche applications, us commoners are quickly tiring of AI and its “dentist waiting room" sort of "beauty":

Altman & his gaggle of iPad kids: "we can create thousands of beautiful images & entire books!"
Normal people: meh
Altman & iPad kids: now we can create millions of beautiful images and churn bibles of literature faster that you can breathe!"
Normal people: 🥱😴
Altman & iPad kids: "Now we can drown any vestige of humanity in a deluge of beautiful images and tripe that humanity literally won’t have enough time in the rest of its existence to admire.  And in less time that it takes you to sharpen a pencil!"
Normal people: "who wants to play in the rain and make mud cakes?"

This can be summarized with: "Having lost sight of our objectives, we redoubled our efforts." ~Walt Kelly.  Lazy students & teachers use ChatGPT to write & grade essays.  Many men would gladly become mere middlemen between AIs —the ones that write the essays and the ones that grade them— but for many others, that is a dehumanizing sham we’d like to stay away from, thank you very much.

So it might be true, the law of diminishing returns when applied to inventions, as (I think) mentioned Bill Bonner: every few years come inventions that are supposed to “revolutionize everything”, but sooner than later they become niche, everybody goes: “meh” and we collectively move on to the next big thing.  It happened to 3-D printing, crypto coins, the metaverse, now AI…

«I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: most progress — be it moral or political or even scientific — doesn’t happen because people are convinced to change their minds. It happens because people die. Then they get replaced by new people with new ideas.» ~Dustin Arand on Medium.

Poetry in prose  I’ve at times struggled with the concept of “show, don’t tell” commonly suggested to writers.  That is, that one shouldn’t narrate everything; rather allowing readers to make up mental images by themselves, by virtue of our madz writin’ skillz.  For example, don’t say: “She was sick and tired of the same excuses,” but rather something along the lines of: “She couldn’t bring herself to look at him while he talked.  She covered her face while shaking her head,” idk, I’m not easy with this concept, you know.

Now I understand that that challenge is a little like writing poetry: using some words to evoke feelings in the reader.  There’s no poem if one writes: "I’m sad, boo-hoo," the reader won’t feel sadness but repulsion, probably, haha.  But when one writes about the gloominess of rain, winter, etc., then one might (provided that one is skilled) elicit those feelings in the reader.

It’s like when we re-watch movies.  The first time you’re probably entrapped by the plot.  But the second you start noticing the foreboding details, and get a better picture of the different story arches, and how they intertwine.  They’re showing, not telling!

It’s a matter of trust in the intelligence of the reader too, I guess.  Do we trust the reader enough to arrive to our conclusions by himself, or do we want to lead that dumb mf?

Like an overbearing mother, sometimes we find ourselves tempted to "spell everything out" for the reader; but more often than not, we should refrain from doing so.  Show, don’t tell!

Pain & humiliation  The writer’s block dissolves itself, when the pain of not writing, becomes greater than the pain of dragging yourself to sit in front of the keyboard.  Alexander Chee put it well in a now deleted tweet: “Sometimes you stop writing to ‘protect’ yourself from the idea you fear will humiliate you, but then… you are humiliated by not writing, and then the shame is doubled, and in these circumstances you need to forgive yourself to return to writing.”

No filter words  Another clear article [V.] explains: "Filter words are extra words that impede the reader from feeling what the character feels.  Instead of focusing on the experience, they introduce a bothersome barrier and deflect from the story… They explain instead of letting readers figure things out on their own."

Continues: "They usually relate to the five senses: saw, looked … also about how we think: realised, knew…

"When the reader is interrupted, it is the fault of the author.  This happens when he directly informs the reader about the events, rather than allowing the reader to interpret and experience the action independently … When you use filter words to report the action, it's like you don't trust the reader to get the message  Filter words are a waste because the character's actions and emotions speak for themselves.  Why tell us?  It's insulting.  … Pronouns are often a giveaway for filler words."

Another article (sorry, lost the reference) calls it "a Malkovitch," like the movie: "a Malkovitch creates a distance between the reader and the character by 'seeing things' though observational words … Example: 'She heard a bird sing,' rather than, 'a bird sang.'"

There's another risk: "being too on the nose": "This refers to when the description is too direct, leaving no mystery or insinuation for the reader to figure out what is happening … for example: 'A man who dies goes to Hell, and says, This is Hell.'"

The author offers a nice criterion: "if it creates a 'well, duh' moment, it's too on the nose."

"Trust your reader to follow along with you.  You have the space of a whole book to establish your world, so you don't need to have everything on the first page or first chapter … One thing that draws a reader forward through a story is the mystery of who, what, where, when.  If you explain too much all at once, there's no reason for the reader to keep reading."

There they are: clear explanations of "show, don't tell":  don't become a filter, a Malkovitch; don't be too "on the nose," trust the reader.

Banality of evil  Fauci shed a few tears in his recent testimony, where he declared that he’d received death threats.  This frail, little old man's actions led to up 35 million deaths, by The Economist’s last tally, and counting.  Yes, he’s even deadlier than Mr. Austrian Painter or Stalin.  There is no punishment enough for all the suffering he caused humanity.

Not only he was deadlier than Stalin: the suffering he caused was in an unprecedented global scale;  No one was spared, there was nowhere to run, no one went unscathed.  Truly demonic.  That’s a lot of atonement to do in his next reincarnation!

More definitions of art  Yet another article on Medium said: “Art in any form is an exploration of ideas, and the process of creating art should be beneficial to the artist. You should not be the same person at the end of the process as you were at the beginning. Because if your art doesn’t change you, how can you expect it to affect others? ... The act of writing turns out to be its own reward... The essence of any story is what you, the author, can discover. Your stories should teach you something.”.

