The Word Cloud

Please forgive this long blog. I’m just going to get this off my chest, so I’ll pretend this is therapy; some of this might be uncomfortable or distressing to you, and I don’t blame you. But on the selfish assumption that my own “therapy” and realizations could strike a resonance with others in some beneficial way, I will post this here. You don’t have to read it if you are not in the mood for a long, drawn-out post which may be disappointing or even infuriating to some people.

 

After a rather involved discussion with a couple of friends who also write stories and poetry, I discovered several things that were assumed as common sense by all of us, were not. In fact, we all ended up leaving the meeting rather puzzled, for different reasons. As many conversations between writers go, this one was following a rather mainstream path, focusing on the difficulties of writing and getting published. Sooner rather than later, we started getting into a heated discussion about common errors, and one of them was even getting technical in errors while approaching agents, editors and publishers, or with the actual preparatory work itself. I found myself asking some basic questions. Why do you want to be published? They both replied that “it’s why we write in the first place, isn’t it? Every author has the same dream, don’t they?” Well yes, they most likely do, but their reasons may vary.

 

A writer could be writing so as to create a masterpiece worthy to be remembered for, something that will stand out and be a classic of its times. So here the focus is achievement, even above fame or other motivations. Another writer may clearly write in order to be famous, so that people talk about him or her. Degrees of vanity and pride could come into it, but the main focus here is fame, or perhaps the need to be glorified. A third person could be writing so as to be a successful author and make money out of it; the focus is purely financial, the benefits of success translated here as cash. A fourth person may write because of some inner need driving them, not necessarily inspiration, but to offload things that have been repressed for years; coupled with talent, this could produce some powerful stuff, but usually once the repressed things are expressed, the creative flow diminishes. A fifth person could be writing directly as inspiration guides him or her, not necessarily following a particular genre or style, but creating as it comes to him or her; expressing their art is the main driving motivator. A sixth writer could write due to some obligation to an important other, which again, like the fourth person, once the obligation is done, the creative flow diminishes. A seventh writer may be writing a book inspired by things actually observed in real life, not through his own soul or thoughts, and may keep producing high quality material depending on his experiences and what they evoke in him or her. Of course there could be combinations of the above, but also other reasons not mentioned here; my point is that the motive varies.

 

I like to think that I am like the fifth person I described above. I write as it comes to me, and usually finish what I start; even if there are intervals between each writing attempt that my inspiration has gone on holiday, so to speak. I never hesitate to write when I feel the urge and it normally tends to flow like a torrent. I may get up in the middle of the night to do so, or during a bus trip I could be scribbling. All in all, I have no routine for it, it could adopt many styles, themes and I will allow myself to experiment in writing differently each time, if the inspiration comes in an unusual manner. Normally I’d never say stuff like that, because I thought it was “common sense” and that most people do the same, so I’m not doing anything different that the rest. It seems that at least my two friends, and even more, do it different than me and for different reasons, writing and having various motives for doing so. That is the only reason why I am stating how and why I do my writing.

 

In that discussion I was called naïve and self-absorbed, since my two friends seemed to think that publishing is the only reason one has for writing, and also for supposedly failing to grasp their understanding of the rigid structure involved in being published. I told them I don’t write to please; I’ve learnt to appreciate art in forms that are not pleasing to me, however I can value their quality in their own context for being what they are. I don’t have to personally like a piece of art to deem it good or not. I might not like certain genres in literature, however if a book is good in its own context, if it can powerfully convey what the fans would appreciate within that genre, then it’s all good for me. Apparently I’m in the wrong, since they believe that I have to be taught specific ways of judging a book and only specialists can effectively judge that.

 

While I don’t disregard any person’s field of specialty, I believe that the readers or the audience are also equipped with a way to judge a story’s success. Of course, numbers alone don’t determine quality; we have many examples of literature that met success due to effective marketing and large fan base, whereas they weren’t what you’d call “high quality novels” and vice versa. I would argue, however, that a person’s own instinct on whether they like what they read because it stirs certain emotions in them can also be a powerful judge and you don’t always need a committee of acclaimed critics to tell you whether something is a good book or not; more often than not, I found myself at odds with critics’ evaluations of books (as well as movies and other products of artistic expression). I’m sure many of you had similar experiences with picking up a book that’s supposedly evaluated as being “Good, astounding, fast pacing, exceptional etc” only to be disappointed. For many years now, I never let comments of critics and other authors influence me when I buy a book; I prefer the hands-on experience with judging for myself after reading an excerpt of the book.

 

They argued that some things are done different nowadays from the past, and they mentioned dinner parties meeting agents, the importance of good impressions first time meeting them, good cover letters written in the right manner and certain advice on how to pitch one’s book to a publisher, otherwise it gets “binned”. Your own CV and aspects of your literature achievement, seminars as well as qualifications in that field were also a bonus in order to convince them that you were a worthy investment. That was the stroke that broke the camel’s back; I confronted them on all the above, and the heated discussion continued for another hour or so. Now I realize we live in the real world and if you want somebody to put up money on your work simply on good faith, it seldom if ever works. Obviously for people whose business is to promote and sell art in any form, and I stress the word business, it all translates to money. But most people that write do so without having any certainty that they’ll make money out of it. If it happens, it happens, all the better; nobody denies success, good fortune and a bit (or a lot) of fame. But in my opinion, writers are artists; their Art should be the main focus; they might be bad or good at it, but Art should go first. All else follows; most unpublished authors (and some published ones) tend to have a different means of earning money, a more mundane job which provides them with the essential. When did we start losing the ball, putting details and right methodology and correct approaches before Art itself? When did we started to regard certain artistic expressions as old fashioned or outdated, even if they were a great success in their times, and began to favour a mentality of consumerism even in selecting books, seeking to please the general public at any cost to one’s own integrity and inspiration? Why do we keep promoting easily palatable books over others that might be equally good (or even better) but which appeal to smaller audiences?

