Blog

The Ethics of Living Forever Debate (Part II)

[0:34:02-0:36:58] Now they delve into a discussion of exactly what AI is and means. I do think artificial intelligence will force us into asking more questions about ourselves, but that does not mean these series of 0s and 1s are the same as the organic creatures we are. It is already apparent that AI assists us in so many ways today, from the computers in our pockets to the surgeries completed with robots. There is no doubt that these machines will help us learn more so much faster and efficiently than ever before. However, I do not think this will change fundamental human nature or replace us in any meaningful way like so many people seem to fear.

[0:36:58-0:39:37] Alright, so Tucker then says, “If the Industrial Revolution, the steam-powered loom in England gave rise to Marxism in the first and second world wars and Vietnam and Korea and every other conflict for a hundred years, the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. You know, technological change causes displacement, the fall of religions, the fall of empires, the murder of millions. So what will AI do?” Wow. This sounds like a Marxist professor talking about how awful the Industrial Revolution was for all of humanity rather than focusing on how many millions of lives new technology and innovation saved. To hear this sentiment coming from someone “on the right” is doubly astonishing. Truly, there is not much difference between the religious right and the atheist left when a morality of death is at the center of each. And then Tucker jumps to autonomy and AI somehow taking free will away from humans. That is quite the jump, in my opinion, since nothing can stop a man from using his own mind and, therefore, his free will to make decisions.

[0:39:37-0:43:47] “I don’t really have any reasons for saying no, other than my animal sense tells me, ‘No.’ […] That was my ‘instinct’ speaking, which I regard as a kind of coequal with my rational sense.” Ayn Rand sums up perfectly that

An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history. (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 121)

So, another thing that separates us from any other animals is our need to learn what will allow us to survive. It is not automatic. If you are having a “gut feeling” about something, it means that your subconscious has some kind of answer that you are not yet consciously aware of yet or your emotions are sending out signals of danger but that is not knowledge. And Bryan’s admittance of his own depression taking over his life means that he lacked the desire to live and was making decisions counter to life. That has nothing to do with his own mind being wrong or untrustworthy but everything to do with how he was interpreting his situation. It made sense to him at the moment to go for that brownie to bring momentary pleasure in the face of the utter sense of hopelessness he felt. That is not irrational per se, but it is not the best way to live or find genuine happiness and he learned to overcome that hole he put himself in.

[0:43:47-0:44:35] Amazing. Tucker says, “And it does strike me, if you’re looking back into history that this is the only period, post-war, post-World War II where you’ve had a society at scale that assumes that there’s nothing beyond itself. […] Why did every previous generation assume that there was a God, but we don’t?”

First of all, not all people have believed in religion, and many were forced into whatever religion controlled their region for the majority of human history. You’d be killed if you thought otherwise. And while it’s true that there is a growing number of atheists in this world, Christianity and Islam still reign supreme. We are seeing this atrophying in religion because of all the newest science and technology that has been created. There are many answers we now have that we simply did not have before. Creation myths were the best way for homo sapiens to explain how things happened and that is why religion was the first stepping stone toward philosophy in explaining our world and how it works. The more we care to learn about things like our appendixes, the more we understand that everything can be explained in this world and not in some divine, unknowable realm.

To which Bryan replies that it doesn’t really matter whether we believe in god or not, “we already agree on don’t die—all of us do.” Now, I have explained in a previous video that this is simply not true. Those depressed or terminally ill people out there no longer believe in “don’t die.” It is a choice people have to make daily. I just think Bryan Johnson’s premise is wrong, and Tucker sniffs this out with him by continuing to bring back the idea of self-harm.

[0:44:35-0:46:54] This is yet another idea that I have discussed before, and it boggles my mind every time I come across it. Tucker says, “There’s no meaning without a power beyond ourself, is there? I mean there is only this sort of, like, shallow, silly, or sense meaning that we attach to various things, like sex or living longer or feeling good or whatever, but there’s no meaning beyond our physical, momentary experience. Whereas a person who acknowledges a power beyond himself attaches ultimate moral meaning to events. […] No God, no meaning.” I simply cannot fathom a person who does not look at their spouse for who they are and love them for their values and physical form. How could you feel anything higher than what is right in front of you? I plan on worshipping, yes, worshipping my baby when she arrives because of the potential she has and the perfection that she already is. To me, that does feel spiritual, but it does not need to ascend to some higher plane to be real and intense. It almost feels like Christians live with this foggy window between them and reality, unable to feel spiritually for the things that are the here and now. Even an insect who lives for a day has no clue that his life is tiny, momentary, fleeting; he survives by his instincts and lives with every fiber of his being for that brief time, as if he would live forever in such a manner. Humans do not live like bugs, though; we produce and make marks all over the future of our race. We leave ripples in our wake and our names can be carried on past our lives. Why do you need anything more?

And, of course, Bryan Johnson comes back with the biological “squirtings” idea that that’s where our meaning comes from, rather than understanding that human beings get meaning from the values they achieve throughout their lives. It is a process that requires action, not just chemical integrations, though we do rewire our brains with every experience we have. And it is true that we do live and experience in a particular body where mind and body are inextricably intertwined. But the body without the mind is nonexistent; we are more than those chemical processes our body goes through. We must use our rational minds to survive, which is why we need a code of morality in the first place. In my opinion, you cannot “engineer” meaning for an individual human being. They must figure out what that is for themselves through their own personal experiences and physical nature in space.

[0:46:54-0:50:18] Rightly, Tucker points out that we still need a code of morality to Bryan. But then he goes and says something silly: “If I feel like killing you because it pleases me, how can we oppose that?” As Dostoyevsky believed (and as I’ve addressed before), he thought that people without religion would murder each other left and right. I, among many others out there, are “good without god.” We are living our lives in peace as atheists. How is that possible? Because there is such a thing as a secular moral code to live by. Let me shout again, “Objectivism!” Reality is the only thing I “follow” to come up with my code. Would killing another person make me feel good? No. Would I end up in prison for life for it? Yes. Would it lead to my rational happiness to be trapped in a cage for the rest of my life or be haunted by the flashbacks of committing such a heinous crime? No. So why do it? If Tucker took one psychology class, then he would, hopefully, understand that people do seemingly “crazy” things for typically obvious reasons. There are all kinds of reality-based reasons that people harm each other; they don’t require a mysterious demon on their back to harm themselves or another for money, fame, revenge, justice, you name it—there’s almost always a reason for the action taken.

And then Tucker dares to say that we can’t say murder is “wrong” without god and Bryan Johnson just goes along with it. Ayn Rand discusses crime in particular as:

A crime is a violation of the right(s) of other men by force (or fraud). It is only the initiation of physical force against others—i.e., the recourse to violence—that can be classified as a crime in a free society (as distinguished from a civil wrong). Ideas, in a free society, are not a crime—and neither can they serve as the justification of a crime. (Ayn Rand, “Political Crimes,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 176)

So it is wrong to kill someone because they have a right to their own life. Though, this can be teetering on the brink of a trolley problem if the killing is given without the proper context. I don’t have the space to look at the law in depth here, but that is why we have a court system in the first place—to determine if a killing (or any other crime) was in self-defense or not. Killing in self-defense to protect your own life is not morally wrong; it’s what becomes necessary for your own survival, so it can neither be right nor wrong. Ayn Rand has always said that “morality ends where a gun begins” (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 133). A moral system can only be followed when a man has a choice; that choice is simply robbed from him whenever another threatens to kill him and vice versa.

Unfortunately, both men lack the clear answer that Ayn Rand has provided, and which Tucker believes remains “unsolved.”

[0:50:18-0:54:31] This was another doozy when Tucker asks, “Without God, how can we say, and why would we say, that life is better than death? I mean, the religious person, the Christian, says life is better than death because God creates life.” At no point did I grow up thinking that death was better than life. I am baffled that a Christian honestly wonders why life is better than death. Only if you truly believe in this blissful afterlife that you have no proof exists could you see death as anything other than horrifying and an enemy to mankind. Life is much more exciting, first of all, than oblivion and more than what I imagine would be a dull place after the high wears off in the afterlife. You can only feel the highest of highs on earth and develop a greater understanding when you have lost a value and felt the lowest of the lows. Death is simply a negation of life, the absence of life. I do not want to be a void; I want to live. And the world is beautiful to me on its face, not because someone divine created it. Nature creates its own wondrous patterns, and it excites me to learn about them, and as humans have learned, every species has evolved with these attributes due to some advantage for their survival. We have this beautiful and still very mysterious mind, and I gaze in spiritual wonder at its beauty with no need to have a sole creator of the entire world. Yet, I believe that I go to that same spiritual realm of emotion that a Christian does but completely devoid of god.

[0:54:31-1:00:34] Oh, boy, Tucker says, “You would not disagree if I said, ‘Here’s what we know: We know that AI is likely to spawn some improvements, also certain to kill millions of people.’ Millions will die because of this, I don’t think there’s any doubt about it—the chaos alone, right, will cause that.” Why not just blow it all up essentially? Wow, his answer is like a mix of utilitarianism and nihilism and a Luddite mentality. First of all, the lawsuits brought against Elon Musk and his “self-driving” Teslas, as far as I am aware, are all due to user error and not because of the algorithm itself. People are the ones still harming themselves when they don’t use their brains or follow directions. AI is much safer and helps to keep us safer than we’ve ever been before. There is no guarantee, as Bryan is saying, that artificial intelligence will kill millions. There already has been no such apocalyptic scenario as he fears. If anything, more people have survived a surgery that a doctor’s shaking hand would have botched years ago that a robot did without a single error. Heck, I had LASIK done with the help of AI and lasers to fix my nearsightedness, and that was the closest thing I’ve ever seen to a miracle.

Bryan Johnson is able to make somewhat of an argument similar to mine to Tucker that humans are more fallible than AI is, which does seem to be the case thus far. And I’m thankful that at least Bryan was able to say that he does not “accept the premise” of AI killing millions in the future.

[1:00:34-1:07:40] “We don’t have any idea what we’re talking about, and we can’t anticipate the future. We’re limited in our foresight, in our knowledge, and particularly in our wisdom.” And then he comes up with this example of no robot ever being able to tell him why his wife is mad at him and Bryan Johnson says that we can use AI to tell us that answer. To which Tucker says that this is too “mechanistic,” and ignores “the most important universe, which is the spiritual universe.” I shouted here, “Objectivism!” Tucker claims again that we are controlled morally by “spiritual forces, unseen forces” and that he doesn’t see any “evidence” in what Bryan is saying. And Bryan Johnson agrees that this is a very spiritual moment for all of us on this planet and that AI is “neutral” and that we give it meaning, which I agree with. Bryan says he wants to eliminate “the causes of death.” To which Tucker retorts, “But until we can account for why we do it to ourselves, we’re probably not gonna change it. And I think the most obvious explanation is we’re being acted on by demons, whose—and this is how every religion that I’m aware of has described it, correctly, in my opinion—acted on by demons, whose goal is to destroy and kill people and they’re a counterbalance? by God. But, if you don’t agree with that, then you need to substitute another explanation in its place in order to proceed in the hope that we can change.” One more time, I scream: “Objectivism!” There is a battle between “good and evil” as Tucker mentions, but it is not in an unseen realm, it is between individual human beings. It is happening every second of every day, and that is why civilization has emerged to manage those fights through our military, courts, and police, aka our government on a global scale, and with the help of philosophy and psychology and other sciences on an individual scale.

Finally, Bryan Johnson says, “I’m with you; what I heard you say is there’s more to reality than we can see, there’s forces which we can’t identify, and we should address those. We’re on the same page, after the same thing.” Neither man can seem to prove what “forces” are acting on us to determine our actions or our code of morality. Objectivism would say that human beings with free will are driven by their minds to survive, to live, to be happy. That’s it. There is nothing more than that as a species. To live “healthy, wealthy, and wise,” as John Clarke and more famously Benjamin Franklin said, is to live happily on this earth. That should be our only goal, our only mission in life.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4E0jEjQMM; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/history.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/instinct.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/crime.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l79rXk4NQlc&list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR&index=2; https://www.amazon.com/New-Intellectual-Philosophy-Rand-Anniversary/dp/0451163087; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primitive-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011841

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

The Ethics of Living Forever Debate (Part I)

A friend brought this interview between Tucker Carlson and Bryan Johnson to my attention, and once the two gentlemen started delving into the “ethics of living forever,” I found myself shouting at the screen, “Objectivism!” I could not help myself, and I needed an outlet to vent. So seeing as I have an audience on the internet who is willing to listen to me, I am going to share the interview, along with my commentary scattered throughout. I will list the time stamps for the Carlson interview in the description box below if you are curious about rewatching certain parts of the interview. This is the first time I’ve made content like this, so let me know down in the comments section if you liked it.

Alright, time to get this interview started! The first ten minutes or so consist of just some background on who Bryan Johnson is, in case you have never heard of him or his work before. Tucker Carlson, of course, is the famous former FOX News host, who now has his own video podcast show called The Tucker Carlson Encounter.

[0:00:00-0:09:21] “By the way, I’m not endorsing any of this.” Carlson will repeat this phrase because he does not agree with Bryan’s anti-aging methods. Hold this in mind as we get deeper into the interview.

[0:09:21-0:09:59] Tucker begins by attacking Project Blueprint with the skepticism one would find among Democrats who distrust “rich people.” He says the rich feed off the blood of children and that clearly does alarm Tucker, even though he is a millionaire himself. You may feel like this is an obvious concern people have brought up, but later on in the video, it will become more apparent that this method really rubs Tucker the wrong way.

[0:09:59-0:11:14] So, Bryan Johnson says, “You are the product” and to someone who is as religious as you will see Tucker is, this freaks him out. So his response is so telling: “I never asked what the appendix is. […] I really made an effort to not focus on those things because it seems like a lot of self-focus, and it seems like a short trip from there to, say, narcissism, which is, obviously, death.” Wow. You know, as I was listening to this interview, I learned a lot more about how Christians view this world that I could not have even fathomed before, having left my Protestant upbringing by eleven. It seems impossible for me to believe that people would avoid asking what is wrong when their body malfunctions. I spend all day reading and writing and consuming videos to discover the truth of things, to understand my body and this world, all day long. So to outright reject thinking about your own appendix because that seems selfish to a Christian is downright medieval thinking. It’s frightening to hear, honestly. Throughout this interview, pay attention to how concerned and brainwashed Tucker Carlson is in his faith and its utter obsession with their notion of selfishness. He is constantly equating what should be the “virtue of selfishness” as Rand calls it, or the ego and the self-esteem that follows, with narcissism, death, and the devil. Okay, let’s move on.

[0:11:14-0:12:28] Now, Bryan Johnson reveals his upbringing in Mormonism (which he didn’t actually leave until his thirties). And now, much like Descartes, he lost his trust in everything, most unfortunately, the trust in his mind. This is just as corrupt as thinking that god is in control of your life, by believing that only the chemical “squirtings” in your body are in control of your life and not your rational mind. He also places death as the centerpiece of his newfound philosophical system. The enemy is death, and it must be defeated. Now, I must say here that I also feel that my greatest enemy here on earth is death, but the philosophy of Objectivism is not based on that premise, rather one of happiness as the end goal. Objectivists are moving toward a positive and not focused with fear on constantly running away from a negative.

[0:12:28-0:15:07] Tucker says, “You grew up in a world—a Mormon world—that believed and taught you that it had already solved the question of death through Jesus.” This was probably the biggest shock to me while watching this video podcast. I suppose having left the religion so early that Christians, in general, believe that the resurrection of Jesus was actually him “conquering” death (the devil) and allowing us all to have eternal life in heaven. I just have never believed that anyone had “solved death” before. It certainly does not feel solved when you are watching your own mother die so young from the horrible jaws of cancer. That feels like a “devilish act” that she should have been saved from, no? At least Bryan Johnson has the guts to tell Tucker Carlson that he would like evidence of such a thing existing and that the speed at which artificial intelligence is growing may be our single way out of dying. I agree that the idea of “age escape velocity” is much more plausible at this point than the idea of there being any sort of afterlife. Tucker says that what Bryan Johnson is doing “to that extent” is “virtuous.” But just wait.

[0:15:07-0:15:34] “I just wonder if—as someone who grew up in a religious community—if part of you, maybe deep inside, fears that when you start to say things like, ‘We can defeat death,’ that you won’t be smoked down by the God of the universe.” Again, wow. Tucker Carlson truly lives his life in fear, like a child worried about getting coal on Christmas from Santa Claus. It boggles my mind that adults can still carry this same childlike mentality into their middle and old age. Bryan’s reply of “not in the least bit” was refreshing to hear but not the Harris-like cackle from Tucker. This man thinks that Bryan is a fool, and it does not come from a good place in his soul as he responds with, “Well, you’re either very brave or very foolish.”

[0:15:34-0:16:56] Take note that Tucker Carlson will increasingly howl in laughter more, like Harris, when he gets uncomfortable. Tucker then asks, “Aren’t you saying I’m God?” To which Bryan responds with an odd response of, “I’m saying that the universe speaks in irony.” What? Here is where I started shouting, “Objectivism!” The universe, as Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir, says, is

the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything. Obviously then there can be no such thing as the “cause” of the universe…

Is the universe then unlimited in size? No. Everything which exists is finite, including the universe. What then, you ask, is outside of the universe, if it is finite? This question is invalid. The phrase “outside of the universe” has no referent. The universe is everything. “Outside the universe” stands for “that which is where everything isn’t.” There is no such place. There isn’t even nothing “out there”: there is no “out there.” (Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 2)

So “the universe” does not have a consciousness like me or you. It is simply everything in existence. Therefore, it cannot be “ironic” since that is a man-made term. It just is. There is a process to the natural world, but that is also not ironic. So, if Bryan Johnson or Tucker Carlson had cared to ever read more than some smatterings of Ayn Rand’s fiction, then they would have better answers than from a Christian or a hippie perspective, as revealed throughout this interview.

[0:16:56-0:17:35] This is shocking. “You know, many people though history have reached similar conclusions but not with similar technology to affect those conclusions, right? […] But, you know, history laughs at those people, and the story of history is men addled with hubris being humiliated. [Notice the slight, cynical smile here]. And so, I mean, I would say that there is a great deal of evidence that you will be crushed and humiliated for saying that.” Wow, wow, wow. This is a medieval mind telling you and me to just watch your loved one suffer and die with a pitiful clasp of the hands and the sigh of resignation that it must have been their time. If I love my mother, then I will fight death for her. I will understand the kind of cancer she got and how she could have avoided such outcomes, if any. I would feel an anger in my soul that I could not save her. I would advocate for the scientists of today (since I will admit my strengths lie more in the arts than the sciences) to find the cure for all diseases. I will never give up the control I have in my power to fight death. History is created by the intellectual minority.

Just as a man’s actions are preceded and determined by some form of idea in his mind, so a society’s existential conditions are preceded and determined by the ascendancy of a certain philosophy among those whose job is to deal with ideas. The events of any given period of history are the result of the thinking of the preceding period. The nineteenth century—with its political freedom, science, industry, business, trade, all the necessary conditions of material progress—was the result and the last achievement of the intellectual power released by the Renaissance. The men engaged in those activities were still riding on the remnants of an Aristotelian influence in philosophy, particularly on an Aristotelian epistemology (more implicitly than explicitly). (Ayn Rand, “For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 28)

Would you rather, Tucker, have men of the mind engage in experiments that are not always successful or would you like to live like the isolated African tribes that still exist today, dying from things that we have been preventing for hundreds of years at this point? Would you rather cheer on the scholar and the businessman, like Bryan Johnson, who take these ideas from the realm of ideas to reality? I thought you advocated for capitalism, but you sound more and more like the anti-colonial left here.

