From the Salmon

zalm says:

September 2, 2005 at 10:09 pm

On the one hand, that’s the highest compliment you could pay me for these posts, Kristen.  But on the other hand, it makes me a little sad, because I realize all the more how conflicted even I am about this.

First of all, I have to come out and confess that I already read your post and it made me laugh.  You wrote something I’ve written in my head many times, especially over the past year.  Whether the fact that I’ve never published those thoughts is the better part of valor or if it’s because I simply didn’t have the uterus to do it is quite the mystery.

Second, I fail miserably in this area, too.  If you had been within earshot of me when I read the President’s joke about Trent Lott’s house this morning, you might have been surprised at some of the words I know.

And I can’t begin to tell you how difficult it’s been to hoist a standard by which all can judge me.  Then again, perhaps that standard is already pretty damn clear. 

But finally, even though I think this is (to use a phrase that we both love) the way of grace, I’m not sure how much I actually want to follow it most of the time.  For someone like me whose native tongue is biting sarcasm and who uses comedy as a defense mechanism, well, let’s just say it puts quite a cramp in my style. 

Somewhere in here, there’s a place for outrage.  Somewhere in here, there’s a place for anger.  There has to be.  Somewhere in here, I really hope that there’s a place for comedy and even satire. 

I just can’t say I know where that is yet.

That was the long answer.  The short one is that, yes, we can still be friends.

Brandon says:

September 4, 2005 at 7:09 pm

Hmm...the place for outrage.  (And here’s where I ask you not to read MY last post).  I have to hope there is one.  Because, sometimes, I’m fucking pissed about things.  And, to the degree that catharsis works, I have to hope that it’s okay to express those feelings.

I wonder if, perhaps, a blog sometimes can fill multiple roles.  In one mode it’s a place that serves as a forum for the kind of peaceful and reconcilitory conversation you describe here, Zalm.  On the other hand, I wonder if sometimes it can be a forum for other rantings.  Even, I wonder, if the electronic community has a bit more grace for something labeled under the banner ‘rant’--it’s almost as if you can express yourself more fluidly and openly under the banner ‘feeling driven’ than you can under the banner ‘reason driven’.

Maybe that’s an important dichotomy.  Feelings vs. Reason.  I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.  Though, it’s rather the culture to rely on reason and to think feelings are a second class motivator.  A motivation of the weak.  The poor in spirit rely on their hearts and not their heads.

I think that it’s not only important to do what you say, Zalm, and communicate with virtue in our conversations, but also to allow for others (and to allow one’s self) to communicate their feelings, sometimes strong, about the things they’re writing about.

I don’t have any good answers, I suppose.  Just conjecturing along.

zalm says:

September 5, 2005 at 3:09 am

Thanks for joining in, you three.  I’ve had a pretty tough time writing much of anything these past few days, so I’m probably not going to respond to your thoughts and questions as well as I’d like.  But I’m just one part of this discussion, so I think that’s okay.

First of all, I realize that this was all a little manifestoish, and I want to walk back from that a bit.  We all have our reasons for writing what we do on our sites and engaging in these types of conversations.  And I’m not trying to condemn or invalidate any of those reasons.  I offer this as one of many ways to go about our writing and discussions, and I hope that it’s something that might stay with people in the same way that Kristen’s writing stayed with me.

You’re right, Brandon, to say that this might be a place to seek catharsis.  And I recognize the value in that.  But I think we need to do so with our eyes fully open to just how self-indulgent that is.  That’s no great surprise, I suppose, since these sites are by their very nature self-indulgent.  But nonetheless, while we might feel better after going off in our anger, we most likely harden people’s existing defenses and change very little.

Can rants like that actually lead to change?  Sure.  Sometimes it takes a provocative piece to get conversation flowing at all.  And I’ll readily admit that I’m constantly moved and challenged by strongly worded arguments and passionate diatribes. 

But if it’s discussion that we’re interested in, if we desire to seek truth together in something that vaguely resembles community, I’d argue that change and reconciliation will only result to the extent that those participating in the discussion are willing to move beyond the ranting to pursue truth together in an open, humble fashion.

Hmmm… that was longer than I expected.  Maybe I’m getting my mojo back.

I think we should keep talking a bit more about Kristen’s question regarding how we should express outrage.  I wrote about a part of the answer to that a little while ago in response to something Caleb wrote.  But there’s definitely more to be said than that.  I’m just not sure what that is quite yet.

And I haven’t even gotten to Nicole’s comment yet.  Sorry, but sleep’s a-calling.

zalm says:

September 6, 2005 at 3:10 am

I needed a day off and a change of pace.  I’ve got a frighteningly full day of work tomorrow, but I’ll try to get to some additional thoughts and responses later.

As far as trackbacks go, there’s a link in the tiny, tiny type in between the actual post and the start of the comments.  WordPress doesn’t make it terribly obvious, though, does it?  Hmmm… When I’ve got some tinkering time, perhaps I’ll try to put it somewhere a little easier to spot.