Rosanne Licata

Dear Reader,

Last time, we talked a little bit about validation. Just knowing someone is paying attention to what we’re saying goes a long way toward establishing open, honest communication. Of course, in order for validation to mean anything, there has to be the belief that all living things have value in and of themselves and however a person feels and whatever they say should be acknowledged. Period. Such a concept is a big deal for many people.

Now we can talk about increasing the quality of our validation. All of this is built on a foundation of making up our minds not to be hurtful in any way to another living thing. This usually translates to one of three basic states – polite, kind, or thoughtful. This post concentrates on the first of these – being polite.

Polite is the easiest state of the three to attain and maintain. It’s simple. It can be done on autopilot. Almost. It’s possible to be polite to anyone. Even those we think deserve contempt, disapproval, antagonism, or just those we plain disagree with. It’s just a case of not being rude to them.

Being polite is following the rules/guidelines that have been laid down for many years. Politeness takes a minimum of effort and keeps a person out of trouble with the person(s) they’re interacting with. Overall, it takes less energy to be polite than to engage in any kind of confrontation. Plus, the speakers don’t add any strife to the atmosphere.

In fact, it isn’t necessary to talk at all to maintain politeness. Eye contact and a small nod to acknowledge someone’s presence can be thought of as the bare minimum of polite behavior. In the spirit of not being hurtful, politeness is hard to beat. As Theodore Roosevelt said: “Politeness is a sign of dignity, not subservience.”

This is not to say being polite is being mealy-mouthed or insipid. It is entirely possible to express yourself honestly and still be polite. For example, paraphrasing a definition of diplomacy, which demands politeness at all times, is, “…diplomacy is telling a person to go to hell and have them be happy to be on their way.” So can it be for politeness. It takes skill, though. A challenge to accomplish in everyday situations? Perhaps. But, to quote Josh Billings, “One of the greatest victories you can gain over someone is to beat him at politeness.”

There are hundreds of quotes about politeness and manners online, on all sides of the issue. Just Google “politeness quotes” to see what I mean. Some consider it way down on the list of things needed for success. Some see it as absolutely essential when dealing with others. In my opinion, it never hurts to be polite, no matter what.

In the interest of not making this post too long to comfortably read in a stolen moment, I’ll save my rant (so to speak) about kindness and thoughtfulness for next time. Until then!

Warm regards,

Rosanne

Dear Reader,

Last week, we talked about kindness, and we’ll return to that again. This week, let’s explore “validation”, which edges into kindness territory in some ways, but goes mostly into the realm of politeness.

What is validation, anyway? In my experience, it’s mostly about letting someone know they’ve been heard and understood. Paying attention. Not agreed with, not accepted, not endorsed, but only heard and understood. I think the majority of folks fear that if they listen to anything that doesn’t coincide with their own view, they open themselves up to trouble, idea/philosophical conversion, or something even more dangerous. Not necessarily true. Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.” It seems as if validation was an issue even in ancient Greece. Validating is only about paying attention.

Why do you think it’s called “paying attention”? We pay with energy, effort, and sometimes great skill. Attention – both giving and receiving it — is not to be taken lightly. Studies have shown that any attention, positive or negative, is better than being ignored. Let’s be honest, at least with ourselves. What happens to us when we are ignored (another way to put it is “not validated”)? Nothing good, that’s for sure. We either become enraged or depressed when we realize we’re not being paid attention to. In either case, what is really being communicated is not what was intended by either the message sender, or the message receiver.

It seems to me that many of us go through a conversation waiting for the other person to stop talking so we can throw our two cents out there. Actually listening to what the other person is saying and what they really mean takes some work. And time. Being part of a conversation, even if only listening, is an active thing. In fact, there are tons of articles, posters, and audio-visual products talking about how important active listening is to effective interaction with another living thing. My Google search produced 23,200,000 entries on the subject.

