Lincoln, being an Illinois native son, naturally has a significant place in the Chicago Historical Society Museum (also known as the Chicago History Museum). It’s located in the Lincoln Park section of the city for goodness sake. In walking through the Lincoln exhibit, I am always struck by the vitriol of the political cartoons of that era. It seems no insult, personal or political, was deemed too low to heap upon Mr. Lincoln. Considering the reverence with which Lincoln is regarded today, it’s a real shock to see him lampooned as slow-witted, clumsy, grace-less and inept. When Lincoln ran for his second term, it was widely believed that McClellan would clean Honest Abe’s clock in the election (and to be honest, without the Union victory at Gettysburg the outcome might have been different).

          It interests me to see and hear Obama’s political detractors today. It will interest me to see what history makes of the man? And what will history make of those who call the First Lady Moo-chelle?    

          Several years ago, when the United States was seeking support for the invasion of Iraq, France suggested that the effort was misguided and that they would not allow fly-overs of French territories for U.S. military aircraft.
          The response from the Republicans and the Bush administration was so eloquently symbolized by “freedom fries,” the brainchild (and I use the term loosely) of the congressional cafeteria. “We’re not going to serve French fries any more – they’re going to be freedom fries.”
          Two stories, well actually maybe just one and then a whine.
          My wife Eileen and I were on Navy Pier shortly after that debacle and went into a restaurant – got a table and looked at the menu. When I saw “freedom fries,” we got up and left – but not after letting the server know that we didn’t want to eat in any establishment selling freedom fries.
          A few days ago I believe John Kerry suggested that America’s oldest allies did not include the English. That’s true, of course. (it did include the French, without whose aid we might never have liberated ourselves from British rule). In a sense it is to this administration’s credit, despite that pointed snub of all things British, that English muffins have not been dubbed “freedom muffins.” In a sense, the Obama administration's recent deliberative circumspection is even more to their credit.
          When you are driven to bash your long-time friends because they don’t support your actions, maybe the proper course is to re-evaluate those actions and stop bashing old friends.
           But then, France-bashing is de rigueur for the conservative right. (I think they don’t even have a word for de rigueur)

          I was in touch with Laurie Scheer over the last few days and she had some wonderful news. Her book proposal was accepted by Michael Wiese Productions and she will be submitting the manuscript to them before year’s end.
         I assume that will put the lie to my statement on the Tools page that, “Laurie does not have a published text on writing techniques or fundamentals of dramatic what-have-you’s.” With luck, writing fans, such a text will be in print before long.
         Hooray for you, Laurie Scheer! May the Muse whisper softly in your ear at just the moment it is needed.

          I was reading online today an article about the unintended consequences of the massive (and non-traditional) approach the Federal Reserve has taken to stimulate the economy, namely buying 83 billion dollars worth of bonds every month (at least I think that’s the number).
         I traded interest rate futures for eighteen years and while I didn’t understand everything about what I was doing, I had to understand some of the jargon and had to try to make money trading opposite people who supposedly were working the levers of change when it came to interest rates, Federal and private.
         Even with that background and experience, I was lost reading today’s article. I have no idea what currency interventions and/or currency policies other countries might be pressured to undertake to offset the negative impacts of our government’s policies on their national financial well-being. Near the end of the article, after I was totally confused and frustrated by the dense writing, the article’s author (and shame on me for quoting the article without crediting him or her) said this:

          Many analysts worry about the efficacy of such policies, given the long history of failed currency interventions around the world that often, by revealing a country’s financial weakness, have attracted speculators rather than deterred them.

         The deputy central bank governor of Brazil, which has employed capital controls to stem rapid inflows in recent years, suggested they have likely helped to temper monetary pressures the country is now facing. Luiz Pereira struck a lighter note in making his point.

         “If you’re throwing a party and you want to be more selective in allowing guests into your own party, probably you will have fewer people running for the exit doors if something goes terribly wrong,” he said.

