Brief Response to Marx

              At first glance and upon suspicion, Marx’s “On the Jewish Question” seems like a typical 19^th century science-justified Darwinistic racism, codified, justified, and celebrated.  But it isn’t that!  On closer observation, we can see that Marx isn’t just criticizing “the Jew,” but is also highlighting the fundamental problems of a Christian-based society.  And he is somewhat criticizing Christians, as well.  If my history serves, I believe that Marx was not particularly fond of either.

                Both Christianity and Judaism stand in the way of the Universal truth, and the universal happiness.  This because they are something other than the full state and society, both are something other.   As he says, “It is the question of the relation of religion to the state, of the contradiction between religious constraint and political emancipation.”[1]  All religion contradicts itself.  “How is religious opposition made impossible?  By abolishing religion.”[2]  All religion stands in the way of political emancipation – only by abolishing religion in total can anyone be truly emancipated.  Otherwise, they can only be emancipated in their own spheres, the otherness of Judaism or Christianity. [3]

                To what extent was Marx able to conceive of a world free from religion?  Here it seems like he had strong beliefs, but reality and history certainly points to it being a dream.  At every point in history, there is a certain mythology or religion that follows every state, especially the great ones.  Perhaps he should have considered the relationship of the religious mind to the state, and the possible symbiosis, as did Plato with his Philosopher Kings.  I am not well read in Marx, but I do not recall a proof where the he showed how religion detracts from humanity’s well being.

---

[1] Marx, Karl.  On the Jewish Question. From the 1844 version, edited 2009. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ (accessed on October 9, 2014).

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

Kyd v. Seneca

This was the first time for me reading The Spanish Tragedy. I guess I’ve been spoiled with Shakespeare, because I was having trouble enjoying the spectacle of this play. It didn’t touch me at an emotional level at all, save for perhaps the immediate aftermath of Horatio’s murder. Remembering the essay of Eliot read previously, I can recall where Eliot mentioned the influence of the Italians, being “Bloodthirsty in the extreme” (that was his actual verbiage). And it was very influential on early Renaissance English Drama. No doubt this is the case here. The Murder happened early, and then needed to be quickly equated, and finally ended in a finale of stabbings and suicide. This isn’t all that different from Hamlet in scopes of death. However, what I found missing was the anticipation, the weaving of plot, and the building of the characters. Perhaps Kyd was keeping Seneca’s structure too close to heart (though lacking his language), as there was little more development than the first scene where certain people announced the positions and exploits of the others. I barely noticed the relationship of Bellimperia and Horatio. The play went, more or less, straight to the killing. And it didn’t stop.

Whereas Seneca was able to revel in language, and create a powerful scene by means of colorful and powerful description despite that lack of plot, Kyd seemed to be preoccupied with the death. There were too many characters that, despite the length of the play, I couldn’t keep them all straight before they started dying. It seemed like there were Viceroys and Ambassadors everywhere. Whereas Seneca or Aeschylus would have a messenger or herald, Kyd wanted to include several types of characters and tried to develop some kind of unique substance in each of them. It would have been better to have a generic character, such as a herald, do what he needs to do and then exeunt.

Here I sound like a lousy critic. I guess what I’m trying to say is that Kyd didn’t measure up to enjoyment of Seneca, and was perhaps too fond of the Italian bloodthirst.

Something on Seneca

As for myself, I am ashamedly lacking readings of Seneca. I say ashamedly now, for I didn’t know what I was missing. Thyestes had no trouble holding my full attention, and even De Ira had me well grasped. I found it comparable to when I first discovered Milton as a bright-eyed undergrad. (I say “discovered.” Though I was exposed to him in high school, I lacked the patience to appreciate it).