Makes sense, no?  One should become somewhat, somehow, better after writing, and so does the reader after reading; otherwise, we're not bettering the world!

Non-banal evil  Just finished reading 1984.  The horror of the last part, OMG.  Then realized that we all were subjected to the horrors of “room 101” during the plandemic!  The constant torturing of the mind and the body (for the unfortunate souls who trusted hospitals), poverty and starvation, irrationality…  No wonder after many months of such “reeducation” we were ready to declare and confess any nonsense, in the hope our tormentors were placated.

I wonder why I haven’t heard of mentions of 1984 when talking about the plandemic.  We all were eager to leave that nightmare behind; but I’m afraid we shouldn’t have, lest we don’t learn the necessary lessons.

Article writing rule of thumb  Somewhere in Medium I read that an author of one or two viral articles shared her process: basically give useful information to the reader, while inserting funny anecdotes relevant to what's said.  Easy, no?  The good ol’ teacher’s guide: teach, and give examples.

Belonging  I’ve realized that many of the events of my life can be explained for the need of a sense of belonging  Of course, failing to have established any long-term ties, there’s only family, of course.  But alas, the need remains…

Writing tricks  A Medium article shows some tips that sound great: 1) Double-up technique: scenes that serve two purposes; for example, a conversation that gives the hero important information while in a car chase.  2) “Tell the readers about the farmers,” that is, give the reader information that will help them anticipate the conflict; in the example, a fox leaving his den while we know that farmers want to ambush him.  3) have characters illustrate their points with stories and anecdotes; 4) Delayed emotions, like in real life, where we stay in shock and later crumble up and break down.

5) Funky emotions: have characters react differently from what's expected, intriguing the reader.  6) Give the reader “gold coins” along the way to keep them engaged: reward them with a plot twist, a cameo, a funny or weird character, a MacGuffin, a cliffhanger…  7) Lean away: the reader can foresee the ending; drive him away from it!  Have the plot meander away from what the reader thought he saw coming, and then he’ll enjoy more when it comes.

The novel is dead  Walter Rhein on Medium contends that the novel was the ideal medium to make money with the printing press: volumes easily stackable that could be sold for a nice, round sum.  Even a man with a wheelbarrow of books could cart them around and make a living.  So it's no surprise that novels tended to do well in print; but these days, with our ubiquitous black mirrors (phone screens) and shortened attention spans due to endless scrolling —notice the foreboding!—, it’s no wonder that new formats will probably take precedence in the online world.

«If your strategy for becoming a successful writer requires people to put down their phones and pick up a book then you’ve already failed. People are addicted to their phones. They don’t even put down their phones to drive. The choice is literally between “die” and “look at your phone,” and people pick the phone» writes the author, amusingly.  He’s right, though.  «The novel is dead. You have to go to the audience, not insist the audience comes to you. The people in your audience are looking at their phones» he insists.

He posits that the novel is “a distribution mechanism,” not to be conflated with “longform writing,” which is alive; but he insists that it must be serialized, not presented in a “discrete chunk” that is the book-novel.

He then gets personal, ouch!: «A lot of people clutch onto the dream that they’ll write a great novel and that will change everything for them. They’ll write a novel and all their money problems will be over. They’ll write a novel and they’ll no longer be socially awkward. They’ll write a novel and people will love them.  It’s hard to hear that’s just not going to happen, but it’s also cruel to let people live with those fantasies. The simple fact is there are other things you can do to solve your money problems, and stop being socially awkward, and to get people to love you. Writing a novel is not going to bring you any of those things. People want to write a novel as a justification for their life. You aren’t going to justify your life that way. Rather than prance around in your daydream about “someday writing a novel,” go and hold a door for somebody. Buy a glass of lemonade from a kid’s stand. Give a homeless person a blanket. Make kindness a habit. That way if you ever do write a novel, it has a much better chance of being decent. Remember, novels are just the truncated version of your longform life».

Strong words, but true nonetheless.  Many of us aspiring writers lack in many areas of life, and we try to compensate with our writings.  But we’re deceiving no-one.

🇪🇸 Dos de tres nomás  Hace años leí en una Selecciones que en un taller un letrero ponía: «ofrecemos un servicio rápido, barato y bueno.  Pero sólo puedes elegir dos de tres.  Si eliges un servicio rápido y bueno, no será barato; si eliges un servicio bueno y barato, no será rápido; si eliges un servicio rápido y barato…, no será bueno».

Algo parecido nos sucede a los ecuatorianos con nuestros servicios básicos.  En nuestro caso, debemos simplemente elegir si el servicio será barato, bueno y suficiente (o abundante)  Ocurre con el transporte público, artificialmente barato (les hemos reducido el precio a lo largo de los años, manteniendo el pasaje congelado en contexto de inflación) pero sujeto a escasez e incomodidad en horas pico (metrosardina) y paros de transportistas de vez en cuando; y en el caso de la energía, es artificialmente barato, pero asimismo sujeto a cada vez más frecuentes apagones.

Con tarifas congeladas no hay incentivo para producir más, ni el sector público ni el privado.  E igual nos obligan a consumir electricidad más cara, con generadores que consumen gasolina o con una simple vela.

Necesariamente implicará aumento de tarifas a domicilio, pero ¿de verdad preferimos conservar las cosas como están, donde la electricidad es supuestamente barata, pero falla a menudo, y debemos permanecer a oscuras o terminar de todas formas pagando más al usar generadores a gasolina?