Envy is the Death of Happiness

I have yet to find a serious economist who argues that my neighbor next door is poor because Taylor Swift is a millionaire. I do not argue that the wealth of the rich is virtuous, or that they deserve it. Indeed, the obscene pay of some executives is base gluttony. But that is a different topic. Anger at something that doesn't effect you is not a virtue, and it doesn't make sense.

Imagine this:

You are alone in a room, not for very long. Sat on a comfortable chair. After some time, a man brings you a three-course meal, consisting of whatever happens to be your preferred food. You finish happy, and content.

After you finish, the wall to your left disappears into the floor, and you see on the other side another person relaxed in a luxurious armchair; he is just finishing the enormous desert that crowns the seven-course meal he had just finished.

I could continue describing how his silverware, or his meal were far superior to yours into excess.

How would you feel? Would you be jealous? Would you complain?

Why?

Is the food you ate somehow less delicious? Is the meal which you were given somehow less valuable?

If so, please describe the quantum meta-physical processes which made it so. I know someone who would pay for this technology.

The truth is, nothing changed except your perception of the world around you.

I admit the story is a little broken, and doesn’t really apply in every situation, because most of the time we are not simply given the good things in life. Indeed, the best things in life require a lot of work. But even so, the things I cherish in my life are not made less valuable to me simply because someone else has more of it.

This is true of the tax overhaul currently under review.

Let’s ignore for now that the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of all income tax, and the bottom 47 percent pay next to nothing.

I want to focus on why a lot oppose the reform. It is because instead of looking at the plate in front of them, everyone is instead leaning over the table to see what everyone else was given, then complaining that their portion is smaller.

I have read through the plan, and found nothing that low-income earners could complain about. Instead, it benefits them immensely.

But because someone else gets a bigger slice of the pie, somehow their slice is now rotten.

Margaret Thatcher summarized this point in parliament:

“ … He would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. ... So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. One does not create wealth and opportunity that way. One does not create a property-owning democracy that way."

Do I think the rich could use their money for a greater good? Yes. Are some guilty of gluttony and greed? Definitely.

But in a system where we can all claim a win by keeping more of our own income, why should you be upset that someone else gets to keep more of theirs? Envy occurs when you lack a possession and "either desire it or wish that the other lacked it."

If your happiness depends on what someone else has or has not, you need to take a long look in the mirror.

(Originally posted on https://thelatest.com/tlt/6259)

What is the Ideal Citizen?

This is something I had addressed originally while I was in school at BYU. And it is something that everybody, especially today, fights about: "What is the right kind of citizen?" While my original response to that questions was quite lengthy (as all university productions seem to be), this one has been pared down to fit on the site Thelatest.com.

But to refine it even further, St. Thomas Equinas, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle agreed, essentially, that the best citizen was someone who believed that their actions, and their choices, were accountable to some greater (or higher) power, or "The Highest Good."

(Originally posted on https://thelatest.com/tlt/6157)

In describing the ideal citizen, Plato explains in The Republic about what he calls “The Highest Good," or deity. Most ancient philosophers refer to The Good as an idea or being that gave purpose to human existence and a point-of-reference for all human action.

Thomas Aquinas said,

“Since such acts take their species from their objects, and are known through their objects, any given one of these acts will be the more perfect, the more perfect its object is. Consequently, to understand the most perfect intelligible object, which is God, will be the most perfect instance of the activity of understanding.”

Deities did not begin as instruments of fear, but embodied the perfect idea of justice, equity, and intelligence. We can understand why this was so important to the Greeks, specifically, because of the role of the city in their lives.

To the Greeks the city was the measure of the health of the people, it was the pride of the Greek people in every city. This is hard for us to understand, but to them, the city was like your favorite team, your country, and family rolled into one.

Aristotle described the role of The Highest Good in the city:

“A young man is not a proper hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge but action”

This makes sense. They could not trust the affairs of state to one who is not skilled in politics, nor could they entrust warfare to one who has never waged war. So how could they trust the most important thing (the city) to one who is less than deity?

Therefore, Plato says the best ruler is an oligarchy of philosophers. He says that philosophers best approximate The Good. However, he admits this will inevitably form a democracy which, he says, is one of the worst forms of government because democracies are driven by the base desires of man.

Eventually this natural decline of morals creates a society from which spring dictatorships. Plato says that the people will fall so far from The Good that they will choose someone to replace it.