On reflection, I find that I agree with Eliot in that Seneca’s plays make for a poor performance. Rather, they are meant to be recited, or as serves my purposes, read. I found myself looking back and forth to the Latin, occasionally pronouncing the words as I recalled my undergraduate Latin training (which is seriously lacking, being unpracticed for five years). Nonetheless, like Eliot I was stricken by the power of the words, the potency of the sentences, and the brashness of the description. Liberos avidus pater / gaudensque lacerat et suos artus edat. / bene est, abunde est. hic placet poenae modus. There is poetry in these words which the translation brings through, and so I admire both sides of our book.

That I believe is the true strength of Seneca and the reason for his influence. I found myself nodding again with Eliot, in that Seneca didn’t seem to have much concern with introductions, character subtleties, gathering suspense, or other “machinations of the stage” (to borrow from Eliot). Rather, it was the power of the words, the boldness of the description, and the power of the action that makes Thyestes stick in one’s mind. There is little foreshadowing, and little doubt of the play’s conclusion, but it nonetheless presents itself as a spectacle. Aequalis astris gradior et cunctos super / altum superbo vertice attingens pollum. / nunc decora regni teneo, nunc solim patris. Delightful.

Response to the Downgrading of Literature

[My] assertion [is] that there is no Rennaissance for the modern reader. There is instead a curriculum, a forced burden, from which a few students might find a few things that they like. Students, save for a few, walk away from this cuirriculum with spite and a vow never to return.

I once heard the Renaissance defined as a love of the Classical World. There was a time when the educated would look back at the great thinkers (Aristotle) and Poets (Homer) with admiration and a desire to emulate. Today there seems to be no looking back (ie, Renaissance). Instead there is a looking forward, mainly to audience appeal and profits. Literature is deemed to suffer because of that. The place of Industry and Capitalism seems to be the best place to blame, if blame is the objective. A commoditization? Industrialization? An assembly line, for books? At least in part, and perhaps in totality. Let us push further into this historical tangent: The scientific revolution propounded new methods of thought which made the previously mysitcal place of art and literature quantifiable. We can look at Psychology as the more obvious example, but Historicism and Formalism are active as well. Art was to be classified, not worshipped.

From Lukacs The Theory of the Novel http://www.marxists.org/archive/luka...novel/ch01.htm:

"Truly a folly to the Greeks! Kant’s starry firmament now shines only in the dark night of pure cognition, it no longer lights any solitary wanderer’s path (for to be a man in the new world is to be solitary). And the inner light affords evidence of security, or its illusion, only to the wanderer’s next step. No light radiates any longer from within into the world of events, into its vast complexity to which the soul is a stranger. And who can tell whether the fitness of the action to the essential nature of the subject — the only guide that still remains — really touches upon the essence, when the subject his become a an object unto itself; when his innermost and most particular essential nature appears to him only as a never-ceasing demand written upon the imaginary sky of that which ‘should be'; when this innermost nature must emerge from an unfathomable chasm which lies within the subject himself, when only what comes up from the furthermost depths is his essential nature, and no one can ever sound or even glimpse the bottom of those depths? Art, the visionary reality of the world made to our measure, has thus become independent: it is no longer a copy, for all the models have gone; it is a created totality, for the natural unity of the metaphysical spheres has been destroyed forever."

What are we getting at? This commoditization is realized by the modern audience as born consumers, and as such, the modern audience places literature on the same plain as cell phones and shampoo. Like those commodities, they pick the book they like best, for whatever reason (advertising, social pressure, personal relatability, etc). Thus the reader is defined.

For a writer in a saturated market (the saturation is debatable, but that argument is for another day), he/she has to cut through the great noise with the most obvious emotional appeals onto a very narrow audience, in order to make sales. Thus the writer is defined. The economic needs and desires of the struggling author lead to a soppy, cliched product for the reader.

Commoditization and a lack of Renaissance compound into eachother until the thought of Literature as Art is a matter only for lifelong academics sitting in their offices. Though I add this is not unique to this span of history (for instance, the late 1800s in America). It seems to take a historical event (World War I) to smack western literature out of its funk, and back into producing art that is historically significant. I would like to respond to more of your post, especially the bit about an English education (which I largeley agree with), but the rambling needs to stop.

