What Is It About Virginity?

No, not just that kind.  I'm thinking of all kinds of firsts, any first.

While virginity in other areas don't get nearly the play that sexual innocence/experience gets (why is that?), many firsts are paradigm-altering experiences.

In youth, life starts with non-stop firsts.  Everything is a first—first breath, first cry, first word, first smile, first tooth, first food, first step.  Of course the proportions change over time—from 100% firsts in those intial hours, dropping to a still demanding percentage of firsts Vs familiar: first school, first friend, first fight, first love, first job, and so on.

As we explore, experiment and stake out our ground, we often build a life around the familiar, shrinking that percentage of demanding firsts we have to experience.  We've found our sweet spot, our comfort zone, our wheelhouse.

Yes, we understand our job as parents and mentors: we must push children, students, trainees to expand their horizons, open their eyes and minds to a world of possibilities, but hey, we've BTDT (Been There, Done That).  We don't need to do it again.  It's exhausting, time consuming, scary, disappointing, uncomfortable.  Something we encourage others to do, extolling the benefits of remaining open to new ideas, continuous learning, etc.

So I was wondering—what makes it hard to try something new?

And I realized that when you are a virgin/newbie approaching any new situation, you maintain a constant 360º scan of the situation, holding all potential options (given the lack of prior experience) open and possible.  Depending on your personality (some types listed below) or level of experience in related areas, your need to maintain a high-gain assessment of all information may vary, but the constant data flow can be significant and challenging to process.

Powering that constant scan consumes energy—you are not only trying to assess all the possibilities, but may (if more compulsive, or if this is a value-laden or important first) do some scenario building off of that 360 degrees of possibility, increasing the amount of information that has to stay active and running on your "screen."

When that 360º energy-intensive radar goes on for anyone who feels compelled to think ahead, it is tiring.  However if we are frequently trying new things, we can get used to it.  Like daily exercise, our mental muscles adjust and accommodate.  But for those who aren't in shape, the learning curve of newness can feel very daunting, a steep hill to climb.  We may give up, forgetting how quickly that initial learning curve can pass with minimal experience, narrowing that 360º circle into an ever smaller and more focused slice of the pie, enabling us to rapidly eliminate and jettison inappropriate options or scenarios.

Learning can be a heady experience, as we offload unecessary information that has been cluttering our mind, like cleaning house.

In general, I have observed three broad attitudes/approaches—perhaps you have experienced others...

The Laissez Faire:  So if you're not so compulsive or caring, and something new comes up, you might not switch into high gear.  You're in the "Whatever" school that believes in minimum-to-no-effort and deal with it (or abandon it) if things blow up. Relatively low increased energy required for approaching something new.

The Go For Its: Another mindset falls in the toss-it-in-the-air-and-See-If-It-Sticks (SIIS) school.  Simultaneously adventurous and lazy, this group is afraid to pre-think much, as that may lead to a never-ending list of what-ifs that would require additional research, effort and more thinking, which might result in inaction and depression.  For them, there's often some kind of mental mechanism that kicks in while they are dithering which launches them into the challenge willy-nilly.  They, closing their eyes, take the leap and deal real-time with the possible consequences of unthought-through actions. Energy only required if things go awry!

I Am, Therefore I Think: The third group are the pre-thinkers, sometimes so good at their job that no action is ever able to be taken!  The wide spectrum of this group can range from the thoughtful plan-aheader to the truly obsessive I-must-think-of-everything-or-else-there-will-be-a-break-in-the-Force-and-the-world-will-end. Required energy can be medium, to high...to off the charts. For the extremists in this segment, seemingly "simple" tasks or decisions can be overwhelming.  To illustrate this, consider taking a small number, say 2, but then saying you have to think of it to the tenth power.  The complexity increases exponentially.

Of course, there's always the straightforward fear of looking like an idiot, which is always a disincentive to trying something new.  Get over it. Try something new. Don't expect yourself to be perfect from the start.

Embrace failure, for without it, there is no learning. And remember that something not working out the way you had planned ("failure") may be a door that opens a new direction, insight, opportunity.

Really.

Isabel Swift (learning to knit…)

If you haven't read it yet, you should….