[0:17:35-0:19:22] Poor Bryan starts to allow the naysayers to get to him by saying, “I think it’s likely inevitable that I will die the most ironic death.” And there goes the Tucker cackle with such joy. He says, “Yes, that is so true. By the way, that’s the message of the New Testament; I mean that’s the Sermon on the Mount. It’s the irony book.” At this point, I’m fuming. I have seen so many comments under Bryan Johnson’s own videos saying such nihilistic things as “Well, it would be hilariously ironic if you got hit by a truck right now.” As if people want to “trolley problem” their own existence when they make comments like this. But who bases their values, their moral system on accidents? What about the choices you make on a daily basis that may have put you in those situations in the first place? I think it is cruel and a sign of depression to think this way. That it is not worth trying to stay alive because accidents happen, not to mention that most accidents are not fatal. We have all fallen off our bike while learning to ride one, and how many children out of that were run over by a truck? I mean, really, this is, to me, a nihilistic and liberal mindset at its core. If Bryan Johnson knew about Ayn Rand, then he would never kowtow before these ridiculous premises. “Okay, now I like you a lot. I think that’s just a wonderful thing to say. That is wisdom.” What?! I am so sick to my stomach hearing this in 2024 and not 1424.

[0:19:22-0:22:33] “This is when homo sapiens realized that they reached a technological threshold, where the only objective of existence was to continue to exist at the basic level. So this is “Don’t Die.” Again, in this Descartes way of viewing the world, the objective of existence does not really make sense. Ayn Rand says that “existence exists.” It is here metaphysical and the first pillar of Objectivism (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 124). It is just reality itself. So the question naturally becomes, Well, the objective of existence for whom? Bryan says, “homo sapiens.” But we require so much more than existing, that’s not living. A depressed person, as Tucker points out, who is simply existing is not going to wish to live long and has the ability to consciously off themselves, unlike any other species. We want to be happy, and that can only be achieved by living according to the laws of nature, reality. I think Tucker, being as religious as he is, realizes that there is something hollow about just not dying when he believes we have souls and, apparently, demons too.

[0:22:33-0:22:53] Bryan Johnson does not have any answers as to why people harm themselves without Ayn Rand’s help. Instead, he says that “The solution that I’ve come up with is I endeavor to build an algorithm that could take better care of me than I can myself.” Which completely negates human free will and a need for any sort of moral code in that case. I do not think an algorithm can make men happy. Again, working from Descartes-like premises, Bryan Johnson does not trust anything around him, including his mind. He thinks people act “insane,” even though we know from a legal perspective that proving actual insanity, a total divorce from reality, at the time of committing a crime, is extremely rare. Just like the trolley problems, we cannot base the actions of humanity off rare states of psychosis. People make decisions every day to eat poorly or not exercise. They must learn about what they are doing to their bodies and then use their willpower to fight against the temptations, just as Bryan Johnson has done himself, without acknowledging all that his mind has actually done toward the betterment of his life. I think this utter blindness he is experiencing in his middle age comes back to his long journey with Mormonism. He simply has not read enough outside of the religion that shaped his thinking and neither has Tucker Carlson as they run around like headless chickens without an answer as to why people still harm themselves. Again, allow me to yell, “Read Ayn Rand!”

[0:22:53-0:24:23] Tucker just said, “I think there clearly are demonic forces, I think there are evil spirits that are doing this to people.” Again, I never thought that Christians actually believed that demons were still picking on humans in today’s modern world. But, apparently, Tucker Carlson has shown me that evil spirits are still very much guiding people’s moral compasses. I feel like I am a medieval monk copying out scripture right after the Black Death has struck all of Europe listening to this interview.

[0:24:23-0:25:10] This is just rich. I have definitely heard Christians say this before, and I have already made some content on this. But Tucker asks, “Like where’s that moral framework coming from if there’s no God? I don’t get that.” Objectivism! Okay, to further elaborate, the entire point of having a philosophy like Objectivism is to provide that secular moral code for man. It frees us from the notion that morality has to come from god or some higher power that is not truly human. Of course, Ayn Rand believed that we must still have a moral code; otherwise, anarchy or dictatorship would ensue as it did in both world wars and that would not lead to happy lives, only more death and destruction than ever before. What is so sad to see is that neither of these middle-aged men can understand where morality comes from when the answer has been so clearly shared with the world since at least when Atlas Shrugged was initially published in 1957. (By the way, Tucker was born in 1969 and Bryan in 1977, which means that they both were born with the advantage of having her knowledge disseminated out there since birth).

[0:25:10-0:27:08] Bryan then says, “Right now, we play capitalism and make money and earn–” and Tucker cuts him off with, “I’m with you there, that’s obviously a hollow, stupid dead end and it’s not actually even working” and then proceeds to maniacally laugh again. This is the man who is one of the top voices of the Republican Party and he just dismissed capitalism as a “hollow, stupid dead end?” Why doesn’t he just stand up and make out with Marx right now? To this entire answer, I will scream, “Read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal!” Here’s just a taste of the book’s answer:

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice. (Ayn Rand, “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 20)

[0:27:08-0:27:33] Again, they circle back around to spit on the mind. Then Tucker states, “The root of wisdom is knowing not to trust yourself.” I had to think for a while where he even got this premise. It sounds very Eastern, very mystical, though I’m sure Christianity contributes to some of this attitude as well. This debate is a very old one in philosophy between the “mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle.” Ayn Rand addresses this by explaining:

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.

Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach. (Ayn Rand, Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 138)

Both men are preaching a “Morality of Death” here and not of life. They are agreeing so much because their premises are the same—selfishness is the ultimate evil.

[0:27:33-0:29:32] Then Tucker drops another revealing sentiment that many Christians seem to share: “I mean the accumulated sadness of life is hard to take.” Look, I grew up with enough childhood trauma for a lifetime, but does that mean that I would rather not exist? No. I have always accepted the anxiety and grief that came with my struggles, but there was still laughter and love in my life to get me through those tough times. There were many times I vowed that I desired to keep feeling than feel nothing at all because the feelings themselves could not kill me. I mean, if everyone living in this place called heaven were to be there in eternal bliss, then they would end up being simply numb to their bliss. Their afterlife would then have no meaning if they just existed up there in this kind of stasis. No, I prefer to live and breathe with the understanding that loss and grief are a part of life but so is laughter and joy.

[0:29:32-0:31:40] “All of life is an invitation to humility. […] that is the root of wisdom and the root of happiness.” What?! Humility is certainly a part of Christianity where a follower of Christ must kneel down and obey and not question the laws of nature. I cannot and will not accept that mentality. Humility, or in another way, the idea of selflessness, is not at the root of happiness or wisdom. Happiness comes from the values you accumulate in your life and feels like this stable state of being because you followed reality and its rules. And wisdom comes from not obeying the laws of the bible but having the courage and pride, the self-esteem, to go searching for truth.

[0:31:40-0:34:02] Okay, then Bryan Johnson offers up this thought experiment to Tucker Carlson, who swiftly rejects it and says, “Of course I would say no, I’m not getting bossed around by a machine. Sorry. And I also don’t think that any philosophy that doesn’t include God can improve my spiritual health, because, like, what does that even mean?” Objectivism! Ahhh, this is so frustrating to be yelling at a screen with no one to hear me. There is a philosophy that does not include god and makes a heck of a lot more sense than any other system of ideas I have ever read about, even after getting my bachelor’s in philosophy. Tucker is so far gone that there is no way of changing this man’s mind at his age, unfortunately. I think that Bryan’s theory is definitely going to be appealing to the younger crowd, even if he needs a better philosophy backing his desire for this “giving birth to superintelligence.”

Well, my dear watchers and listeners, I didn’t realize before just how much I had to interject into this interview. So I have decided to split this into two parts. Please watch out for Part II soon.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4E0jEjQMM; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/universe.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/history.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/instinct.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/crime.html; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l79rXk4NQlc&list=PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgfp2mg-AAFnCROvtu9NVR&index=2; https://www.amazon.com/New-Intellectual-Philosophy-Rand-Anniversary/dp/0451163087; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primitive-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011841

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

My Love Affair with Anxiety

Today’s show is going to be a very vulnerable one for me, but I am doing it purely for myself in my process of healing with the hopes that it may help other people who are struggling in similar ways. I will not delve deeply into the specifics of what happened to me since the parties to my own Shakespearean tragedy are very much still alive, apart from my mother, who I have talked about in previous shows. So I must tread carefully to avoid any unforeseen legal issues. I also do not wish to tell anyone else’s story, so my brother will be left out of this entirely, though he also experienced many of the same traumas growing up.

I was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in 2015 after finding myself too overwhelmed by the fear to deal with it in college. After dozens and dozens of therapy and psychiatry appointments, I was handed a prescription for five milligrams of Lexapro and just that bit of medication changed my life. There was finally a quietness to the inside of my head that had been incessantly buzzing with worries since who knows when. A glimmer of control appeared. I felt like I could manage to walk on the tightrope again without falling off. I asked the psychiatrist, “Is this what ‘normal people’ feel like?” She smiled, and I vowed to try to fix myself since, apparently, I had not come out from my youth unscathed.

So when did all this start? I can still remember leaning over in bed as early as middle school, a trash can serving as a makeshift puke bucket at the bedside, shaking with nauseous fear until I fell asleep. This occurred anywhere from once a month to every few months a year. My self-soothing technique and then getting lost in the school system’s copious mounds of homework and extracurricular activities kept me able to keep everything inside until I graduated and went off to college.

I grew up with trauma for about a third of my thirty-year life at this point—from about seven to seventeen. My childhood and adolescent brain were still wiring and firing together at a fast pace while being jostled about by the unexpected tragedies that life threw at them. In the most sterile terms, my trauma timeline goes something like this: Pretty much right after my mother beat breast cancer, at seven, my parents divorced and split custody, then my mother died of a second, rarer form of endometrial cancer when I was at eleven, and finally from about eleven until seventeen, the court system, in a rare move, forced a visitation schedule between my father and my mother’s family, who had plenty of their own mental problems. My trauma mostly stems from the constant ripping back and forth between people who were supposed to love me and want what was best for me. But I felt unheard, like a prisoner in a communist country with no will of my own due to my age. My mother’s family created a boogeyman in their minds and believed they were saving me from abuse; instead, they used parental alienation, a form of emotional abuse, thereby becoming the abusers themselves. One day, I hope they reflect on this fact and realize the true damage they did by trying to separate me from the only parent I had left once my mother died.

Up until this year, I was still in denial that I even suffered from something like PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). I thought I had successfully put all the trauma in a tightly wrapped box under the floorboards of my brain. This was simply a thinking problem I needed to solve, according to Aaron Beck’s book, like an irrational fear of spiders. My mother had anxiety and my father depression, so perhaps it was all genetic, which is why only Lexapro saved me from the abyss. I would be on that stuff forever. Besides, how bad could this anxiety thing be if I never self-medicated with alcohol or drugs? I was never a wounded veteran or physically abused. I had no reason to feel like a victim. Right? But my latest therapist took a look at me, astonished, saying, “You were just a child, with a brain that was developing and still wiring itself, and trauma is still trauma.” The effects of trauma certainly feel the same, it’s just a matter of the degree.

I went back to therapy when I discovered that I was pregnant. I had heard of the case of Andrea Yates and the extreme postpartum psychosis she experienced. I was afraid because now that I was living a life of “normalcy” with a husband, a house, and a steady career, I could see the distinct moments when my anxiety demons emerged. Over the years, I started off with fears about choking and appendicitis and tornadoes and alligators. Those fears morphed into ones about grades, school, presentations, vacations, and outings, like to restaurants and things of that sort. The physical symptoms were getting stuck in my own train of thought and spiraling down right into a panic attack. Bathrooms were my best friend. My heart palpated out of my chest with the sense of impending doom right around the corner, irritation toward everyone, my stomach tied itself into knots, and I could never rest. Relaxation or vacations were foreign to me now. Entering college only unleashed more panic attacks, stronger ones, and ones where I felt something was deeply wrong with my body. As the panic attacks subsided, I tried getting off the medication only to be greeted by nights of vomiting myself to sleep, shaking to the point my teeth could be heard chattering from across the room, and no longer being able to eat. So back on the medication I went and more therapy. This time I wanted a “scientist” to help me, not a parrot. I sought out CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) and while I got rid of some flashbacks, it did not stop the anxiety from transforming yet again. Nowadays, it’s been the unwanted intrusive thoughts keeping the fear very much alive. My brain is sick, and I knew that now more than ever, with a child on the way, I needed more help.

They should really have posters out there that rather than saying, “This is your brain on drugs,” they say, “This is your brain on trauma” because it does change you whether you like it or not.

Now I should say, if you, dear audience member, are worried about me, please don’t be since it is only in my happiest stage of life that I have been able to take a step back and really look at my upbringing with clarity. It is at this apex of happiness in my life of stability and wellness that I am finally strong enough to make the change in the final puzzle piece to my recovery—to acknowledge that my body keeps the score.

And with that, a previous therapist had recommended me this book to read: The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk. I wanted to share with the public every nugget that I got out of it in the hopes that others may benefit too. This book described so well how I have felt as a person who grew up swamped in a decade of trauma.

For the longest time, I was holding onto the trauma as a way to protect the memory of my mother in many ways. Of course, the happy memories with her were of a distant past that was not as vivid as the more recent traumatic ones. It is the reason that I am addicted to trauma and subsequently have this toxic love affair with anxiety. I felt so close to her when those flashbacks came in of her being sick and struggling, and my anxiety made me feel closer to her as she also struggled with the same mental illness. “Trauma is not stored as a narrative with an orderly beginning, middle, and end. […] flashbacks that contain fragments of the experience, isolated images, sounds, and body sensations that initially have no context other than fear and panic.” In Kolk’s book, he describes how he always came away in “awe at the dedication to survival that enabled my patients to endure their abuse and then to endure the dark nights of the soul that inevitably occur on the road to recovery.”

Though I felt like my trauma was not as extreme as a Vietnam vet’s and that’s why for the longest time, it was so hard for me to fix because my symptoms could, at times, be subtle but still uncomfortable or alarming when I got triggered. The book says that “trauma affects the imagination” and “also our very capacity to think” while I “stay stuck in the fear [I] know.” It actually becomes the most comfortable place for me to be, simply due to its familiarity. My anxiety or stress hormones from trauma continue not to reach the normal baseline. This brings me back to having read first Aaron Beck’s major work on anxiety, called Anxiety Disorders and Phobias: A Cognitive Perspective, which told me this was a “thinking problem” but, gee, that didn’t help at all! I do agree, however, with his idea that the anxiety built up as a survival mechanism to the trauma. I could be a high-functioning student with anxiety. But the book, ultimately, made me feel like I was irrational or unable to think. Led by my father in the household, I was taught to take on the soldier or male mentality of sucking it up and if I succumbed, then that’s a sign of weakness. I could not “let them win” by drowning in my own sorrows. So I denied letting other people in, especially therapists, since I considered them simply noisy and unhelpful for the longest time. I believed that the less I cried about it, the longer that time went by, the more I had conquered my past. But there was trauma and before I could “not let it get the best of me,” I had to be able to understand exactly what happened to me first; only then could I start to grieve and finally accept it. “People cannot put traumatic events behind until they are able to acknowledge what has happened and start to recognize the invisible demons they’re struggling with.”

After college, I developed an interest in true crime, like so many of the women in today’s society. In a strange way, feeling the anxiety well up inside of me while watching these threatening shows made me feel oddly relieved, like an addict or a compulsion I had to repeat. Again, I believe that I was trapped in a cycle where small talk was useless noise and the “real world” was full of tragedy and agony. I felt safer talking about the most frightening things over commenting on the weather. The language that I had been speaking for most of my life thus far was one of trauma—hearing true crime shows felt like they were actually speaking to me and not all these other dull, practical commentators. Hearing about murders and kidnappings and robberies felt like just another day internally for me. It was soothing to hear of others experiencing as much horror as I was. It took even more therapy while pregnant to finally see through the chaos. For “Only after learning to bear what is going on inside can we start to befriend, rather than obliterate, the emotions that keep our maps fixed and immutable.”

“All trauma is preverbal.” This quote reveals just how difficult it is to heal from trauma when you can barely express it, especially when you are in it. That’s why I feel like so many creative people who go into the arts are the types that are still learning to express their trauma in various ways: through theater, or poetry, or painting, or music, or dancing. It is a form of “sensory integration,” where you can explore “your internal map and the hidden rules that you have been living by” without completely understanding it all yourself. I used ballet and then guitar for a long time to try to at least release some air from that tightened valve—but not too much, never too much, which is why “The survivor’s energy now becomes focused on suppressing inner chaos, at the expense of spontaneous involvement in their life.” I could not and still cannot handle any spontaneous trips to places or variations in my daily routines. For I have felt too much chaos on the inside that all I want externally is peace and quiet and stability. But my voice has been the most direct and poignant in the literary fiction that I write, my novels. I find that literary fiction has always served as an outlet for people who have gone through so much, felt it all, and stayed brutally honest throughout their explanation of vital aspects of the human experience. It is also the only reason that I feel compelled to put myself out on the internet in such a vulnerable way because it is a continuation of my art, a continuation of being honest so that others can feel they are not alone in the dark. I will never fake any aspect of myself for this reason.

I think childhood trauma that lasts for an extended period of time is much more difficult to heal, fix, or try to eradicate than a person who has one bad experience, like a car crash, in their adult life. Those very specific phobias, such as a newfound fear of driving after an accident, have seen higher successful treatment rates than the ones where a brain has been maladapted for survival to fit its environment over years of abuse. My dorsal vagal complex, in charge of the emotional stimulus like nausea, has gone through this process repeatedly of going from an enforced visitation to fight or flight (also known as hyperarousal) to collapse (or hypoarousal). I discovered that “experience shapes the brain.” And while many people “In an effort to shut off terrifying sensations, they also deadened their capacity to feel fully alive,” I remember telling myself in high school that I’d rather suffer with anxiety than not feel anything at all, which I thought, at the time, would be good for my art. “However, traumatized people chronically feel unsafe inside their bodies: The past is alive in the form of gnawing interior discomfort.” By “going into a panic—they develop a fear of fear itself.” While “Suppressing our inner cries for help does not stop our stress hormones from mobilizing the body.” It is known that “Physical self-awareness is the first step in releasing the tyranny of the past.”

To me, the only thing that allowed me to survive all the trauma was to have “A Secure Base, wherein our mother may put us on her belly or breast for delicious skin-to-skin contact,” since “Our attachment bonds are our greatest protection against threat.” I know I am lucky enough to have had a secure attachment to my mother and through breastfeeding with her for two years while my dad made sure to cuddle and sing me to sleep all the time. It was all the illness and divorce and back and forth afterwards that caused a lot of trauma to my ability to attach socially with other people outside of my inner circle. In Kolk’s book, he quotes from Pierre Janet, a psychologist, who wrote, “Every life is a piece of art, put together with all means available.” Much like the parental love that protects Harry Potter in J.K. Rowling’s series, I felt wrapped in that love and self-esteem concerning myself enough to move forward with a tough face on. “Children whose parents are reliable sources of comfort and strength have a lifetime advantage—a kind of buffer against the worst that fate can hand them.” That is why divorce and subsequent separation from either parent can be so detrimental. “For example, children who are separated from their parents after a traumatic event are likely to suffer serious negative long-term side effects. Studies conducted during World War II in England showed that children who lived in London during the Blitz and were sent away to the countryside for protection against German bombing fared much worse than children who remained with their parents and endured nights in bomb shelters and frightening images of destroyed buildings and dead people.” I would have chosen to stay by my mother’s side as she was sick and then dying. I would have chosen to stay with my father when I was developing into a woman and figuring my way out in the world. A child’s parents are perfection in their eyes—no matter how much they may make mistakes. They are biologically connected devotees to their creators—mother and father. Children simply do not thrive as well without them.

Even though I cannot remember much of my growing up since I actively tried to forget about most of it, I still kept becoming unknowingly attracted to other people using this language of trauma. Many, many people fall into this cycle of falling in love with their own demons. It feels safe and like the other person really understands you, but it never turns into a very healthy relationship. It took me a few tries before I found a healthy one—one that allowed me to clearly see how odd I was compared to other adults my age.

