The Way of Things

I thought I was going to make it all the way through Festivus and Christmas, maybe even so far as into the next year, without a serious grievance.  Silly me.  Looks like I have a grievance to air after all.  Have you heard of Twitter?  Oh, good.

Out in the virtual world of social media, I've made a habit of mentioning users with whom I've enjoyed conversing or whom I've felt were otherwise worth recommending that people follow.  From what I have observed, it's a routine practice.  It seems as though it's part of being social: passing information about interesting content between users.  The people behind the curtain running Twitter say that's not what Twitter is for and that for me to continue such abuse of their system will result in the permanent suspension of my account.  I've been engaged in the practice for quite a while and really had no idea it was a bother.  I still don't see a problem with it, having received a multitude of grateful responses from other users who seemed to enjoy being a part of the whole networking aspect of the process.

Well, what do we know?

Apparently, that's not what Twitter is for.

I suppose it's still OK to retweet things.  "Retweet" made it into the dictionary, so I'd guess they don't want to torpedo that one.  "Mentioning" was in the dictionary long before even Twitter, so they'd have a hard time claiming that one.  That may be why they don't have the same feeling of attachment to it.

So...if you're a fellow twit, retweeting content is OK, just don't tell anyone who you've been talking with about it.  If you're with the NSA or any other part of the government's alphabet soup, you already know who we've all been talking with and don't care how we feel about you knowing so long as we don't tell anyone else what we all already know about what you've been doing because you want us to pretend it's a secret that we don't know so you can follow what we're up to without us knowing you're there.  It's OK, really.  We're posting in a public media forum.  We're sharing freely.  Hell, they used to be called "bulletin boards".  Sometimes we still call them "community forums".

They're about sharing.  I'm pretty sure that's what we're there to do.

Shows what I know.

One other thing I do know is that bitching about a problem is easy.  It doesn't accomplish as much as doing something about the problem.  So, since I prefer lighting candles to cursing darkness, below are the Twitter handles I'll no longer be sharing on Twitter, but still encourage people to follow if they're so inclined.  Some are writers, others are artists, and some are just people who like to chat or share things you might like to read.  None have been arranged in any particular order, nor have they done anything else special to be added to the list.

@amberrisme @Princess_Nadian @RahimaWarren @DARREN_POOLE @badredheadmedia @sue_whitehouse

@MichelleHughes_ @RachelintheOC @Toonopolis @Pseudohumanist

@ApiarySociety @YogaChikk @Sexxiimanda @KathleenHagburg @KatherynLane @dkkauwe

@Georg_Grey @Literarygrrrl @torque10 @TGLong @RayneHall @Murphyverse @WriterCath

@Frecklesmiley @Kendallgrey1 @TheNeedsofMany @BlakeBooks @Hyphend @juttaheitland @SapphicPixie

@deann_native @littlecinnamon @KnightTrilogy @smreine @AuthorGuy @daezarkian @ToxZak

@K_Einsel @TameTheDrew @SJtheWordsmith @MrsDenAsaan @JulieALindsey @writerredux @aniaahlborn

@LukeRomyn @Lesism @seams16 @kaitnolan @TheNerdyBird @Superherologist @pat_preston @Lillith_Black

@borderfox116 @linesbylyons @LettersbyLisa @AndyHolloman @AllanDouglasDgn @KimberlyKinrade

@AmberWest @louise3anne @EvilVulcanChick @Buck_Fachmann @CMCCreations @Macdougall4

@CassidyJonesAdv @CorinneOFlynn @2r3al2real @brackenonline @CeiCeiH @Killpandakill @MichWritesBooks

@KarenCousineau @almahoffmann @DaddyBookins @leo_g18 @KeeraMcKinney @Ambertarian @Jarrett

@Janice_Hardy @KravensQueen @JROrtiz59 @paultlowe @SandraBunino @mpax1

@djkazoosa @TX_Lisa @DashaBabenko @wilkravitz @SherAHart @sharleenj @Rob__Shepherd

@THESEXXIIMANDA @MonicaInGearMag @lkblackburne @seedpearls @markaleshin @TiredFairy

@MeMyselfandI444 @Asperger_Mom @Kelsye @CuttingRoomMRB @HarveyBurgess

@wanderingstarz1 @DetFrankFrank @DESIRE3795 @dontkillkenny19 @kcrhoads1 @LZMarieAuthor

@gingergander @markfromkent @omaraburtot @chanelle1977 @cheryl_777 @chessmaster34

@natolifreelance @djkazoosa @tattooeddeadgrl @nittni3 @bonusmum @troisfeuilles 

@Clive_SJohnson @NathanTarantla @rpdahlke @MaxChina3 @MondayBlogs @Lilo_Abernathy

16385--Why Your Characters Want What They Want

Whether it's 3 for $5, 4 for $1, the 6- or 10-piece deal, or buy one get free, it seems we all want to get more for our money.  No one ever says, "I want less bang for my buck" or even just "I want bang for my buck."  We want more bang for our buck.

