Is The Grumpy Buddha a Buddhist? (or: Who Cares?)

Over the holiday, Slate magazine, famed bastion of contrarian thought, reposted an article by one John Horgan about why he "ditched Buddhism". 

I will confess that my initial reaction was crawling with unskillful thoughts. 

For instance, my first thought was What a profoundly stupid man this John Horgan is. He doesn't understand Buddhism at all.

Followed by I should give him a piece of my mind! Dumb jerkface jerkwad trashing my belief system! 

But ... I like the Eightfold Path

But then, I had a much scarier thought: What if he's right?*

I won't keep you in suspense. He's not right. I mean, this was a throwaway Slate article, so demonstrating the problems with his argument isn't exactly proving Fermat's Last Theorem. Nevertheless, I think I learned something while thinking this through, so I thought I'd share.

Horgan's general argument is as follows:

Eventually, and regretfully, I concluded that Buddhism is not much more rational than the Catholicism I lapsed from in my youth; Buddhism's moral and metaphysical worldview cannot easily be reconciled with science—or, more generally, with modern humanistic values.

Amongst his claims are that Buddhism is functionally theistic, because it believes in reincarnation; meditation doesn't work; the concept of "no-self" is scientific nonsense; believing that oneself is unreal is bad; detachment is bad; and finally, that anyone who doesn't feel that Buddhism requires belief in these things isn't really a Buddhist. 

My first idea was to consider his claims one by one, then jump on them and smash them into tiny contrarian bits.

The ninth step on the path: Right Jumping

However, I'm not sure that this is a useful course of action. I think that half his claims are strawmen, and the other half are easily refuted -- but I think it'd be more profitable to start with his final claim, and work backwards: 

If you are a Buddhist, it means that you must believe these things:  

1) You cannot be a Buddhist without meditating regularly, and finding that it reduces stress.

2) You cannot be a Buddhist without meditating regularly, and finding insights about the Nature of Self.

3) You cannot be a Buddhist without believing in reincarnation.

4) You cannot be a Buddhist without having the goal of total abnegation of self.

5) You cannot be a Buddhist without wanting to be detached from everything.

Well, sucks to be The Grumpy Buddha, I tell you what, because I'm not sure about the universality of #1 or #2, and I certainly don't believe in #3-#5, and yet I consider myself a Buddhist. 

Horgan's argument for why you have to believe in #1-#5 to be a Buddhist is as follows:

Some Western Buddhists have argued that principles such as reincarnation, anatta, and enlightenment are not essential to Buddhism. In Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Faith To Doubt, the British teacher Stephen Batchelor eloquently describes his practice as a method for confronting—rather than transcending—the often painful mystery of life. But Batchelor seems to have arrived at what he calls an "agnostic" perspective in spite of his Buddhist training—not because of it. When I asked him why he didn't just call himself an agnostic, Batchelor shrugged and said he sometimes wondered himself.

Essentially: Horgan spoke to a secular Buddhist, and this person doesn’t feel like he absolutely must own the “Buddhist” label. Thus, secular Buddhists aren't really Buddhists.

This is an argument? I've consulted an expert on Latin phrases for logical fallacies, but she came up empty on "argument-by-being-a-schmuck". The closest she could come is

Caput suum in ano est

Simply because a person who first argues a given proposition turns out to be wishy-washy about it does not imply that the proposition is wrong. 

Even if that person has written a book.

I have been an agnostic for virtually all of my adult life, but I have only recently come to identify with the Buddhist label. Why do I identify with Buddhism? 

Go team non-attachment! But, you know, don't get all crazy about it.

Because I find that Buddhism has a structure that is useful in understanding why we suffer and how best to end (or at least alleviate) that suffering. 

And that, in retrospect, is what struck me as so odd about Horgan’s piece. 

He did not say 

“I rejected Buddhism because I do not believe that suffering comes from attachment,” 

or 

“I do not believe that the Eightfold Path -- the practice of Right Action, Right Speech, Right Mindfulness, etc. -- has anything to do with the alleviation of suffering,"

or

“It is not helpful to me to recognize that I need not identify with every thought that comes into my brain"

or 

“It do not find it useful to be mindful about the intentions I bring to everyday life.” 

No, he said that Buddhists must believe in reincarnation, must try to completely dissolve the concept of self, and must want to detach themselves from all desires -- nay, all of humanity. Well, no wonder he rejected it!
 