I’ve just finished re-reading Deborah Tannen’s early work (1990), You Just Don’t Understand.  She’s a linguistic professor who has published some bestselling titles (That’s Not What I Meant, Talking 9-5).  I’d read it ages ago, when it first came out & found it both interesting and helpful.  Rereading it offered new insights.

If you’re a romance reader or writer, I expect you’ve heard the comment, “The whole story was just based on a misunderstanding! A five minute conversation would have cleared everything up on page two…!” 

Well, spending five minutes with YJDU will clarify that communication between the sexes is rife with misunderstanding.   That males and females—from the very beginning—bring quite different assumptions to conversations (both speaking and listening) and those assumptions can create significant misinterpretation, misunderstanding, frustration, anger, unhappiness, alienation and disappointment.  A better understanding of the underlying assumptions on both sides can really help realign expectations and diminish misinterpretation.  Additionally, the stories and research offer reassurance that you are not alone in your confusion, hurt, and frustration.

Before I became a romance editor and made my living on the differences between the sexes, I remember having a conversation with the father of a woman who had finally announced her engagement to her long-time partner.  The couple hadn’t gotten married because their respective families didn’t approve of the relationships due to their being from different races or religions (can’t recall the issue). 

The parent was earnestly explaining to me that he wasn’t racist (or whatever) but that building a successful marriage was so hard, and if the two parties came from totally different cultures, different upbringings, different experiences, that it would be that much harder to find the common ground needed to create a strong partnership.

As I listened, I sympathized—all his concerns were valid.  And then I looked him in the eye and said, you know, I have never heard such a compelling treatise on the benefits of homosexual marriage.  I mean with heterosexual relationships, you are asking people of the opposite sex to figure out a way to live together.  Not easy!  There’s a reason it’s called the opposite sex….

Yes, when you think about building a strong partnership between two people who are different sexes, have totally different bodies, bring different assumptions, expectations and world view, have different conversational styles (in some ways a different language), and were raised differently, it’s clear heterosexual marriage is not easy.  That challenge has fueled countless stories, poems, songs and is often one of the central challenges of our lives.

It’s not easy to understand the opposite sex, but YJDU does give some helpful insights.  Tannen opens with a perspective that had a lot of resonance for me: that all conversation has two diametrically opposed goals.

One is to connect, to reach out, to feel a bond with another, to feel part of the greater whole of humankind.

The other is the desire to maintain your sense of self, your autonomy, your uniqueness, your individuality and separateness.

Tannen indicates (my interpretation) that these simultaneous and opposite goals are present in every conversational interaction for both men and women.  But she notes that men often have a slight default to autonomy in that 180 degree spread.  And that women often have a slight default to connection.  And that slight difference can and often does create a significant communication gap between the sexes.

If you think about it, much of “politeness” (which can vary significantly in different cultures) has been created to enable people to communicate and connect in a non-threatening way.  To enable others to feel ‘safe’ in connecting, reassured that they are not being asked to lose their autonomy or sense of self.

Romances are all about the puzzle of how to be both an individual and be part of a team.  And many address the challenge of having the woman need to nurture her sense of self, validate her right to her own individuality and needs in order to balance her natural tendency to compromise for others.  And additionally presenting the flip side: of having the man appreciate that there are appropriate and necessary compromises that he must make to be part of a team, and to learn to appreciate the unique gifts that that connection will bring.

So if you haven't read it yet, check it out.  And vive la différence!

Isabel Swift

Charting the points

A highly rational friend recently noted with some surprise that sometimes just saying a problem out loud helped him figure it out.

And why was that?

Have you ever been struggling with something, felt a lack of clarity on which direction to go in, or even understand how you felt about an issue?

Have you written about it in an email, a letter, a journal and gotten an insight from the act of writing? Or talked to someone about it, and gotten a better perspective, even though the person you were talking to hadn't said anything? Or even just bounced something out loud into an empty room, and found an answer rebound back to you?

I expect many have. Most likely everyone has just accepted that experience as being just a strange exercise that for unknown reasons simply seems to works.

But for my rational friend, achieving that insight through those means was a surprise. For him, there hadn't seemed to be any point in talking or writing about the same information or questions that were in his head—what difference would it make? The information was already in his head, it wouldn't change from being said out loud or written down. So it got me thinking—well, why does it help?