Admittedly, I don't have a degree in the subject, but I've done my fair share of amateur anthropology.  Years ago, I noticed two differences that stood out in discoveries about Neanderthal and Cro-magnon man.  First was that Neanderthal territory shrunk over time and Cro-Magnon territory expanded over time.  The second thing, that I suppose seemed like more of a big deal to me, was that while both species made tools, the products were different.  Allow me to elaborate...

Neanderthal tools that were dug up showed that they were bright and resourceful enough to make all the same basic items to which we're accustomed.  They had the hammer and spear and hand axe, as expected.  What was most interesting about their tools, though, was that once they had the tool figured out, that was the only way it was ever made.  For thousands of years (yes, thousands--think about that), every tool was made in the same way it had always been.

Now, when digging up Cro-magnon remains, the drastic difference appeared.  Despite similar brains, Cro-magnon tools looked like they had taken a trip down to Fred Flintstone's local Sears.  They had the 120-piece toolkits, containing differently sized and shaped variations of every useful thing they could think of to make.  Cro-magnon man was innovative.  These were the guys who were moving their camps around year after year to find out what was over the next hill and swarm all over the world.  These are the guys who followed a career path that carried them on to become modern man.

What did I learn?  What did those primitive butt-scratchers pass along to their modern children that matters to how life is lived today?

I realized that if I could sum it up in one neat package it would be this: more.

That's it.  "More" is the motto.  What did they say in Wall Street?  "Greed is good."  In practice, enough is never enough.  More profit is sought.  More territory is sought.  More for our money is sought.  We're on a ceaseless quest for more of anything we want, whether that's sex, food, money, cars, living space or stuff to fill the space with.  Good luck communicating the concept of "non-renewable resources" to a population hard-wired for "more".  To them, we'll never run out of anything because the very concept of "more" means there's always "more" to be sought and obtained.

We place great value on friendship and tout that a best friend is a special and precious thing, but how many people have ever trumpeted having one Facebook friend?  How many Twitter followers are enough?  I guarantee you that a company that makes a $10 billion profit one year will set a higher profit goal for its sales force the next year.

People want to "have it all" because...it's more!  Those who get it still won't be happy because it's not enough.  That's what more is all about and five hundred hours of psychotherapy are not about to change millenia of evolution that's still working.  It pushes us to go forth and strive for lofty goals.  What will most parents tell you they want for their children?  More than the parent had.

Do you know why we have morphine and cocaine today?  Because neither addicting a third of China to opium nor being able to work vigorously at high altitudes by chewing on a coca leaf were enough to satisfy us.  Somebody had to have...more!

OK, so the secret's out.  You can stop feeling guilty over striving and questing, etc.  If you're writing, you now know what drives your characters (assuming you didn't already) to pursue their specific motivations.  If they're human, that antagonist wants more [blank] and even the protagonist wants more [blank] unless your hero is very odd or even inhuman.  That's part of what will make them seem more than a mere two-dimensional simulation and take on the feel of real people.  Fill them up with enough of that drive and they may even seem obsessed.  Watch what they do then.

Is there something in particular for you for which there's never enough?  Does that carry into your writing?

16355-- Look, I've only got two feet!

I'm not troubled or disturbed by social media as a concept.  I think the whole thing provides us wonderful tools for reaching out to others.  If you just want to connect with other people, great.  If you're marketing, even better.

The thing that bothers me is that I think we (collectively) might end up with more platforms than we can handle standing on.

Let's be real, there hasn't been a social networking site yet that has given us the ultimate product that answers all of our needs.  They rise, look pretty, draw a crowd and then fade into obscurity when the next one comes along.  All these users must be moving around for something.  We're looking for the next better thing, I figure.

After the great MySpace migration to Facebook, MySpace (who?) was left a virtual ghost town, suffering the effect it had inflicted on its more primitive predecessor.  After Facebook got settled in, though, something different happened.  When Twitter came on the scene, it was different from Facebook.  It was so different, it was slow to catch on with people.  Once it did catch on, users realized the two were different enough that they could coexist.

OK, so Facebook and Twitter have been complementing each other and both are used for social networking and marketing.  Great.  Many contacts have been made and many friends have been contacted and contacts made on each platform have been duplicated on the other.

Now, Google+ has entered the picture.  The most common type of message I've read regarding Google+ thus far has been asking what the purpose of Google+ is.  Admittedly, I have yet to look at it myself.  I've been busy.  I have noticed a few people on Twitter indicating that they were exploring it and then reporting back some of their findings.  Some of those people have extended invitations amongst Twitter followers.

I have to wonder, though, how useful it would be for me to spend time connecting with a smaller number of people on yet another network whose population has been culled from a network I'm already active on.  Fifty of us go off to another place to chat amongst ourselves and then go back to the first place to repeat ourselves to our original, larger network?  There must be a better use of our time.

And leave it to Microsoft to think they have the answer to that.  Microsoft folk have announced their intent to also leap into the social network arena.  This is insane.  How many platforms can one person stand on? 

How long before individuals collapse under an overload from the self-induced media onslaught.  Unless these different platforms are going to talk with each other on some common ground while offering different features and interfaces for their users, like cell phone companies or ISPs, then I may have to look into hiring a staff to keep up with the social networks and then I can just talk with them.