I can’t be too hard on him, though. One of the links in the Slate comments about understanding Western-style Buddhism pointed to this site. The author says the following:

Buddhism is about getting to the root of existence, the truth of self, our delusions regarding what the self actually is, not how to prop up the ‘self’ and make it feel better.

Yeesh! No pressure! Perhaps this is what Buddhism is about for her, but to me this misses the point by a smidge -- and is kind of in line with what Horgan was bitching about. 

My interpretation of the Four Noble Truths is that Buddhism is about reducing/alleviating suffering, specifically through the recognition that suffering comes through attachment. It’s not about discovering the Mysteries of the Universe. Now, it is absolutely true (as I understand it) that a major part of the path is discovering the nature of the self and one’s desires, but to me, that is the method, not the goal.

I'm not Pierce from Community, and, I would imagine, neither are a lot of other fans of Buddhism. We’re not all trying to become 15^th level Laser Lotus Buddhist Masters.

Lightning bolt! Lightning bolt! Patient acceptance of twofold egolessness as I achieve the cessation of craving and enter Tathagatha's Nirvana!

In my opinion, if: 

• You believe and appreciate that suffering comes from attachment, 
• You work to alleviate that suffering through the practices of Right Action, Right Speech, Right Mindfulness, etc., and
• You understand that one's naive and reflexive concept of "self" is seriously problematic (note to Horgan: please read The Robot's Rebellion, or this post -- no scientific justification for anatta my pasty white Buddhist ass)
  

3) Then … you’re functionally a Buddhist – no woo, wizardry, or mystical whathaveyou required.

A Google Image search for "magic spells buddhism" found the above as the first link.
Make your own jokes, please.

So: you don’t have to completely jettison the concept of self, or look forward to the day when you do so. 

Or believe in reincarnation. 

Or think that when you meditate just right that it’ll be like floating in the clouds with magical all-wise spirit-beings. 

I mean, you can, if you want. I'm not going to get all judgy on you.** And I know there are people out there who identify as Buddhist who would insist that if you don't believe those things, you aren't really a Buddhist. To which you can respond either:

"Uh-huh!" 

Or, perhaps slightly more skillfully,

"Who cares? My practice is my practice, and how one labels it seems irrelevant."  

Just remember, as a 100th level Laser Lotus once said:

Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.

------------------------------

*(Also in there: "Um, I think its kind of ironic that for a Buddhist, you're reacting so strongly to his article." Well, screw you, mindfulness! Let me have my fun.) 
** Hah! Yeah, right. Of course I will -- but it'll be from the non-Buddhist side of me. And be a lot less snarky than it would have been 10 years ago. 

The Grumpy Buddha is Comforted by the Quote of the Week

When I started to write fiction I had the great disadvantage of having absolutely no talent for it. I couldn’t get characters in and out of rooms. They lost their hats and so did I. If more than two people were on scene I couldn’t keep one of them alive ... Give me two people snotting at each other across a desk and I am happy. A crowded canvas just bewilders me.

– Raymond Chandler

His Grumpiness Gets Critiqued: Part I (The Critiques and My Nonskillful Reaction)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING

This Post Is Laden With Heavy ME ME ME ME ME ME ME Content. Those Looking For General Grumpy Brilliance About Stuff and Things Should Go Elsewhere, Like Here or Here and especially Here.

WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over the last six months or so, his Grumpiness has been writing a little somethin'-somethin' involving a certain goblin detective named Axiom. While this was clearly a bad decision, it's something he's committed to, at least for as long as he's not uncommitted to it.

After months of regular writing, and helpful critiques on a number of chapters by a Tipper and a Jeff, I figured it was time to see if I could build a larger critiquing group, not to mention see whether my writing would fly with people who didn't know from the beginning what I was trying to do ... and so, I submitted my prologue and first chapter to Critters.

The critiques are in, and while on the whole they've been positive and helpful, there have been some annoying negative consequences to fight through. I thought I'd take some time to summarize the comments I got, and discuss what common themes there are (or aren't), and then figure out why I'm reacting the way I am. 

A little backstory: When I wrote the Prologue/Chapter 1, I (and Tipper and Jeff) had a very good idea of exactly what the world was, and so did my original readers, because of all the (later) chapters that had been written before.  The new critiquers, though ... well, you'll see.