Is it any surprise that after the gap between the ancient The Highest Good and the people began to form that tyrannical kingdoms were ever more frequent?

It is a pattern that has repeated itself many times throughout history: when pharaoh replaced Egypt’s gods with his personification of the sun god, Egypt was crippled for a time. When Rome replaced theirs with an altered version of Christianity, it became a tool of political power, and Rome fell shortly thereafter.

The ideal citizen, according to the Greeks, must be concerned with his neighbor and approximate The Good.

The attributes of The Highest Good can be found in every religion. In The Republic, Socrates said:

“…to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in binding up the State […] Observe […] that there will be no injustice in compelling our philosophers to have a care and providence of others…”

The Birth of Capitalism 2.0

(Originally posted on TheLatest.com)

The principles of capitalism created the world we live in today. True capitalism requires the free movement of capital and voluntary transactions to survive. But to survive, everything must adapt. And capitalism has most certainly survived.

Love it or hate it, capitalism is the dominant system in the world and shows no signs of slowing down. However, unlike mercantilism before it, and feudalism before that, capitalism has had unprecedented success in creating an unmatched middle class.

But, alas poor capitalism “where be your gibes now? Your gambols? Your songs? Your flashes of merriment that were wont to set the table on a roar?” As Hamlet bemoaned the decay of Yorick, so do we repent the bastardization of the free and bewitching promise of capitalism that made the American Dream possible. Today, the world is ruled not by elective transactions, and free movement of capital, but instead by a handful of corporations and mega-conglomerates that operate as a quasi-oligarchy, even a plutocracy.

Think about your daily tasks: surf websites, talk to friends, cook food, eat food, take pictures of food; all are only possible with the permission of the one or two companies who own them.

This is not capitalism, this is corporate monarchy. Capitalism is the court jester these companies bring out in chains to please the masses.

So how has capitalism adapted?

Enter the sharing economy: Uber, Facebook, Lyft, Alibaba, Airbnb, Netflix, and other similar companies. To quote Hamish McRae at Independent:

“The world’s largest taxi firm, Uber, owns no cars. The world’s most popular media company, Facebook, creates no content. The world’s most valuable retailer, Alibaba, carries no stock. And the world’s largest accommodation provider, Airbnb, owns no property. Something big is going on.”

Something big, indeed: we are witnessing the world-wide backlash against the oligarchy, and the return to true, pure capitalism.

Argue all you want, but free transactions between one person wanting a service, and another willing to provide it is the bare-bones definition of capitalism. This is capitalism 2.0, and we are in the beta test.

Sick of paying $100 for thousands of channels full of ads? Pay $15 to Netflix for content you want. Tired of paying $50 for a taxi to the airport? Pay $12 for the actual value of that trip with Uber. Upset that hotels and cities charge more fees than the room is worth? Instead, pay what a homeowner downtown thinks one night on his couch is worth.

The invasion of government into capitalism has only exacerbated the problem; all the hearings and class-action lawsuits are the attempts of the powers-that-be to retain their death-grip on the throne. These are the death throes of a dying world.

Don’t believe me? Ever paid a checked-bag fee on a flight? Those didn’t exist until a few years ago. Did you know you could arrive at the airport, and walk directly to the gate in fifteen minutes?

With only a handful of airlines, which essentially operate at the whim of governments, the problem will only get worse.

Imagine if this industry were upset akin to the taxi or hotel industries. Imagine an entire world re-designed with capitalism 2.0.

Our Greatness

“I don’t have time for this, Rick”

            “Of course you do. You, of all people, have time. You just don’t know how to use it.” Ricky said, pulling out a chair from the small table and sitting down to stare at Braddock.

            “I’ve already spent more time here than I wanted to, I need to go.” Braddock turned to leave half-heartedly before Rick chimed in.

            “You can fill you whole life with things to do. But if they aren’t the best things, if they aren’t important, then why do them? And if you don’t know why you do something, there’s no point in doing anything at all, and you’ll end up lost when you’re finished.”

            Braddock paused. Then said, half to himself, half to Rick, without turning,

            “I know what I’m doing, Rick, and I know why I’m doing it”

            Rick pushed the chair back slowly and stood up to look out the window, placing a hand softly on the windowsill.