Something on the Meaning of Literature

Presented with the question, "What is the meaning of Literature?"

Such a broad question deserves a broad response. I take by the framing of the question and responses that we are proposing "meaning" as the objective purpose, and not the subjective "meaning" of personal relations. For fun, let us take a soft Marxist point of view. So I half-heartedly assert: Literature is in part an attempt to rectify language into an imitation of nature (where painting or sculture actually imitated nature). Though after the Industrial Revolution and subsequent onset of nationalism, all literature is destined to become a mode of propoganda.

Therefore, the meaning (as objective purpose) can be said to be twofold:

1. an imitation of nature (beauty)
2. propoganda (politics)

I might go so far as to assert the primary and perhaps defining dialectic of literature is in these factors. The Imitation of nature (beauty) is the demeanor of the work, i.e., the outward appearance and means of appeal to the reader. But the nature of the work is, in one way or another, propoganda; it either promotes the status-quo (decadence, bourgeois) or calls for change (revolution).

See: Kant; Walter Benjamin, Horkheimer and Adorno, et al.

In addition, we must be careful to not confuse the meaning of "writing" with the meaning of "literature."

Excerpts from The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception

Regarding the Discussion on Professions

All higher education seems to encounter the same problem in different ways, that the degree is not itself a preparation for the profession. Medical students have a residency which gives them a pre-defined way to turn their medical knowledge gleaned from years of medical school into practical experience. In that they have a luxury (though any current resident would beg to differ with their 80+ hour work weeks). Other professions have no built-in way of turning academic education into everyday practicality. Frankly, I don't see how they could without some kind of unprecedented employment/training pipeline, a la residency.

That does not nullify the purpose of formal education. There instead needs to be a social correction on college and beyond, noting first of all that a degree does not guarantee gainful employment. It is up to the student to recognize the need for practical experience (internships, part-time jobs), connections within their industry, referrals, etc. These requirements are perhaps more important than the academic substance of the education, depending on the field of study. The need to "juggle" is omnipresent in the business world, and should be in the schools that seek to educate future professionals.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?78961-The-most-important-English-literature-to-you-and-why/page6

Longinus, a Respite

Though not without consideration in the annals of the Humanities graduate student (I’m sure), Longinus goes often overlooks among the great Greek and Roman philosophers and orators. The shadow of Aristotle is long and broad, broader still with Plato beside him. This may be due to a lack of works, the survivor being On The Sublime. Or it may be due to a lack of reflection on the work. I suspect the latter. Unfortunately, this article is not the place to delve into a detailed historical speculation.

Yet, it is noteworthy to consider the historical ambiguity surrounding the author of On the Sublime. Spurning any definitive claim to his own work, the author has enchanted the words with a kind of mysiticism. The image brought into one’s mind is that of a learned roman nobleman, perhaps adorned with olive branches, representing the ideal of ancient scholastic idealism.

Whatever the case may be, it is no doubt a shame that there is not more credit given to the person collectively known as Longinus. Regarding the tone and ideas of the text itself, there is a certain idealism that shines through. Aristotle remains popular perhaps due to his more scientific approach, which is certainly held in favor in the mechanical science-driven modern world.

Indeed, the past century has seen the discrediting of literary idealism in all its forms, moving towards a certain definition of realism. Has realism become the new “Sublime?” But this is getting too large an undertaking to continue . Suffice it to say that the author Longinus deserves a second look in light of the many developments in literary theory in the past century.

On the Sublime

"It is proper to observe that in human life nothing is truly great which is despised by all elevated minds. For example, no man of sense can regard wealth, honour, glory, and power, or any of those things which are surrounded by a great external parade of pomp and circumstance, as the highest blessings, seeing that merely to despise such things is a blessing of no common order: certainly those who possess them are admired much less than those who, having the opportunity to acquire them, through greatness of soul neglect it." (section VII)

Bloom's Shakespeare assertion

Relating to the (out-of-context) opinion of Harold Bloom placing Shakespeare as the greatest writer. Presented with the questions:

1. Are authors such as Homer and Shakespeare the absolute best writers?
2. If we take it that the answer to 1 is yes than why is it that Dante has never been equalled in Italian, Homer in Greek or Chaucer in English
---

I struggle to cast a definite opinion of whether Bloom is correct or not. His opinion is certainly justifiable and in line with great literary minds before and after him.