Below I've cut-and-pasted some representative comments about various elements of the writing; below the comments I discuss my reactions.

On the Prologue:

Overall the intro was intriguing. I liked the card game as a way to introduce the character and drop him into an uncomfortable situation. --SM

I thought the opening line was a fantastic way to draw me in ... -- RB

You see, the opening hooked me ... I nodded after I finished the prologue. You've done a very good job and you deserve a pat on the back. --CM

BUT, OF COURSE

... the down on his luck gambler's been done to death and your game feels way too close to Texas Hold 'Em.  Based on the prologue alone I have put this one back on the shelf. --DR

It’s not obvious why the prologue is there in the first place.  It doesn’t do anything to spike the interest of the reader. --DS

I thought your prologue did not go well with the rest of your story.  Sure he may want money and this is how you kick off your first chapter about him being late to work, but it really does not add to the story besides that. --YL

I'm not sure of the point of the prologue unless it is to set the stage for the fact that Axiom is broke and bored. --CB

 On the Setting:

After reading the prologue and chapter 1, I don’t know what kind of world I’m in.  I get that it’s not Earth, but is it a dark-future kind of setting, a sword and sorcery realm, or other?  I have a sneaky suspicion that it’s a sword and sorcery kind of realm, but really don’t know for certain. There’s reference to a cop carrying a broadsword, but the reference to cops, gangs and the like seems somewhat contemporary.  Perhaps you could lay a few more clues so I know what kind of world to be imagining. --BA

The setting was very confusing for me ... Assuming a typical fantasy setting, rush hour wouldn’t exist. Fantasy worlds are going to be agrarian based ... Carrying a cup of coffee as you walk to work, again more 21st century than medieval fantasy.  No paper cups, so he’s likely using a clay mug which would require a kiln capable of hitting 600C. These things are more difficult to procure than people like to think. --DS

 [O]verall I'm not seeing enough of the place ... the description is insufficiently present --RS

The scenes seemed out of focus and I could not tell where our main character is exactly.  It is as if he is magically placed in a new situation and I felt that you rushed your first chapter.  --YS

Unfortunately, you did not provide much orientation to the reader through the Prologue and first chapter, so I was left with many questions about what this or that meant, and what was the setting ... I had difficulty getting a handle on what world we're in. --AL

As a reader I have NO idea as to what the physical appearance of any of the characters are in broad strokes. Human, hybrid, alien, non-human. There are no
clues to indicate otherwise, but when Axiom refers to the thugs as "grubs" it could conceivably be a race of fly people. --CB

Even the person who liked it the best was a little iffy about the whole "setting" thing:

With setting, I couldn't tell whether the story was exploring concepts of urban fantasy. You mentioned cops, so I was expecting a gun, but then you mentioned sword. I got a little confused. I however resisted the temptation to read again, I wanted to put myself in the shoes of the reader -- I wanted to crit from a reader's point of view. But if setting was clarified and I didn't see it, no need to touch that part on setting. --CM

though,

you do a remarkable job of resisting the temptation of spontaneous exposition to explain setting and place. Definitely showing as opposed to telling. Harder to do but better in the end. --CB

 On Axiom:

I like your main character – quick thinking yet jaded. --BA

The voice and humor stands out as a strength --RS 

You give Axiom a very distinct internal voice for his first person observations. --CB

though as usual AL is a whiny little ... *ahem*, I mean:

I'm a little undecided on how he came across to me. --AL

 On the Encounters with the Toughs/Structure (e.g., not getting to the murder scene immediately)

I think the final interaction with the ruffians did the most to generate empathy for me. He clearly didn’t feel entirely in control.  But he took a risk to prevent something bad happening to someone he only had a general positive feeling for.... This was the most effective aspect of the story so far in generating and keeping my interest. --DS

I suspect the body of the story is going to involve the narrator's efforts to solve the crime of the multiple murders, but I didn't think that the fact that the main thrust of the novel wasn't overly identified was of concern. --RB
 
The chapter seemed to suggest that the murders up near the roof would eventually be Axiom's primary case.  So, I came away from Chapter 1 wondering what role the chapter would play in the overall plot of the novel, and would we see Slab, Shifty, and friends again. --AL

Then we get to the meat of the chapter. But then we move on into  another lengthy encounter, which at this point doesn't seem to have anything to do with the murder investigation. --SM

The interaction between Axiom and the thugs was okay as well. I had a slightly hard time believing that some thugs would shakedown a cop on the way to work, though, no matter how tough they are. --CB (Editor's note: I can rationalize this, build in some backstory to defend it, but generally speaking, oops.)