            “Ah, but do you? You might know what actions you will take, but do you know what will happen as a result of your actions? What I mean to say is: what are you really doing to the symphony that is the universe?” He turned again to look at Braddock more seriously. “I know what notes you are meant to play, but what happens when you tear the sheet music of the musicians next to you? What are you doing then, really? Can you predict how the rest of the piece will play out?”

            “Obviously I’ll be making the galaxy a better place. Ridding it of the filth and evil that I’m called to destroy.”

            “How so?”

            Braddock lifted his arms and pressed against the frame of the door, the muscles in his neck and shoulders bulging with frustration.

            “It doesn’t matter, as long as they’re gone nobody will care how.”

            At this, Rick’s voice rose in intensity, something that Braddock rarely saw. It was obvious this discussion meant almost as much to Rick as Rick thought it should to Marcos.

            “You’re right, in part, Marcus. Few will know how you did it, and even fewer will care. But many will weep or rejoice based solely on the decisions you make.”

            “You can’t be serious. There are millions, if not billions, of people: citizens, populi, criminals, and more uncounted beyond our borders who live the most vile, depraved, dishonorable, disgusting lives. You cannot say that the unholy, unnatural things those people do have no effect…”

            “No.” Rick’s interruption was soft-spoken, but firm. “No I don’t. Every choice made on and in-between every planet in the great expanse of the universe holds sway on its direction and its beauty. But small men lead small lives, and small lives are like a raindrop in the ocean. Nobody sees it, nobody cares, and their effect is negligible. Others, Marcus, live great lives; they were chosen to do great things. Others make themselves great from the dust of nothingness. Great men, Marcus, make decisions that have unfathomable consequences. Great men, Marcus, make great decisions. You chose to live a life of greatness, you cannot choose the size of the consequences.” Rick pointed at Braddock’s chest. “You know in your heart you are destined for greatness, the only question that remains is: will your greatness be a reason to rejoice, or a cause of mourning and suffering?”

            Braddock paused, staring at the finger pointed at him. Clearly thinking about those last words. “I don’t…” He stopped. He took a long breath as he started to realize the meaning of what was being said. “I mean, it doesn’t really matter…”

            “Because it’s your job?” Ricky interrupted. “You’re a soldier, so you’re not paid to think or feel? Only make decisions based on fact and instinct, right?”

            Suddenly, emotions erupted from somewhere deep in Braddock, something from a past forgotten by everybody but him. “Thousands of brave men and women have died because their commander was too worried about what might be instead of what is!” Braddock’s face grew more serious and his eyes glistened. “That ship out there might be a merchant trader, but the fact is that it’s on an intercept course and not responding to transmissions. It might have damaged communications systems and want repairs, but it will destroy our ship if it’s anything else and isn’t stopped.”

            His voice was heavy with emotion, it was obvious this story was not hypothetical.

            “Tucker, Swinehouse, Big Jim, they might be helping people, they might be good people cast in a bad light, they might have the best intentions. But the fact is that they are criminals, the fact is that I have sworn to uphold the law until my last dying breath, and the fact is that I am the only one capable and willing to bring them to justice!”

            He took a breath. “And so I must do so.”

            Silence filled the room for what must have been several seconds, but it felt like hours. Each man chewing over his next words.

            Rick was the first to break the silence. “So the ends justify the means?”

            “That’s not what I said.”

            “It’s what you meant, though.”

            Braddock let out a sigh. “What would you suggest I do then, Rick? Ignore my conscience?”
            “No, Marcus.” Rick said, sounding exhausted. “I feel that you’ve heard nothing of what I’m trying to tell you.” He paused. “Perhaps I started in the wrong place, let me start again. Please Marcus, Follow me.” Rick turned around, walked to the opposite side of where Marcus stood and opened the big wooden door. Bright sunlight poured into the room accompanied by the hot, dry air of Delphine. Without looking at Marcus, Rick walked out and stood in the sun. Marcus knew he had no choice but to follow.

So You Want to Retire by Twenty-Five?

Where I work, I am often exposed to the sort of people I never thought I would ever meet, or even wanted to meet. You know the type: young, think they know everything about anything, successful because of some big break, or lucky deal, cocky, lazy, loud, and patronizing.

By far, however, one of the most annoying things I hear at least once a week, either by mouth or in an article is a version of the phrase:

"I retired at twenty-five. And how you can do it too."