Having delved into serious criticism over the past several months (though not yet Bloom), I can safely say that a theme prevails over much of 18th and 19th century English criticism in regards to what is "best." So, it wasn't just Bloom who emerged with these ideas. To greatly simplify: Each sphere or epoch of admiration is a time of great innovation and of great culture. Most famous among these are Pericles' Athens, Renaissance Italy, and Elizabethan England.

Homer represents the best of the Greek world, and the Athenian Greek world is what Arnold calls (summarizing) a perfect culmination of culture and religion. Dante could be said to fulfill the same role for Renaissance Italy. Shakespeare may not have so much religious influence, but one could say that his idolation of historical figures at least helps in that regard. In any case, by breadth of influence does Shakespeare fit the bill, and as the only among the three who wrote native English, it's little surprize that he is often considered the "best" by English-speaking critics. Though some, notably Thomas Love Peacock, have asserted that Milton is the superior. Certainly Milton better culminates the prevailing Religious influence. see: Four Ages

Having summarized this in relation exclusively to the narrow path above mentioned, let me attempt to answer the questions just as narrowly:

1. Homer, yes. Shakespeare, debatable. (I personally put Milton in the lead)

2. Homer has no equal in Greek and perhaps any language - see above. Dante has no equal in Italian as his work represents the literary culmination of a great epoch in human history. Chaucer well represents his age but does not repesent the best of English literature.

Reply to Science vs. Religion

In the forums http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forum.php

Lacking the training to get too specific, I would like to contribute my personal experience to the general conversation.

Like many of us, I suspect, I was born a Christian and rebelled against it later in life. I searched for answers to the many questions that would arise during such a rebellion, but no answer was quite so easy or satisfying as "God." Nonetheless, knowing the inherent contradictions of the established religions and encouraged by the obvious abuses of the religious, I never went back. This because the only reason to go back is that it was easy.

It is easy to believe in Heaven, and angels, and everlasting life. It is much more difficult, tragically so, to know that death brings the infinite, timeless darkness. In the deepest corner of our minds, we all suspect this is true - but most cannot and will not accept it. This because such a thought imbues a great responsibility: You only have one life. Religion has spent innumerable years and efforts to escape this responsibility. As a tool of rationalization, it is fundamentally wrong.

Knowing that religion is wrong, does that make science right? No, not necessarily. That is a grand example of a false dilemma (apologies if this was said before). I suspect the answer is somewhere in between, as is usually the case.

Europe’s Weakness Highlights Putin’s Strength

The European Union is a financial amalgamation of states and currencies, bound together in order to counter the financial power of the United States, and more recently, China. This has been generally good for the whole of the continent. But as a cohesive self-defense unit, they are totally unreliable and cannot be depended on to counter the aggression of Russia. NATO is also suspect.

As Putin presses his advantage, and America and her allies stumble over their “diplomatic” options, one has to wonder what realistic options are available to stop Putin from pressing all the way to the doorstep of Europe. Bold talk seems to be the order of the day. Russia presents a united effort to press and hold their own interests while the rest of the world pauses, considers, and hesitates.

America and Europe have made a terrible mistake by assuming that Putin and the Russian army have neither the gumption nor the expertise to actually seize and occupy territory. But they have done that – much more effectively than in any of the wars fought by America in the past decade. By taking and holding Crimea without warning or resistance, Russia has shown the capability to wage modern war more effectively than its most visible competitor.