And I came up with this analogy:

Do you remember math problems where you would be given a sequence of numbers and asked to figure out what the next number in the sequence was supposed to be? Well, the more numbers you were given in the sequence, the clearer the underlying formula was. So if you were only given one number, correctly guessing the next would be impossible—too many options. If you were given two numbers, then your chances were better, but still had a very high level of uncertainty.

For example 2 doesn't give you much to go on. 2, 4, gives you a lot more, but not enough. The sequence could be 2,4,6 or 2,4,8. So with three data points, you can be far more confident of perceiving a pattern, making an assumption, getting clarity.

So my theory is that when you have a problem/issue in your head, that's one data point. But when you say it out loud, so you are knowing it, thinking it, saying it and hearing it, or additionally writing it and reading it, you are adding more data points and increasing your ability to make a more accurate assumption, to chart a more solid course. And agreed, some of these point only offer a tiny bit of new information--a slightly richer or more detailed appreciation, a new perspective, but it's something; it helps.

In one of those Malcolm Gladwell books, he talks about how you can have a group of two or three friends, but if it expands to four or five, the group often falls apart. He noted that one more person isn't just an addition of one, but for everyone in the group, so the increase is exponential. Everyone is managing not only their own relationship to each person in the group, but observing & incorporating each permutation of every element of each member of the group.

So if you have a group of three, A, B, C, you need to maintain awareness of the relationships between A/B, A/C, B/A, C/A, B/C, C/B and ABC. If you add D, it goes from 7 separate relationships to 16 (A/B, A/C, A/D, B/A, B/C, B/D, C/A, C/B, C/D, D/A, D/B, D/C, ABC, ABD, BCD, ACD). Yes, OK, I may not have all the math right, but you get the point.

The more points you can chart or the more ways you allow your brain and intuition to process information, the better it will be able to build a viable theory, or chart a hypothetical direction to consider.

Also, it's very hard to lie to yourself when you are writing in a journal. Much easier to wrap yourself in denial and not go there if it's just in your head, or even talking. And in fairness, sometimes you don't even know you are lying to yourself until you write something down. Reading it, you think...well, no, that's not quite right, and start thinking about what is actually true.

It is helpful to get an external perspective on things—that's why editors were invented. But if you don't have an editor or critique group, or a boss or anyone to be a sounding board, try putting it out there & using yourself.

You'll have a point. Maybe more than one....

Get your sextant out!

Isabel Swift

Lessons from Rudolf, the Red-nosed reindeeer

Some years ago I did a post on Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer. It's a song that always troubled me, as it seemed so out of keeping with the general aspirational holiday cheer.

Rudolf, the Red-nosed Reindeer is such a straightforward statement that if you are or look different, others will ridicule, shun, humiliate and reject you. As you may recall, the other reindeer "laugh and call him names/They never let poor Rudolph/join in any reindeer games."

That is his life until everyone suddenly discovers that the very thing that made him different will in fact deliver a unique and crucial skill that will overcome what had been an insurmountable obstacle. Of course, "Then all the reindeer loved him/as they shouted out with glee,/Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer,/you'll go down in history!"

Clearly, for some people, anyone that is different is seen as a threat.

Perhaps some people assume if something is different it must be an enemy (?)

Perhaps some people think that, since they are perfect, anyone that doesn't resemble them is less than perfect, and must be eliminated (?)

Perhaps some people think they are perfect, thus everyone else must also think they are perfect, so their differences are in conflict, and are an alarming threat to some people's own belief system, sense of self-satisfaction and comfort (?)

But some people appreciate differences in others.

Perhaps they respond to the fact that evolutionary theory rewards those species that have variety, as it gives them more options for species survival to respond more effectively to a changing world. If a species becomes too uniform, then one problem can wipe out the entire species, because all are equally vulnerable (?)

Perhaps they realize that variety enhances survival because not everyone wants the same thing at the same time, diminishing competition and allowing peaceful coexistence (?)

Perhaps they have internalized the Rudolf lesson, that the very things that make someone different may offer key skills to the team and make the sum far greater than each individual part—a central theme in romances (?)

And clearly, the trial by fire that so many live through in environments that penalize differences can forge powerful, creative and remarkable human beings.