You do a great job of sharing more of Axiom's character when he opts to confront the goons risking his job for tardiness. Provided insight to the character without telling again. Deft touch there. --CB

The recurring thugs are a good character reveal.  I guess the important question is are they weight bearing?  Unless they become important you should probably find a more salient way to make that character reveal. --DR

 Overall

Overall I don't think there's much I can contribute to improving the structure or narrative ... I think the key question to be answered when looking at the opening chapters of a novel is 'would you read any further?' And the answer in this case is a resounding yes. --RB

I enjoyed every word in your story. Characterization was perfect. Dialogue and exposition too were done well. POV was constant and the POV character saw only what he can see. The last is style. You've got it. Go you. --CM

I have no clue about such as what in the world just happened. --YS

This was a great piece of story-telling. --RB

Your writing style was smooth to read, but the questions that kept popping into my head kept disrupting the reading experience. --AL

My Reaction, Stage I: Ego BOOST!

Non-Attachment Shmon-Attachment -- Reading stuff like "I enjoyed every word in your story" and "The last is style. You've got it. Go you" was like injecting heroin into my eyeballs. I dismissed (mostly) the more negative comments as coming from folks who were looking for something more plot-drive than character-driven, and just not getting the point. Some of the more positive feedback was from someone who has actually published a few short stories, which of course makes him better than other people. Go me, indeed! 

My Reaction, Stage II: Confusion/Frustration

Dude, he only wanted a little earth and water.

After digging a little deeper into the comments, there were some odd contradictions, like 

And I have to say how much I loved the following line about the blood beetles in hard boots. --RF

"though the metaphor only worked if you gave the blood  beetles hard boots" – the metaphor only works if the reader knows what a blood beetle is. --DS

Well, that's annoying.

And even some folks who gave it a general thumbs up thought the prologue was kind of pointless, with the exception of those that thought it was great.

And the encounter with the toughs was a great character reveal for Axiom, except for those that that it seems like a tangent because it's delaying us from getting to the murders.

And the fact is that in almost all detective fiction I've read, the detective is noted to be such on the first page (if not the first paragraph), and is On The Scene or Getting The Job within the first 1-3 pages. I'm not doing that. H'm.


My Reaction, Stage III: Inspiration!

Seriously, it was a very reasonable deal.

Sure, there were contradictions in the feedback, but I was getting three very consistent messages:

1. Axiom is an interesting character and the style works (my attempt to be a 5th rate Raymond Chandler is a success! Now to climb the rung to 4th rate ...)
2. The setting description is sorely lacking
3. Some folks liked it enough that they were willing to read further chapters

So I put aside writing New Stuff, wordsmithed Chapter 2 a bit, and sent it along to some folks. And then, to one person, Chapter 3. Thus leading to the next stage ...

My Reaction, Stage IV: Paralyzation

I just want a hug.

(Yeah, I know, 2006 emailed, they want their images back.)

And here's the problem with submitting material for a writing critique when you are only a quarter of the way (at best) through a first draft. You polish polish polish a couple of chapters, send them out, and while they're flawed, you find some folks that really like what you've done. You respect them, they respect you and give good feedback -- what could go wrong?

This: you decide that you need to hold onto these people, and so you send them Chapter 2. Except, you know, they loved Chapter 1, but that's partially because you edited it to death. And it's one of the most recent things you've written. Chapter 2, well, it's good, but it probably needs some work. I mean, you don't want to disappoint these people, right?

Did monkeys write this? Monkeys on heroin?

Imagine the look on their faces if they open up the next chapter and it has all the flaws of the early stuff, but none of the tasty stylistic goodness! That's the thing about writing something that is more character-based/voice-based/atmosphere-based than plot-based -- that shit takes time. 

And so you enter a cycle of working and reworking and re-re-working your early stuff when you haven't even made it a quarter of the way through your novel -- even though you don't even know if, by the time you finish, it'll even make sense to start where you started. Ack!

Plus, after tweaking and trimming and polishing the early chapters, reviewing something new that you've just written ... well, it reads like you just started flinging poo at the computer screen, hoping something would stick.