 

The reason is simple: cost. Apparently my friends called me naïve for failing to grasp this sooner, and went on explaining how in our days competition has vastly increased while the readers have decreased (one of them even mentioned some statistic about England that the average reader only reads five or six books annually, but I haven’t yet verified this) so the publisher can’t afford to invest on something that might not sell well. Certain poetry collections, short stories and some specialty interest apparently aren’t that good to invest their money, according to my friends. One of them has had frequent meetings with publishers (he writes stories for children and some symbolic tales for adults) and he claimed to speak from experience. He said that cost was the single determining factor in most of their decisions, in those cases that they had the finished manuscript in their hands, not fearing that the writer will abandon it half-way through, unfinished. I cannot counter that; my own opinions don’t matter when another person’s cash is put at risk in investing on an artistic product. Obviously they expect to gain money out of it.

 

But I do have an issue with first impressions, right way of cover letters, appropriate approaching and so on. Why should a person’s character matter, whether they are a social butterfly or socially inept, or their ability or inability to follow bureaucratic process, when it comes to evaluating their art? I’ll even stretch my point, for argument’s sake: why should a person’s morality, even mental health matter in a determining way when judging his or her creation’s quality? How many famous artists of all types were antisocial, misogynists, emotionally labile, some suffering from serious mental health issues or having addiction and substance misuse problems? How many were at odds with what we now consider as politically correct behaviour, how many adopted alternative lifestyles unsuited to the majority? Did that affect negatively their sales or their fan base? On the contrary: many acclaimed authors, great composers, actors and painters achieved stardom being who they were. They were loved for what they were, that bizarre, uncompromising mix that made them unique. It was their unique viewpoint that made them interesting and popular; of course it doesn’t apply to all, and there will always be some who won’t like their art for any reason. This doesn’t reduce their impact and their artistic input in what we now consider mainstream or alternative art culture. Can you imagine going back in time and asking them if they’ve completed an art seminar, if their qualifications produced their art, or whether they had grasped the right way to approach their publisher or producer? They’d probably laugh, and they’d be right.

 

In my (heretical) opinion, all these methodologies are useful in refining one’s creative ability and making it able to maximize their potential. But in no way does it compensate for lack of talent. No matter how many hours of painstaking study, editing, seminar work and other shadowing methods you invest in, if the person is uninspired, the effect will be mediocre. I am not discouraging anyone by saying this; by all means, keep creating and so improve. But I believe that inspiration is essential in creating anything of worth, and so to avoid mediocrity we need to focus on the roots within, on what brings us inspiration and then allow it to express itself through us. Too many people seem to focus in how to write the perfect book; receiving dozens of different opinions from “knowable authorities” and editing dozens of times. They keep changing and changing their art until it becomes fitting for a specific target group; if that’s your goal, go ahead, I got no issue with that. But if you don’t have a specific target, if you don’t have to tailor your writing to please specific goals, then my opinion is that you should allow your Art to flow (pardon the flowery language here). The effect will be far more powerful and genuine. Can you imagine a mighty machine, programmed with the best, most efficient ways to write a story that would instruct you how to write the perfect book, how to achieve the desired result? Imagine everyone trying to conform to its standardized forms, sacrificing their originality along the way. Wouldn’t that be somewhat sterile? Would you really want to read a book that was instructed by this machine? I mean, really?

 

Two of my favourite authors are HPL (Howard Phillips Lovecraft) and Clive Barker. Both of them (including their writings) are hardly politically correct and there are examples in their showcase that would seemingly be at odds with the advice modern writers receive nowadays. For example in some stories HPL shows weakness in developing the character, not because he was unable to, but because the main focus was in the atmosphere of cosmic horror that he was weaving; and in some places his narrating style could be better but that hardly lessens the impact of the story told. Of course partly due to his own personal beliefs and partly due to appealing to a small, specialist audience at his time, he wasn’t very famous while he lived and died in relative poverty. Does this take away anything from his stories, his incredible creation of a whole mythos and a new genre in horror stories? No it doesn’t. Clive Barker is also another example; one of his best books, Imajica, has a very interesting plot but the introduction is “heavy” and relatively difficult to follow at first glance; while it’s captivating, the reader needs to persevere for another twenty pages or so until you get stuck in the story proper. Even though he’s one of my favourite authors, I was put off by the way that book started and put it down twice before insisting I’d go through and see what it’s all about; guess what. Imajica is one of my favourite books and I value it tremendously, ranking it higher than the Books of Blood or Cabal. A capricious choice perhaps, but my point here is that there are many acclaimed and known authors that didn’t follow mainstream paths and wouldn’t fit in the neat boxes of “how to write the perfect novel” kind of person. I love them with their quirks and inconsistencies, admiring their work due to its vibrancy, originality and emotional impact. Even Milton’s “Paradise Lost”, one of the classics, was provocative in its time; in the 1600s Puritan society Milton himself challenged the formal status quo, speaking in the British parliament about freedom of the press, condemning pre-publication censorship, reformation of Church discipline and arguing for the morality of divorce among other things in those difficult times.