I had to learn that “Children have no choice but to organize themselves to survive within the families they have […] Instead they focus their energy on not thinking about what has happened and not feeling the residues of terror and panic in their bodies. […] They don’t talk; they act and deal with their feelings by being enraged, shut down, compliant, or defiant.” And I was an expert at shutting down or feeling some dissociation where I’d listen to my internal dialogue and usually cause myself to panic when I was younger. Sadly, I “continue to behave as if [I] were still in danger.” It is from “The emotions and physical sensations that were imprinted during the trauma [that] are experienced not as memories but as disruptive physical reactions in the present.” Therefore, “The challenge of recovery is to reestablish ownership of your body and your mind—of your self. This means feeling free to know what you know and to feel what you feel without becoming overwhelmed, enraged, ashamed, or collapsed.”

As I discovered in college, sitting in my philosophy classes with other students, they all were driven by this question of “why?” Many of them probably started questioning after also experiencing some type of trauma in their childhoods. I know I certainly did, like why did my parents have to divorce; why did my mother have to die; why did my mom’s family dislike my father so much? All these questions pushed me to seek out answers with an obsessive attitude. Studying classic literature in middle and high school started the ball rolling, guiding me through various perspectives on human lives. But I grew hungrier with each new book. My father gave me Atlas Shrugged as a gift and said he really loved it, and so my fifteenth summer, on one of my enforced visitations, I sat and absorbed every word of Ayn Rand. I will never forget calling him frantically out of breath saying that this book changed my life, as he chuckled on the other side of the phone—how I wish he was in the room with me at the time so I could hug him so!

I continued my high school career with a clearer mind. Life made much more sense to me now than the foggy trappings of my Protestant upbringing. I felt a hope that I could make my life better for myself. Since I was almost an adult, which I had longed to be since childhood. I was so tired of being tossed around like a rag doll. I longed for the days when I could dictate my own schedule and work to achieve my own dreams without worrying about anyone else.

But like most young Objectivists, I was unable to grasp one of Rand’s many challenging concepts: the mind-body dichotomy. In Atlas Shrugged, during Galt’s famous speech, he says, “They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth—and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that glorious jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.” In terms of my anxiety, I initially saw it as a chemical error in my brain, perhaps solely a thinking problem. I made my anxiety clinical. Again, if you don’t cry and box the trauma up, then you have defeated your enemies. There was no lasting trauma for me, no PTSD. After all, as a rational Objectivist, I gave very little credence to my subjective emotions. Oh, how many of us have seen Objectivists like this? But let me let you in, dear Objectivist listeners, you cannot heal from trauma and, therefore, be happier on earth, unless you physically train your body, through things like yoga and deep breathing, to prove to your body that you are not in constant danger. That is exactly the mistake I was making for years after I left behind the trauma. I only paid attention to my mind and not my body. But they are both intertwined! You cannot have one without the other.

No matter how much we try to box up the trauma, it will come out one way or another, usually when we become our most vulnerable. The anxiety symptoms will escape and throw you down, and the depression will keep you paralyzed for days. And then most people self-medicate. They seek out alcohol, drugs, promiscuous sex to forget that they exist in a pain that seems to drop from out of nowhere. I urge more people to go seek help through a combination of medication and therapy. I have now learned that the medication was treating my brain while the therapy was truly helping my body heal—the nature and the nurture part—the genetics and the environmental scars I was wearing. Those pesky unwanted intrusive thoughts are still hanging on because my body does not know that it can come out of survival mode and breathe a sigh of relief.

I love that in many ways my anxiety kept me away from self-medicating while I was growing up and that Ayn Rand gave me the hope and courage to find my way out of this mess into my own light. Kolk’s book made me understand that trauma changes a person no matter how they deal with it. I will always be who I am and so I cannot erase the trauma I experienced, but I can learn to live with it and acknowledge the frightening thoughts as simply remnants of an ancient past that I am no longer living. Usually, when they come up, I find it helpful to think, “Oh, that’s just the trauma talking” and move on with my day. I also have to remind myself that thoughts are not thinking, and morality does not exist where thoughts do. I am not those intrusive thoughts.

In the book, Kolk also suggests various options to cope with trauma, such as self-awareness, mindfulness meditation, yoga, Pilates, theater or roleplaying out the traumatic scenarios, building strong relationships, therapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), hypnosis, Model Mugging Self Defense training, Internal Family Systems, Feldenkrais Method, self-leadership, rewiring the brain through neurofeedback like with alpha-theta training.

I have personally tried talk therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (however, “In contrast to its effectiveness for irrational fears such as spiders, CBT has not done so well for traumatized individuals, particularly those with histories of childhood abuse”), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) (although, the issue I have with this method is that while I have a few vivid memories, most of my trauma was felt in the absence of my mom or in between those forced visitations (attachment problems), which may be another reason that EMDR didn’t seem to help me with association and integration), and medication. In terms of self-expression, music and ballet has helped me with controlling my breathing and my body. For instance, I have never panicked in a ballet class. After meeting my husband, who is in the National Guard, he follows a strict workout regime every morning, Monday through Saturday. This inspired me to finally start getting on my personal workout routine completed every Monday through Friday. Since becoming pregnant, I have done plenty of prenatal yoga, Pilates, and mediation, which have truly allowed me to breathe easier daily, all of which have allowed me to inhabit my body again in the way of self-care.

“Traumatized people are often afraid of feeling […] their own physical sensations that now are the enemy.” This is why you must fight back through movement. Take exercise seriously as one way to really take back control over your life. “Even though the trauma is a thing of the past, the emotional brain keeps generating sensations that make the sufferer feel scared and helpless […] avoid many social activities: Their sensory world is largely off limits.” And “This is why trauma that has occurred within relationships is generally more difficult to treat than trauma resulting from traffic accidents or natural disasters.” “However, the most natural way that we humans calm down our distress is by being touched, hugged, and rocked.” So your healing can simply start with hugging the one you love. The key is that “Sensorimotor psychotherapy and somatic experiencing” equate to “the pleasure of completed action.” And “The best way to overcome ingrained patterns of submission is to restore a physical capacity to engage and defend.” Since “Being traumatized is not just an issue of being stuck in the past; it is just as much a problem of not being fully alive in the present.” The idea is “not desensitization but integration.” “However, drugs cannot ‘cure’ trauma; they can only dampen the expressions of a disturbed physiology.” “While trauma keeps us dumbfounded, the path out of it is paved with words, carefully assembled, piece by piece, until the whole story can be revealed.” Again, this is what my books do for me because continuing to remain silent is the equivalent of death itself. “Communicating fully is the opposite of being traumatized.” Although, “Yet another pitfall of language is the illusion that our thinking can easily be corrected if it ‘doesn’t make sense.’”

For flashbacks specifically, “It’s best to treat those thoughts as cognitive flashbacks—you don’t argue with them any more than you would argue with someone who keeps having visual flashbacks of a terrible accident. They are residues of traumatic incidents: thoughts they were thinking when, or shortly after, the traumas occurred that are reactivated under stressful conditions.” It is “the psychical trauma—or more precisely the memory of the trauma—acts like a foreign body which long after its entry must continue to be regarded as an agent that still is at work” like a splinter in the finger. Because “trauma interferes with the proper functioning of brain areas that manage and interpret experience.” “These powerful feelings are generated deep inside the brain and cannot be eliminated by reason or understanding.”

Instead of engaging in self-numbing activities like exercise or work, I am trying to learn how to step away, even if for a brief time, in order to relax during each and every day. “As long as we manage to stay calm, we can choose how we want to respond. Individuals with poorly regulated modulated autonomic nervous systems are easily thrown off balance, both mentally and physically.” So it is the goal to improve your heart rate variability (HRV). “One of the clearest lessons from contemporary neuroscience is that our sense of ourselves is anchored in a vital connection with our bodies.” But the “Trauma makes you feel as if you are stuck forever in a helpless state of horror. In yoga you learn that sensations rise to a peak and then fall.” And while “Pushing away intense feelings can be highly adaptive in the short run. […] The problems come later.” So we have to work at “reconfiguring a brain/mind system that was constructed to cope with the worst. Just as we need to revisit the parts of ourselves that developed the defensive habits that helped us to survive.”

Kolk explains that creating structures using things like “psychomotor therapy” can fill in the holes that trauma has created. Another new technique is neurofeedback, which “simply stabilizes the brain and increases resiliency, allowing us to develop more choices in how to respond.” It also “changes brain connectivity patterns; the mind follows by creating new patterns of engagement.” This can lead to improvements in focus, which before remained unfocused because our “brains are not organized to pay careful attention to what is going on in the present moment.” Like “when people hear a statement that mirrors their inner state, the right amygdala momentarily lights up, as if to underline the accuracy of the reflection.” So “we can create new emotional scenarios intense and real enough to defuse and counter some of those old ones.” Whereas “Often there is excessive activity in the right temporal lobe, the fear center of the brain, combined with too much frontal slow-wave activity. This means that their hyperaroused emotional brains dominate their mental life.”

The hope at the end of the book is that “We are on the verge of becoming a trauma-conscious society.” Since “Trauma constantly confronts us with our fragility and with man’s inhumanity to man but also with our extraordinary resilience.” I needed this book to show me that I did not escape my traumatic upbringing in childhood unscathed. Just because I held my emotions inside did not mean that I was just fine. My genetics and environment forced me into using anxiety as a survival mechanism, which in many ways both saved me while it fed upon me, especially once the traumatic situations had come to an end. It took me another decade of my life in fear to start understanding the full scope of my trauma.

I hope to end the cycle of emotional abuse, silence surrounding mental illnesses and trauma, and the destructive nature of enforced visitations brought on by the divorce and subsequent eruption of the nuclear family. I want my children to feel securely attached to me and my husband. I want to give them a forever home with a solid set of friends they can grow up with into adulthood. I desire nothing more than to worship each child individually and to always hear their voices, take them seriously, and do what they believe will make them happy. I sincerely wish to give them the firm foundation of love that I was grateful to have had before the storm came and to avoid such senseless storms for them in their futures.

***

Links: https://www.amazon.com/Body-Keeps-Score-Healing-Trauma/dp/0143127748; https://www.amazon.com/Anxiety-Disorders-Phobias-Cognitive-Perspective/dp/046500587X; https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Therapy-Emotional-Disorders-Aaron/dp/0452009286; https://www.amazon.com/Overcoming-Unwanted-Intrusive-Thoughts-Frightening/dp/1626254346; https://calusarecovery.com/blog/f41-1-diagnosis-a-comprehensive-guide/; https://www.besselvanderkolk.com/; https://beckinstitute.org/about/dr-aaron-t-beck/; https://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-Centennial-AYN-RAND/dp/B0027M0HV6/ref=pd_lpo_sccl_2/143-1155917-6053026?pd_rd_w=CVlwr&content-id=amzn1.sym.4c8c52db-06f8-4e42-8e56-912796f2ea6c&pf_rd_p=4c8c52db-06f8-4e42-8e56-912796f2ea6c&pf_rd_r=8R1G0Q3YJ6X1E280D1P0&pd_rd_wg=SlV45&pd_rd_r=e4afa001-e2db-4811-8790-756fad892f06&pd_rd_i=B0027M0HV6&psc=1; https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/media/this-is-your-brain-on-drugs-tweaked-for-todays-parents.html

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

We Are Women

I recently took Bradley Method childbirth classes to prepare for labor and part of the assigned reading was a bunch of podcasts and articles from Evidence Based Birth. This title is ironic, as several one-star reviewers pointed out, because the podcast cannot even admit what a woman is. Well, let me tell you that we are women.

Fuming, I sent off an email that read:

I just wanted to say that while I am appreciating the abundance of research and statistics from listening/reading these recommended pieces from the Evidence Based Birth website, it is extremely distracting, like nails on a chalkboard, every time the host says/writes “birthing person,” “pregnant human,” “chestfeeder,” “human milk,” “laboring person,” and so forth. To me, who has only felt the pangs of femininity/womanhood a few times in my life and the most right now, being pregnant for the first time, this kind of language makes me feel invisible or like some kind of cattle. I want to be proud of my womanhood—not ashamed of it.

Cooly, this was the response from my childbirth teacher:

EBB is the best available source for quality information about birth – I love that you are finding those sources informative.

EBB intentionally uses non-gendered language to be inclusive of various identities. I’m sorry to hear it’s made you uncomfortable – please feel free to reach out to EBB with your concerns. 

Although I encourage families to access these resources due to their high quality – please know it is not required. Feel free to skip anything from EBB if their use of inclusive language is negatively impacting you.

Doesn’t this response make it sound like this is my own personal problem? That I have to search inward to understand why this “triggers” me? Of course, I sat on this email feeling even more invisible and gaslit and curious as to why.

Here’s why I find those so offensive: I mentioned to my mother while on the playground that my sides were hurting, kind of cramping up. I remember her proudly telling me that I was becoming a woman. She taught me how to shave my legs for the first time. And then cancer robbed me of any more answers about womanhood when I finally started bleeding at eleven. Now the images circle of my sweaty forehead leaning against the bathroom sink, my entire body pressed against the bathroom floor to cool down, my father holding a wet rag to my drooping forehead, waking up suddenly during class, realizing that I had passed out sideways out of my chair for a second from all the menstrual pain. Growing up to become “a woman” stunk. I wanted to escape the monthly pain. I saw no clear reason for having to go through this again and again. I learned to take ibuprofen before all the pain even began—large doses. I got on birth control by fifteen to control my irregular and painful cycles. I didn’t want to be a woman when my body was keeping me from school and focusing on learning. I dressed in jeans, a T-shirt, and sneakers every single day for maximum comfort and to hide my changing body.

Experiencing sex for the first time made me understand exactly what kind of woman I am in the bedroom. Without revealing too much, I became someone new to me—a submissive, clingy, dependent woman. I learned to desire nothing more than that protective touch. Perhaps being a woman wasn’t so bad after all, though it was frightening to be so vulnerable.

Then, I went through a year of waiting and tears trying to conceive, thinking I had somehow broken my own body. Being a woman was awful once again. Until it finally happened. The positive second line and the hugs of shock and excitement. Soon enough, the kicks made me smile and the belly made me waddle, my nipples leaked and my pelvis ached, but I was carefully watching what my body seemed to already know how to do. Everything I had been through started to make sense. In utter awe, I learned how much my body could do and had been doing to bring new life into this world. I finally fell in love with being a woman.

So imagine my surprise when the word I was just learning to love, “woman,” was no longer in vogue, being erased right before my very eyes, in the very place where “woman” and “mother” should be praised—childbirth classes. Instead, I heard the cold, clammy words of “birthing person” and “chestfeeder.” I felt lost again, without a mother figure to hold my hand and guide me through this pregnancy. I lost sight of what it was to be a woman now that even my childbirth classes and the hospital didn’t consider me one. All to kowtow to the transgender population who make up less than one percent of the population worldwide.

Look, I am no stranger to feeling excluded. I lost my mother at a young age and had to put up in every grade with things like, “Where are your parents taking you for Christmas break”? or “What kind of card should we make for Mother’s Day?” or “What did you and your parents do over summer break?” I had to either ignore the whole plural aspect by responding, “We went to the beach” or “My dad took us to the beach.” (My brother dealt with the same thing, by the way). Now, single-parent families are at least seven percent of the population worldwide. Should I have demanded that everyone only acknowledge their fathers? Should I have threatened others if they said “parents”? Should I have had teachers fired for asking me about both parents? Absolutely not. That’s simply not how the world works. You cannot change language for people who live outside of the “average” or the “norm.” Society cannot function that way. Plus, the older I got, the more I realized just how lucky those kids were to be able to say “parents” and not have to think about their answers beforehand. They were lucky and I would not want to take that away from them.

Transgenderism is the same phenomenon. They feel different in their own skin, uncomfortable—for the majority, after some kind of social trauma. They need a therapist for that—not to change the way that people speak to one another in everyday life. And they certainly have no right to coerce other people to play along with their fantasy. As J. K. Rowling and many others have already stated: a man dressing up as a woman is still a man, a woman dressing up as a man is still a woman. You can pretend all you want, but I fear that you will never find the truth or happiness that way. However, I refuse to use “inclusive” and “non-gendered” language to appease some force I have never met, policing what I say and how I say it. That is the least American thing I have ever heard. I am a woman, having earned the title, and finally proud to be known as one.

***

Links: https://wellcomecollection.org/works/wvxta3rh/items; https://www.bradleybirth.com/; https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/evidence-based-birth/id1334808138; https://stories.jkrowling.com/en-us/my-story/; https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-03/the-long-history-of-transgender-people-in-australia-and-beyond/102037662

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Objectivists Divide Over Trump

As early as middle school and certainly by high school, I noticed I’d have these gut feelings and anger well up inside of me when certain teachers taught. But at that time, I couldn’t always put my finger on why. I’d often overhear Michael Savage’s voice on the radio while my dad was cooking dinner, explaining current events. Then I remember listening attentively to my dad’s interpretation of what my teachers said at the dinner table. Finally, after discovering Ayn Rand and her work, I had answers to all my gut feelings. I found the individual, the “I” that was me, and the liberal ideology that possessed many of my teachers.

Objectivism gave me the oxygen I needed amidst the barrage of confusion, trolley problems, anti-reality, magical, supernatural, illogical thinking washing over me from all sides of my higher education. She showed me that life doesn’t have to be complicated, with one tragedy inevitably following another because man has original sin. She revealed that focusing on reality and the truth will allow me to create the life I want to live, one that increases my happiness.

I truly wish that Ayn Rand was still alive today because I’m having that same gut feeling again without the answers and it is all over: Donald Trump. There is this growing rift between what seems to be the scholars at the Ayn Rand Institute and other outside Objectivists. The scholars seem to hate Trump while the outsiders tend to love him. It’s like watching my parents divorce all over again. Most of my close family and friends love Trump. But every time I listen to another ARI podcast or see a post on X from someone heavily involved in ARI, all I hear are negatives about him and my stomach squirms.

I should note, however, that endorsing a specific political candidate does not make you an Objectivist or not. It is when you agree with her four basic pillars of Objectivism and its overall goal that makes you one, so really this should not give people a reason to drop a philosophical label that they want to carry.

If Ayn Rand was here today, I believe that she would surprise the people at ARI and give a clarifying answer as to why Trump is not Hitler but now an American icon. I say this with the deep conviction that the only person left on this earth to have spent the most time with her when she was alive and named him her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, stated at the end of a video in 2020 that “I wanna add one sentence: I am voting for Trump. That’s it. Okay. […] I’m not arguing, but I heard somebody say, ‘No Objectivist would vote for Trump.’ And I’m still steaming over that, so I’m tryin’ to publicize the fact that whoever said that is crazy.” Please read the comments to this video that I’ll link below to read who may have been the one to say that if you’re curious. I will not be bringing in any ARI-related people’s names into this video. However, I believe that ARI cut the end of this video section off. Now, I understand that they as a nonprofit cannot and will not endorse a particular candidate, but they could have left Peikoff’s commentary in. To me, it is a huge slap in the face to the creator of the Institute itself. He’s not old and losing his mind, like Biden.

Not to mention that Peikoff is the very man who wrote the DIM Hypothesis, which sends out the warning call about our country falling into religious totalitarianism and, yet, he does not view Trump as that exact type of threat that the Democrats are pointing to. That should tell Objectivists something. Trump has never seemed that religious, which is precisely why he chose Pence as his vice president back in 2016 in order to win the vote of the evangelical Christians. Now, if this was all about Pence running, who talked about god every time he opened his mouth, then I’d be more worried.

I think that Ayn Rand is much more conservative, at least morally, than many modern-day Objectivist intellectuals are acknowledging. Remember her scenes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, where the male lead is always sexually dominant over the submissive female? Remember how she said that no woman would even want to be president because she wouldn’t have a man to look up to? Remember how she had a distaste for feminists even back then? Rand certainly has articles or statements about the border and immigration and abortion that are considered anti-conservative stances today, and she makes that known, but to talk about those topics constantly as if those political policies made up the entire system is foolish. The same goes for placing a spotlight on sexism and racism. Ayn Rand wrote one essay on the topic and moved on. She is not like the tribal leftists of today who are making those topics the central theme of their entire lives, a religion. Conservatives do not want the propaganda shoved down their throats anymore.