Validation is one of those absolutely must-haves when you’re trying to get your message across. Or to make sure you’re accurately getting someone else’s message. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the same one I used last time, the third meaning of “validate” is “to substantiate, verify.” The only thing a listener is substantiating or verifying is that the speaker is expressing his or her position on an issue and that the speaker was heard and understood.

There is one critical underlying principle in all this validation business: The speaker, in and of him-or herself, has as much value as the listener. Period. The speaker, simply by being on the planet, has as much right as you to express him- or herself. We’re not talking about economic utility or moral behavior, but of a living thing’s intrinsic value. Just by virtue of being alive, a being has value.

So, where does that leave us? Remember what Aristotle said. Listen to and understand the other. You don’t have to accept the idea. It doesn’t hurt; it just takes paying attention. And isn’t that a kinder way to be?

Next time, we’ll delve into the differences between kindness, politeness, and thoughtfulness.

Warmest regards,

Rosanne

Dear Reader,

When 2016 began, I jumped on board the goal-setting resolution-making bandwagon. I really thought thinking through and writing down what I thought I wanted to accomplish this year would get me started. Interest in my project(s) would provide momentum and keep me going.

Nope. It didn’t work out that way.

Some days, I’d beat up on myself. I was lazy, weak, not good enough, not willing to put the time and effort into getting the job done. Every way I could think of to give myself grief, I did.

Other days, I’d go completely in the opposite direction. Not doing anything to get closer to what I thought I wanted was perfectly understandable  because: I had health issues; my child needed me to pay attention to her right now; other things needed my attention more… The list goes on. And on. And on.

Then there were the rationalizations. For instance, I’d tell myself I had to read/see a certain (book, television program, blog post, email, whatever) instead of writing so I could see how this author did it, because I might learn something important. This was the big one.

Then I figured something out about myself. In order to achieve something, I gotta wanna. Over time, this wanting has to be compelling enough to pull me through or over any obstacles that might show up.

So, “gotta wanna” is at the top of my priority list to really understand. Once I get it, I’ll share.

Warmest regards,

Rosanne

Having a lot to say and being paralyzed by the accompanying mental chaos is almost worse than having nothing to say. I’m sitting here at my laptop not wanting in the worst way to waste your time, but figuring I’d better say something or you’ll forget I even exist (if you haven’t already).

I have three, four, or five areas of writing I’m currently supposed to be working in, depending on how I categorize them. If I break them out for you, it looks like this:

If I look at things from the standpoint of there being three areas of writing to focus on, they are two ghostwriting content sites, which call for non-fiction blog posts, and my own stuff, which is mostly two fiction and one non-fiction works-in-progress (WIP).

If I break things up into four areas, changing up the way I organize my projects, this is what I get: two fiction WIPs — one novel set in the tenth century and one novel set in the twenty-first century, and two non-fiction projects — short pieces I ghostwrite for others and a parenting ebook under my own name.

Separating my writing into five areas organizes my writing by individual project — one tenth-century novel, one twenty-first-century novel, one parenting ebook, one ghostwriting site that presents all different kinds of jobs, and one ghostwriting site that wants only blog posts.

The simple act of looking at what I just wrote makes my brain want to explode. I can’t help wondering, did Stephen King or J.K. Rowling (two authors for whom I have immense respect) ever deal with this sort of dilemma?

So, I drink coffee and dither and start to truly understand the phrase, “paralysis by analysis.” Do I work on one project at a time, full-time, to the exclusion of all else until I finish it, or divide my writing time among all the projects?

Decisions, decisions. I need to decide on my next step. I’ll let you know how that goes.

Dear Reader,

I just learned something. In the course of planning for 2015 I did the math. According to the numbers, I can write the first draft of a book in 81.25 days (65,000 words in a book, 800 good words written in a day). AND I can do it without killing myself with an astronomical daily word count.

I can even slack off for (at least) 8.75 days a quarter and still make deadline. Give it three more months for production (beta readers, cover art, book design, and so forth) and I can publish a book every six months. That’s two books a year.