And so sits Europe, dangling like a fat fruit, ripened by decades of peace and prosperity. If the tanks begin to roll over the countryside, what power could stop them? Could any country in Europe muster a successful defense, or even slow down the modern jets and highly trained troops as they wreak havoc and assume control? Was the whole of the continent so satisfied with the treaties and the protection of America, that they are all but powerless in a conventional war? And what of America? Would war-weary America put itself forward as the shield of Eastern Europe? Would America jeopardize its entire military and economic well-being for Latvia, Romania, or Poland?

In times of stress, the faults will begin to show. As pressure continues to build, individual countries will inevitably look to their own interests. Germany may roll up its good will in favor of more self-protective measures. The same could be said for the United Kingdom. Spain and Italy may not survive in such an environment, with their own governments and economies so fragile. Greece, Macedonia, and other Baltic states may welcome the opportunity to support Russia, and vis-à-vis gain their own economic and industrial advantages. What side might Libya and Northern Africa take?

There must not be a second underestimate. Russia and Putin are working masterfully on the diplomatic and warfare stages, leaving America and her allies struggling to catch up to the moment. America and Europe must assume that this is but the first in a series of well-planned and prepared actions, carried out by experts with decades of experience. Even now, there may be agents turning the wheels on the next phase, sowing discontent and weakening resistance in new theatres. There must not be a second underestimate.

The Trip to California

From a letter to my brother.

The California trip. The first flight was a 6+ hour excursion, due to what the pilot called “strong headwinds.” I didn’t think it was too bad, because the plane was pretty comfortable and the accommodations were very nice (we basically had a fully functional TV for each seat, and also soft drinks on demand. I like Virgin America). However, Mom and Dad were not having such a great time. Though Mom handled the trip very well overall, she did admit that she was feeling claustrophobic for the duration of the flight. Dad was also mentally sore by the end of that trip, later saying it was “pretty much his limit” for length of flight. None of us slept very much. The lousy travel, mixed with the jet lag, meant that Mom and Dad had very limited energy for the next three days. But they were good soldiers, and kept a good attitude throughout. I am very thankful to them for that. Farda and I plan to get them something special for their anniversary, as a thank you. I guess I should find out when their anniversary is.


Farda picked us up at LAX – an adventure in itself. Fortunately she knew what she was doing, because we were like logs in the river. I looked out across 3 or 4 parallel roads, all with different functions, and wonder how anyone ever gets where they are supposed to be.


We did breakfast the first morning, with Farda’s immediate family. That’s when we “made it official.” Mom asked Farda’s Mom for permission to join our families. Everyone was happy, and that put me at ease. Mom and Dad also tried some new food, and liked it. The whole thing was about as good as I could ask for.


Then we went to see the Pacific. They took us to all the local beaches, and some of them were simply breathtaking. Makes Jersey look like even more of a dump. Huntington Beach was massive – long and extremely well maintained. You could fit hundreds of thousands of people there, comfortably. Newport was another experience. It felt like a private beach, but it wasn’t. They built those fancy houses almost to the edge of high-tide. It was beautiful, and I envied the people living in that place, with the ideal weather, with their roof-top lounges and sweeping balconies. What a life that must be. Then, we went further south, towards Laguna, and stopped at a cliff face overlooking the ocean. We didn’t know what the beach was named, but it was stunning. There were a line of rocky hills, and between them were white-sand beaches. They built condos and houses into the cliffs like the elves of Rivendell. Quite a display. I even took a few pictures with my phone. Finally, we made our last stop at Laguna Beach. It was a very nice town, swollen with shops but not too touristy. We ate an early dinner there, outside (in January), at a nice little Inn overlooking the beach. That alone was worth the 6-hour flight, in my opinion.


By the time we got back to the hotel, which was about 6:00, Mom and Dad were struggling to stay awake. I was also struggling, but I wasn’t afraid to use coffee. Coffee definitely saved me that night.


Farda took me to a Sushi place, to meet her friends. That was pretty great – they were very nice, and the Sushi was beyond excellent. West Coast Sushi is simply better. Like New York Pizza, there’s no comparison. I also tried Jamba Juice. Overrated.