And you call yourself a writer ...

Spending all that time tweaking old stuff so it's Good seems to have lowered my intolerance for generating new stuff, which will decidedly Kinda Suck. Meaning I've fallen off the track that's been working for me -- tweak only occasionally, while concentrating on writing new material. Bleah!

Still, being cognizant of all of this should be helpful. My current goal is not to worry about the old chapters, get some new stuff down on the page, and put off getting critiques of later chapters for a month or two. While trying to put in a little more description, of course. (Argh.)

As far as whether those very first chapters will make it to the final cut -- i.e., whether I'll decide I need to start At The Scene, and delete or move Chapters 0 and 1 ... well, I'm going to try not to think about that right now ...


Summing up, I think reviewer DS really nailed it:

"Fancy-pants" – not a term I associate with a standard fantasy setting.

E' and Buddhism (or: The chick with the weird hair won't stop staring at me!)

Okay, let's start here:

Don't look away!

I'd like to tell you something cool I discovered about the parallels between Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) and Buddhism, but I can't. Little distracted right now ... she's locked into me with her squinty, steely gaze, and if I look away for even a moment, it will give her the opportunity she needs to suck me into the book with her hair. 

What book? This one:

"New" is relative, of course.

I think she stole the hair from the smiley guy on the right and taped it to her forehead. But that's not important right now. What is important, and by "important" I mean "not really important, but interesting" is the parallel between RET - really, the precursor to cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) - and Buddhism. 

"But Grumpy Buddha," you may say, "everyone knows about the connection between cognitive behavioral therapy and Buddhism! There are a million books connecting mindfulness and CBT. Tell me something I don't know!"

Well, first of all, no need to be such a jerk about it. Whatever happened to Right Speech? Second, this goes past mere mindfulness. (Okay, there's nothing "mere" about mindfulness, but open your mind for a second.) I found two (related) parallels that are only tangentially related to mindfulness. I'll start with the less cool one, and then build to the holy-crapoli one.

First: Albert Ellis, founder of RET, posited three "Insights" one can get from Rational Emotive Therapy:

Insight 1 - People seeing and accepting the reality that their emotional disturbances at point C only partially stem from the activating events or adversities at point A that precede C.

Insight 2 - No matter how, when, and why people acquire self-defeating or irrational beliefs (i.e. beliefs which are the main cause of their dysfunctional emotional-behavioral consequences), if they are disturbed in the present, they tend to keep holding these irrational beliefs and continue upsetting themselves with these thoughts.

-- That's right, bitches. Ellis just threw the Second Noble Truth at you, in psychologese.

Insight 3 - No matter how well they have achieved insight 1 and insight 2, insight alone will rarely enable people to undo their emotional disturbances. They may feel better when they know, or think they know, how they became disturbed - since insights can give the impression of being useful and curative. But, it is unlikely that they will actually get better and stay better unless they accept insights 1 and 2, and then also go on to strongly apply insight 3: There is usually no way to get better and stay better but by: continual work and practice in looking for, and finding, one’s core irrational beliefs; actively, energetically, and scientifically disputing them; replacing one’s absolutist musts with flexible preferences; changing one's unhealthy feelings to healthy, self-helping emotions; and firmly acting against one’s dysfunctional fears and compulsions.

-- AND then, as you can see, he throws ... er, something.

What were Insights 1 and 2, again?

Okay, it's not that tough. Basically, it's Ellis's version of the Eightfold Path, and one that's not too different than the one we're familiar with. It's not difficult to see Right View, Right Intention, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration, and, most of all, Right Effort in there.

Basically, you need more than just knowing that suffering is caused by attachment. You have to practice, regularly, to make skillful choices, to reflect on one's thoughts, and to reject firm attachments to beliefs.

BUT that's not all, folks. In the intro to the 1975 edition (aka the lady with the funky hair edition), Ellis and Harper note that they rewrote it using E-prime. E-prime eliminates all forms of to be, such as is, was, am, has been, being, etc.

The benefits of E-prime line up so closely with my (admittedly naive) understanding of the "no-self" Buddhist teachings that it made my head explode.

Don't worry, I feel better now.

To be honest, I still haven't quite grasped the whole bit in Buddhism about the abnegation of self. Frankly, it sounds kind of creepy.