         “If no restrictions were placed on the guest list,” he continued, “the party gets too wild too soon.”

         “When you try to select your guests, you want the ones who come [to] stay longer without getting too drunk.”
(and that was the last line of the article)
          The temptation is always to “explain,” but sometimes you just have to tell a story and when you get to the end, turn off the mike and walk away. Congratulations Luiz Pereira – well done! (and thanks for clarifying Brazil's actions)

           I was chatting with Wally today – that’s my close friend Wally (Walter) Dykema – and mentioned an online piece I had read about the ways in which screenwriting skill set is valuable to novel writers.
            To which Wally said, “Duh!”
            “The writer of the article talked about the tight constraints on a screenplay’s structure, how the story has to be well-built.”
            “As opposed,” Wally said, “to flowery prose and extended raptures of internal dialogue.”
            Wally and I both tend to be more than a little critical of flowery prose.
            “So what about you?” Wally asked, “Have you been using screenwriting tools as you work on ARC?”
            To which I said, “Duh!”
            “And that’s been enough, or are there some things screenwriting tools can’t help with in a novel?”
            “Everything a screenwriter learns gets in the way when he or she has to actually write out emotional reactions – internal dialogue stuff.”
            “And how did you lick that?” Wally asked.
            “I’m not sure I have it ‘licked’ but I got a good piece of advice from Pat LoBrutto that I think helped. ‘The character’s voice in internal dialogue should sound like it does when she’s talking out loud.’”
            When I paused, Wally asked, “But . . .?”
            “Some of the things she says internally, she would never say in public.”
            “Cool.”

          I was reading an article the other day about how Blake Snyder’s “Save the Cat” is destroying creativity in the world of movies. Seems to me that fifteen years ago it was how Chris Vogler’s “The Writer’s Journey” was doing much the same thing (and before that Joseph Campbell’s “Hero with a Thousand Faces.”)
         The passionate online responses were, to my thinking, a little over the top. Reading a book is not the same as being sold into slavery. Learning a new way to think about your creative projects doesn’t mean you must recant all your previous ideas.
         Maybe a couple short stories:
         There once was a man whose only tool was a hammer. To him everything looked like a nail. (that was a really short story, eh?)
         There once was a property owner who hired the man with the hammer to build her a house. It didn’t turn out so good. Her neighbor engaged a contractor who promised a wonderful house – cathedral ceilings, bay windows, spacious closets. She didn’t know her contractor believed time spent mastering his tools would stifle his creative vision. That house turned out worse.

          I was a commodity trader for a long time and trading taught me a lesson that I'd like to share. One of the beauties of trading is that you can get feedback on how you're doing over very short timeframes. That is, if you buy a few "lows" and sell some "highs" between 10 and 11 in the morning, you're doing great! If you do the opposite, you're not.
          I'm a big Walt Disney fan and I love Disney World (and Disneyland) and our family would go for a week or so, usually in February. In the weeks before vacation I would make or lose some money - nothing spectacular. But in the week I returned I would almost invariably make great decisions, my timing would be good and I'd pay for the vacation expenses and then some within a few days of our return.
          The worker-productivity researchers and gurus and "wise guys" tell you that vacations tend to make workers more productive and profitable. Somehow in the jobs I've had where I had a boss, he or she just never seemed convinced of that. It was always like they were doing me a favor by giving me some time off.
         There's a quote from George Meany, the AFL-CIO president of my youth that goes like this: "One of the bad things about being unemployed is that you never get a vacation." That came from a time when consulting and freelancing were less common but a person who is self-employed is well-advised to carve out vacation time and then take it.
          The caveat is that when vacation is over, you have to get back to work. That's me and I'm now officially back to work.