In a recent ARI podcast, the hosts do not call this a right or left issue but a pro-Enlightenment versus an anti-Enlightenment one. While I believe that is true, I also can see how the right tends to be more pro-reality than the anti-reality liberals in this day and age. As long as the religious right is able to keep their god in the sky and not affect those of us on earth, I see no real threat from that side. Whereas, the liberals are actively attempting to change our language, utterly obscuring it with made-up terms and pulling statistics out of nothing in order to alter what is right in front of them: reality. For example, they refuse to acknowledge that a child with XY chromosomes is a man and XX chromosomes is a woman. They refuse to admit that communism in any form will never work based simply on human nature. They refuse to see that the nuclear family is the best way to raise children. I do not get these ideas from god but from observing other people and animals. Nature guided Darwin just as well back then as today. There are natural laws set in place, and the only way to ever attain true happiness is to adhere to those laws. That’s why we exercise, eat a healthy diet, brush our teeth to avoid decay. Therefore, I see the left as a much larger threat than the right.

Sure, when you just watch the news, you see tribalistic and often idiotic things said from both sides, but they are anchors breaking real time news with very little time to think or a long time to elaborate, that’s how you get sound bites. There has always been this kind of “yellow journalism” or bickering in politics—that’s just the nature of the game. But if you talk to the men and women who are not in the spotlight, they all are bringing more than just “tribalistic views” to the table. I have seen people talking about what our founding fathers wanted for this country and others who still take the time to reread the Declaration of Independence—true patriots are to be found in this country and they hate to see the American culture damaged by anti-reality groups. It is these patriots who are bringing their morals with them to vote for Trump—you will just not hear it on the news. I think many scholars are simplifying the real cultural issues at stake here, perhaps because they are surrounded by an echo chamber of their friends and not out in the middle of the noise like I am. There is a way of life that many Americans feel they must protect. I’ve seen the “trad wives” on social media and the conservative men who just want to live out in the prairie in peace—without any news or politicians in sight. There is a culture of family first still left in America, of parents responsibly shaping the next generation, which is being incessantly chiseled away at by the left. That is the threat. Trump may be their antidote to the “woke virus.”

ARI always points out that we can’t be proponents of a negative, such as atheism. And yet, all I’ve heard are negatives on the state of the world and the people running it from the Institute lately. What happened to that moral spirit that Ayn Rand could conjure up and lighten an entire room with? Unfortunately, one thing that scholars do to language is beat it to death and then suck out every last ounce of emotion left for the reader or listener. It is also very easy to stay morally “pure” as a scholar in their tower while a presidential candidate is meant to represent the voice of an entire nation. Trump must be open to hearing and helping all different kinds of people.

Yes, I think the first election cycle around, he was on the defensive and his method was to resort to childish name-calling. I don’t think his speeches were focused enough and they did sound very pragmatic, as if he had no philosophical stance. However, even an older man can learn. I, along with the world, have watched Trump learn, mature, and grow into the leader we see today. That was proven on July 13, 2024, when the twenty-year-old loner, who probably was just severely depressed and not particularly politically motivated, got up on that roof and took a shot at the former president.

If that were me up on that stage I would have screamed, peed myself, and cried running off with my Secret Service agents (and, yes, I will grant you that I am a woman who is currently pregnant), but still I would have been petrified. Instead, here we see a man raise himself up with a sense of defiance and anger written all over his face. This was not a “marketing moment” as someone (who shall not be named) said about him. This was the face of a man asking openly, “How dare you try to extinguish my life? A life that I have made and poured all my values into it. I will fight, fight, fight for my right to live.” He was a man in those first shocking moments, not just a presidential candidate. And I do believe that Ayn Rand would have seen that heroic picture of the blood on his face and the flag waving proudly behind him with a tear in her eye. I do not believe that she would have skeptically rolled her eyes, called him a narcissist, and yawned about how he is so lost in himself that he knew this would become a historic picture moment for himself. It’s that kind of attempt at character assassination that makes my gut hurt (and, again, not just because I’m pregnant).

In the days following, Trump has not taken the time to even digest what happened, but the look on his face at the Republican National Convention was different. Being directly shot at and nearly killed, and acknowledging that fact, changes a man. You could see it on his face. There is trauma there. But the liberals will call him “weak” and “elderly looking” and “tired.” No, he is a man with growing pains, a man beginning to understand that people believe in him, a man who cannot let them down no matter what.

Trump is coming out as more moderate too these days. Supposedly, he has left abortion out of his conservative party stance. Now, perhaps this, again, shows that he is a pragmatist or “has no ideas,” but he may also just be listening to the middle of his base. Trump wants to unify the American people together, as long as we are all moving in the right direction, toward reality and not away from it. One president is not going to be able to turn all of America into Galt’s Gulch overnight. That’s a fantasy.

Go with me for a moment on a trip to the future. Perhaps borders are still needed right now until we all become one global country, essentially. I see it already happening with all our translation apps and social media since I can easily communicate now with people from all over the world regardless of the language barrier. Foreign nations have been for a while now learning English as their second language, and I foresee that everyone will because it is a mongrel language anyway, with many of its roots coming from other cultures.

The news is international at this point and there will be no stopping it now. The longer we have the Internet, the more integrated everyone will be on this planet. Someday, I think we will all simply become the human race with the individual as truly the smallest minority. Cultures will become a thing that historians study and people engage in just for fun and entertainment. The further along science gets to answering our deepest questions, the more religion will atrophy, and nations will become less and less dissimilar.

A free market working on an international scale would bring all of us up and perhaps Bryan Johnson’s message of “Don’t Die” might finally be the only mission we all have. But until then, there are terrorists and criminals and even cultural differences that still make borders something that every nation desires. Until new generations are raised in similar environments, we cannot have the free-for-all that we in the West, at least, desire. Religion (the kind found on both the right and the left) has, can, and does still kill.

This brings me closer to one of my final points: I think it’s absolutely offensive that people are calling it “an act of god” that Trump survived when a rally attendant was shot to death just behind him and two others severely injured. Was Corey’s life less worthy of living? Would his daughters rather have kept their dad alive or Trump? Did god ignore Corey to shine his light on Trump? No, this was pure luck.

Let’s say I took Pascal’s wager seriously, which allow me to remind my audience is “the argument that it is in one’s own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise.” Let’s say I was wrong. Then I’d be banished to hell, along with all the other wonderful people who have walked this earth and questioned and maintained their goodness, like Ayn Rand herself and, yes, even Donald Trump.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxhzlWsl0o&ab_channel=AdamSmasher; https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100308948#:~:text=Pascal’s%20wager%20the%20argument%20that,any%20advantage%20in%20believing%20otherwise.; https://www.radiohalloffame.com/michael-savage; https://theobjectivestandard.com/2016/11/ayn-rands-intellectual-development/;
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donald-Trump/images-videos; https://courses.aynrand.org/people/leonard-peikoff/; https://aynrand.org/novels/; https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-ideal-from-the-ayn-rand-institute/id1515023771; https://www.vox.com/culture/360711/trump-fist-pump-photo-explained-expert-media-savvy-politics; https://abc7.com/live-updates/rnc-2024-donald-trump-makes-appearance-on-day-1-of-the-republican-national-convention-in-milwaukee/15060290/; https://x.com/bryan_johnson/status/1788256385224024236; https://conflictedcollegechristians.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/pascals-wager/

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Religion Versus America

I felt compelled today to read this entire lecture given by Leonard Peikoff in 1986 because the message is still just as relevant, if not more so, today than back then. After hearing talk show hosts, like Ben Shapiro, conservative friends, and right-wing publishing companies tell me over and over again that America was built by our “God-fearing founding fathers” and in order to save America we need to bring back “under God,” I finally had enough.

I wish I could shout this message into a nationwide microphone that there is not only a path between the “atheist Democrats” and the “religious Republicans.” It’s a false dichotomy! What about the citizens of the United States who are pro-freedom, pro-individuality, pro-reason? Aren’t they the only true bastion of morality and spirit left in this country, the ones who kept it afloat for all these years?

Allow me to read Dr. Peikoff’s powerful words to remind everyone how America was founded and truly flourished in spite of the religious influence of the times.

To read the entire lecture, please visit: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/religion-versus-america/.

***

Links: https://courses.aynrand.org/people/leonard-peikoff/; https://www.amazon.com/Voice-Reason-Objectivist-Thought-Library/dp/0452010462?tag=aynrandorgcampus-20; https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ppmsca.58837/

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

On Adaptability and Resilience

Never have I felt more like a woman than now. I wrote a piece a few months ago, entitled “Race and Gender Do Not Matter,” which was not very popular. So, I think I should clarify. While I still don’t believe either matter when it comes to one’s career, gender certainly has its role in the family dynamic. I do believe that the traditional nuclear family is the best. Like the story of Adam and Eve, if anyone grows a human from a rib, it’s Eve and not Adam. I just learned that the cells of the mother stay in the baby for years after birth and the baby’s cells stay in the mother as well. They are truly a part of your body, blood of your blood. Every day my body has gone through these incredible changes, and I’ve heard that successfully giving birth will be my ultimate act as a woman.

I’m not even there yet, but I am so excited (and nervous) about what lies ahead. How much will I feel that nurturing sensation toward my baby while breastfeeding? Will my heart explode with love? How integral is this whole experience to my understanding of the world as a female human being? In order to get there, however, I realize that I must adapt and cope with these constant changes. Women amaze me in their ability to adapt and become resilient through pregnancy and postpartum. Heck, even dealing with a period at such an early age forces girls to mature into women much faster than their male counterparts. Our bodies are like the metaphorical caterpillar turning into the envied butterfly once we become mothers. Somehow, a woman, stretch marks and all, becomes even more beautiful when she cares for her newborn so sweetly. Femininity is linked to gentleness and grace. And I am beginning to see that mothers have that extra touch of it once they have completed their full metamorphosis.

I already believe that there is something vital in a woman having a child and understanding herself even more than before. Like, “Ah, now I know why those breasts are there.” Or, “Oh, yes, I can see why all women waddle around like that in the third trimester with their hands on their bellies or backs.” Even, “This is how much I love what is mine: wholly, deeply, selfishly.” You cannot have those feelings or thoughts without experiencing them. Now, I’m not saying that you understanding yourself better is a good enough reason to have a baby, but I certainly think that if you are also excited about the prospect of spending the time, the precious moments, and generally slowing down in life with a baby, then it is worthwhile.

I truly hope to slow down in my life. I tried doing that with each “book baby” (and will continue to in the future, don’t worry). But at this time in my life, I want to taste life twice with my own baby. I want to feel like the world is new and fresh again. I want my creative spark to light up once more, not from fear but from sheer wonder. And every day that they learn something new, I want to see it reflected in my baby’s face and bask in its glow. That, I hope, will bring even more meaning and purpose to my life on this benevolent planet.

***

Links: https://harvardartmuseums.org/collections/object/230156; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZWZTyOWO3c&ab_channel=TheAtheistNun

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Don’t Die

I recently read Bryan Johnson’s free e-book, Don’t Die, where he lays out his philosophy behind his Blueprint protocol. Unfortunately, I found his core message, “to fire the brain,” to go directly against the Objectivist philosophy of which I ascribe to. Objectivism holds that

Man’s essential characteristic is his rational faculty. Man’s mind is his basic means of survival—his only means of gaining knowledge . . . .

In order to sustain its life, every living species has to follow a certain course of action required by its nature. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival” (“What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 16).

Our brain is running the entire show, and it is a part of our entire body. You cannot sever one from the other (see “mind-body dichotomy” in the Ayn Rand Lexicon). In fact, your brain functions better when you are sleeping, eating, and exercising right. I think Bryan Johnson needs to clarify what he means when he discusses how our, perhaps, lazy, or depressed, or what have you personality wants to commit self-harm. But that is more of a psychological issue and not a physical one that the mind and body are failing to perform. Therapy is probably where most people need to start.

In his latest YouTube video, entitled “Watch These 39 Minutes If You Want To Live To 200+,” Bryan Johnson is giving a talk to an audience and toward the very end he says, “We do align on this one objective [don’t die]. […] You step one step above, we’re gonna become tribal.” Basically, he’s claiming that all people can agree on “don’t die.” However, if he knew Ayn Rand’s philosophy, then he would see that he’s wrong. Even in his discussion of “Evening Bryan,” who is the self-harm part of him, he is admitting that sometimes psychologically we are not fighting to live.

What I am saying is that not all people genuinely want to live or be alive or actively not die. Look at smokers or alcoholics or drug addicts—they all know that they are killing themselves and yet they continue to do harm with substances. In Rand’s fiction, there are numerous “villains,” who are deemed such because they are for death as opposed to life. They seek to take down society with them. It’s similar to school shooters who are so depressed that their own “life goal” is to cause pain to others and take them with him into the void. People are not in agreement over “don’t die.” In fact, as I’ve said on this channel before, people are constantly making that decision every single day they continue to live: live or die, live or die, eat the apple or eat the cake for lunch, smoke this cigarette or quit today, live or die, live or die, feed my baby or skip feeding them, continue my college education or kill my roommate, live or die, live or die. It’s a constant hum in the background of our lives, whether we consciously acknowledge it or not.

Bryan Johnson seems to be a bit naïve about people in general, possibly from having been part of the Morman faith for so long before leaving it. That’s why I always advocate reading classic or literary fiction as a way to peer into someone’s mind for an honest depiction of the human mind.

Even I can remember the days in school when I was hiding from my struggles at home and homework kept my mind off the pain. And so, I would do my homework into the wee hours of the night from middle school up through college at the expense of my health. Internally, I was in survival mode, and I would have rather died than put the work down. On the outside, I may have looked happy and normal, albeit tired. But on the inside, I was combusting, full of fireworks and fury. My whole soul would put sleep on hold, taking my health hostage. I needed help. I needed therapy. Only now am I able to fix what I had broken, slowly, very slowly. But it is not my mind that needed firing, it was my emotions. But, of course, you can’t fire your emotions—they are there to serve as red flags to protect you. Listen to them! And go seek the help you need in order to continue to make healthy decisions to live a long, beautiful life.

***

Links: https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/my/collections/125228–thomas-vanhuyse/anatomie/objecten#/RP-P-1903-A-23532,2; https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/DONT-DIE-by-Zero; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952; http://aynrandlexicon.com/; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkS1Eww5jTc&ab_channel=BryanJohnson

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Trying Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint Protocol for Thirty Days

After reading some longevity books, such as Chip Walter’s Immortality, Inc., and Kris Verburgh’s The Longevity Code, I ran across Bryan Johnson’s YouTube channel and his “Blueprint Protocol” website. And being a person already with OCD tendencies, his complete and spelled-out diet that slowed aging down sounded like the key to all my eating woes. My “woes” being that I never knew what the healthiest lunch to eat was, and I found myself eating too much processed food for dinner.

Breakfasts felt like the only thing I had “figured out” since I had been eating plain Chobani Greek yogurt with fresh blueberries, KIND cinnamon granola, chia seeds, and honey for years during the weekdays, with little desire for change. My weekend breakfasts always consisted of porridge, frozen wild blueberries, and some honey on top. Both meals were accompanied by a cup (or two) of black tea with milk and honey.

For lunch, I had switched over the years from sandwiches to frozen meals to soups to avocado rice cakes to toast. With each iteration, I thought I was making healthier choices, but something always came up: too much sodium, too little nutritional value, too much fat, and on and on.

For dinner, before I remarried, it was pretty clean with the typical meat, carbs, and vegetable sides with a little dessert to finish off the meal. However, once I joined my (new and lovely) Midwestern family who love their carbs and easy-to-prepare, processed meals, I felt my healthier dinners taking more of a back seat. I gained a few pounds, though my tastebuds were quite happy at the time. However, I wanted to make my more balanced dinners take center stage once again with the treats saved for more special occasions.

So, I decided to commit to thirty days strictly following Bryan Johnson’s diet. I will provide the link to his Blueprint Recipe Guide below. Now, I was never planning to take any of his supplements because I was not sure if they were proven to work yet or what effect they would have on me without a doctor supervising. I was also not committed to fasting, though I normally stopped eating around five at night until after the gym the next day, which is a minimal form of fasting already.

The grocery day was intense. My whole cart was full of what my husband called “rabbit food” and the resulting price tag stung a bit too. For a month of groceries just for myself, I ended up spending $343.97 at Hy-Vee and $93.40 at Amazon for the cocoa flavanols, black lentils, Ceylon cinnamon, and nori. So, I spent a total of $437.27 for all the initial ingredients (and those are Midwest prices). That’s like buying a meal for $5 every day for a month, which doesn’t seem so bad, but it is definitely more than I am used to spending on myself a month. I will also say that Hy-Vee is not a health food store, so I could not find things like “Japanese sweet potatoes,” so I just opted for your regular sweet potato for all the meals that called for it. But I really did try to find exactly the same ingredients as were called for in the guide. (And as a bit of an aside for anyone trying to do this protocol too, by the end of the month, I had about half a bottle left of a 1.5-liter bottle of Bertolli extra virgin olive oil. I also had, by the end of the month, about half a bottle left of a 1.4-liter bottle of POM Wonderful pomegranate juice. And what I kept needing to buy more bags of over the month was frozen broccoli and cauliflower, so fair warning about that).

I switched around his breakfast and lunch because I was used to having my sweeter meal of the day first. So, it all began with “Nutty Pudding” at about eight in the morning. I am attaching pictures of all my meals to the video version of this if you would like to see how my creations turned out. I will say that the first week of doing this was overwhelming because there are so many individual ingredients in each meal. But once you memorize the measurements and run to grab all the ingredients from around the kitchen to have next to you, then it doesn’t take that much time. I probably cut my speed in half by the time the month was almost up. But back to breakfast… My concoction looked small, purple, and pitiful in my bowl. However, it was filling, and I was never hungry enough to snack on anything in between breakfast, lunch, or dinner. That was one of the most surprising things is how satiated I felt on this protocol. I will say that as a female, I cut all the ingredients Bryan Johnson had in half, which is why my “Nutty Pudding” probably looked pathetic. So, for example, instead of two tablespoons of chia seeds, I only added one.

As far as the taste is concerned, it was sweet, nutty, but thin when placed in the blender. I soon stopped using the blender and just ate the soupy substance with all the chunky bits intact, so at least I felt like I was eating something for breakfast. It did not taste bad, but I did start to miss my old breakfast pretty early on.

I will say that the worst part of this protocol was having to take the olive oil “shot” apart from my breakfast. I didn’t know what to expect at first, so I just went all in and, boy, was that disgusting and peppery as heck. After that first try, I would hold my nose shut and down it and then quickly take a bite of my “Nutty Pudding,” swallow, and only then release my nose. I did that for thirty days…thirty days…yes.

Next, I had my lunch at around noon. It was the “Super Veggie,” which consists of mostly cauliflower, broccoli, and lentils with a few mushrooms and lots of spices. To avoid the same slop for breakfast, I skipped the blender with this meal. This was the next step up for my lunches health wise, and I didn’t mind eating it every day. It was tasty and filling, but I am glad I split this meal in half because any more and I wouldn’t be able to finish it. And, thankfully, the olive oil was nicely hidden among the veggies, so that I didn’t have to gag on it by itself.

Finally, the recipe guide has a list of ten other meal options to rotate through. So, to fill up the month with each, I spent three days on the same meal. I will say that I didn’t succeed in making the meals look like the pictures in the guide at all. Most of them became something like veggie bowls with everything mixed together anyway, and I enjoyed eating them that way. I ate each meal usually by five each night because I was always hungry again by then.

For simplicity, I went in order of what the guide had, and I did also add half a chicken breast (or sometimes other meat we had, like pork or steak) to each meal. I am not a vegetarian and even Bryan Johnson says, “My diet is vegan, by choice, not by necessity, feel free to add meat to any dish.” So, I did.