 

Whereas we might not be in their caliber and not as proficient and able in writing, I believe we can be taught by their example and to allow our Muse to inspire us in creating not the best book of all, perhaps, but the right book for us.

I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that chocolate produced by Nestle has been comprehensively and unequivocally linked in a UN report to the use of child labor and child trafficking in order to supply that labor, in the coco plantations of East Africa. The reports include information about children suffering injury and death from machete blows, not to mention being forcibly removed from their families at the age of six upwards.

In the 18th century, our desire for sugar caused human misery on a huge scale - are you comfortable with your desire for chocolate creating the same misery? Nestle so far have been reluctant to act and say that this is mostly out of their control - as a consumer you have the power to show them that you are in control and you can decide. I am asking you to boycott nestle products and buy fair trade chocolate when you want to eat some - I'm not representing any charity or organization, I'm just moved to ask this because I don't want to give my child chocolate which has been produced by another.

If you'd like to re-post this, then please do - and if you decide to go along with me, you have my permission to buy yourself some fair trade chocolate and chow down!

While showing the use of the oxygen mask: "If you are seated next to a child or someone acting like one, please assist them in putting on the breathing apparatus.

 A Southwest flight attendant said this as the door was opened: "OK, now I'm going to tell you exactly what my Mama told me on my 18th birthday. GET OUTTA HERE."

"Hello Everyone, we have a first time flyer on board today - and it is also their 50th birthday!" After everybody cheers, the flight attendant continues, "Will everyone please wish the captain a Happy Birthday!?"

 The pilot dropped out of the fog at Spokane Washington and discovered he was half way down the runway and slammed the plane down onto the ground. The flight attendant announced, "Ladies and gentlemen, we just dropped into Spokane."

"Welcome to Las Vegas, Nevada. We'd like to thank you for flying Southwest Airlines, and on behalf of the flight deck we'd also like to extend a very special and very happy 101st Birthday to a gentleman seated near the front of the aircraft." *scattered applause* "So, if you happen to see the Captain on the way out, mind his walker, shake his hand, and wish him well with another 100 years working here at Southwest Airlines."

" "Please use caution when opening the overhead compartments as shift happens!"

After taking off, the pilot got on the speaker and said, "Bear with me folks, this is my first time."

From a Southwest Airlines employee: "There may be 50 ways to leave your lover, but there are only 4 ways out of this airplane."

Pilot: "Folks, we have reached our cruising altitude now, so I am going to switch the seat belt sign off. Feel free to move about as you wish, but please stay inside the plane till we land. It's a bit cold outside, and if you walk on the wings it affects the flight pattern."

After landing:"Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride."

 As the plane landed and was coming to a stop at Washington National, a lone voice came over the loudspeaker: "Whoa, big fella. Whoa!"

After a particularly rough landing during thunderstorms in Memphis, a flight attendant on a Northwest flight announced: "Please take care when opening the overhead compartments because, after a landing like that, sure as hell everything has shifted."

From a Southwest Airlines employee: "Welcome aboard Southwest Flight XXX to YYY. To operate your seatbelt, insert the metal tab into the buckle, and pull tight. It works just like every other seatbelt and if you don't know how to operate one, you probably shouldn't be out in public unsupervised.

 In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will descend from the ceiling. Stop screaming, grab the mask, and pull it over your face. If you have a small child traveling with you, secure your mask before assisting with theirs. If you are traveling with two small children, decide now which one you love more." .....


"Weather at our destination is 50 degrees with some broken clouds, but they'll try to have them fixed before we arrive. Thank you, and remember, nobody loves you or your money more than Southwest Airlines."

"Your seat cushions can be used for flotation. In the event of an emergency water landing, please take them with our compliments."


"As you exit the plane, please make sure to gather all of your belongings. Anything left behind will be distributed evenly among the flight attendants. Please do not leave children or spouses."

"Last one off the plane must clean it."

 From the pilot during his welcome message: "We are pleased to have some of the best flight attendants in the industry. Unfortunately none of them are on this flight."

This was overheard on an American Airlines flight into Amarillo, Texas, on a particularly windy and bumpy day. During the final approach, the captain was really having to fight it. After an extremely hard landing, the flight attendant came on the PA and announced, "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Amarillo. Please remain in your seats with your seatbelts fastened while the captain taxis what's left of our airplane to the gate!"

Another flight attendant's comment on a less than perfect landing: "We ask you to please remain seated as Captain Kangaroo bounces us to the terminal."

An airline pilot wrote that on this particular flight he had hammered his ship into the runway really hard. The airline had a policy which required the first officer to stand at the door while the passengers exited, smile, and give them a, "Thanks for flying XYZ airline." He said that in light of his bad landing, he had a hard time looking the passengers in the eye, thinking that someone would have a smart comment. Finally, everyone had gotten off except for this little old lady walking with a cane. She said, "Sonny, did we land or were we shot down?"


After a real crusher of a landing in Phoenix, the flight attendant got on the PA and said, "Ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seats until Captain Crash and the crew have brought the aircraft to a screeching halt up against the gate. And, once the tire smoke has cleared and the warning bells are silenced, we'll open the door and you can pick your way through the wreckage to the terminal."

Part of a flight attendant's arrival announcement: "We'd like to thank you folks for flying with us today. And, the next time you get the insane urge to go blasting through the skies in a pressurized metal tube, we hope you'll think of us here at US Airways."

Sam has asked us which ten books we would preserve for the good of society.  Now I want to set the cat amongst the pigeons and ask which three books you think are the most over-rated.  Controversial? Well, you needn't participate, but if you do bring a critical eye and a thick skin.  Think of books you know you're supposed to like, but just can't, and remember: this may say more about you than the book in question (or it may not).