          With my wife back home and neither of us constrained to tea-totalling, I finally got to have that beer with Wally. We were, of course, the picture of moderation and thus the conversation had some gravitas.
          I know, boring! However . . .
          We got chatting about Edward Snowden – who can avoid it these days? – but Wally got personal. “When I was a fairly young man,” he said, “a woman shared something that I knew I would never be able to tell anyone, probably not even her.”
          “It was heavy.” He paused for a second and added, “dude,” but that only lightened the mood a little. Wally is as straight as an arrow gets and I knew that this secret stood out because he probably didn’t have more than a couple others to keep. “It’s been heavy for forty years.”
          What do secrets do to people (or institutions) that keep them? What was this secret doing to my friend? How does keeping secrets change the nature of governments and other institutions?
          “I was watching Chris Hayes the other night,” I offered, “and when he went into his polemic, the one he does in the middle of the show, he started with, ‘No one questions that a government has to have secrets, . . .’ and I sat in front of the TV, physically raised my hand and offered, ‘I do,’ but he went right on.”
          Wally smiled.
  “There’s a certain lack of truthfulness in keeping secrets,” I added, “but most of the world dismisses you as naïve if you question the inescapability of it.”

I guess Wally had put his secret back in the place where he keeps it and was done talking about it. “It’s deep,” he said as he ordered us another beer, “. . . dude.”    

            There is a section of the show, “All In with Chris Hayes” called “Click Three,” where Chris highlights three Websites. Yesterday he departed from norms and had just one “click,” a video of Jon Stewart on an Egyptian parallel to “The Daily Show” hosted by Bassem Youssef.
            Youssef had been on The Daily Show some months back and Jon Stewart was returning the favor. It was all very light-hearted and funny, but with serious overtones all the time. Both men kidded each other about getting in trouble for poking fun at the government and other self-important institutions. Apparently the Egyptian government has actually charged Youssef with insulting the president, Mohamed Morsi. On that point, Jon Stewart waxed philosophical and said, “If your regime is not strong enough to handle a joke, then you don’t have a regime.” It drew significant applause.
          The Trickster archetype (a la Joseph Campbell and Chris Vogler) is a source of storytelling energy. It’s their unpredictability that ups the stakes. Real life tricksters: the court jester, the cut-up, the class clown bring much more than just spontaneity to their “scene.” It’s their irreverence that contributes to the health of whatever institution is brave enough to abide their presence. I heard it said, and believe it’s true that the one thing power-hungry people cannot abide is ridicule. That said, truly powerful people have the strength to withstand a joke.

         And that’s not much of a story. I will do better next time.

          I passed by the display case of pastries and when a decadent cinnamon bun whispered my name, I gave it the Geraldine – “Get back, you devil!” and ordered a bran muffin instead.
         After Wally and I got through the chit-chat about what’s been happening with families and mutual friends, he picked up where we left off about the “right man,” as in “there’s nothing more dangerous than a right man.” Turns out we both went online looking for who said that and neither of us could find it.
         We did find some good quotes, among them Cher’s observation that while a woman waits for the right man to come along there’s nothing wrong with having a wonderful time with all the wrong ones. “That’s funny,” I said. “Irreverence is funny.”
         And Wally answered. “That’s the heart of it, isn’t it? Maybe it’s a person who is never irreverent who’s dangerous.”
         “When has the world been in trouble,” I asked, “if not when pious, self-righteous souls have wielded the power? Do we think the Inquisitors in Spain and Portugal got together for a good laugh now and then?”
         “I ran across the Puritan’s Joke Book the other day,” Wally offered, “the one published in Salem in 1692?” I waited, knowing the punch line was coming. “All the pages were blank.” He sat there a second and then he said, “Circus Galaxus.” I almost choked up.
        Wally has read just about all of my stories and I was flattered that he made the connection. The Hero of the story, Alec Gonzales, is a trickster archetype. The theme of Circus Galaxus is whether irreverence and levity can exist in the presence of awesome responsibility, whether a clown can be forced to exercise the power of life and death and still keep his fun-loving soul?

          We talked some more but I will get into that in the next post.