The first three nights were the “Buddha Bowl,” which tasted good and had a surprising tanginess to it. Thankfully, the olive oil was tucked away in each of these meals too. The next nights were the “Roasted Veggie Lettuce Wraps,” which I could not manage to wrap successfully, but it tasted fairly good as well. I was a bit worried about those jalapenos, but if you cut out the seeds and pith, then they are not too spicy. Next was the “Blood Orange + Fennel Salad,” which, let me tell you, was the second most disgusting thing I swallowed while on this protocol. However, the second night instead of eating it all raw, I roasted it in the oven and ate the pomegranate and orange pieces separately as a dessert after dinner, which made the whole meal a lot better, in my opinion. That’s another thing I should touch on. I usually don’t like salads, so I often will steam, sauté, or roast my vegetables to make them more palatable. Next, there was the “Roasted Beets + Green Lentils + Wilted Chard” meal, which tasted good, though it looked like I had committed some heinous crime for the next several days. Thanks, beets… Moving on to what was probably my favorite was the “Roasted Cabbage Steaks + Sweet Potato Mash.” I could not believe how tasty that cabbage was, but it must have been the combination of roasting and spices (like the chipotle, paprika, and onion powder). The potatoes, on the other hand, seemed to be lacking the depth they needed, like real butter and milk. And then I had the “Sweet Potato + Mushroom Toast,” which, surprisingly, I was not getting tired of sweet potatoes by this point (perhaps because that was one of the few carb items I could eat). That tasted all right, though the mushrooms and nori really made it taste like salty fish, which I am not a huge fan of. Then, there was the “Chickpea Curry Over Greens,” which just became a cooked veggie bowl for me, but you can’t go wrong with curry or chickpeas. There was the “Beet Poke,” which I again cooked down to be less like rabbit food and it tasted pretty good, even though I’m not a huge beet fan. Then, I had the “Collard Green Wraps + Red Pepper Dip,” which I knew by this time that my wrapping skills were nonexistent, and I refused to eat anymore raw veggies, so that turned into another veggie bowl, which was, again, fine. Finally, I ended the experiment with the “Roasted Bok Choy + Japanese Sweet Potato” meal, which was probably my second favorite meal. It was very savory and flavorful.

Phew! So those were all the meals I tried for a month. I even bought groceries to try for a second month; however, by that second week, I started feeling the horrible nausea of…morning sickness. Yup, I found out at six weeks that I was pregnant. I’d like to think that this protocol made the baby stick around this time, but I did conceive just before starting this challenge, so my husband scoffs at the idea and would like to start eating with me again.

Thankfully, I just started my second trimester, and all is going well, but I could not make this video until now because everything I had just eaten made me want to throw up at just the thought of it. Saying “olive oil” still makes my skin crawl. And this is where I must say something about Bryan Johnson and to my audience.

Bryan Johnson is at a point of his life where I would say he is settled enough to focus on his health…and he is also not a woman. Yes, he has a video where he has a woman try his diet, but she is already young, fit, healthy, and not pregnant. She also said that she would not continue the diet as strictly in her life after the experiment was over. I must say that there are times in life, namely early on, where school, growing your career and your family will put you in survival mode. There will be sleepless nights; there will be stress; there will be times when your own body is seemingly possessed by a demon (aka your baby), and you will throw up and turn your nose up at the very things that are good for you. I have now been intuitively eating, just listening to my own body and what it wants. Have I been craving Annie’s Shells and White Cheddar mac and cheese and sweet, cold, juicy watermelon for the past few weeks? Heck, yes. Am I avoiding those needs? No. Now, I will say that if I was craving ice cream, then I would try to substitute mashed frozen bananas or frozen grapes or other cold fruits instead. Or, if I’m craving chocolate, then I’ll go for the 70 percent dark chocolate and not milk chocolate bars. If you can swap for healthier things, then you are doing enough. I think, especially for women, our hormones dictate much of when, where, and how we want to eat. Maybe when my life slows or settles down enough, say fifty or after menopause, then maybe I can get back to that longevity-driven diet, but, for now, I have to give myself the grace to just get by while I am growing this new life inside of me.

Please don’t think that this is the one and only diet out there to live longer. I have some great cookbooks that use similar ingredients but have more options in case kale or sweet potatoes are wearing you out, like Rebecca Katz and Mat Edelson’s The Healthy Mind Cookbook.

Overall, this was a doable protocol for thirty days, and even though I love order and making my food prep mindlessly, I can’t envision myself now pregnant and then with a child eating this way. I need to feed my family and sometimes survival mode will happen, and I think we all should be okay with that. Besides, doctors are working on longevity solutions that don’t solely depend on our diets, like anti-aging pills. Just do the best you can where you are in life right now, and, hopefully, you’ll reach the “longevity escape velocity” happy, healthy, and still sane.

***

Links: https://medium.com/future-literacy/one-meal-23-hr-fast-100-nutrition-18187a2f5b; https://www.amazon.com/Immortality-Inc-Renegade-Scientists-Cheating/dp/1426219806; https://www.amazon.com/Longevity-Code-Secrets-Living-Science/dp/1615194975/ref=monarch_sidesheet; https://www.youtube.com/@BryanJohnson; https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/; https://protocol.bryanjohnson.com/Recipe-Guide-by-Zero; https://www.amazon.com/Healthy-Mind-Cookbook-Big-Flavor-Function/dp/1607742977

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Common Sayings Reevaluated

1. Christians say, “I asked Jesus into my heart,” “I was born again,” or “I was saved,” or else we probably were not.
2. Christians don’t say hello, we “greet one another with a hug and a holy kiss.”
3. When Christians say goodbye, we declare, “Have a Jesus-filled day!”
4. To a complete stranger, a “good Christian” won’t hesitate to announce, “Jesus loves you, and so do I!”
5. Whether affectionately or with pity, you may never be sure, Christians often say, “Bless your heart,” which is always pronounced with thick southern sweetness. Go ahead and say it again. You know you want to: “Bless your heart.”
6. For grins or groans, now throw this in: “God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.” (But, you know, that’s not in the Bible, right?)
7. When the pastor preaches a powerful message and the choir’s songs are especially pleasing to the ear, Christians exclaim at the close of the service, “We had church!”
8. Wait just a minute. We don’t say, “The pastor preached a powerful message.” No, Christians say, “The pastor was Holy Ghost-filled and the Word of the Lord was anointed.”
9. Christians don’t have good days, we “get the victory!” And a great day is a “mountaintop experience.” Can someone say “Amen?”
10. Christians don’t have bad days, either! No, we’re “under attack from the devil, as Satan roams like a roaring lion to destroy us.”
11. Christians don’t ever say, “Have a good day!” We say, “Have a blessed day.”
12. Christians don’t have parties, we have “fellowship” and dinner parties are “pot blessings.”
13. Christian[s] don’t get depressed; we have “a spirit of heaviness.”
14. An enthusiastic Christian is “on fire for God!”
15. Christians don’t have discussions, we “share.”
16. Similarly, Christians don’t gossip, we “share prayer requests.”
17. Christians don’t tell stories, we “give a testimony” or a “praise report.”
18. When a Christian does not know how to respond to someone who is hurting, we utter, “Well, I’ll be praying for you.” After that comes, “God is in control.” Next, we say, “All things work together for good.” Should I keep ‘em coming? “If God closes a door, he’ll open a window,” and another favorite: “God allows everything for a purpose.”
19. Christians don’t make decisions, we are “led by the Spirit.”
20. Christians RSVP with phrases such as, “I’ll be there if it’s God’s will,” or “Lord willing and the creek don’t rise.”
21. When a Christian makes a mistake, we say, “I’m forgiven, not perfect.”
22. Christians know that a really terrible lie is “belched from the pit of hell.”
23. Christians don’t insult or say rude things to a brother or sister in the Lord. No, we “speak the truth in love.” However, if someone should mistakenly feel judged or rebuked, we say, “Hey, I’m just keepin’ it real.”
24. If a Christian meets someone who is stressed or anxious, we know they simply need to “let go and let God.”
25. Last but not least, Christians don’t die, we “go home to the be with the Lord.”
1. Objectivists say, “I asked the love of my life into my heart,” “I was born to be selfish and happy,” or “I was drowning in altruism,” or else we probably were not.
2. Objectivists don’t say hello, we “greet one another with a bow of the head with respect for each other’s individuality.”
3. When Objectivists say goodbye, we declare, “Have an ego-filled day!”
4. To a complete stranger, a “good Objectivist” won’t hesitate to announce, “Your reason loves you, and so do I!”
5. Whether affectionately or with pity, you may never be sure, Objectivists often say, “A is A,” which is always pronounced with thick southern sweetness. Go ahead and say it again. You know you want to: “A is A.”
6. For grins or groans, now throw this in: “You work in mysterious ways when you are not thinking rationally.” (But, you know, that’s not in Atlas Shrugged, right?)
7. When the Ayn Rand Institute podcaster preaches a powerful message and our internal choir’s songs are especially pleasing to the ear, Objectivists exclaim at the close of the episode, “We had logic!”
8. Wait just a minute. We don’t say, “The ARI podcaster preached a powerful message.” No, Objectivists say, “The podcaster was Reason-filled and the Word of the Self was anointed.”
9. Objectivists don’t have good days, we “feel a sense of life!” And a great day is a “benevolent universe experience.” Can someone say “Amen” like Peikoff?
10. Objectivists don’t have bad days, either! No, we’re “under attack from the whim-worshippers, as tribalists roam like a roaring lion to destroy us.”
11. Objectivists don’t ever say, “Have a good day!” We say, “Have a virtuous day.”
12. Objectivists don’t have parties, we have “OCON” and dinner parties are “pots of gold.”
13. Objectivists don’t get depressed; we have “a spirit of moral judgment.”
14. An enthusiastic Objectivist is “on fire for heroes!”
15. Objectivists don’t have discussions, we “debate.”
16. Similarly, Objectivists don’t gossip, we “share our honest opinions.”
17. Objectivists don’t tell stories, we “give a philosophical argument” or “praise Rand’s work.”
18. When an Objectivist does not know how to respond to someone who is hurting, we utter, “Well, I’ll be thinking of you.” After that comes, “You are in control.” Next, we say, “All things can be handled if you adapt.” Should I keep ‘em coming? “If an opportunity closes its door, a new one will open,” and another favorite: “Don’t leave your life to chance.”
19. Objectivists make decisions, we are “led by objective knowledge.”
20. Objectivists RSVP with phrases such as, “I’ll be there if it brings value to my life,” or “If I’m willing and the second-handers don’t rise.”
21. When an Objectivist makes a mistake, we say, “I’m perfect, just not omniscient, sorry.”
22. Objectivists know that a really terrible lie is “belched from the pit of delusion.”
23. Objectivists don’t insult or say rude things to a brother or sister in the community. No, we “speak the truth in love and the good.” However, if someone should mistakenly feel judged or rebuked, we say, “Hey, I’m just keepin’ it rational.”
24. If an Objectivist meets someone who is stressed or anxious, we know they simply need to “make a plan and execute.”
25. Last but not least, Objectivists don’t die, “it’s the world that will end.” [But, also, DON’T DIE—thank you, Bryan Johnson.]

***

Links: https://www.learnreligions.com/cliches-christians-say-700635; http://www.aynrandlexicon.com; https://medium.com/future-literacy/one-meal-23-hr-fast-100-nutrition-18187a2f5b

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Race and Gender Do Not Matter

I would like to open this piece with two different excerpts:

Here is the first one:

The bond between husband and wife is a strong one. Suppose the man had hunted her out and brought her back. The memory of her acts would still be there, and inevitably, sooner or later, it would be cause for rancor. When there are crises, incidents, a woman should try to overlook them, for better or for worse, and make the bond into something durable. The wounds will remain, with the woman and with the man, when there are crises such as I have described. It is very foolish for a woman to let a little dalliance upset her so much that she shows her resentment openly. He has his adventures–but if he has fond memories of their early days together, his and hers, she may be sure that she matters. 

And here is the second one:

You are part of my existence, part of myself. You have been in every line I have ever read, since I first came here, the rough common boy whose poor heart you wounded even then. You have been in every prospect I have ever seen since – on the river, on the sails of the ships, on the marshes, in the clouds, in the light, in the darkness, in the wind, in the woods, in the sea, in the streets. You have been the embodiment of every graceful fancy that my mind has ever become acquainted with. The stones of which the strongest London buildings are made, are not more real, or more impossible to displace with your hands, than your presence and influence have been to me, there and everywhere, and will be.

The first excerpt is from The Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikibu, which is widely considered to be the first novel in the world. The author lived from around 973 to 1014 or 1025 CE, and the book was written between 1000 and 1012 CE.

Now, the second excerpt is from Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, who is a more modern author of novels. The author lived from 1813 to 1870 CE, and the book was written in 1861 CE.

One was written by a Japanese woman living in the Heian period (or the High Middle Ages in European history).

The other was written by an English man living in the Victorian era.

Besides languages changing and translations done, are either of these texts unintelligible? Is there any sense of loss in meaning or emotion across time? Does understanding cease with one being from another race or gender than our own? No, no, and no again.

People today are falling into the tribalist trap. Just because you are, let’s say, a young Hispanic woman who has not seen a flash drive or a cassette tape outside of museums, does not mean that you cannot read a book from any time period and empathize with that writer. That is truly the magic of literature. Modern people can still have a dialogue of sorts with other people who have long since gone back into the earth, regardless of skin color or gender. It doesn’t matter! What literature does is bring honest thoughts to the fore.

Still unconvinced? Let’s take another example. But, first, let me warn you that these images may be a bit too graphic for some viewers as they are of real human cadaver arms. I recently came across the Institute of Human Anatomy’s YouTube channel, and in a couple of their videos, they go into the complex anatomy of the human hand.

Can you tell what race either arm is? Neither could I. The screenshot on the left is of a black man and the one on the right is of a white woman. Race is not a scientific concept but simply a social one. Even Shakespeare points this out in The Merchant of Venice when Shylock says, “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” We all migrated out of Africa and have not had that much time to evolve, so there is only a superficial difference between us based on environmental factors (that is only 0.1% of our DNA). Underneath our skin, we look the same. An apt Ayn Rand quote from The Virtue of Selfishness deserves its place here: “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” She also famously says in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, that “[t]he smallest minority on earth is the individual.”

The same thinking goes for sexism. Like many other people I’ve heard speak on this subject, I was one of those tomboy girls. I wore jeans and a T-shirt for my entire academic career. I found that these clothes were the most comfortable to live in because that way my outfits didn’t distract away from my studies. Did I think I was attracted to girls because of the way I dressed? No. Did I feel like I was in the wrong body because of it? No. I really did not feel “feminine” until I started having sex. Being with the opposite sex made me feel more submissive and I fit into the other half of the puzzle piece well. The bond between a man and a woman does feel very natural. However, all that time beforehand was purely a time for the mind to grow without restraint. In today’s day and age, my education was not withheld or manipulated to be on a different level or about different subjects from the boys. I learned about anything and everything I could (and I still am today). All of that to say, sex does not, nor should it, play a role in the education of a child.

The human mind is our tool of survival, and there is no race or gender divide that can stop us from using it and communicating our thoughts clearly with one another. There is no “separate reality” or “my truth.” There is no “black perspective” or “white perspective.” There is no age too old or young to understand one another once language is attained and maintained. There is no beauty standard that makes us unable to speak to each other. There is no reason a man cannot explain something to a woman and vice versa.

The only difference to be found concerns varying cultures. While Ayn Rand talks about culture as “not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men (The Virtue of Selfishness),” I do think that there can be bad cultures that uphold negative things as values.

The battles of ideas and values play out in various cultures, but most of them sink and only a few of them swim over the long term. For example, history proves to us that killing off a group based on superficial reasons causes war and loss and suffering. The culture quickly forgoes that as a value once they lose the war. A culture centered around gang violence and stealing from stores only tears down its followers and destroys itself from the inside out. But a culture where individual happiness is the focus provides people with diets and exercise plans and enlightenment ideas. There are numerous examples I could run through concerning what makes up a good culture versus a bad one, but I do not have time for that here. Come up with your own. What divides us, at least in first-world countries today, is not race or gender but a culture war where tribalism is rearing its ugly head.

I am here to remind you that race and gender do not matter. Period. Stop listening to the news that is telling you otherwise. Stop teaching students that there is a veil between us that separates our “realities” and our “truths” from being acknowledged by “the other.” Stop saying that this group can’t be held accountable because of the color of their skin. Stop whispering the things that should be said aloud. Stop playing the victim and remember that there is only one race: the human race.

***

Links: https://www.amazon.com/Tale-Genji-Penguin-Classics-Deluxe/dp/014243714X/ref=asc_df_014243714X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=353567357648&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=261658845120380685&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9018402&hvtargid=pla-433833151184&psc=1&mcid=adaf1d9913d1301d99b5adca204c77c3&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=79744846988&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=353567357648&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=261658845120380685&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9018402&hvtargid=pla-433833151184&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzt_m_vH2gwMVySitBh3w8gDmEAQYASABEgJdE_D_BwE; https://www.amazon.com/Great-Expectations-Barnes-Noble-Classics/dp/1593080069; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y69D76RdMs&ab_channel=InstituteofHumanAnatomy; https://www.amazon.com/Merchant-Venice-Folger-Shakespeare-Library/dp/0743477561/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2IMMOBYCCR9BS&keywords=the+merchant+of+venice&qid=1706129264&s=books&sprefix=the+merchant+of+venice%2Cstripbooks%2C122&sr=1-1; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R0VQVTO930S9&keywords=the+virtue+of+selfishness+by+ayn+rand&qid=1706129274&s=books&sprefix=the+virtue+of+%2Cstripbooks%2C108&sr=1-1; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Victimization Risks, Murder, and How to Morally Judge an Individual

I have said before and will continue to say that the less you focus on reality, the more compounded your problems become. The police are familiar with what is called “victimization risk,” which is when an individual is engaged in lifestyle choices that may lead to a higher likelihood of a crime being committed on that person. For example, when an individual works as a prostitute and walks the street alone at night looking for customers, they are engaging in activities where there is a high victimization risk to them. It is not “blaming the victim” but understanding the reality of that person’s choices. What comes with being aware of reality and surviving another day as a human being is a code of rational ethics. Therefore, that prostitute should lower her risk by going out with a buddy at night or leaving the business entirely in search of a new, less risky line of work. Their chances of surviving another day increase when mitigating and rational actions are taken. An individual who locks their doors at night is engaging in low victimization risk behavior and, therefore, making the rational, moral choice.

We must use this type of moral judgment properly based on a person’s actions. I believe that is what is attracting so many people nowadays to Dr. Grande’s YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@DrGrande). He is a mental health counselor who has taken an interest in analyzing criminal cases and their outcomes. He looks at each context like a rational juror and tries to make sense of the seemingly senseless violence a person commits. It is not just another true crime channel but one where the “why” that everyone so longs for is answered to the best of his ability.

We should all aspire to understand people in the way Dr. Grande does because we certainly all have the capacity to understand, empathize, and analyze each other’s actions through moral judgment. In fact, I believe that more people could prevent crimes if they only knew how to judge a person’s actions properly because, unfortunately, by the time the law intervenes, they can only look at the actions of a person after their morality has thoroughly disintegrated. I believe it is often too late to change a person once they have committed a serious crime. They needed moral guidance or help long before they thought of committing any kind of wrongdoing.

As a bit of an aside, the writer Dostoyevsky has one of his characters, from The Brothers Karamazov, say that “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” He believed atheists would murder without a second thought, unlike his conscience-stricken Raskolnikov character in Crime and Punishment who “finds God” in the end. But this is entirely false. This abstract thing we call conscience is what keeps us from crossing the line drawn in ethics between good and evil. We would all feel as guilty as Raskolnikov for killing a person with or without god. Our desire to survive and thrive keeps us from murdering each other. A rational morality keeps us from destruction.