We've all seen or heard things like this before. There are innumerable articles about this "topic" online. Written by gurus who spent six months in India for some reason, and only drink natural root tea from the Amazon because they go back every year to pick their own roots. A few variations of the same topic are:

"Top ten tricks to do to retire before 30"

"I left the rat-race, retired at 27, and I've never been happier."

"Why retiring at 32 was the best thing I ever did."

"The five things all millionaires do to help you retire by 25!"

And on, and on.

Before I move on to the main point of this post, let's get a few things out of the way first.

1. If the article states that it is a list, it's going to be garbage. It won't help you learn, it won't help you grow. Writers like these understand that people love lists. They're easy, they're quick. But the purpose of the list isn't to help you, it's to help the publication, they only want you to click on the link, because they know you only care about the items on the list, not the content in between.

2. If the article says that EVERY millionaire does something, or there is ONE THING they all have in common, the article is garbage. This is basic statistics. Get enough millionaires in a room together, and a blind goat could find a handful that have five things in common. Do they brush their teeth before 6:00AM? Do they keep a planner? Did they start saving as a kid? Etc. This is what I like to call the "Drop out of college fallacy." It is the assumption that because SOME successful billionaires dropped out of college, it must be the easiest and quickest path to billionaire-hood. It is not. For various reasons. And if you're too lazy to find out what those reasons are, you're too lazy to be a billionaire.

3. If these "five tricks" or "ten secrets" were really so effective, why isn't the author a millionaire? Surely it must be because they are an altruistic soul who wants to help other be successful, right? No. They're not a millionaire because tricks don't make you rich. Hard work (and luck) does. And because writing articles like this isn't hard work, they're not a millionaire. 

Which brings me to the main point of my post.

So what?

Am I supposed to be impressed you quit working a regular job in your mid-twenties? Is that the cool thing to do now? Is retirement suddenly a goal the rest of us can't reach? I really don't understand the point of these articles, when they really just boil down to some nobody stroking their ego for six pages. If the article is really meant to inspire others to join them in early retirement, then what, we have millions of twenty-somethings traveling the world with no jobs flaunting their "success", their "eastern enlightenment" and "open-mindedness" at anyone who will listen? Oh wait... we already have that.

If the authors of these articles were as smart, clever, and intelligent as they brag, you'd think they'd be able to find a job they would WANT to work at until 65. You'd think they'd be smart enough to figure out what they actually enjoy and make that a career they enjoy.  But they're not (surprise!) Why is that? Probably because actual smart people realized a long time ago that real happiness, real joy, is found in family and relationships.  And you can't raise a family on your natural açaí berries you picked yourself in the Amazon in your twenties. (Go watch any Hallmark, or family Christmas movie)

So why do they do this? There's probably a number of reasons, here a few of my guesses:

1. They don't want to knuckle down to actually have a family (which is totally fine), and are finding some way to make themselves happy and validate that decision to their "followers"

2. They're expressing the age-old frustration with Western values and capitalism by traveling the world and bringing back enlightenment for the rest of us cavemen. It's really just the typical journey of young people trying to "discover themselves" and do so by being as controversial, and counter-culture, as possible.

3. They're lazy, and writing an article like this makes it look like they're not.

So, if in the end your life's goal is to laze around on a beach every day, 24/7/365, for the next sixty years of your life, then you're not the kind of person I want to be following. Imagine having a conversation with this person during a job interview If they ever decide to come back down off the mountaintop to join the rest of us unwashed masses.

"So, tell me about your aspirations, your goals. Where do you see yourself in, say, twenty years?"

"I want to work this job for five years, save a couple thousand dollars, and make that small sum stretch for the rest of my life as I sip rain water from the navel of a Hindu guru on top of the Himalayas."

"....we're done here."

But all of this is ignoring the simple truth that we all ignore, or seem to forget when we see or read these articles:

If something looks too good to be true, it probably is.

To quote something I read recently (I apologize I don't know who the original author is):

"Social media has created jealous behavior over illusions. Sadly, some are envious of things, relationships & lifestyles that don't even exist." -Unknown

If the author you follow on these blogs only makes you feel bad about your life. If they make you jealous, or depressed about what you have. If you look up at the end of the article and wish you weren't who you are now. Then these articles are doing you no good. They are selfish "mental masturbation" for whoever wrote them, and were never intended to help you at all. Want some proof?