I'll start off with a couple doozies:
Jane Eyre (Charlotte Bronte): ridiculous plots are fine, but none of the characters are likeable or consistent enough to go to the effort of suspending disbelief.

Portrait of a Lady (Henry James): I tried and tried and tried to care.

Madame Bauvery (Henri Flaubert): read it in English, read it in French, could not find a redemptive quality in either.

 

I unearthed some navy blue fabric earlier, and just to jazz it up added some collars and cuffs made from some navy stripe I had. I made the waist band longer, a prelude to the full dress idea, which I'd love to do in white, and here we go - sorry it's me in the pics!

I know it's probably done before, and it's a harsh question to ask any booklover, but I'm curious as to which 10 Books of Literature  do you consider priceless and Needed by humanity (supposing you could only preserve 10).  In this consider not just what you personally like, but also what you believe is needed to survive (culturally, aesthetically, historically etc), because in some cases I may choose something that I don't like, but which I believe would be Needed and useful to the rest of society.  I specified Literature and not sciences etc because no civilisation could hope to continue to exist without some basic knowledges so many books would have to be scientific or technical, and it would be an unfair question! That is why I asked for Literature Books. So I'm all ears!

 

Once upon a time I grew up knowing I would find 'The One'. I planned my life around it. In my head I saw the wedding day, the nice neat house I could call my own, the children that looked like me, the photo albums, the happiness and the certainty of commitment to just one other person for the rest of my life. I would lie awake in my teenage years and wonder who my soul mate could be, what they would look like, when they would arrive. I knew many stories of broken marriages, my own parents included, but I swore I could do better, I would listen more, take holidays at least once a year and keep tabs on my relationship like my parents never did.

Then I grew up and the fairytale ended, I no longer expected perfection. I witnessed the unfairness of not being the one to be picked, the feeling of shame & rejection, the exclusion of being the outcast, the one with a hidden defect, the one that was no longer invited to dinner parties because I was not part of a couple. I became a threat more than a friend. Instead I found my own group, gathered my strength with others who rebelled against the conformity of a relationship. Yes, we resented losing our friends to the smugness couple life. Yes, we found a way to feel secure by swapping romantic dinners for all night parties, love making for one night stands. We told ourselves that we didn't need another person to tell us we belonged, didn't need them to pick us from the crowd, to tell us we were the one. We became cynics looking for a new type of love and we vowed to never change.

No-one was more surprised than I when suddenly, out of the cinders on the dusty cellar floor came my dashing knight, armed with an eye that only saw me and brandishing all the similarities and personality traits needed to sweep me cleanly off my feet. For a while I made the effort to go out with my single friends, I promised not to turn into one of 'them'. But I did. Now I am no longer 'single', I am a partnership and feel the need to be progressing toward the happy ever after. Suddenly I want wedding rings, suddenly I am fearful of all night parties with friends, I feel us trying to reign each other in and all of a sudden I find myself subscribed to a very neat boxed-in life.

Alone on my veranda, looking out toward lush green bush, I feel the wind tickling my body. I am reminded of the endless possibilities of being a kid again, the idea of the perfect man, the perfect relationship – one where I feel free and can have everything I want. When did this fairytale become a story of sacrifice and compromise? And what happened to the lessons I learnt in my single, cynical days – my vision of modern love? Could it still be possible to have everything? Do we have the power to engineer our lives that way? Indeed, is it our responsibility to do so?

 

Everyday we are exposed to alternatives to conventional love. It used to be hidden in religious or cultural differences, but it now has a voice that is spoken out loud in our multi-cultural vision of the world. It says gay couples have the same co-habitation rights as heterosexuals. It proudly states the Prime minister of Australia can live in a de-facto relationship with her long-term partner and her step-child. It yells from the rooftops that women can also date younger men, branding her 'The Alpha Feline' and her toy-boy a 'cub'. Previously marginalised groups are becoming accepted and at the same time previously established groups are being questioned. Is marriage really a suitable way to live today? Can people really be expected to remain faithful? Never change? Always keep the promises they made when they were twenty? Or is it just another unrealistic demand of society? Another restriction? Is it just another structure set-up to make us feel guilty? What if traditional relationship structures have become out-dated in the modern age?

How have traditional relationships become dis-functional? How many parents stay together when the love is gone from their marriage– just for the children's sake? Do they really believe it is better that way? How many people suffer affairs silently? Alternatively how many people run-away from marriages fearful of the expectations of a life-time of commitment? The thought that it is forever or nothing, not something people work at and nurture everyday. These are all reactions from pressure and the result of beliefs formed from a common history. They are external influences that create an internal dialogue of rules to live by. When people sign divorce papers many report the feeling of failure while others feel successful in long-lasting and love-less marriages. Could it be time demolish these external definitions of success and failure that dominate our lives, and by extension, control who we are as a person – our identity?

What makes us lose track of our individual voice in a relationship? I believe it happens slowly by small sacrifices we make along the way – we let our partners design a lounge-room we do not like, we go on camping holidays when we would have preferred a spa retreat and we let our children dictate what we watch on T.V. All of a sudden the small pieces of the person we are fragment and become lost in keeping the bigger picture happy. The bigger picture is our collective identity, the 'I' becomes a 'we' and we call ourselves the 'Smith Family'. We believe we are protecting our love when really we have lost the ability to be ourselves. We are providing the structure we believe the relationship needs but because it is formed by personal sacrifice it will never be enough. Instead it breeds resentment. It changes the dynamics in relationships, it creates role-plays, manipulation and power struggles. It leaves you both wondering what happened to the person you once loved.