And that’s about the end of the end of the excitement. We went to meet some extended members of Farda’s family the next day, for an engagement party. Farda was dressed up to the teeth, looking very pretty. The party at first was a bit unsettling, because everyone there was treating me like I was the man. Like, the man in charge. Everywhere I looked, people wanted to get me things – tea, food, a seat, gifts, etc. They were asking me for permission to do things, like start eating, or to introduce themselves, or to leave the house. I was the center of attention. It’s a cultural thing. And, by the end of the party, I was enjoying it. I might feel like a real King at the wedding.


The plane ride home was much better. 4.5 hours, smooth flying, plane only half-full, and in the sunlight so it felt less like a prison. We landed tired but happy, and drove back to our normal lives.

Found Nothing, Coming Home – Free from January 17-19

Some days are just super nice. Friday. Birds chirping. Bright sunlit sidewalks. Friendly neighbors. Smiling faces. Your coworkers bought your favorite coffee, because you’re just a great person. And then, you see that there is a free ebook for your reading pleasure.

The boss walks into your office. “Take the rest of the day off,” he says. “Go enjoy yourself. You deserve it!”

With a smile you stroll into the sunny morning, eager to enjoy the well-earned hours with your free ebook, on a bench by the park.

Find that beautiful day and that free ebook here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HJDFXZS



Until then, please enjoy an excerpt from the book, below:

He woke with a sour taste in his mouth and stiffness in his back. He stood quickly, and saw that the clock read 7:50. “Shit,” he said to himself, half-excited. Immediately he called Anna - she picked up and told him they would be late. Ron wanted to apologize, but she already hung up the phone.

He took a minute to spray some cologne and make sure his hair wasn't too bad. Then he shuffled down the stairs, jumped into his car, and sped to Anna's place as fast as the car and the streets would allow.

She was waiting just outside the door. She was wearing a blue dress, flowy and elegant; it was something to be worn on a special occasion. It hugged her hips and shaped tightly around her mid-section. As she walked, one of her legs slid out of a slit in the skirt. The neck was cut somewhere between classy and risque. The makeup highlighted her eyes, which were already a bright and generous display. Her hair was done in a bob - a new and aggressive look for her. She was wearing pearl earrings, and also a pearl pendant necklace. The whole ensemble was nothing short of stunning.

She wanted to know why he was late.

He said he was busy.

(Approximately) 100 Ways to Write More

Like most of us aspiring writers, I have struggled to find the time and the energy to write.  I’m sure you agree that writing is an intensive and time-consuming process.  It’s not something that can be done sitting in front of the TV, or on a cell phone, or during that 20 minutes between classes (or jobs). 

In compliment, I’ve been told that writing is a necessary step to be a writer.  I tend to agree.  In the same way that taking a class in civics does not make you a lawyer, writing one story that one summer a while ago does not make you a writer.  It is a constant process, a constant calling.   

So, let me pass on some good advice that I have received throughout my life. 

1.  Wake up early 

This one cannot be stressed enough.  Often, the early morning is the only quiet and composed time that we will get in the day.  That goes double for those of us with families.  Toughen up, set that alarm 90 minutes earlier, fire up that coffee pot, and embrace the dawn. 

Ideally, this would be a 7-days-a-week process.  I actually find that my best time is early mornings on the weekend, while the world sleeps off the presumptive hangover.  This isn’t always possible, but to be effective, it should be at least 3 days a week. 

2.  Schedule time to write 

Almost as important as number 1.  We all fall into the trap that goes something like, “I’ll write when I have more time.”  Of course, we either never get that time, or find a far less productive way to fill that time.  The only way to make sure you actually take the time is to set it in stone.  Put it on your calendar.  Tell your friends.  Prepare yourself for the event (ie, coffee & snacks).  

And be as specific as possible: 

“On Wednesday, from 7:30 until bed, I am writing.  Nothing else will happen except writing.  No one may contact me during that time – any requests will be ignored.  Good day.” 