Where are all the articles from these people five, ten, or thirty years down the line? Where are all the amazing benefits from their early retirement? Could it be this lifestyle of laziness and greed has only seeded the fruits of divorce, poverty, and depression?

Color me shocked.

Smart people find value in what they have. And if there is no value, they create it. Only cowards and idiots run away and seek happiness on the other side of the world.

A Kite Flies, and Art is Beautiful, Because of Rules

Some time ago I watched a video that appeared on my Facebook feed. Since I fancy myself some form writer, and work with a lot of artists, the video piqued my interest, and I actually turned on the sound to listen (which I rarely do, since most of the videos on Facebook are junk).

The video didn't draw my attention because I thought it was interesting, or educational, or funny, but because the first ten seconds were incredibly stupid and patronizing, and I wanted to see how far this rabbit hole of stupidity went. I have included a link to the video below, on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgnFl7vidGk

For those of you who have more respect for your time than I do, allow me to quote some choice lines from the artist who is both the subject of the video and also the narrator.

"Since I was a little boy, I was curious about art. I didn't understand it, because I couldn't find its rules. But for arts, there are no rules like there are for math and grammar. It's a field without conventions, and that's what makes it so exciting for me."

What?

How does that make any sense?

To be fair the video continues on and the artist spouts off some typical motivational dribble about following your dreams, and being different, and so on. But who's idea was it to start the video with this nonsense? Clearly it wasn't an artist, or the artist in the video, and if it was he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. And I feel most other designers, artists, writers, or whatever, would agree with me because...

Art is beautiful because there are rules.

A final art piece is revealed at the end of the video and it looks amazing, why? Does he use lines of perspective with a vanishing point? Yes. Does he use contrasting colors? Yes. Is everything to scale? Yes. Are there highlights to accentuate the important focus of the piece and draw your eye to the center? Yes. is there a horizon to simulate the height of the view? Yes. Does he use a lighter application of the medium (sand) to simulate clouds and a heavier application to simulate solid structures? Yes. Etc. etc. etc.

Obviously his art is overflowing the with the correct use of a lot of the rules of art with which we are familiar. By saying he's breaking new ground, and working in a field unhindered by rules, is stupid, and insulting to everyone else who actually understands what they are doing.

I don't want to limit this analysis to just painting and traditional art. The artist in the video even mentions that there are rules in grammar and math, and isn't this what makes the correct application of these rules so beautiful and engaging?

Why are artists and graphic designers, and web developers paid so much for what they do? Why do we grow up wishing to be a famous artist, actor, or musician? Because they know how to use these rules to create something beautiful, they know which rules work well together and, more importantly, when to break them.

An artist knows that yellow and blue make green. That seems like a solid rule.

A writer knows that active verbs command greater attention than passive verbs. That's a rule.

An actor knows that facial expressions are more important than the scripted words. Seems like a rule.

An architect knows that tapering a column towards the top make a more appealing sculpture. That's an ancient rule.

A photographer or a graphic designer knows that the human eye perceives beauty in the golden mean. That's definitely a rule:

Though I'm not a fan, I recognize this is why "modern" art became so popular so fast: because it takes a skilled artist to recognize which rule to break and when. You can't just do whatever you want, you'll end up with chaos, a mess. And you can't just decide that one rule isn't important for no reason, that makes it ugly. But by breaking the right one, some amazing modern art, sculpture, and paintings have been made, and draw huge crowds at museums to this day.

Why was Shakespeare so famous as a playwright? Because he understood the rules of grammar and writing and meter so well that when we chose to break rules he knew exactly the effect it would have on the audience.

Rules are good, rules help us make sense of what is happening. I remember when I really learned the true importance of rules in math when I saw a Mandelbrot Set.

As quoted directly from Wikipedia:
"The Mandelbrot set is the set of complex numbers c for which the function  does not diverge when iterated from z=0, i.e., for which the sequence,   remains bounded in absolute value."

My, that sounds like a lot of complicated rules. But what happens when we see these rules of the Mandelbrot set rendered on a graph, in color? Behold:

But wait, it gets even better, by continuing to apply the rules, further and further (rendered in videos as a "zooming in") we get images like this:

and these, known as "Julia Islands":

and this, known as a "seahorse tail":

And the list goes on. In fact, there are so many applications of this specific set of rules that entire classes revolve around them, and mathematicians are dedicated to its study and development. How sad it must be for these people to have to deal with these pesky rules.