It is in this spirit of moral judgment and admiration for Dr. Grande’s work that I am presenting an essay I wrote the day after Elliot Rodger on May 23, 2014, killed six people and injured fourteen others. He shot, stabbed, and ran over with his vehicle as many people as he could find in what would later be named the “2014 Isla Vista killings,” forever labeling him as an infamous mass murderer. He left a YouTube video of his own titled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution” and a long manifesto called “My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger,” both of which I have seen and read and have linked down in the description section. And so without further ado:

***

My Thoughts on the CA Mass Murderer, Elliot Rodger

[Note: This article is not meant to sympathize or place the predator’s life above those of the victims. To all of those involved in this tragedy, I hope that this psychological look into the murderer’s past will prevent instances of this happening again in the future.]

The first thing I dared to watch was Elliot Rodger’s final video. In it, he struck me as just a kid trying to build himself up as a tragic anti-hero. He was lost in a story concocted by his own mind, and that was what made me want to research this horrific tragedy. Since that final video, I have read the 140-page long manifesto and watched the other YouTube videos he had posted before the final one. These were all highly disturbing, and I think that many of my conclusions do not include the fact that he did have Asperger’s syndrome. Asperger’s syndrome is clear here with his unusual facial expressions, his difficulty socializing, and his apparent lack of empathy. However, that does not excuse his violent outburst on the evening of May 23, 2014.

The philosopher, Hannah Arendt, wrote about the Eichmann trial that occurred in the 1960s. Eichmann was hired by the Nazi Party in Germany, and he was given the task of deporting all of the Jews—he sent hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths. People called him “evil” and a “villain,” but once Arendt began studying this wrinkled, pathetic old man—she coined the phrase, “banality of evil.” This phrase meant that Eichmann was really just a dumb, dependent, title-obsessive man. He was a cog in the machine, but a deadly one. Eichmann did not think that he was responsible because he truly believed that he was just “following orders.” Arendt believed that this weasel was telling the truth. Therefore, at the time, she did not believe that people were “radically evil”—that they were not born evil.

After researching this case, I have come to the conclusion that this was a broken boy. He lived his life on a “6th grade loop” which continuously played until he went to stop it by force. Even his manifesto is written at about the 6th grade level, albeit with a few “new” vocabulary words included toward the end. But his ideas are especially childish. He was given everything, and when he wasn’t, he would have temper tantrums.

Elliot Rodger was an irrationally selfish, materialistic, dependent child. If any of you have ever read Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, this child was a real Peter Keating. He built up absolutely no self-esteem whatsoever, and therefore, his ego (the “I” part of him) was nonexistent. This set him up for disaster.

He blames his parents for this, and so do I.

Parents are the most influential beings that a person can have—they tend to make or break the future adult. These parents did not give him a set of moral values to live by—and religion does not even need to factor in here. Learning philosophy is invaluable because it makes you question and reassess all of your most basic premises. You think logically and fix any emotionalist responses to rational concepts. This child needed a philosophy lesson badly.

Elliot Rodger emphasizes how much he was “living in the moment” and so thoroughly enjoyed his childhood, that when he was rejected by the outside world—he threw yet another tantrum…this time with tragic consequences. This could have been prevented had he been raised right—not by several nannies and several new houses, regardless of his Asperger’s syndrome.

This behavior was chosen, this is not an issue concerning his Asperger’s (although a symptom can be obsessive behavior, like the one he had toward objects, women, and difficulty socializing). But that cannot cause violence, and his premises were all wrong. The violence stemmed from a lack of knowledge. This is what Hannah Arendt and Ayn Rand meant when they both wrote about how “evil” occurs. It happens when people become irreparably broken. It happens when parents neglect their children emotionally and do not teach them about virtue. It happens when they are given everything, up until they hit the “real world” where they have to fight for survival. Capitalism forces men to prove themselves. It is the ultimate “Alpha Male” system which this child could not win—and so he tried to take it away from others.

Again, for those of you familiar with Ayn Rand’s character, Peter Keating, Peter quickly worked his way up the career ladder by stealing, looting, robbing other people, and passing their work off as his own. He was labeled a “second-hander” who took from the “first-handers” or else he would throw tantrums, similar to Rodger’s. In the beginning, he is hailed as the best architect in the country, but by the end, he is a miserable, broken, and “evil” man. This is the story of Elliot Rodger, who laughs at “the irony of the world” and feels holier-than-thou without any reasons to back up his premises.

But do not call this child a “madman”—he was a person robbed of morals. A madman is someone who is incomprehensible, someone who cannot go from Point A to Point B. That is a madman. This is someone who grew up in a surprisingly ordinary way (besides having a famous father). He talks about movies that all kids from the 90s have seen and video games that we’ve all played at some point. And even his concerns in middle school were shared by many other lonely kids at the time (myself included). But we saw ourselves as better than those who were considered “popular.” We had our set of values and we strived to achieve success, while the “popular kids” tended to fail. We grew up and moved on—allowing ourselves only to find better, more worthy people to include in our lives. But this child got caught in it, and would not budge until he got his way…

“I wanted to live in a world of fairness”—that is the common creed of the Communists and Socialists of our age, and that is exactly the creed that Elliot Rodger grew up living with. But that does not bring happiness. For material objects are not the ends, they are the products of a person’s labor. Labor is the means to get to happiness or living a good life—(if it is honest work, of course). But this boy was never taught that he had to work for his possessions.

Rodger then goes on and on for 40 pages in his manifesto about video games. This has been a controversial topic in many of these violent tragedies. But video games, in particular, seem to have destroyed many young people. However, I think it is important to note that his feelings began before ever playing a video game, but his situation grew exponentially worse when he was pretty much given free rein with these games during his adolescence. Parents need to watch what their kids are playing, watching, reading, and listening to because there is so much garbage out there today. In fact, in his manifesto, Rodger used video games as a way to fight the reality that he was facing. He used World of Warcraft as inspiration for his ideas of a “War on Women.” Elliot Rodger blurred games with real life because he was never taught the difference.

Elliot frequently uses the words “little,” “obsessed,” “weak,” “worthless,” and “starved” as terms of describing himself and his mental state. The kid never learned how to live on his own. He never was allowed to become self-reliant. He was extremely sheltered. “The more lonely I felt, the more angry I became,” he writes at one point. This is a typical feeling that “evil characters” feel before they lash out at the world. He was living out a fantasy storyline of his own—like when he wrote, “If I can’t have it, I will destroy it.” After that, sex became a negative thing for him and by 17 he wanted to outlaw sex. This means that for 6 years, he had been planning and plotting a way to seek revenge on others. There was no real instance where he “became a madman,” but a slow progression of events that were laid down on a boy without any moral guidance or principles.

On his “forced” plane trip to Morocco, Rodger decided that he wanted to die. That is the moment where he lost hope because he was never allowed to have any control over his life. He did not have any agency—no ego, no self-esteem—and this led him to the radical state that he worked himself up to in his twenties.

Movies and video games surrounded this kid, and he lived in a fantasy realm for most of his life. (And Soumaya, his stepmother, seemed to be the only adult capable of trying to teach Rodger something, albeit in the least effective way). Then, in his mid-teens, he turned to books, instead of thinking about his future and getting a job. These books provided him with the “anti-hero” type of mindset that he had always wanted, and he amateurishly clung to them.

By page 66 of Rodger’s manifesto, he begins using terms like “destiny” and “injustice” to prove that he was made by some “creator” to right all the unfairness that happened to him in the world. The amount of hate that he had for others was very high when he was only 18. He says at one point in his manifesto, “I am an intellectual who is destined for greatness. I would never perform a low-class service job.” But that is exactly the problem. A true intellectual or “great man,” as Aristotle discusses in depth, does not change based on external forces. The “great man” cares for a few things that bring happiness (eudemonia) to his life, and the rest is irrelevant. He has a proportionate amount of self-confidence, and he quietly respects himself for the virtues that he has learned over the years. This sentence is yet another temper tantrum, only in adult form, but it renders him more of a child than anything. Elliot Rodger was not an intellectual, but a bitter fool—a frustrated and miserable Peter Keating archetype due to his parents’ neglect.

Rodger repeatedly asked his mother (and later on several more occasions) to “sacrifice her well-being for the sake of [his] own happiness” by marrying another rich man. Elliot’s hope was only reignited when he thought that some base exterior change could fix all of his moral problems—only to be dismayed once again…and again…and again. This child calls his mother “selfish” for not remarrying into a rich family—when what he really is saying is that she is not “sacrificing” herself for his needs. She is not giving up her life for him. She is not being altruistic because that is a vice (read Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness for more).

And yet, his “selfish” mother continued to support him and told him he had a talent for writing. But his motive from the beginning was to get rich quick off of his “bestseller” books, and then maybe girls would like him. This motivation never works. He didn’t even mention that perhaps some girl would like him for his talent to produce something of his own, proving just how lost he was. Elliot considered himself to be talentless and fervently refused to work or produce anything at all that would have given him some kind of value. Rodger continues to write in his manifesto that he “deserves” things when, in reality, he does not. Rodger did not earn (nor try to earn) a single thing in his life. He was never taught that money could not solve his problems. Money is merely another reward for the productive, creative thoughts that you make, but nothing more. Rodger looked to rewards as ends in themselves: money, girls, fame.

This kid never took the responsibility into his own hands of actually trying to change his life. He would pray to the stars and the universe, but never to himself and his own self-esteem. Rodger did not understand that money cannot replace moral values. Every time that he “actively” tried to change his life, he would never approach a girl or try to communicate with her. He made continual excuses due to his extremely low level of self-esteem. This isolated him further (not to mention looking for those bright and intelligent girls in all the wrong places). He writes at one point, “I was a ghost”—little did he know that he had died morally way before any of this took place.

He blamed society, not himself, for denying him pleasure. What a skewed view of reality is that? Rodger had to try to open himself up to new experiences. If people aren’t worth your time (usually the “popular kids”), then don’t even bat an eyelash at them. Focus on the positives.

Currently, in the media, he is being called racist, sexist, entitled, elitist, spoiled, and these labels are true. He had attacked groups because he lacked an ego of his own. He was shaped by groups himself. He didn’t know what being an individual entails. Rodger may have said to himself that he was special, but he didn’t really know what he was, besides what others said of him. Elliot Rodger was an altruist, a self-loathing looter who lived with an “anti-life” mentality. For by actively rejecting sex, he accepted death.

He could not be fixed after he grew up without any value-based foundations.

By page 87 of the manifesto, Rodger openly declares that he believed he could kill another man. He had prepared himself mentally, and truly felt “worthless” at this point. You see, there was no “snap in his mental state.” Rodger had been boiling over since his temper tantrums at the age of 3. This child never grew up, and could not handle living alone. His parents are to blame, just as much as he himself is to be blamed.

He was so completely self-absorbed without having a real “self.” I have heard people use the term “narcissist,” which may be the correct term because it has such a negative connotation with it. However, “rational selfishness” is not a bad thing, according to Ayn Rand (again, read The Virtue of Selfishness). There is an important distinction to be made between those who do things to promote their own happiness and those who are hurting others in order to obtain some unidentified fantasy.

On page 101 of Elliot’s manifesto, he mentions explicitly that he wanted “revenge.” At the age of 20, Elliot Rodger declared that he was done with hope and expecting things to change. He understood that he was living in a vicious cycle, but he didn’t understand why. It is here that he also begins talking about his “Day of Retribution.” He had been slowly concocting this plan for over a year. This was premeditated mass murder. Someone at any point could have stopped this, especially his parents. Yes, his parents did hire a few psychiatrists toward the end (according to Elliot), but it was already too late. His plan was already in action.

Rodger notes that, at first, he felt sick at the thought of holding a gun and possibly using it in his plan, which means that he had a conscience. By page 109 of the manifesto, he decided to plan out a “mass murder.” He felt compelled to do it because he was so focused on himself and what his world led him to. Rodger did not care about the world outside of his own narrative (he never mentions 9/11 or the war in Iraq), and that was a major mistake.

Elliot Rodger did not have a “twisted world,” but a “twisted logic.” He thought that Point A (money) would lead him to Point B (girls) which would equal Point C (“peaceful revenge”). If that line of thought did not work out, then he was a worthless outcast, and a loser, which could only equate to violent revenge in his mind.

There is a particularly female-hating passage on page 117 of Elliot’s manifesto, where he “comes up” with this “original” idea that women are like a plague that needs to be controlled and quarantined. This is where many people say that he is a “misogynistic psychopath.” However, he seems to be placing all of his frustrations on females, (even though he seemed to have a pretty good track record with his grandmothers and mother). He was venting his hatred for all of humanity onto a particular group, and once again—just as Hitler did with the Jews—it’s called selecting a scapegoat.

Rodger believed that his act would cause some tremendous change, but it didn’t. Instead, his case was added to the growing pile of an increasing problem concerning mass murderers in this country. He was not philosophically learned or intelligent to any degree, because the first thing that educated people do is think. Rationally. But Elliot Rodger behaved in exactly the same way that he claimed girls were by “behaving irrationally.”

One important idea that should be pointed out is the religious undertone that his manifesto espouses. He wanted to play god, but he also referred to the sex that people had as “heavenly” and that he was living in “hell.” Although he doesn’t seem to be very religious, this Judeo-Christian view of the world was ingrained in his perspective of it.

Elliot claims toward the end of his manifesto that he never lost that last flicker of hope—he thought that in some miraculous way, he could be saved—but it was all too late without him even realizing it.

“Give me, give me, give me” was this child’s war cry. It was just another tantrum…but it hurt so many. Rodger felt entitled, as many people have been stating. He was not “a madman,” but a kid who grew up without any values, and after a series of circular events—he concluded that man is evil. His last straw was in Santa Barbara.

Elliot Rodger professed himself as a “god” and as the “good guy” and wrote that “Finally, at long last, I can show the world my true worth” as the last line in his manifesto—but the thing is, he never had any worth.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/@DrGrande; https:www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLLy1Awig0E&ab_channel=IntoTheFireTrueCrimeStories; https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/rodger_my_twisted_world.pdf; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1YXNM861KJ1O4&keywords=the+virtue+of+selfishness+by+ayn+rand&qid=1700164079&s=books&sprefix=the+virtue+of+sel%2Cstripbooks%2C178&sr=1-1

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

“Nobody’s Perfect” and Other Garbage Idioms

Everyone always says “nobody’s perfect” to somehow arouse in you the feeling of freedom to experiment or try something uncomfortable. But I’m sick of that cliché. Why use the word “perfect” in such a way that is untouchable? Language, after all, is made by humans for humans. You are a human being—you have to learn and try things. That is perfection in my book. Human beings are not static. Nor do we reach a kind of state of perfection like the Eastern mystics talk about. We live in a world of values that we have to choose every day. And I feel the same way about morality.

To be moral does not mean to be omniscient or all-knowing in order to be good. Another one of my pet peeves is when people say, “Morality isn’t black and white.” Well, Ayn Rand would tell you that it most certainly is. And here is how: It’s true that there can be some gray actions on a day-to-day basis. However, the culmination of those actions and the motivation behind each of them leads to being moral (good) or immoral (bad) as a whole person. An individual is made up of values, and those values can only be achieved and kept when they are identified and morally achieved. For example, if you want a greater sense of self-esteem, then you practice really hard to ace a test, truly learn the subject matter, and get that good grade. If you want to damage that sense of self-esteem, then you cheat on the test, not learn the material, but still get an A.

I have “made it.” I am happy. I have a wonderful, supportive husband. We hope to have our own children soon. I have a beautiful home to live in. I have fresh food and water to eat and drink. I am almost thirty and healthy in body and mind. Yes, I may want an updated wardrobe or neighbors that weren’t living so close to us, but that’s just “icing on the cake.” They are wants and not necessities. How did I get here? Was it hard? Was I ridiculed? Yes…but that is, unfortunately, what it takes today when you choose to be good.

I spent most of my time in school refusing sexual advances, avoiding physical fights, and not attending parties where I knew that drugs might be involved. Instead, I spent my waking moments attentively in the classroom, ferociously reading at home, and eventually finding school friends whom I could readily learn with and be around. Once I graduated, I found myself in my first normal nine-to-five job as a receptionist. And that is when my moral choices became more complex. After the first year or so, I began to get fidgety, then I started to resent my job. I felt like I woke up there and fell asleep there most days, especially on those cold, dark winter months… I learned the ins and outs of the job by that point and I needed to move on. I should have moved on earlier, but the “golden handcuffs” of the money were on. So, I began to search out innocuous things on the internet at work when no one needed my assistance. I started with taking typing tests and then searching for other types of work, all reasonable things, in my mind, to look up within the framework of my receptionist job. I was making myself better for the job at hand—continuous training, I told myself. But then I landed on the idea of transcript proofreading from home. From home…oh how I missed my haven of books and culture and not having a long commute shoved in a public bus with everyone else who worked in the city. I stayed sardine-shaped at work, my spine poking out through the skin to shield myself from the outside world.

Soon enough, I was sitting at my desk in another place entirely. I was no longer just the receptionist but a proofreader-in-training. Whenever my time was freed up, I was on their computer taking tests, learning about frequently confused homophones and transposed words. I printed off pages to work from since I didn’t have a printer at home. But the slope got more slippery in my head. I faked smiles and laughs and worked just enough to squeak by. And then I began to feel guilty. I was now having to make choices that left me either feeling used by the company or ashamed. These were some of my thoughts (see if you recognize some of these daily compromises you make in your job): Well, my boss didn’t tell me I’d have to stay this late, so I deserve the ten cents worth of paper. Or, this client on the phone was angry with me for no reason, so I should get an extra five minutes to eat my lunch today. Or, X always gets in late, so I’m going to arrive late just for today. And these kinds of calculations were constant. It was as if I was on this endless tightrope between making moral and immoral choices. Their policy was clear about not doing personal work during business hours, which probably included taking their paid-for paper and ink, taking extra time off, and arriving late. I knew what I was doing, but my own unhappiness made things seem even…fair.

I should have left earlier than I did, but I waited until I finished the proofreading program and started building up my business so that I no longer had to make tough and often poor moral decisions every day that I could feel were progressively eating away at my soul. I missed feeling the simplicity of just saying no to things in school and then following the schedule that was set by my parent and teachers. I no longer had that option. Life as an adult was my own, and I needed to spend my time wisely, make up my own schedule, and end up a lot happier than I was feeling in those days. As soon as I had a few clients under my belt, I resigned from my position.

Not everyone needs to quit their jobs and work for themselves. I’m sure there are plenty of people who love their jobs and are challenged enough on a daily basis to not start feeling resentful. But the moral degrees game, I believe, is very present in the “corporate world” today. Thankfully, when we do not cloud our emotions with drugs or alcohol, we have an easier time getting a clue about what we are doing—not only to the company we may work for but to ourselves. If you feel bad at the end of the day, then how have you spent it? Have you made compromises all day that only attacked your self-esteem and, thereby, your long-term happiness?

We are not static creatures. Every day we make moral choices, but we can make them easier or harder to choose. For instance, brushing your teeth comes automatically now since we’ve been doing it since childhood. Yet, it is an act of choosing life. You are taking care of your oral health to live another day healthy on earth. You have the option to skip it and risk cavities and all the deterioration of the body that follows, but that by definition is immoral since Ayn Rand states that “Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, then a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course” (Philosophy: Who Needs It?). A dead man doesn’t need morality.

So was I behaving poorly in my receptionist job? Toward the end, I would say yes, I did immoral things. However, it was the good, moral choice that made me resign and not continue to suck off the money teat forever while just giving the minimum of my efforts to my job. I regained the tarnished bits of my self-esteem by leaving and venturing off on my own. Do I make “easy” money now? No. Do I make as much money yet? No. But am I happier? Yes. Am I still perfect after learning from such an experience? Yes.

We all live atop the scales of justice until our final breath is taken. There are days we will make mistakes and there will be repercussions. But we must have the courage to address the emotions that come with an immoral decision in order to be good. Clouding, hiding, submerging those feelings and the reality of the situation, which, sadly, so many adults do who don’t understand the way out, can only lead to the destruction of the soul. Bad, immoral, imperfect people are those who know that what they do makes them feel awful, they may even know it is immoral, and continue to do it anyway—in the face of reality. They refuse to change when all evidence suggests they must do so to continue living. They begin to become walking billboards for death, not life. Forget brushing my teeth, forget clocking into work on time, forget keeping my child fed, forget that the gun is going off into an innocent person’s body because life has no meaning for me. I am the absence of life now; I am death. It is not an irrational spiral that stirs people on the outside to shout “Madman!” It is a man who has lost his sense of morality and progressively allows the disease to weaken his values down to dust.