On the other hand, when Ellis talks about it, I feel like I can leap right on board: 

"When we use E-prime, we get rid of silly and essentially unanswerable questions, such as 'What is my destiny?' 'Who am I?'"

"When we employ E-prime, we eliminate the degree of completeness, finality, and time independence that we state or apply when we use the verb 'to be'." 

When you stop using "to be" in all its forms, it's a lot tougher to make overgeneralizations. Not impossible, but tougher. The examples throughout the book emphasize this point: in RET, the problem so much isn't that we have a Self, it's that we get extremely caught up in it, attribute permanent traits to it, and assume that it's unified at all times and places -- and that most of the suffering we inflict on ourselves is due to overattachment to self-concept, and some rather silly beliefs about what we should/must do in order to protect it or live up to it.

Nice, eh?

Well, I thought it was cool.

So did I! And my hair isn't going to consume your soul, silly. Now, look away ...

Thoughts On Fitness From My Couch

Okay, technically it's me giving my thoughts, not my couch, but lately we've been of the same mind on things. 

If you're reading this there's a good chance that you clicked on The Grumpy Buddha link at The Fitness Nerd -- and if that's true, then there's an even better chance you're doing a respectable impression of a slack-jawed yokel right now. 

Where iz the stuff bout push-ups and processed fud?

The Good Nerd has honored me with a link because I asked him a couple of fitnessy-type questions over the last couple of months -- at least, I guess that's the reason for the link. Thing is, unlike all the other folks in his blogroll, I never post about fitness. Instead, I blather on about Buddhism and lately, about Writing.

BUT. In honor of the Nerd, this will change, and I will tell you EVERYTHING I know about Fitness. From my couch. While eating a entire box of Entenmann's donuts.

Note: I wasn't always on my couch. About 2 years ago, I was in the middle of my first course of P90X. About 16 months ago, I was in the middle of my second course -- with a little Insanity and Crossfit thrown in, because it was just gettin' a little too easy.

BUT THEN ...

Okay, Tony, you were right, straight-arm shoulder flys don't need a lot of weight

Stupid Crossfit "girls"

What I thought was muscle pain in my right elbow turned out to be nasty, nasty tendonitis/tennis elbow/Lateral epicondylitis.

And it did not go away after taking a couple of months off.

And fifteen minutes into a pull-ups/push-ups/squats bit from Crossfit, my form went south (I guess) and OW OW OW OW OW. My left leg fell off from below the knee ... or, um, something tore a little bit. 


A little over a year later, with ~5lbs of muscle lost and ~20lbs of fat gained back (putting me roughly where I was before starting to work out in January of 2009), I give you

THE GRUMPY BUDDHA'S THOUGHTS ON FITNESS

1. Once you start working out regularly, don't ever skip two days. 
2. Track everything.
3. Don't model your intensity level in Kenpo X off of Wes. Yikes. 
4. Just because you're hurt doesn't mean you can't do some core work, or modify other workouts. Seriously, get your fat ass off the couch already!
5. When you're eating healthy, you'll be amazed at how not-hungry you are for the number of calories you're taking in.
6. When you pig out, eat less the next day. Yeah, you might have read otherwise somewhere. Screw 'em. 
7. Seriously, you don't need the processed crap. And it's fun to feel morally superior to all those suckers who can't resist the damned potato chips.
8. Grapes grapes grapes grapes grapes grapes.
9. After a certain age, those injuries aren't going to heal by themselves. REHAB  goddammit, REHAB.
10. When you've been out of it for awhile, don't worry. The old habits come back surprisingly fast. I wouldn't be on this couch right now if I wasn't fighting a cold.  
11. There's a lot out there about how you don't need to stretch before working out. Screw that, too. If you're used to stretching, stretch. 
12. Chocolate milk is a damned yummy and perfectly acceptable recovery drink. Not only will it help build muscle, it'll make you a lot less sore afterwards. 

 

 Admittedly, not a lot of profundity there, but quit your bitchin', you got something. 

Scene #6: Corporal Tunny and the Thing with the Different Point-of-View and Exposition and Stuff

"Tunny."
"Uh?" He opened one eye and the sun stabbed him directly in the brains. 

....

Tunny sighed. "You carry the hammock." 