I think about it this way: the reason a kite can fly in the wind isn't due to the strength of the wind, the size of the kite, the design, the location, or anything like that, it's because it is tied to a string. I've seen hundreds of different kite designs, some with tails, some without. I've seen kites fly in no wind, and some in storms. But every single one had to have someone with a string at the other end or it would crash.

It almost seems count-intuitive. But it's a rule. As much as a kid might cry and yell that he wants it to go higher by cutting the string, the only result will be a kite stuck in a tree or falling to the earth. By tethering the kite to the ground, or your hand, you allow it to fly, and be beautiful. We need rules to create art. Art is the correct application of rules, and trying to get around them, or ignoring them, is like trying to fly a kite without a string.

The Two Brothers

Once upon a time
there were two brothers
one was rich, he had many things
and ate and drank well
all his days
The other was poor, he had no gold
he worked hard and had no time
for luxury

The rich brother spent his days
in the company of strange women,
his nights with mischievous men.
He scorned his neighbors,
and ignored his lessors.
He abused his friendships
and honored not his word.

Then one day the rich man indulged too much
and he died

Many people came to his funeral
many words were spoken
but no tears were shed
After, his friends left quickly
and never looked back

Only the brother remained
left behind to ponder his loss
And then to ponder his gain
For he had inherited his dead brother's wealth

The dead brother, meanwhile,
awoke in the Void
Surrounded by a darkness so thick
he thought it would crush him
into nothing



























He heard nothing
and everything
at the same time.
The void was silent
He was alone

For miles and miles,
for eons and years,
he was alone.
Yet he heard a sound,
a constant humming,
coming from within
or all around
The whimpering,
wailing,
and crying of tormented souls,
his soul,
or all souls
he did not know

Not the wailing of those in pain
but the weeping of those now realizing
the permanence of their isolation
their loss

In time,
or in no time at all
his feet touched on solid ground
His mind awoke
his senses roused
his panic began

He cried to the gods for deliverance
He knew not their names
never had he cared
He cried and he pleaded
But the sound disappeared
and no one heard
and nobody one came

The he thought of his brother
He who now had his wealth
He who would surely fall
victim to the same vices as his elder

He must be spared
He must be saved
He must be warned

Louder again he raised his voice
Harder again he struggled against the black
to save his brother
he prayed for intervention

Then the darkness parted
his eyes could finally see
the shadows moved away
and a figure took shape

A man,
long blonde hair flowing form his head
unimpeded by the dark
moved effortlessly
slowly
towards him

A robe draped his arms and shoulders
The hilt of a sword rose behind his ear
the leather holster fastened across his chest
A darker belt sat firm around his waist

"I have heard your cries."
he said in a whisper
"I am here to answer,
what do you desire?"

The brother
eager for a ray of hope
forwent his curiosity
and begged

"My brother is surely in peril,
for I shewed him no love
in the land of the living
and left him my vices.
He will surly fall
he will soon fail.
Please send me back to warn him
of the fruits of my life."

"As you wish it to be, so let it be done."
Was the reply with a smile and a wink
and the stranger turned away

The darkness enveloped the man
he passed out of consciousness
he could see nothing
only shadows
then shadows of shadows
then shadows of things
shapes
outlines
colors:
his home

















People passed by
unaware of the new visitor
they laughed, they drank
vices were indulged
curiosities satisfied
hungers sated
days passed in the blink of an eye

His brother was found
away in a room,
face-down in the covers
compromised and shameful

"Brother" he called
a woman to the side stirred
"Brother" again, no motion

He reached to awaken him
his hand passing through the flesh
like etherial wisps, his fingers felt no touch
In a panic he called, "Brother, why do you not hear me!"

The naked man started
he turned in a panic
his eyes passed around the room, searching
confusion wrote itself on his face
he saw no man

"See, brother." The rich man implored. "Here am I."
The other squinted his eyes to a line
Following the voice to its source
"Methinks I have been made to partake of too much drink.
For I do behold mine elder brother before me!"

His chance for redemption was here
there was no time to waste
"Younger brother, take heed of my words
for I come with a warning of despair and grief.
Where I find myself now, you will surely be bound,
an eternity of suffering and endless torment is your only reward!"