I believe that most people are good, perfect beings who would benefit from more of a culture that advocates paying attention to our emotions—not hiding them. They can oftentimes help detect a bad decision before reason can come in to explain. Books, especially literary fiction, are also saviors for their honest look into people’s good and bad decisions and the outcomes they face from them. I believe that morality can be learned and a good, perfect person should be open to its serious study. They will learn that there are varying degrees of values on a person’s set of priorities, and the more attuned they are to them, the happier they will be with a clearer vision of their goals in life. Perfection is all about making mistakes and learning from them. That struggle to understand cause and effect is what makes man quintessentially human.

***

Links: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com; https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Who-Needs-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451138937

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

On Judgment

This month’s topic is on judgment and its use. Judgment, in particular, is required when growing up in a culture that constantly preaches not to judge while choosing to uphold the activities of the lowest common denominator, namely school dances.

I don’t know if every school has dances like the one I am going to discuss, whether public or private, but I would be curious to know, so feel free to share with me. This was certainly the climate when I was attending my public middle and high schools in New York and then in New Jersey. The first actual nightclub that I went to was in D.C. while in college, and it was clearly the inspiration for such school dances when I was growing up.

My first school dance was in the sixth grade when I would have been at the tender age of eleven. At eleven, I walked into a gym that was dark, loud, and downright frightening. I had never seen such a place before. The music was blaring, so much so that I covered my ears to protect them. Girls were behaving strangely around me and telling me that I was dressed up wrong. Guys were doused in horrible-smelling cologne and gel spiked all the hair they had on their body at that point. Teachers looked the other way while boys met girls up close and personally; I had never seen “grinding” before. The lights from the DJ disoriented me as I turned around looking for the familiar faces that I knew in the daylight, the faces I sat beside every day in the classroom. Where were they, or what, exactly, had they become in an instant?

***

Each year, I went to the next homecoming dance, believing that somehow a new grade meant more mature peers. Boy, was I wrong. It took me until I was seventeen years old and had worked my way up the high school food chain before I wrote this piece (even though I regrettably never sent it in). 

Our Nightclub Dances Must GO!

I have gotten into Peer Leadership and Teen PEP and these leadership roles have made me question how our school could better represent itself. My inspiration for change came from our Homecoming dance and several middle school dances beforehand. I believe that our dances are inappropriate and do not represent this school or any other school well. If you have ever been to a dance you would see kids ‘grinding’ in almost complete darkness while supposedly ‘dancing’ to extremely loud pop/rap music that no one can actually dance to. These dances begin in middle school and promote, to put it bluntly, sex. The music is also extremely loud as stated before, which can harm a student’s eardrums. I remember my eardrums buzzing for hours after I got home from dances. All I have to say is where has our culture gone? Our principals (and not just at LHS & LMS) seem to have ‘given up’ on enforcing school appropriate dances. I can understand that school officials feel that this is what most teenagers like and they’ll complain if you take away their freedom of expression but this should not be tolerated. I know many of my peers who would like their dances to be 80’s movie-esque. I know teachers who refuse to chaperone anymore because they feel uncomfortable allowing the kids to act in this way. If students learned how to dance then I believe that more of them would come and enjoy the dances. Learning how to dance is a great thing that our generation is missing out on. We are missing the whole point of what a dance is: a place to socialize and show off our moves not a place to sweat like pigs in the dark and dry hump to bad, booming noise. Excuse the vulgarity but I really do believe strongly in this. Kids are missing out on a great cultural past time.

I have never had fun at any of the dances I have been to which means that something just isn’t right. I’m not saying that students must stand a foot apart and sway to 50’s music, but I do think that we have toppled over to the other extreme. We are a SCHOOL, not a nightclub. I also realize that many teens like pop/rap, however, it seems one-sided and unfair to the students who like other kinds of music. The DJ’s should have a variety of music in order to expand students’ horizons and, as a result, teens can learn to respect other kinds of music. We could have jazz, R&B, swing, blues, classic rock, classical, anything! Just being exposed to different dances could also benefit the students because dancing is great exercise and so much fun. Learning dance steps from other countries could also become a culture experience (which International Alliance has already shown us). We could have break dancing, waltz, jitterbug, swing, and tango, whatever you can think of.

This is what dances everywhere have succumbed to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6t_rdl5zNg&feature=related  (This is a typical dance: crowded, blasting music, grinding, swaying like a dunce or jumping like one…I’m getting nauseous just watching this. Plus those are just 8th graders!!! What are we teaching them?! We are undoing all of the endless hours of abstinence messages just by allowing these types of dances to occur every month in LMS)!

Here is my vision. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-OG0EyJyV8&ab_channel=BoxofficeMovieScenes (Please notice the comments at the bottom. Just clean fun).

Now that’s a HUGE difference and it has only been 26 years since 1985! Clearly something is wrong and we have culturally demolished ourselves.

My plan, (if you and the school officials think it’s possible), would be to get a petition signed by a numerous amount of students to change our dance system, possibly after talking to the Board of Education, and create an experimental dance hosted by a school club/several clubs where high school students could come, dance, and then vote on whether or not they’d like to change our old dance habits. Then, if enough students enjoy it the school could change every dance to this new system. I know the question has popped into your head about how exactly we will teach around 300 high school students to dance…but this is what I am thinking. I would like to add dancing to our physical education program. So along with the required weight room and swimming units we should also have another in dancing. I still haven’t quite figured out if we could pay for a teacher, (I do know of a great ballroom dancing couple who work very close to LHS), or we could just buy dance videos to play on the TV in the aerobics room. After learning a few new moves hopefully the enthusiasm for real dancing will return and we can all live happily ever after… Thank you for listening and please get back to me about whether or not this is even possible.

***

I was eighteen when I wrote this next piece for one of my first college literature classes.

The Atheist’s Sermon

How silly you look. How young. You’re not a real college student. Simultaneously attempting to calm my nerves and get ready for the party, I slip into my elegant dress and shoes. This was the only “clubbing” attire that I owned. Trying to escape the nerves wrapping themselves around my brain like thin vines, I stealthily step out of my room and into the residence hallways. My heart is starting to palpitate hard against my chest as I scurry down the hallway and out into the starless night to join a group of four other girls who were all wearing “little black dresses.” Staring down at my own purple bubble dress, I withdrew from an instant realization that I was already screwing up that night.

Doubly self-conscious, I step onto the shuttle bus full of half-naked students. Egotistical boys are talking in the back, while the leader of the pack makes his presence known for all capable of hearing by saying that he is “semi-hard right now.” I feel my face burn and I force myself to breathe again. I cannot help feeling naked, dirty, and mysterious all at once. I am trapped in a completely packed shuttle with these other crazy party-goers. And in the midst of such chaos, a girl is putting on ten pounds of cherry red lipstick on her already obnoxiously bleeding-red lips. While girls with the flat-ironed bleach blonde hair, the extra padded push-up bras, the arrogant walk – you know, the hip-swinging, back straightened, nose-to-the-sky type of walk are strutting around the bus stop waiting for their dates. This shuttle of hormones begins to move after five eternally long minutes. I sit and try to make small-talk with the people accompanying me, but I can’t help getting distracted by the darkness outside that is enclosing the bus. It is around 10 PM now, so the night is still relatively young. We exit the shuttle and before I know it, I am on the metro headed toward Metro Center, our destination for the evening. The metro lights are unnaturally bright for this time of day. They sting my retinas. I look away and catch a glimpse of my right wrist clenched onto a cold, metallic rod for support. My wrist looks so small that I almost do not recognize it. It appears vulnerable, pale, innocent, thin, delicate, and fragile – breakable. And I swear it was getting smaller as the night dragged on.

The chill weather gives me goose-bumps as I walk down the road immersed in warm, illuminating street-lights. I can sense the buzz humming in the silent air, this is the nightlife. People line up on the escalator, one after another, all headed somewhere. Some faces were disapproving and it made me feel like an outright scoundrel. Other faces were absorbed in their own thoughts – hollow, and unchanging. Still some were happy as clams, laughing like fools, already having a good time. I am none of these people. I am a nervous wreck. Having been to several parties previously, I usually ended up awkwardly dancing with my friends out of a sense of obligation and then I would proceed to sit out for the rest of the night. The whole “club culture” which has always been a major attraction for students has constantly felt like the antithesis of my very being, but I could never effectively explain why to people. Homecomings, formals, and prom always ended the same way for me – lonely. I went out that night to understand myself. What was I psychologically struggling with every time I went to a party?  Was it just me or was it something else more powerful than myself coercing me not to enjoy it? Am I in the wrong or are others? 

It is an hour long line. Even with our “Ladies Night Passes,” we still have to wait with everyone else in the bitterly cool night air. A whirl of smoke and perfume fill my lungs as I wait there in line choking on its consistency. Greasy-looking men smoke at least three cigarettes during that long wait, while slutty-looking women complain about the line. Meanwhile, the heels and skin tight clothes on every body type imaginable were being unwillingly downloaded into my subconscious mind. Those images sear my eyes, while the electrical neurons shoot up into my memory center, and my innocence is quickly vaporized from existence. French speaking people behind me in line speak of how they pity me and how “saintly” I look among my friends. Is it really that obvious? Finally, I make it up to the door: boorish guards check my bag and driver’s license, take my umbrella away, seize my money and pass, grab my miniscule wrists and mark and stamp them to death. I want to run away but I keep walking forward, determined to discover once and for all why I feel this way. I enter the club and it is all fog and strobe lights. One puff of smoke after the next, an unrelenting chain of stupor enshrouds the club. It is loud and cramped, I cannot breathe. My group and I push through the crowd so that one of my friends who have been here before can show us each floor. I shove my body through the crowd, men flinging themselves at me. I push more forcefully now, the adrenaline rushing through my entire body. A room full of Ids. A room full of escapists. A room full of imperfection.

It is around 11 PM and we spend the first twenty minutes running up and down narrow staircases. Constantly passing by a bright blue and green light box which was the only beacon of stability I had to cling to amidst unstable waters, because it soon became a familiar sight. Bodies are shoving their way upstairs or downstairs in such commotion. It is as if people had suddenly become mindless ants crawling to and fro on their tiny hill without rhyme or reason. And the staircases are black so it is almost impossible to see where you are going, except for the various colored lights escaping from the floor below. It is like some kind of twisted nightmare that I have had before. The first floor is the main floor which has mostly pop music, the next floor is rap, and the final floor (at least from what I can remember) is Hispanic music. We visit all three and decide to stay awhile on the third floor. So standing in a circle we sway back and forth to the music, no one looking happy or having fun. One of the girls I do not know is “grinding” with a random man who looks to be about twenty-five years old. We all stare. It is not dancing, it is dry humping. Excuse me for being so blunt, but this is what I saw. And in order to understand oneself, the truth must be told. After that I was through, finished, done. Yet again, I experience the party for five minutes and then give up on hoping that I will have a good time. I have hoped one too many times. It’s useless. I hate it.

 Looking back now my family was never very religious, but I was brought up a Protestant anyway. When I first realized that I could think for myself, I never thought much about god. But that all changed when my mother died. I can still remember a kid in my class saying, “maybe you didn’t pray hard enough for her.” From that point on, I hated any notion of a god. Having never really believed in him in the first place, it was easy to reject him entirely. But for this reason I am not Agnostic, because I resent people believing in some creature who could kill my own mother so viciously. No just god could do something as evil as that and get away with it. So having kicked god to the curb, I looked to people and nature. My expectations for myself and others rose to unnatural heights. My definition of perfect was no longer connected to some omnipotent presence, but to other human beings. It is not difficult to be perfect in my book. One must simply maintain moral goodness and care for oneself. I do not see people as walking shards of soul, as many others do. I see people as whole, good, and always striving to be better. That is perfection.

It is about 1 AM when I begin amusing myself by watching how drunken people are based on how poorly they walked up the stairs. It began with people joyously dancing up the stairs, then people began spilling their drinks halfway up, then men and women began zigzagging up the stairs, some people tripped, and angry women yelled at the security guards. These were signs of the night growing older, and yet the music continued to get louder, as if to shout in rebellion against time aging. And as the music was increasing in volume, each note was nailing a sign into my skull which said, NEVER AGAIN. Finally, at 2:45 AM, my friends were finished partying and I could leave this foreign place. The stark, early morning air slapped me hard in the face. One of the girls said she felt nauseous and had to sit down, another girl did not look like she had any fun at all, the one who invited me claimed that she had fun, and the “grinding” girl I had only seen for five minutes before she ditched us was staring up hazy-eyed into the pitch-black sky. Apparently, an older guy brought her a couple of shots to take and she had willingly accepted. While keeping an eye on her, we flagged down a taxi which drove us back to campus (we managed to shove five bodies into one cab). And of course, I had to pay the taxi driver. What a waste of twenty dollars. By 4 AM, I quickly run to the bathroom, throw off my elegant dress and shoes, and yank on my pajamas. Then, I proceed to scrub the marker and stamp off my hands and wrists until they are bright red. I wish I could forget this night in its entirety. I crawl underneath my thin fleece covers and allow the night to settle in my brain and produce the answer to my problem. The images that bore a hole in my memory kept playing in my head over-and-over again, until I reached some pretty hefty conclusions about myself and others. 

I am not in the wrong. My body and soul are simply intertwined – inseparable components of my being. My mother’s death allowed me to see that the two must be connected in order for me to find happiness. And the only way that I can combine the two dual entities is to find other people with the same high moral expectations. My own morality shines through because, as Socrates says in Plato’s Socrates and Alcibiades, “either […] man is nothing, or, if man is something, he turns out to be nothing other than soul” (48).  I am soul. I am soul, because I have decided to devote myself to people. So by using my body, I can carry out my soul’s will. Without a god to lead me through life, I must rely on my own intuition. For I am limited to people – all I know are other people. Socrates also says in Plato’s Five Dialogues, “that the soul of man is immortal, and at one time has an end, which is termed dying, and at another time is born again, but is never destroyed. And the moral is, that a man ought to live always in perfect holiness” (78). Hence, my very being is made up of other people. And if the soul is reused like water, then I have a well-versed soul telling me that clubbing is wrong.

People often tell me that I place too much moral weight on things like alcohol, drugs, and parties. But if I give way to these evils, then what does that say about my soul? I prefer to be hyper-sensitive and in control of my senses at all times, because that way I can take pleasure in the simple joys of life. I can combine soul and body to achieve happiness. I do not wish to escape from reality. I wish to relish in it, because being an Atheist I believe that this life is the only one I have. Therefore, I can only respect and have fun with the people who can earn my respect. People must work for my love and I must work for theirs. I shall never compromise my body and soul for others, because I have taken on perfection. I am perfect. Call me a saint, an innocent little girl, an old soul, but I will not be peer-pressured into corrupting myself in any way. I love humanity, and that night I was personally hurt and disappointed that people could behave so irrationally for fun. Escapism is not what I look for in other human beings, but courage…to have the courage to act, to live, to enjoy insignificant moments, to taste life twice.  I want to be able to look up to mankind, not despise it, because that is all that I have to live for – myself and other people.

***

After reading this essay, my freshman college professor told me I was “being way too judgmental of these people who were just trying to have fun.” She looked at me with hatred in her eyes. You see, the point of this introductory assignment (and many of the subsequent ones) at this liberal university was to “go outside of our comfort zones and learn something new about ourselves and others.” The main example pressed upon us was to pretend to be homeless for a day and then write about that. What this translated to was to be humble, you privileged child, and place the lowest in society above yourself—it was meant to be the ultimate act of altruism in order to enter the pearly gates of this university.

I was having none of it. After all, I was one of those students who had already struggled enough in life and chose not to go down the path of drugs, prostitution, crime, and homelessness. I didn’t work this hard just to end up there, anyway. I was using my senses and honestly felt sick going to what this culture was telling me was a place to have the time of my life. It wasn’t life; it was death.

I was meant to put my head down and serve death—in my college career and my future job until I was skin and bones myself. I was meant to shrivel up and die like Christ on the cross for others. I was worthless without the other. That’s what school was trying to teach me now, not reading, writing, or arithmetic.

In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand discusses “judgment” as something that we all must do to “evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard.” And that “[n]othing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.” Therefore, I judge so as to understand myself and the world clearly. And this sensitivity to the world makes it more sustainably pleasurable than being in a dark room that is too loud to even think in—not from a religious perspective but from a human, moral one.

The only ingredient missing in those gyms (although I’m sure the “bad kids” already had it) was alcohol and drugs. Those ingredients magically make that dark room “fun” for adults. The darkness and noise and hazy fog blinding the senses—the complete abandonment of reality—is fun? If that is truly fun, then that means something is not right in that person’s personal life. They are deliberately trying to escape reality. As I said before, it is an unsustainable and ugly way to live. As an adult now who cannot be bullied, I will not ignore how I always felt about these types of dances and how they reflect our culture at large. For any time you abandon reality, the risks to you of losing control for good increase. I choose life over death every single day and so should you, so judge on, my friends.

***

Links: https://www.amazon.com/Socrates-Alcibiades-Symposium-212c-223a-Philosophical/dp/1585100692; https://www.amazon.com/Plato-Dialogues-Euthyphro-Apology-Phaedo/dp/0915145227/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

The Seven Virtues

I am going to be reading several excerpts from Tara Smith’s book, Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, along with providing some of my own commentary and an example. This book has served as an enormous help to me in grappling with Ayn Rand’s views on forming a proper secular morality.

I’m excited to share this information with you, so let’s dive in.

In Professor Smith’s introduction to the book, she describes her subject as “[…] how to lead a selfish life” (4). To be self-interested is linked to the concept of egoism, which means that our “[…] standard of value is life” (6). “Our nature dictates that we need morality […]” (2) in order “[…] to guide individuals to the achievement of their happiness” (48). “It is only by leading a morally upright life that a person can be happy and it is for the sake of having a happy life that a person should be morally upright” (3). Since our aim in life is to be happy, then “[…] a determination of the proper way to lead our lives must begin with an analysis of the concept of value” (4).

Her next chapter on rational egoism further describes what Ayn Rand truly means by being egoistic (since it usually gets a bad name in this culture). To be egoistic, you must use your mind and take rational actions to achieve the values you set for yourself. According to Rand, “[a] value is ‘that which one acts to gain and/or keep’” (20). Therefore, “[m]orality, Rand writes, ‘is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions […]’” (19). And “[…] value is objective” (25) because “[t]he basis for regarding certain ends as objectively valuable to an organism, as the kinds of things that it should seek, Rand reasons, rests in the struggle for life.” (20) For example, if you want to live to an old age (life), then you choose not to do illegal drugs (death). “Ethical egoism is the thesis that a person should act to promote his own interest” (23). Unlike Satanists, this does not include hedonism, which Christians, in particular, always like to bring up. For “[p]leasure is not a reliable guide to the advancement of a human being’s life, as what is pleasurable and what is in a person’s interest do not always coincide” (27) because “[f]lourishing is the path to continued living” (31). You can often end up in quite the opposite conundrum when you simply act on emotions, which is why Rand “[…] defines happiness as ‘that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values.’ It is a ‘state of non-contradictory joy…a joy that does not clash with any of your values’” (31). “Rational egoism is not about besting others, but about making one’s own life as rewarding as possible” (38). It is a focus on your own happiness, which can be degraded by bad actions over time. Although “[…] a person can survive an occasional immoral action. But damage is damage, as Peikoff elaborates, and ‘damage, untended is progressive.’ It cannot be courted or passively tolerated if one’s goal is to flourish” (38). This is why Rand believed that you can have gray actions, but at the end of the day, you cannot have gray morality. Your moral actions accumulate on a daily basis to form a person who is either good or bad, not both. And “[t]he actions necessary to sustain a person’s life in atypical conditions cannot be used as the basis for moral principles that are to guide us in everyday living […]” (43). In other words, you must have a choice to act morally in order for there to be morality. You cannot serve up, as so many modern philosophers do, trolley problems to form a code of morality.