Why is it important to live the right kind of love? What is the right kind of love? I believe it is important for us all to look deep inside and identify what shape our love takes – how we, as individuals would like to manifest our love in the real world. With this awareness we will be able to authentically share it with others, only then can we find a lover that understands us, encourages rather than squashes who we are.

Love permeates into every essence of our lives and we can choose to carry it as a blessing or a vice, a gift or a restriction. The attitude our love projects transcends sexuality, it seeps into our family, our friends and the world around us. It frames the opportunities we have in life, it shapes how others treat us and how we treat them. I believe it is our responsibility to express our love authentically, for only then can we give and receive to our full potential. I believe this could happen with two important criteria: freedom from social constraints and expectations; asserting our individuality without feeling vulnerable to rejection.

As many people are aware the human race is evolving in a new way at the moment. A shift is occurring. A new belief system is emerging. People no longer commit to the process, or try to fulfil their social obligations of education, career, marriage, children above personal goals. Capitalism has been replaced by consciousness. Consumerism has been exposed. The new wealth is in contentment, the accumulation of happy years. Success is an individual thing, millionaires swap material possessions for inner peace and careers are being built on passion rather than prestige. What does this mean for modern relationships? Does it mean we can re-define the way we express love too? Have all previous doctrines reached an age of uncertainty? An age of personal choice? Is realising our inner desires now more important than conforming to our outer image? If so, How does a modern relationship reflect this change?

One of the biggest alterations affecting the structure of relationships is gender equality. These days men add their wives last name to their own and a woman's career can be as important as a man's when deciding to have a family. The 'Spinster' is being replaced by the 'Batchelorette' and women are now not the only one's considered a slut if they play around a bit too much. Men and women are no longer seen as dominant and submissive, in fact many love to experience it the other way round. A lot of men have out-grown the pressures of male responsibility and detest their role of bread-winner, similarly, many women have out-grown the powerlessness of being a house-wife, both genders are enjoying an era of equal opportunity. Equal responsibility. These changes make the idea of the passive house-wife watching helplessly as her husband throws his car keys into the central bowl an unlikely scenario. Today relationship structure is created by both men and women. This changes previous values and empowers both sexes to seek out exactly what they want. These days women can be a mother and a minx, men can feel masculine and show their sensitive side. Couples that have been married for twenty years can go swinging on the weekend because it is their choice. Their right.

It has become a person's right to design their lives the way they want to. Capitalism has given us the means and this new social up-rising has given us permission. We can now tailor-make our lives. New wives chat to old wives. An uncle can be the same age as his nephew. Women nip down the clinic to get pregnant, and men can become a father at seventy if they want to. The Tiger Woods style of relationship is scorned. It screams of the obedience to tradition and the belief people can do anything they want as long as they don't get caught. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie prove an unconventional relationship can work. And despite being met with criticism their unusual family set-up has become accepted. People can see a modern style that works. And with Tiger Woods, people are beginning to see how his love for sex was not the biggest problem. The biggest problem was his choice to lie, it was the lie that shattered his marriage. What if his wife had known about and permitted his other lovers? Would that have made a difference in their lives?

Could it be our responsibility to find someone who wants or at least understands the parameters of the relationship we want? I believe the foundation to a modern relationship is individual freedom and personal responsibility. There is power in creating a relationship where both parties share the same understanding of the structure and values, the shape and parameters with which their love takes. Imagine a couple who knew each others deepest sexual desires. They are able to tell each other everything without fear of rejection. They have no need for role-plays or power struggles. Instead they encourage each others goals and admire individual achievements. This idea sheds us all of labels, we are free and without restriction and this fills us with new risks and pressures. The pressure to discover our inner-nature and the risk of what that may uncover. I believe this is a smart risk to take, for this is the opportunity to express ourselves, discover personal tastes and see the same transparency in our lover. It also means relinquishing control and opening ourselves to the secrets we may uncover. It is a brave choice, can a modern relationship be accepting of anything? What would happen if anything goes?

Will Smith & Jada Pinkett are famously 'out' and 'open' celebrities. Demi Moore and Aston Krutcher are rumoured to have had sex with another girl on more than one occasion.

Open marriages are unusual but accepted. Could this mean that swinging is back? Are we now free from the structure set to hold us neatly in peace, yet still able to find peace without it? Has this new inner system of measurement actually created the right climate in the right amount of people to make the notion of 'free love' a reality? Could love, sex and relationships be a series of experiences, a personal journey toward self discovery?

Swinging is a sub-culture still rooted in stereotype, it conjures up mental images of naked orgies, gang-bangs and lesbian kisses – all indulgences we normally associate with provocative & lewd behaviour. It is something other people do. The thought of another person having sex with you and your lover is perverse, it is an invasion, it just seems wrong. But can I ask – who says that? Who's voice are you speaking in? Is it in fact formed by a society that values monogamy, marriage and traditional expression of love? Are we now ready to see through this programmed response? Can we now perceive swinging as more than a way to authorise extra-marital sex?