His brother looked back
no words left his lips.
"Younger brother, I implore, abandon these ways."
His hand waved the room
"These will not come with you, they will not be your joy.
My fate is sealed, but your life can be saved.
Forsake these vices
give unto the poor
treat the downtrodden as your own.
Or misery awaits you."

Silence followed his voice like a fox
His younger brother thought, and then
a laugh

A loud laugh
a mocking laugh

"Ho here! My elder brother returned from the dead
to haunt my steps!"
His mockery echoed in and out of the etherial plane
"Behold how he comes in my hour of joy to mar our rejoicing!"
He bellowed to a crowd of furniture

"Even in death he cannot leave me be
to enjoy his passing."
An evil laugh escaped his lips.
"Oh brother, my brother,
in life you cared not for me.
You kept your riches,
your concubines,
your pleasures,
to yourself.
You did not know your younger brother.
Nor cared for him in need."

"Indeed, your passing is the greatest of favors!"
He pointed.
"Look upon my riches,
my wealth.
How I revel in your gifts!"
A finger pierced his ghostly breast.
"How jealousy must brew within your heart!
That you cannot rest in peace.
But return to plague me with tales of the Void!"

"Nay, brother, do not speak.
But listen.
I will not cease in my merrymaking.
You did not share with me in life,
I will not depart from it now in your death.
Feign not concern for me,
he who begged at your table in vain!"

"Begone, now, phantom.
If indeed your gifts are rewarded with chains,
then in chains I will tell you of their purchase!
Begone, and vex me no more."

Darkness again surrounded the man
he passed out of consciousness
he could see nothing
only shadows
then shadows of shadows
only darkness
only silence
nothing

His cries for succor went unheeded
His brother did not return
his world was gone
his brother
him home

Then laughter
again
a cold laugh
a biting laugh


















The blonde man appeared before him
a wicked smile bared his teeth

The man cried
"Oh lord of the Void,
Why have you brought me back?
My deed was not finished.
My brother not saved
Why return me to this place?"

"Thou fool!"
A thunderous reply
"Your brother was lost
the moment he entered your world.
Forsaken by his brother,
now given the life he envied.
Not a thousand specter visitations
would alter his path."

Another laugh had no echo
"But now
he has been warned of his fate
no doubt remains in his head.
The Void awaits,
mouth gaping wide.
And to continue in your ways
against such knowledge,
yea, his fate will be far worse than yours.

"Indeed, thanks to you,
his elder brother,
he will envy your position in eternity
and curse your name forever."

"You who delayed your compassion
and prolonged your revelry.
And left the time of your concern
until the hour was the latest.
And doomed your brother
to the darkest of pits."

The blonde man faded
the twilight disappeared
no sensation followed
no light
no sound
no warmth
only the Void.

What makes a good writer?

"Many books require no thought from those who read them. And for a very simple reason: they required no such effort from those who wrote them"

-Charles Caleb Colton

Where I have the wonderful opportunity to work, I hear and see a lot of conversation regarding "good writing".

I'm also positive that we have all had the experience of clicking and reading an article we see online only to make it a couple paragraphs and either:

1. Have no idea what we just read, or what the article was trying to say.

2. Have such a difficult time wanting to continue to the end that we don't finish reading at all, or simply skip to last paragraph to see if there is anything important we missed.

As we all know, there are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And I can't remember a time when this has been more true than today. With such polarizing political, ethical, and moral parties vying for attention, all three versions of any story are resembling each other less and less. So reading both sides of what happened during a particular event is even more important, which is what got me thinking about "good writing" in the first place. All "sides" of any argument today are guilty of both "good" and bad writing. I've read articles and stories and opinions posted online from both sides of the aisle that really grab me and almost force me to read to the end. Not because I necessary care about the issue, or agree with the author's point of view, but because the flow and feel of the piece really makes me want to continue.

On the other hand I have also read my fair share of articles that compel me to zone out, or leave, and sometimes persuade me side with their opposition. Is it because their positions, facts, data, or ideas are wrong? No. (Well... sometimes, but that's a different argument) But rather its the way the writing makes me feel as I read.

I want to be clear. I understand that most of what we read (and see, and hear, and even say) today is blatantly skewed to illicit a specific response from the target audience. **Insert Marketing 101 reference here**  And I think that most of us are intelligent enough to recognize this device when we see it. What I mean is the reaction I have to the actual writing, the words, the flow, the connection with the writer.

