Yesterday I met a woman who said she'd been a supporter of Trump since day one. Fair enough. The reasons people support one candidate over another has little to do with policy and nearly everything to do with identity. Not the candidates identity--their own. Am I different? I'm unsure, but here's how I see things:
This woman said she'd supported Trump from day one. She also noted that when she said things like that, people would often ask her if she thought all illegal immigrants should be deported. She said she didn't feel this way about immigrants. Illegal or not. She said, what she wanted was an easy way for everyone to receive permanent residency or citizenship. When I pointed out that this was not what Trump stood for, or had been doing in terms of his ICE policy, she rebutted with the fact that "Clinton and Trump are pretty much exactly the same."
To me, this is not so much an argument, than it is a change of subject. She mentioned how corrupt Hillary Clinton is. Yes, on the same day that the director of the FBI was, at that very moment, testifying that Donald Trump and his WHOLE administration was under investigation for colluding with the Russians.
I don't like to dwell on the differences between liberal and conservatives--I think it is divisive. It creates an "us vs them" mentality that isn't conducive to working relationships. However, when I mentioned that Trump was, it turned out, under FBI investigation for treason, all reason went out the window. The logic train had been missed by several hours, apparently, as this woman shrugged off the investigation of Trump and disparaged the FBI as corrupt. Mind you, it's the same FBI that investigated Hillary Clinton, to Trump supporters' glee.
How then is one investigation less corrupt than the other? I asked.
This woman responded that Hillary Clinton had a long history of corruption, that's how. If irony were a substance, you could cut it with a knife. As Fareed Zakaria said of the Trump on CNN just a few days ago, “. . .[Trump has] spent his whole life bullshitting. He’s succeeded by bullshitting. He has gotten the presidency by bullshitting. It's very hard to tell somebody at that point that bullshit doesn't work," i.e Trump has a long history of corruption, legal troubles, bankruptcy. . .and more.
So, bullshit works because it gets tied up with a person's identity. This woman I met yesterday, had beliefs first, and justifications for those beliefs second. Anything that threaten those beliefs, which were integral to her own understanding of herself, she discounted and replaced by blame on others, rather than critical thought. It is obvious that if she wanted a president who stood for path to citizenship, it would not be Trump, because everything he has done thus far is exactly the opposite.
I know everyone lives with contradictions of character. That's just part of the human condition. I'm sure I justify certain outlooks on life in similar ways, however, I see the what Trump is trying to do with Obamacare and the budget and I can't say I approve of those things. Both the repeal of Obamacare and the budget will hurt more people than it helps--I don't think many people would disagree with that. If Trump kept and expanded Obamacare, allocated funds to public schools, the EPA, the National Endowment for The Arts, and The Public Broadcasting Company, I would be forced to agree with his policies and his agenda. I would even go so far as to say he is doing the right thing and being a good president. But he's not doing that. He's destroying all of that, and that's why I think he is not only a bad president, but an atrocious human being.
So, this woman likes Trump not for what he is doing, because how can she if her words align with her beliefs on policy? She mentioned that Trump says things he doesn't mean about immigrants. In that case, there are two strange things going on here: first, she supports someone based on emotion and identity, rather than logic and policy (most people do), and second, she has no idea what he believes in, because if he doesn't say what he means, then how can anyone know what he will actually do? Both these issues are terrifying and problematic.
It's been a while since I've posted anything here, and for that I apologize. This of course, isn't to say I haven't been writing. I have, a lot. I started a short story that has got the ambitions of a novel, so I think I have a good idea of what my next novel will be.
I've also been querying agents for my debut novel--had some nibbles, but nothing substantial. However, again, this isn't to say I haven't been publishing. I've actually been on a bit of a roll lately. It seems nearly every short piece I submit gets a nice acceptance letter. Check out the Creative, Works page for a complete list of my publications, and near the bottom of that section you'll see pieces in Adelaide Magazine, which you can read on their website. Another is behind a slim paywall of 1.99, in Sanitarium Magazine, a monthly publication of horror from the UK. My first genre publication. I gave away two digital copies of the magazine on Twitter, which received a ton of interest, so if you don't follow me do so, as I'll certainly do another giveaway in the future.
A few other upcoming publications will be Scrutiny Journal, which is a little ezine and you'll get my piece The Sign For Grief Is Crow on there come April, and my piece The Sad Tree will be included in The Cost of Paper Volume Five, from 1888 Center, though the publication date is to be determined.
In my other--though related life--I've been preparing a class I'll teach spring quarter at The Evergreen State College. It's called The Fiction Writer's Craft and my hope is to cover the basics of fiction with students while drafting short stories that they can then begin to submit to magazines, or publish through the school's press. Topics we'll cover are ones like character creation, plot driven narratives, adding texture, setting, and emotional depths, a variety of other topics. We'll also have writing workshops once a week. My hope is that this brings students closer together and gives them a community that exists after the class is over--but oftentimes this is up to the students, not the teacher.
I'll check back in later for more updates in the weeks to come. Thanks for reading and keep writing.
What is the book about?
Abbadon's Gate continues the story of the Expanse (see Leviathan Wakes, Caliban's War) and the story of James Holden and his crew. The story picks up some time after the events of Caliban's War when Holden is having visions of the agent Miller, who was infected with an alien proto-molecule and presumably died.
Cast of Characters:
In both Leviathan Wakes and Caliban's War, readers are introduced to new characters who play major roles in the story. This book is no different. While readers get characters they know in Holden, Naomi, Amos, Alex, and even Miller, we're also introduced to a host of new characters--furthermore many of the essential characters in Caliban's War do not make an appearance in this book.
The premise is one of exploration. A wormhole has been created by the proto-molecule that crash landed on venus and the different warring factions natural must go through this wormhole to find out what is on the other side. But this is just the beginning.
How does it do as the third book in a series?
It does fine. I felt the same way about this book as I did Caliban's War, it is about 200 pages too long, as it's over 500 in all. For the amount of distance the plot and characters move, it seems as though there are just too many pages. When I finished it I thought about the events that took place and there just wasn't that much. There's a lot of character development and stuff that is interesting, but it's mostly for new characters--ones I don't know if I'll see again.
Who will enjoy this book?
If you've enjoyed the previous two books you'll want to know what happens to Holden and his crew. The first in the series is still by far the best. I might go on to read book four but I need a break from the genre for a bit.