I see swinging as one of the many forms of modern love, a relationship style born out of a society that no longer needs to conform. Swinging takes many different shapes such as partner-swapping, same room sex, voyeurism, exhibitionism and many more. The essence of it however describes individuals which have crawled into the depths of who they are and brought out the bold light of their own desire, the barbaric expression, the animalistic tendencies of their true nature which society has told us to hide. In a relationship this can create a greater understanding of our sexuality, a way of being totally accepting of each other - a way to love unconditionally, a way to acknowledge the deepest desires and validate them in ourselves and others. It encourages a love that transcends gender, is not possessed solely by one other person and is a way we can share and connect as human beings. This form of modern love encourages us to share, connect and appreciate other people. This is in contrast to our conventional past which taught us to set boundaries, restrict and compete for perfection with people.

Relationships have taken a modern twist. They have evolved. The fairytale has been exposed for its unrealistic magic, instead we are beginning to question our ideals which centre on marriage, career and conformity. People are no longer satisfied with a fake marriage and they no longer feel that they have failed others if they get divorced. These days what matters is that they have failed themselves. People no longer want to game-play, manipulate or fight for power in their relationship. Instead they want to feel good, feel encouraged, and they are looking for ways to do that. What hinders us most is a past which is fear based, afraid of what true desires may be uncovered if we open ourselves up to a different style of relationship.

People are no longer at the mercy of their gender. People no longer need to conform as much as they once did. People want a love that helps define them, an expression of love that they can use to fuel other aspects of their life, a love that empowers them and helps create and identity they are proud of, not one that is a bi-product of the sacrifices they made and the expectations others had on them.

The pressure to conform is fading and a new pressure emerges, one that asks us to explore our sexual depths, one that tells us by accepting others we will be accepted ourselves. We can now forge a new relationship where we can do anything and everything we want, it frees us, threatens us, but ultimately empowers us. A relationship today is about choice, how we, as individuals choose to express our love. We have the ability to design our relationship to suit our exact needs and this trend has seen the emergence of sub-groups such as open marriages and swinging. People are beginning to value transparency, personal expression and authenticity. Failure is conforming. Success can be found in awareness. Relationships are becoming more about a mutual understanding, it is now our responsibility to be open about the style of relationship we want. We must confidently assert what we want.

Social acceptance of all the different expressions of modern love and modern relationship styles illustrates a new human awareness that is emerging. The acceptance of peoples quirks and differences is a way of connecting the human race, uniting us, allowing us to share in our uniqueness. For now a relationship is no longer about how we manifest love in our lives, but how we are able to feel unique inside, and at the same time feel a deep connection and oneness with the world outside.

"A good relationship has a pattern like a dance and is built on some of the same rules. The partners do need to hold on tightly, because they move confidently in the same pattern, intricate but gay and swift and free. To touch heavily would be to arrest the pattern and freeze the movement, to check the endlessly changing beauty of its unfolding. They know they are partners moving to the same rhythm, creating a pattern together, and being invisibly nourished by it"

(Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Gift From The Sea)

 

On a global level this is slowly becoming unity through the acceptance of others. Are we become a species of endless possibility?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once upon a time I grew up knowing I would find 'The One'. I planned my life around it. In my head I saw the wedding day, the nice neat house I could call my own, the children that looked like me, the photo albums, the happiness and the certainty of commitment to just one other person for the rest of my life. I would lie awake in my teenage years and wonder who my soul mate could be, what they would look like, when they would arrive. I knew many stories of broken marriages, my own parents included, but I swore I could do better, I would listen more, take holidays at least once a year and keep tabs on my relationship like my parents never did.

Then I grew up and the fairytale ended, I no longer expected perfection. I witnessed the unfairness of not being the one to be picked, the feeling of shame & rejection, the exclusion of being the outcast, the one with a hidden defect, the one that was no longer invited to dinner parties because I was not part of a couple. I became a threat more than a friend. Instead I found my own group, gathered my strength with others who rebelled against the conformity of a relationship. Yes, we resented losing our friends to the smugness couple life. Yes, we found a way to feel secure by swapping romantic dinners for all night parties, love making for one night stands. We told ourselves that we didn't need another person to tell us we belonged, didn't need them to pick us from the crowd, to tell us we were the one. We became cynics looking for a new type of love and we vowed to never change.

No-one was more surprised than I when suddenly, out of the cinders on the dusty cellar floor came my dashing knight, armed with an eye that only saw me and brandishing all the similarities and personality traits needed to sweep me cleanly off my feet. For a while I made the effort to go out with my single friends, I promised not to turn into one of 'them'. But I did. Now I am no longer 'single', I am a partnership and feel the need to be progressing toward the happy ever after. Suddenly I want wedding rings, suddenly I am fearful of all night parties with friends, I feel us trying to reign each other in and all of a sudden I find myself subscribed to a very neat boxed-in life.

Alone on my veranda, looking out toward lush green bush, I feel the wind tickling my body. I am reminded of the endless possibilities of being a kid again, the idea of the perfect man, the perfect relationship – one where I feel free and can have everything I want. When did this fairytale become a story of sacrifice and compromise? And what happened to the lessons I learnt in my single, cynical days – my vision of modern love? Could it still be possible to have everything? Do we have the power to engineer our lives that way? Indeed, is it our responsibility to do so?

 

Everyday we are exposed to alternatives to conventional love. It used to be hidden in religious or cultural differences, but it now has a voice that is spoken out loud in our multi-cultural vision of the world. It says gay couples have the same co-habitation rights as heterosexuals. It proudly states the Prime minister of Australia can live in a de-facto relationship with her long-term partner and her step-child. It yells from the rooftops that women can also date younger men, branding her 'The Alpha Feline' and her toy-boy a 'cub'. Previously marginalised groups are becoming accepted and at the same time previously established groups are being questioned. Is marriage really a suitable way to live today? Can people really be expected to remain faithful? Never change? Always keep the promises they made when they were twenty? Or is it just another unrealistic demand of society? Another restriction? Is it just another structure set-up to make us feel guilty? What if traditional relationship structures have become out-dated in the modern age?