But it is hard on the young. For the lessons we learn in Kindergarten are not pretty and many live their whole lives trying to overcome or find forgiveness for what happened then.

In an effort to prevent teen suicides among kids with gender and sexuality issues there are resources. It gets better.org or The Trevor Project are two.

The focus there is gender, but the basic issue is the same. Being different may not be an easy road, but it gets better—even for Rudolf. And adults have only to pause for an instant to think of all the people who were "different" that have transformed their lives and the world around them and value and support the gift of being different.

Here's hoping that the coming season gives us all things to be thankful for—the gift of accepting—indeed of celebrating our differences.  For therein lies our strength.

Isabel Swift

eReaders--Isabel Swift wonders: what's with the "But I love BOOKS" response?

I'm sure you've had the same experience--or have been one of the players in this conversation.

But first, a bit of background….

In addition to being VP of editorial for Harlequin, over a decade ago I also chaired a digital/eBook task force charged with exploring this new business opportunity. Additionally, much later, I was part of the new business group launching a number of new digital initiatives. So I guess what I'm trying to say is: I swing both ways. And in the course of my work, I had a lot of conversations with people--readers, writers, booksellers, digital entrepreneurs. Today, I still love to find out what people are reading--and how they are reading.

Back to the present. So, I'm at a dinner party, or cocktail party, or just striking up a conversation in line or traveling--and the subject of books and reading comes up. Often one person has an eReader (frequently a Kindle, sometimes an iPad or other eReader) and is either extolling its virtues, or reluctantly (or not) going through the learning curve.

Someone else invariably chimes in (sometimes with passionate intensity) "But I love BOOKS! I could NEVER get an eReader!" Then they go on a bit about the smell, turning the pages & the multitude of pleasures, information and sensation that a physical object offers. The self-confessed eReader reader is given the hairy eyeball, or at best, a pitying look. Emotions can (and have) run high over this line in the sand, this perceived chasm.

And don't get me wrong--I love books too. Physical books. But I am stumped as to why there is such a prevalent and passionate assumption that physical Vs digital is an either/or choice. Like once you purchase an eReader, a scarlet TTTWW (for Traitor To The Written Word) will be emblazoned on your forehead and a magnetic force field will drop down (visually similar to the Cone of Silence in Get Smart) preventing you from ever touching another physical book with your dirty digital hands. You have not remained faithful to the books that raised you--dipping your wick elsewhere is clearly felt to be a relationship ender.

Huh? I just don't get it. My reading world is not monogamous! I believe in choice! I love stories. I love storytellers. Books have not changed my life--stories have, with their information, insights, compelling worlds, emotional challenges and eye opening truths. Stories that are shared though listening (conversation, audio, radio, lectures,...), seeing (performance, films, TV, museums,…) or reading (books, newspapers, magazines, documents, letters,…).

Yes, the story's trasmission vehicle can make a difference in the impact of a story. Watching the Rolling Stones' Steel Wheels concert live Vs at an IMAX theatre with rabid fans Vs on a DVD alone at home delivers quite different experiences. Reading a hardcover, paperback, listening to the story on audio, reading it on an eReader all deliver a different experience.

Sure, there may be preferred formats for certain stories. Haven't you heard people say "You don't need to see that movie in a theater, it'll be fine on DVD"? I assure you watching The Rocky Horror Picture Show live at midnight is a great example of the transformative impact of how you experience a story Vs sitting at home with the remote.

But everyone understands the benefits of access, choice, convenience. As a reader, I don't like to be without something to read. And while I am usually a fairly committed reader, I must confess I'm not entirely monagamous. As a frequent traveller I have found myself lugging stacks of material: manuscripts, educational/business reading, fun reading, recommended reading, themeatically appropriate reading, books 2 and 3 in the series, just in case… You know what I'm talking about!

Now I can have everything on one slim tablet and people no longer ask me if I am carrying rocks in my suitcase. Maybe I'll have a paperback in my purse too--cheerful in the knowledge if I tire of it or finish it, I have other options. Bedtime reading with sleeping spouse can cease to be an issue with a back-lit iPad. And another interesting aspect of the digital reading experience is product privacy. No one knows what you're reading.