Now that we've been introduced to the three main characters:

• Curnden Craw: Competent, Respected, Chilled
• Prince Calder: Conniving, Vengeful, Smart-Ass
• Bremer de Gorst: Whiny, Glory-Seeking, Bad-Ass 

Abercrombie decides to fill in some gaps a bit by introducing two minor POV characters; the first is Corporal Tunny, 

"a veteran of the Starikland Rebellion, the Gurkish War, the last Northern War, the Siege of Adua, this current unpleasantness and a quantity of peacetime soldiering that would have bored a keener mind to death." 

The second character, Beck, has a nice little character arc; Tunny, on the other hand, seems here mostly to amuse and get us a sense of what life is like among the grunts on the Union side of the war.

Scene Question: Will Tunny be able to dodge doing work? 
Answer to Scene Question: Hell no. What are you, stupid?

Abercrombie took care to make Tunny quite distinct from any of our main characters. He's a smart-ass, sure, but he's also a slacker and a bit of a coward (or, as he'd probably put it, realist) -- as he says, 

"wars are hard enough work without people fighting in the middle of 'em."

Basically, the Tunny chapter gives us exposition about things like the chain of command (after we see Bremer deliver his message to the General, we hear Tunny's opinion on how shit will be rolling downhill, which will culminate thusly:)

"Within a minute or two, First Sargeant Forest will arrive to position his bared buttocks above my undeserving head."

Generally, with Tunny we're getting the dirt on the gritty details of war. We're not getting that from Craw so much -- he's got a small band of Named Men, after all, you're not going to see much bellyaching there. And not from Calder, who isn't on the front lines. As far as Bremer goes ... well, we did get a good chunk of exposition in the Bremer chapter, so: crap.

Still, as I recall, we'll be getting a bit less of it from Bremer in the future, as he develops his own little arc, and even then, in his chapter we learned more about what was going on at the upper echelons and not what life was like in the trenches. 

Not much else to say except that Tunny has an enormously entertaining voice, and if you're going to throw exposition at the reader (and you kind of have to in a war novel), a character like Tunny is a good way to do it. He's chatty, he's got strong opinions, and he's quite knowledgeable. Unlike two of our three main characters, he doesn't have any incredibly strong desires (Craw, to me, is less driven), but Tunny has taken a firm stance against dying, and will be sharing with his newbie troops exactly the best way to non-fight fight a war. 


Next Time: Our completely-different-in-almost-every-conceivable-way other minor character, Beck.

Kicking Meditation's Sorry Ass

HELL YEAH.

Why the celebration? Because His Grumpiness successfully met his meditation goal for the last three months:

• 20 days of 15 minute sittings
• 20 days of 10 minute sittings
• 20 days of 5 minute sittings

Now I know what you're thinking. Why is His Grumpiness feeling like this:

when he should probably feel a little more like this:

After all, there are plenty of folks who meditate for an hour a day, or go off on week-or-month-or-year-long retreats. Well all I can say to that is SCREW THEM. Stupid jerks, running around bragging about how awesome they are, what with their lotus positions and their inner peace.

Er, anyway ... point is, six months ago, I was all "I should meditate but I don't, it's hard and I'm just too impatient and I just end up daydreaming and wah-wah-wah." But now I'm at a spot where not only does meditating feel good (though I still have to drag myself to do it -- it's just not as difficult to do so), but when I get going, it feels like 10-15 minutes is too short.

It's kind of like working out -- the first 10 minutes are hell, but then they get better. Same thing with meditating -- during the first 10 minutes my mind is bouncing around all over the goddamn place, but things start to settle and get more manageable. I've done a couple 20-minuters and they were actually kinda nice.

There's only one drawback, and that's that except for right now, it doesn't feel like that much of an accomplishment. Everything I've read (e.g., stuff like this) suggests that gradual, consistent change is the only kind of change that has a chance to become permanent.

Sadly, the problem with gradual change is that it's not something that is a big endorphin trigger. On the cusp of the accomplishment I am all "Go Me Go!" but I don't feel that things are much different than six months ago, even though they are.

Same with writing: His Grumpiness has written 3000+ words a week for the last two months, and it's clear in retrospect that I'm a better writer than I was even a year ago, but it's not something I feel in my gut.

C'est la vie. It's supposed to be about the journey, not the destination: the whole point is to let go of the checking-off-the-accomplishment-boxes.

Still ... I made my goal, so for tonight, WOOT!