How have traditional relationships become dis-functional? How many parents stay together when the love is gone from their marriage– just for the children's sake? Do they really believe it is better that way? How many people suffer affairs silently? Alternatively how many people run-away from marriages fearful of the expectations of a life-time of commitment? The thought that it is forever or nothing, not something people work at and nurture everyday. These are all reactions from pressure and the result of beliefs formed from a common history. They are external influences that create an internal dialogue of rules to live by. When people sign divorce papers many report the feeling of failure while others feel successful in long-lasting and love-less marriages. Could it be time demolish these external definitions of success and failure that dominate our lives, and by extension, control who we are as a person – our identity?

What makes us lose track of our individual voice in a relationship? I believe it happens slowly by small sacrifices we make along the way – we let our partners design a lounge-room we do not like, we go on camping holidays when we would have preferred a spa retreat and we let our children dictate what we watch on T.V. All of a sudden the small pieces of the person we are fragment and become lost in keeping the bigger picture happy. The bigger picture is our collective identity, the 'I' becomes a 'we' and we call ourselves the 'Smith Family'. We believe we are protecting our love when really we have lost the ability to be ourselves. We are providing the structure we believe the relationship needs but because it is formed by personal sacrifice it will never be enough. Instead it breeds resentment. It changes the dynamics in relationships, it creates role-plays, manipulation and power struggles. It leaves you both wondering what happened to the person you once loved.

Why is it important to live the right kind of love? What is the right kind of love? I believe it is important for us all to look deep inside and identify what shape our love takes – how we, as individuals would like to manifest our love in the real world. With this awareness we will be able to authentically share it with others, only then can we find a lover that understands us, encourages rather than squashes who we are.

Love permeates into every essence of our lives and we can choose to carry it as a blessing or a vice, a gift or a restriction. The attitude our love projects transcends sexuality, it seeps into our family, our friends and the world around us. It frames the opportunities we have in life, it shapes how others treat us and how we treat them. I believe it is our responsibility to express our love authentically, for only then can we give and receive to our full potential. I believe this could happen with two important criteria: freedom from social constraints and expectations; asserting our individuality without feeling vulnerable to rejection.

As many people are aware the human race is evolving in a new way at the moment. A shift is occurring. A new belief system is emerging. People no longer commit to the process, or try to fulfil their social obligations of education, career, marriage, children above personal goals. Capitalism has been replaced by consciousness. Consumerism has been exposed. The new wealth is in contentment, the accumulation of happy years. Success is an individual thing, millionaires swap material possessions for inner peace and careers are being built on passion rather than prestige. What does this mean for modern relationships? Does it mean we can re-define the way we express love too? Have all previous doctrines reached an age of uncertainty? An age of personal choice? Is realising our inner desires now more important than conforming to our outer image? If so, How does a modern relationship reflect this change?

One of the biggest alterations affecting the structure of relationships is gender equality. These days men add their wives last name to their own and a woman's career can be as important as a man's when deciding to have a family. The 'Spinster' is being replaced by the 'Batchelorette' and women are now not the only one's considered a slut if they play around a bit too much. Men and women are no longer seen as dominant and submissive, in fact many love to experience it the other way round. A lot of men have out-grown the pressures of male responsibility and detest their role of bread-winner, similarly, many women have out-grown the powerlessness of being a house-wife, both genders are enjoying an era of equal opportunity. Equal responsibility. These changes make the idea of the passive house-wife watching helplessly as her husband throws his car keys into the central bowl an unlikely scenario. Today relationship structure is created by both men and women. This changes previous values and empowers both sexes to seek out exactly what they want. These days women can be a mother and a minx, men can feel masculine and show their sensitive side. Couples that have been married for twenty years can go swinging on the weekend because it is their choice. Their right.

It has become a person's right to design their lives the way they want to. Capitalism has given us the means and this new social up-rising has given us permission. We can now tailor-make our lives. New wives chat to old wives. An uncle can be the same age as his nephew. Women nip down the clinic to get pregnant, and men can become a father at seventy if they want to. The Tiger Woods style of relationship is scorned. It screams of the obedience to tradition and the belief people can do anything they want as long as they don't get caught. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie prove an unconventional relationship can work. And despite being met with criticism their unusual family set-up has become accepted. People can see a modern style that works. And with Tiger Woods, people are beginning to see how his love for sex was not the biggest problem. The biggest problem was his choice to lie, it was the lie that shattered his marriage. What if his wife had known about and permitted his other lovers? Would that have made a difference in their lives?

Could it be our responsibility to find someone who wants or at least understands the parameters of the relationship we want? I believe the foundation to a modern relationship is individual freedom and personal responsibility. There is power in creating a relationship where both parties share the same understanding of the structure and values, the shape and parameters with which their love takes. Imagine a couple who knew each others deepest sexual desires. They are able to tell each other everything without fear of rejection. They have no need for role-plays or power struggles. Instead they encourage each others goals and admire individual achievements. This idea sheds us all of labels, we are free and without restriction and this fills us with new risks and pressures. The pressure to discover our inner-nature and the risk of what that may uncover. I believe this is a smart risk to take, for this is the opportunity to express ourselves, discover personal tastes and see the same transparency in our lover. It also means relinquishing control and opening ourselves to the secrets we may uncover. It is a brave choice, can a modern relationship be accepting of anything? What would happen if anything goes?