Before you freak out, these numbers apply only to me. They may be totally wrong for anyone else, whether that be too little or too much. Near as I can figure, though, this represents a decent challenge for me.

What a sobering – and exhilarating! – thought.

So much for excuses.

If somebody had ordered me to write two books a year, my oppositional-defiant-passive-aggressive persona would probably have kicked in and I would have balked at the very notion of doing that. By drilling down to the facts, I found out I don’t have to be a workaholic to get my stories out to you. I do need to be persistent, consistent, and reasonably disciplined in my writing practice. THAT I can do. Mostly because publishing two books a year is more doable than I thought. The fact that it’s my idea doesn’t hurt, either.

Many of us are chased off the idea of starting something because we’re afraid it’s not doable. Maybe, though, just maybe, it’s more realistic than we think. And so what if we don’t finish it in the timeframe we first allotted? Isn’t that what adjustments are for?

Time to jump on the production treadmill. I have a book (actually, lots of books) to write!

Warm regards,

Rosanne

43,747 words so far on my 21st-century novel. With Halloween only eight days away and NaNoWriMo starting in nine days, the momentum of the year is speeding up big-time. I’m bound and determined to get the manuscript of Ghostly Reunion into the hands of my Reading Team by November 1. I think I need more coffee…

Because I had the temerity to actually write down my opinion of another writer’s work, I was invited to review the next story in the series. Yes! Here’s what I had to say about it:

Book Title: Blast From the Past
Author: J.E. Fishman
Publishing details: © 2014 by Verbitrage, LLC, Series 5.

Overall: A terrific story! Equivalent to five stars on Amazon.
Synopsis: Kieran Lehane is a NYC Bomb Squad detective with a canine (K-9) partner, a Labrador Retriever named Georgia. Ten years previously, Triangle Airlines Flight 699 was blasted out of the sky by a terrorist bomb, killing the 227 people on board. Now, just days before the ten-year anniversary, Lehane is certain the terrorists will strike again. Lehane is using personal time and resources to conduct what he considers a proper investigation. Trouble is, more than one very powerful person doesn’t want him to find out what really happened…
Story: Terrific! Engaging characters, intriguing story line, unpredictable plot twists, and a nice line in cop banter.
Writing Style: Smooth and polished.
Physical Presentation: I have been told more than once I am too picky when it comes to grammar, punctuation, spelling, usage, formatting, editing, and revising. I found nothing in this ebook to pull me out of the story, which I consider the only important criterion when it comes to errors. Everything except the cover (the figure of the man was too old and jaded-looking to be a credible portrayal of the hero), pulled me into the story experience.
My Kind of Read: Right up my alley. Well-balanced, nicely-paced storytelling, great writing, and characters I want to know more about. I highly recommend this book, and impatiently await the next in the series.

Dear Reader,

Yesterday, I stayed up until 2:00 a.m. watching a three-part documentary on the Women’s Movement. Back in the sixties I wasn’t old enough, or action-oriented enough, or savvy enough to participate in the demonstrations, sit-ins, or freedom rides. In my opinion, I have an enormous debt to pay to those who spoke up for women. Because of their determination, I have choices. I don’t take advantage of all of them, but they are there if I ever want to.

To me, though, a crucial element for success in the twenty-first century has yet to be expressed. And, to me, it’s a ‘well, duh’ insight. I’m referring to the interaction between men and women. We need each other. We are equally important to each other. We are different but equal.

Women can do some things men cannot do. Men can do some things women cannot do. As a team we are unbeatable. BUT! Let one member of the team get the idea they are more important, or their ‘side’ is more valuable and the team disappears. This kind of thinking opens the door for oppression, depression, discrimination, resentment, and violence.

What’s so hard about considering the point-of-view of another living thing? Hmmm????? When hearing another person and respecting where she or he is coming from becomes automatic in our dealings with others, we may have a chance at peaceful and prosperous co-existence.

And, yes, I really do think it’s that simple. Not easy, but simple.

Warm regards,

Rosanne