I find that people generally respect your desire to commit time to your passion.  And certain people (ie, the ladies) may admire that commitment (wink wink). 

3.  Make it regular 

In tandem with the first two.  In order to get into the “habit” of writing, there needs to be some normalcy about it.  Writing should not be a special event, but a typical event.  It should be part of your life in some way, everyday. 

Being more of a mathematics/logic thinker, I find that weekly scheduling is the best way to do this.  I’ll look at what I have planned for that week, determine what can be done to accommodate my personal and family obligations, and then block off time for writing.  That way, I make sure that I have set aside the time, for each and every week. 

4.  Set goals continuously

Maybe you want ten pages this week.  Or 2,000 words.  Whatever metric you choose to use, make it ambitious.  But not too ambitious.  And, set those goals early and often. 

If we set a huge goal, like “Finish this book by the end of the year,” it’s very discouraging when we continually see that goal being proved too much to achieve.  Instead, set a weekly or monthly goal.  That way, if you don’t quite make it to that goal, you can try to “make up for it” during the next phase.  It’s a good and easy way to motivate yourself. 

5.  Make a hive

There should be a place that is quiet and comfortable for writing.  Hopefully, you have an office or a bedroom with a desk where you can shut the door and politely tell others “do not disturb.”   

But if you don’t, strongly consider finding a “hive.”  This could be at a local library, a coffee shop, or even a bar.  Whatever place is most comfortable for you, and whatever has the fewest distractions.  Simply being at home, on the couch, with the TV and the cell phone and whatever other gadgets you have, all make it harder to write.  Distractions distract.  That’s what they do. 

But when you go somewhere different with the specific purpose of writing, it only helps get into the necessary mindset. 

8.  What happened to 6 and 7? 

12.  Get rid of resistance 

If you have somebody in your life that, for whatever reason, is resentful or resistant regarding your writing time, then you should strongly consider remedying that situation.  I’m not saying that you should break up with your bf/gf - but instead have a serious conversation about your desire and dedication to writing.  Insist on your desire to write.  Be aggressive, if need be.  This goes for friends and family members, as well. 

You will most likely have to deal with disappointment when you turn down social events or casual hang outs in favor of writing time.  That’s part of it.  But if it is a constant resistance from a particular source, you need to be proactive.  Or else that other person will win the fight, and you will be writing less and less over time. 

47.  Read 

My personal opinion on reading is somewhat different from most actual authors, so take it with a big ol’ grain of salt.  While I agree that reading before you begin a project is extremely important, and revisiting sources of inspiration is also extremely important, I believe that reading while you are actively writing is of less importance. 

Nonetheless, it is indeed beneficial to keep your head in the game, so to speak.  Revisit the works and authors that inspire you.  Read articles about writing and publishing.  This will rejuvenate you, give you new ideas, and therefore aid your writing.  Most importantly, this is something that can be done in 15-20 minutes (unlike writing itself). 

72.  Celebrate 

We all achieve certain milestones as we go through a project.  Perhaps it is the first 10,000 words, or completing the rough draft, or successfully rehabilitating that abysmal fourth chapter.  Whatever your milestones may be, be sure to reward yourself for the hard work – because it’s almost certain that nobody else will be near as happy as you. 

Typically, I’ll find a way to buy a good bottle of booze, or maybe indulge in a trip to a favorite restaurant.  These little celebrations feed into my energy to write, and give me something to look forward to. 

That said, don’t get carried away.  Don’t throw a party every time you finish a chapter.  Or else you’ll be doing more celebrating than writing, and it loses its effect. 

100.  Be Assertive

If you haven’t learned by now: you don’t get much by being nice to everyone.  In order to make the time for writing and get the project written, you will need to be assertive; which is a polite way for saying jerkish.  You may have to occasionally piss off people you love in order to achieve your writing goals.  If you aren’t prepared to do that, then you should reconsider your passion for writing in the first place.