(Though for some that could be a drawback, as looking intellectual, educated, in-the-know and generally superior could be the key driver behind plowing through an improving literary tome. But surely a secondary market will spring up of sheaths for one's tablet that will say perhaps: "Don't bother me...Riveted by Rushdie!" or "Intellect @ Play" or "I'm improving myself. And you?")

Alternatively, maybe you really don't mind carrying two or three volumes around in your gigantic purse. Perhaps you are unmoved by the ability to download a recommended read instantly at the dinner table in The-Back-of-Beyond. Unlike me, perhaps you may have a house filled with empty shelves, just waiting to be filled, with your other bookshelves are stacked with easy-to-find, easy-to-search titles. But that is not my world.

So enough with this "I love BOOKS!". Of course you do. But I love stories….

Ask a Busy Person...

You know the aphorism: "if you want to get something done, ask a busy person." ?

Well, I am here to say: "So True!"

and

"Let me explain!"

Because why is it true? Why is asking a not-busy person--a seemingly obvious choice--so challenging and problematic?

Well, let me walk you through it. Let's just say you have nothing to do and someone (a spouse with a full time job, perhaps) approaches you with a task: a request to pick up some dry-cleaning. Because hey, you're not doing anything, right?

"Honey, could you pick up the dry-cleaning? I have a million things I have to do & don't have the time," they'd ask.

What has just happened?

Well, your workload has just increased...one hundred percent (100%) !

You're laughing, but that is exactly what it feels like.

Because what is not appreciated is that in addition to a massive workload increase (and the sense that a steaming turd has been laid in the center of your delightful and bucolic world), by taking on that task, numerous other tasks will have to join it. It can be overwhelming.

Because now you have to...

- get up, take off your pajamas, take a shower
- dry off, select and put on clothes, do makeup, brush hair
- find the laundry ticket, money, the dry cleaner's address
- figure out how to get there: drive, walk, bus, etc., figure out when to leave
- research the route, or figure to park,
- mentally prepare yourself to encounter numerous strangers and unpredictable people, respond to questions
- gather articles, transact business, carry everything back & put everything away

It's exhausting to think about.

Whereas if you had a hundred things to do, one more is only 1/100th. Often, that's what it feels like. And likely it seems like you're wading through crap all day--what's another bit?

And while everyone has an upper limit, usually one more thing is nothing. You're already up, showered, shaved and out the door. Depending on location, there are a number of slots that picking up the dry cleaning would fit into--on the way to work, at lunch, on the way back; it's just a brief detour, no trouble at all, really!

Somewhat frighteningly, often the less you do, the less you can do. And the more you do, the more you can do.

So lighten your load with care, or nothing will get done.

Isabel Swift

Control Vs Lack of Control

Holding on. Letting go.

Just met a photographer at a two hour batik/dye class who said she was there because she wanted to push herself creatively in areas where she wasn't—and couldn't be—in control. Because she knew she relished and enjoyed the control she exercised over her photographic images—it was aligned with her natural inclinations. And she knew as an artist, she needed to challenge her comfort zone on occasion.

She did watercolor for the same reason. You can't "fix" a "mistake" with water color. You have to listen to the medium and figure out how to reimagine your vision to work with whatever happened. Which can sometimes mean heading off in new, unexpected and eye-opening directions.

Then some years ago, walking into a group of office crafters—knitting, crochet—it seemed a homogeneous gathering of like-minded souls. But mention the word "felting" and the room divides, half enthusiastic, half appalled. Because for some, knitting is about choice and control of all the variables—patterns, colors, materials, tools and talent. And felting, with its 'lets-just-toss-that-thing-in-the-washing-machine-and-see-what-happens' attitude is utterly antithetical to what they do, what they enjoy. Because it's out of their control. And for others, that's the point and the fun.

Of course people aren't all one way or another—they usually have areas where they want and need control, and other areas where they are totally laissez-faire. Though some can be judgemental about another's excessive (or shocking lack of) control in whatever area they differ on! But I will have to explain the Janci Curve in another post....

Do you have areas that you think are too tightly wrapped and could benefit from some loosening or experimentation? Or areas where you're a little too experimental and need some focus and discipline?

My answer is...all of the above!

Isabel Swift