Anybody can write "Today an orphanage burned down in upstate New York, the firefighters were too busy putting out the fire that the couldn't rescue a dog and her five puppies from drowning in a river outside of town." And make you feel sad. In fact, how often do we do that with news sites? (the search engine Bing does this a lot) We look just at the headline: "Orphanage burned, puppies drown" and feel sad, then move on.

But what will actually get you to read the rest of the article (if there is one, and not just the usual paragraph-and-a-half synopsis of the sad afternoon)? What will make you actually care about what is being said? What will inspire you to action? It's good writing that will do that.

We have graduated from self-help books to self-help Youtube tutorials, or quick-fix Quora articles written by someone who tries to hawk their get-rich-quick book at us. Yahoo Answers is a minefield of questionable advice. Is this bad? Not at all, but we do have to be careful (especially if we're getting cooking tips from Youtube comments!), but nowhere have I seen this behavior more prevalent than online writing.

One reason this is true, I believe, is because online writing is so accessible. You can't just decide one afternoon to bake a three-layer cake, or create a survivalist herbal garden in your living room. But finding a how-to guides on how to write effectively and throwing up a "how to solve world hunger" article takes all of five minutes. I don't know about you, but it is obvious to me when someone has just left the "how to write good and how to do other things good too" school.

It all comes down to our voice and not our skill. Which is something online writers miss when they think they've 'made it' as a writer, or a political blogger. It doesn't have to do with grammar or the size of the author's vocabulary, necessarily. What most "bad" writers I've seen online all have in common is that they've all abandoned their own voice and instead are trying to imitate the self-help guide they found. Good writers pour their heart into their work, and as a result we can connect with them. Bad writers fret over the best word choice, sentence composition, the balance of compound and simple sentences, even how the article "looks" online. Do all these things help? Of course, but I've noticed they are more often used to compensate for the fact the author has no voice of their own. They' have become one of the many, a clone of the guru.

I could be an expert in a certain topic, yet I will enjoy reading an article in a journal, magazine, or newspaper about that topic because the author has made the familiar, unfamiliar. By exploring a familiar topic from a new angle, with a new voice, with new colors, they make the article engaging and exciting. 'Bad' writers make the unfamiliar familiar by finding interesting topics, hard questions, or hot-button issues, instead of writing that about which they are passionate, and so they lose their voice.

I'm more than sure we have all heard the common complaints from those who fancy themselves "learned" or an "expert on literature" from time to time. For me, the most often complaints came when Harry Potter was introduced.

"JK Rowling is a terrible author. Have you even read her books?"

"She writes at a 4th-grade reading level!"

"So much of her work is copied form other authors, or blatantly plagiarized from myth, she's so unoriginal!"

(The same complaints can be attributed to so many other authors, directors, poets, etc. But I pick this one because I feel more people can relate)

And yet she's successful, she's a millionaire. They made movies of her books, and so on. People buy multiple copies of the same book because they love it so much. Why?

Surely it can't be because of her extensive vocabulary? Is it because of her experience in simile, exposition, prose, or sentence structure? It must be because of all the subtext, the intricately woven sub-plots?

I don't think so. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

It's because she has a voice. She put her dreams on paper and leads us by the hand into a world so lovingly created that we can't help but care for it, and wish we were a part of it. She made the familiar (witchcraft) unfamiliar in so many different ways.

This ties back to the quote at the top of this post: I think we check out of so many articles online because we can tell, intuitively, that they are almost copy-pasted from somewhere else, it doesn't engage our mind, and more importantly, our heart. On the other hand, others will draw us in and refuse to let us go because the author toiled and fretted over how to make the piece theirs.

Don't feel bad when someone criticized the books you like to read, or the articles you find entertaining or engaging. They are good for a reason, and that reason is not something you can quantify or measure. You relate to it, you invest in it. Don't judge the quality of an article, or a book, based on the skill of the author's writing, a few quotes I've found that help highlight this point:

"A multitude of words is no proof of a prudent mind."

-Thales

"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words where one will do."

-Thomas Jefferson

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away"

-Antoine de Saint-Exupery

If you're reading an article that takes three paragraphs, and 4-syllable words to describe something simple, you've found an egotistical writer who just found a new how-to guide. On the other hand, if you find yourself five pages in when you only wanted to read the title an move on, you've found a good writer. One that says what they think, and not what they think others want to hear. They draw you into their world, and don't try to force themselves into yours.