Will Smith & Jada Pinkett are famously 'out' and 'open' celebrities. Demi Moore and Aston Krutcher are rumoured to have had sex with another girl on more than one occasion.

Open marriages are unusual but accepted. Could this mean that swinging is back? Are we now free from the structure set to hold us neatly in peace, yet still able to find peace without it? Has this new inner system of measurement actually created the right climate in the right amount of people to make the notion of 'free love' a reality? Could love, sex and relationships be a series of experiences, a personal journey toward self discovery?

Swinging is a sub-culture still rooted in stereotype, it conjures up mental images of naked orgies, gang-bangs and lesbian kisses – all indulgences we normally associate with provocative & lewd behaviour. It is something other people do. The thought of another person having sex with you and your lover is perverse, it is an invasion, it just seems wrong. But can I ask – who says that? Who's voice are you speaking in? Is it in fact formed by a society that values monogamy, marriage and traditional expression of love? Are we now ready to see through this programmed response? Can we now perceive swinging as more than a way to authorise extra-marital sex?

I see swinging as one of the many forms of modern love, a relationship style born out of a society that no longer needs to conform. Swinging takes many different shapes such as partner-swapping, same room sex, voyeurism, exhibitionism and many more. The essence of it however describes individuals which have crawled into the depths of who they are and brought out the bold light of their own desire, the barbaric expression, the animalistic tendencies of their true nature which society has told us to hide. In a relationship this can create a greater understanding of our sexuality, a way of being totally accepting of each other - a way to love unconditionally, a way to acknowledge the deepest desires and validate them in ourselves and others. It encourages a love that transcends gender, is not possessed solely by one other person and is a way we can share and connect as human beings. This form of modern love encourages us to share, connect and appreciate other people. This is in contrast to our conventional past which taught us to set boundaries, restrict and compete for perfection with people.

Relationships have taken a modern twist. They have evolved. The fairytale has been exposed for its unrealistic magic, instead we are beginning to question our ideals which centre on marriage, career and conformity. People are no longer satisfied with a fake marriage and they no longer feel that they have failed others if they get divorced. These days what matters is that they have failed themselves. People no longer want to game-play, manipulate or fight for power in their relationship. Instead they want to feel good, feel encouraged, and they are looking for ways to do that. What hinders us most is a past which is fear based, afraid of what true desires may be uncovered if we open ourselves up to a different style of relationship.

People are no longer at the mercy of their gender. People no longer need to conform as much as they once did. People want a love that helps define them, an expression of love that they can use to fuel other aspects of their life, a love that empowers them and helps create and identity they are proud of, not one that is a bi-product of the sacrifices they made and the expectations others had on them.

The pressure to conform is fading and a new pressure emerges, one that asks us to explore our sexual depths, one that tells us by accepting others we will be accepted ourselves. We can now forge a new relationship where we can do anything and everything we want, it frees us, threatens us, but ultimately empowers us. A relationship today is about choice, how we, as individuals choose to express our love. We have the ability to design our relationship to suit our exact needs and this trend has seen the emergence of sub-groups such as open marriages and swinging. People are beginning to value transparency, personal expression and authenticity. Failure is conforming. Success can be found in awareness. Relationships are becoming more about a mutual understanding, it is now our responsibility to be open about the style of relationship we want. We must confidently assert what we want.

Social acceptance of all the different expressions of modern love and modern relationship styles illustrates a new human awareness that is emerging. The acceptance of peoples quirks and differences is a way of connecting the human race, uniting us, allowing us to share in our uniqueness. For now a relationship is no longer about how we manifest love in our lives, but how we are able to feel unique inside, and at the same time feel a deep connection and oneness with the world outside.

"A good relationship has a pattern like a dance and is built on some of the same rules. The partners do need to hold on tightly, because they move confidently in the same pattern, intricate but gay and swift and free. To touch heavily would be to arrest the pattern and freeze the movement, to check the endlessly changing beauty of its unfolding. They know they are partners moving to the same rhythm, creating a pattern together, and being invisibly nourished by it"

(Anne Morrow Lindbergh, Gift From The Sea)

 

On a global level this is slowly becoming unity through the acceptance of others. Are we become a species of endless possibility?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As well as writing I make clothes 'n' stuff, in a not for profit capacity (in that no one pays me to do either) and I have rescently been reading a book on Japanese contemporary pattern cutting which has had me squiggling with delight. Here's my first experiement.

It's a short, pull on top made from only two pattern pieces, leaving aside the neck which tecnically is finished with a rib,not a pattern piece as such. If you were to lay it flat, it would suddely look like a big circle with holes cut into it.
The side view gives you a better idea, you get the bulk of the spherical shape behind you, which falls into rather beautiful, bouncy drapes.
I'm very pleased with it, I want to make more and ideally will now attempt to make a dress with this feature on the top with a close fitting skirt below. Or I would do, If I haddn't nearly run out of fabric and need to sell something to pay for more!
I do think these tops are rater cute, and combine an elegance with a sense of humor which I like. I would like to make some to sell, and have an event in August which I will try and make a few for, if I can work out how to get more fabric - still, they only take about 1 meter as a top, so Ideally I could sell them for £20 each to start with, which is not too bad. I would like to make them with a contrasting sleeve/neck, something subtle like dark blue or dark grey on black, or a little hint of pattern, which I should be able to do. And in this hot weather, they're really nice and airy!

Back to the writing!