The book then begins to take on each of the seven chosen virtues that Ayn Rand discussed over her lifetime (though this list may not be exhaustive). The first and most important of those virtues is rationality, which is “[…] the acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge and fundamental guide to action” (7). For example: “I cannot ascend to the fourth floor of Waggener Hall by levitating. I can reach the fourth floor by climbing the stairs or taking the elevator, as long as those were built in ways that respect relevant materials, the weight of human beings, and the like” (58). “‘It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours…’” (52–3) because “[r]eason is man’s fundamental means of survival.” (57) And it is his virtues that “[…] designate the fundamental kinds of action that are necessary to sustain human life” (52).

The second virtue is honesty, which is “[…] the refusal to fake reality” (8). For example: “If a physician ignores the CT scan results, he cannot prescribe effective treatment for his patient; if an electrician ignores faulty wiring, he cannot prepare a safe building for its occupants; if a man ignores signs of his own emotional deterioration, he cannot achieve happiness” (79). Therefore, “[h]onesty, in Rand’s view, means that a person ‘must never attempt to fake reality in any manner’” (75). “Whenever a person is dishonest with others, one prominent consequence is the need to conceal his deception” (81). And “[…] the deeper problem with deception of others is that invented ‘goods’—as invented ‘facts’—cannot actually advance a person’s life” (81). “It would make no sense to pursue a near term ‘gain’ by methods that sabotage one’s longer-term welfare (e.g., earning a profit this year by employing means that will bankrupt the business soon thereafter […]” (82). “Through dishonesty, a person makes himself dependent on others—on their standards and their ignorance” (83). It is “[…] comparable to that of a person on a boat that is springing leaks, frantically patching one after another” (85). Therefore, “[…] I would suggest that dishonesty is likely to eat away at a person’s self-esteem […]” (85). They must create lie after lie in order to keep up the ruse. However, “[a] person stands under no moral obligation to divulge his knowledge to an inquiring Nazi. In such cases, the person who lies is not attempting to gain a value. […] Rather, he is acting rationally to protect a value under attack” (94). “All moral guidance is intended for the normal course of events, since those are the conditions we ordinarily face and that allow us to identify principles that provide effective guidance” (94–5). “‘In such a case, morality cannot say what to do. Under a dictatorship—under force—there is no such thing as morality. Morality ends where a gun begins…in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That is my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code’” (95) since “[m]orality is a tool of self-preservation” (96). “In a natural emergency, a great value is at risk; in a metaphysical emergency, a person’s very mode of survival is immobilized” (98). So, morality can still exist (just differently) in certain types of emergencies. For instance, “[i]n a natural emergency, a woman might be morally justified in taking a neighbor’s car to rush her husband to the hospital or in breaking into a neighbor’s vacant house to use his phone to call an ambulance if her own is not working. Ordinarily, rational egoism would forbid such violations of others’ property, but the emergency justifies it. This does not mean that morality is silenced all together and totally inapplicable, however. The person who violates the basic principles of morality is still obligated to recognize that his emergency (genuine as it is, for him) is not an emergency for everyone and does not suspend all other individuals’ rights. Accordingly, he must be ready to pay compensation to those whose property he has taken” (98). This is why “[h]onesty is not intrinsically virtuous or a categorical imperative, to be blindly obeyed regardless of circumstances” (99–100). Even “white lies” can be considered on the same level as total dishonesty. “The essential problem with well-intentioned dishonesty is the same as that with any dishonesty: It does not work. As Peikoff observes, a lie that attempts to protect others from certain facts is as impractical as any more blatantly sinister lies” (102). “It infuses artificiality into individuals’ relationships” (103). “Essentially, Rand holds, a person should either tell the truth about an issue or refuse to discuss it” (103). “In fact, as Rand observes, telling a man the truth is a form of respect” (104).

The third virtue is independence, which is“[…] setting one’s primary orientation to reality rather than to other people” (9). For example: “While the independent person will choose his career by reference to the relevant facts of reality (e.g., his enjoyment of the work, his aptitude for it, his judgment of its value, employment prospects), the second-hander will choose his career by reference to what other people think of it (e.g., becoming a physician ‘because everybody is impressed by doctors,’ joining the family business because all of his siblings have, going into a ‘helping’ profession because society considers it noble)” (111). “Independence, according to Rand, is ‘one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind’” (107). “It is not ‘whatever I want’ that is most important for a rational egoist, but whatever, in fact, will objectively serve his flourishing” (124). “Rand rejects the image of man as either a ‘lone wolf’ or a ‘social animal,’ asserting that he is, in fact, a ‘contractual animal’” (130).

The fourth virtue is justice, which is“[…] judging other persons objectively and treating them accordingly by giving them what they deserve […]” (10). For example: “This is reflected when we think that an especially attentive waiter deserves a big tip, a hard-working staffer deserves special commendation, the corrupt politician deserves defeat, or a rapist deserves a lengthy prison sentence” (138). “Justice is the application of rationality to the evaluation and treatment of other individuals” (135). [As a side note, “[…] retribution refers to ‘the imposition of painful consequences proportionate to the injury caused by the criminal act’” (138).] “Justice is essential for the prudent promotion and protection of one’s values” (148). “Implicit in judging others objectively is judging individuals as individuals. Justice forbids sweeping generalizations, blanket condemnations, or benedictions on the basis of nonessential similarities among people” (152). “‘Since men are born tabula rasa, both cognitively and morally,’ Rand reasons, ‘a rational man regards strangers as innocent until proved guilty’” (154). So, men are not born “morally perfect,” but every decision to survive and flourish from birth is perfect. “Morality does not demand cooperation with those who would turn a person’s virtue against him, making it a tool in his own victimization. As Peikoff observes, ‘Justice cannot require that a man sacrifice himself to someone else’s evil.’ In normal circumstances, however, where a person’s silence would reasonably be taken as agreement with something he does not support and he would not be unjustly penalized for speaking out, he must speak” (162). In terms of forgiveness for an injustice, it may be “[…] proper, Peikoff observes, when the offender makes restitution to his victim (if possible) and demonstrates that he understands the roots of his breach, has reformed, and will not repeat the transgression” (166). “Forgiveness, then, must be earned […]” (166). And where it is concerned, “[e]ssentially, as Peikoff recognizes, mercy is ‘the policy of identifying [a person’s deserts], then not acting accordingly […]’” (168). Therefore, mercy is not considered to be a virtue.

The fifth virtue is integrity, which is“[…] loyalty in action to rational principles” (11). For example: “He does not speak at a meeting on behalf of a policy he deems important, for instance, because he thinks he will seem foolish. He fears rejection from the voters, so he tells them what he thinks they want to hear rather than his true convictions. He fears criticism from students, so he lowers his standards to offer them more palatable grades” (179). “Rand describes integrity as ‘loyalty to one’s convictions and values; it is the policy of acting in accordance with one’s values, of expressing, upholding and translating them into practical reality’” (176). It is complete “‘[…] loyalty to rational principles’” (176). Whereas, “[i]n the end, a lack of integrity amounts to a lack of principles” (181). These “[…] moral principles should never be reified as inherently obligatory. Integrity does require, however, the refusal to compromise one’s principles” (188). “While people often think of violations of their principles as cheating ‘just a little,’ any cheating inevitably means abandoning those principles completely, since the cheater is enthroning something other than those principles as sovereign” (190). If any cheating occurs, then it must be dealt with “[i]n a word: justly. He should acknowledge his lapse, objectively evaluate it, and dedicate himself to avoiding its recurrence” (196). For “[…] evil cannot generate objective values. The good, in contrast, has nothing to gain in any compromise, precisely because evil (to the extent that it is evil) does not generate objective values” (191). Good gains only from good. And the courage to correct an error in virtue, “[…] then, is being ‘true to existence’ […]” (195). With this virtue, I have a personal essay I wrote back in college about how I stole peanuts when I was five years old and thereafter learned the virtue of integrity from my parents.

***

The Five-Year-Old Robber

            As I walked through the aisles, humming to myself, my hands running down each pre-packed produce item, I noticed an open container full of peanuts. The container was at eye-level and my eyes clung to it and nothing else. Sharply tugging on my mother’s pants, I asked politely if I could have some. She said, “Not now, Katie.” But my mind was already made up and being the stubborn child that I was, I felt the urge to grab some of the peanuts and shove them into my pocket. No one would ever know. I felt a rush of triumph blow over me. I had taken flight with new wings my parents had no control over. If I wanted something, I took it.

            Walking behind my mother, the act replayed in my head over and over again – my small hand reaching out, my heart palpitating ten times its normal rate, my eyes shifting back-and-forth, my armpits starting to sweat. And then the grab itself. Cupping my hand, I became the plastic scooper and kidnapped what few peanuts I could. I captured about five unnoticed. I remember the way that their shells felt against the palm of my hand. Each peanut took on its own shape, the rough curvature making every one unique. I almost felt like naming each separate peanut before devouring them whole. But I had to release the light, ridged shells into my soft, sweater-pocket. The pocket itself was so tiny that it could hardly hold down five large peanuts. But I shoved them down its throat with deft accuracy and speed. That way the pocket would not protest and I could go home a free girl – free from trouble.

            A grin began to appear on my face, but as I looked up at my mother, I felt an intense drop in my mood. Would she approve of my achievement to outsmart her…or even worse, would father? I gulped. Looking around the current aisle we were being swallowed up in, I noticed it smelled like bleach and large tubs of colorfully labeled goo were sitting on the shelves. We were in the cleaning supplies aisle which seemed like forever away from the peanut container I had just violated. It was too late – the damage was done.

           Suddenly, my mother asked me: “Katie is there anything else you’d like since we finished with the grocery list?” This was my chance to confess. It was a miracle. But appearing on my left shoulder the devil whispered into my ear, “Are you nuts, kid? You can’t give up now; you’re bound to get in trouble if you tell her here.” While an angel on my right shoulder yanked on my ear and said, “No! You must confess now, because it will only be worse later.” Later? I was not planning on getting caught at all. The thought had never occurred to me that I would be caught later. But being too nervous and stubborn with my decision, I hesitantly replied, “Nope.” Something in my gut kicked me…or perhaps it was my brain. Either way, we got through the check-out line with ease, my peanuts still being safely hidden away in my sweater-pocket’s mouth.

            When we arrived home, I was both excited and nervous to dispose of the peanuts – down my throat. I only had them once before at my godmother’s house last summer, and finally I would get to experience their taste once more. Unnoticed, I crept to my room and unloaded the goods onto my bed. One by one, I proceeded to crack their shells to pieces and gobble up their insides. (Good thing I did not name them). The savory blend of spit and salt mixed in my mouth. I could not think of anything else in that moment of ecstasy. And so, I left my room in a beautiful haze of briny, peanut-y goodness. I went to look outside one of our windows in the kitchen while I enjoyed the last remnants of peanut in my mouth. It was like tasting the sun going down.

            My brain had stopped kicking me for a while until my mother yelled my name – my full name: “Kaitlyn Marie Quis!!!” Uh-oh.

            “Yes, mama?”

            “Come here.” I trudged into my room. I had been caught somehow.

            “Why are there peanut shells all over your bed?!” How could I have forgotten?! 

            “I took them from the store when you told me I couldn’t have any…”

            “I’m telling your father. Stealing is not okay!” Oh no, my father will spank me for sure.

            My face started scrunching up. Was I really going to cry now when just a few moments ago I had been so happy? Mother walked me over to the living room where father was sitting in “his chair” and began listening to her story. His eyes grew large and frightened as he aimed them at me. Now my head and stomach and heart were all sounding the alarm. My butt was going to be sore tonight. But as I looked back at my dad he could tell that I had no real notion of what “stealing” was – I had only heard the word used a few times in church after-all. I promised them that I would never do it again. I was not a “robber.” My mother and father gave each other one final look and the decision was made in silence. No punishment. Thank goodness! I thought, as a wave of relief came over me. 

            I had yet to realize though that although I was not physically punished, I was mentally. This thing that is called, “guilt” had been sneaking up on me the whole time. I also had this thing called, “conscience” which was what was doing all the kicking, I suppose. My parents talked to me for a while about why stealing was wrong and I began to understand what I had robbed that grocery store of – money. I also learned what I had robbed from myself – dignity. My mental punishment may actually have been more severe than a physical one, because I had only myself to blame and I thought my parents looked down on me that day. Thankfully, I learned my lesson and never stole anything again. That day, I had tasted the sunset – and it tasted like dirt.

***

The sixth virtue is productiveness, which is“[…] the process of creating material values” (12). For example: “A person can be productive by building a boat or a bridge, for instance, by repairing shoes or writing software, by composing music or researching biology, performing surgery, mowing lawns, selling insurance, shipping, catering, proofreading, or reporting the news” (199). “Productiveness is ‘the process of creating material values, whether goods or services’” (198). “‘The two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work’” (201). And “[t]he sole reason to be productive is to advance one’s own happiness” (205). [As another side note, “Consonant with the recognition that a person’s paying job will not always involve his most productive work, Rand believes that raising children could be productive work […as] a full-time job” (209).] “On Rand’s theory, the point of living is the enjoyment of one’s life, and the standard of value is human life. Correlatively, anything that enhances a human life is to be encouraged” (212). “In holding this, Rand is not endorsing the excesses of a neurotic workaholic. Excesses are precisely that. A person should exercise productiveness in a manner that is compatible with the rational pursuit of all the values that will achieve his happiness” (213). According to Rand, the definition of happiness is “[…] ‘that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values’ […] ‘happiness is an emotional response to something […]’” (216). We “[…] need to grow” (214) as human beings and “[f]ailing to embrace a central productive purpose chokes the primary artery of happiness” (216). “We need material values in order to sustain our lives. The more money a person has, the more easily he can obtain those values. And the more easily he can do that, the more he can tailor his days to his liking, which in itself has life-advancing value” (219).

The seventh and final virtue is pride, which is“[…] a forward-driving commitment to achieve one’s moral perfection” (13).For example: “We do not dispute a test score as perfect simply because the test was not more difficult (being pitched to 4th graders, for instance, rather than 12th graders)” (239). “Rand understands pride as moral ambitiousness, an energetic dedication to being one’s best” (13). “‘As a rule, a man of achievement does not flaunt his achievements,’ Rand observes, and ‘he does not evaluate himself by others—by a comparative standard. His attitude is not ‘I am better than you’ but ‘I am good’” (224). Therefore, “[…] the virtue of pride (as opposed to the feeling of pride) consists in a commitment to rational action” […] “the genuine feeling of pride can only be sustained through the practical exercise of that commitment” (224). It is “[…] pride with moral ambitiousness […]” (225). “The fact that man is a being of self-made soul creates the need to make one’s soul well” (227). And since “[l]ife is action; its sustenance depends on life-advancing action” (236). In this way, “[…] a person is morally perfect when he lives up to moral principles as well as he can” (237). “The key to appreciating how perfection is possible is context. That is, as with all the virtues, we must understand the requirements of perfection realistically” (238). “‘Errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience’” (239). “It is crucial to appreciate that a normative standard that is beyond our reach is not a genuine standard. For it fails to serve the function of a moral standard, which is to provide practicable instruction. Human beings need moral guidance designed for us, as our nature and circumstances allow us to be” (240–1). [As a final side note, “Benjamin Franklin intended to write a book showing that anyone who tried could achieve moral perfection” (240). “Franklin himself deliberately set out to achieve perfection […]” (240).]

Again, this list of seven virtues is not exhaustive. However, it is difficult to think of another virtue that needs to be included or is not already covered by these major ones. In the final chapters of the book, Professor Smith discusses other conventional virtues that Ayn Rand believes are neither virtues nor vices or are not virtues at all. In terms of charity, Rand says, “‘My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them’” (252). But “[…] charity is not a virtue” (253). Emergencies can be moral as long as there is no coercion. Take, for instance, “‘[…] the issue of saving a drowning person. If the person to be saved is a stranger, it is morally proper to save him only when the danger to one’s own life is minimal; when the danger is great, it would be immoral to attempt it […] If the person to be saved is not a stranger, then the risk one should be willing to take is greater in proportion to the greatness of that person’s value to oneself. If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one’s own life to save him or her—for the selfish reason that life without the loved person could be unbearable’” (254). In most cases, “‘[…] one can help only those who don’t actually need it’” (255). In terms of generosity, “[…] Rand characterizes generosity in a letter: as a ‘gift or favor greater than the friend involved could, in reason, expect’” (257). So, according to “[…] Rand’s theory, generosity is neither a virtue nor a vice” (260). In terms of kindness, it is “[…] a means of tending the values one finds in specific other people. Nonetheless, kindness is not a virtue for the simple reason that kindness is not always appropriate” (270). In terms of temperance, “[…] rational self-restraint is an important tool in the pursuit of a person’s objective well-being” (282). But “[…] temperance per se (understood simply as self-restraint and taken to refer to either self-denial or moderation) is not a virtue” (282). [As a quick aside, in terms of friendship and love, “[…] love—in its ideal, rational form—is a value that advances the lover’s life” (292). “‘The Objectivist does not say ‘I value only myself.’ He says: ‘If you are a certain kind of person, you become thereby a value to me, in the furtherance of my own life and happiness’” (301).]

Lastly and most importantly, “Rand’s ethics is animated by the recognition that human life can be sustained only by specific types of actions. This unshakeable fact gives rise to the need for a moral code to guide individuals’ actions” (284) because “[…] values are the content of life. It is these that a person seeks when he seeks his happiness. Happiness is not a goal that is independent of values […]” (303). Therefore, “[…] what the egoist seeks is a world of values” (303).

***

Link: https://www. amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Normative-Ethics-Virtuous/dp/0521705460

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

The Atheist Nun

So why share all of these etiquette videos? Well, this was my way of tiptoeing into the moral arena while gaining enough courage to discuss my personal beliefs more directly online. Do I think I’m ready now? No, but I’m going to put it out there anyway since morality has been at the core of my being from childhood and only grows stronger with time. This is why the topic can be so touchy for me and anyone else who holds their morals close to their chest.  

I am also tired of the thirty-second bits that people shout out to add their voice to the ever-growing chatter of “the news.” People come away with extremely shallow and tribalistic views if they cannot fully hear either position expressed. Therefore, the art of etiquette and the rules of civility that I posted were meant to stand as a welcome reminder to adults coming to my channel that one must first listen before they are heard.  

That is why I appreciate having a channel where I can sit in a quiet room, write out my thoughts, and then deliver them without fear of being shouted over. I believe this is also why you don’t hear many women speaking out in the “public sphere” for fear of such shouting matches. Even though, historically, women have been seen as the moral guides within the home, and I wish to continue that tradition. I, personally, am too delicate to be mowed over by the loudest voices in the room. I would never be heard that way in this current culture.  

And why, you may ask, for the changed name of my channel? That is all thanks to my brother, who always tells me the truth, even when it may not be flattering (heck, more so if it’s unflattering) to me. But I guess that’s just what siblings do. 

Anyway, not too long ago, my brother texted me and called me an “atheist nun” in jest because I have always taken life so seriously and the smallest things seem to upset me. I was often told growing up that I “can’t take a joke.” But it’s because of this view of the world—the details, the small transgressions—that Man makes in his day-to-day life that I can see eating away at his own happiness that bothers me. I love people but hate when they sabotage themselves. And sabotage is much easier to do when you’re begging forgiveness from a father figure that’s watching your every move. I truly believe that if you focus on yourself and the way you interact with the world, you’ll eventually find happiness. 

I heard Ben Shapiro talking a few months ago about how materialistic and small worshipping nature is—that God produces a much mightier and holier conception of the world for Man. But as I’ve spoken about in previous episodes, a writer gets his words and ideas from the details (also known as inductive reasoning) to come to grand conclusions. It’s the nature that’s around us—reality—that makes my flesh tingle, not some big man in the sky.  

I suppose I’m still figuring out how I can truly help people through this platform. In some ways, I’d really like to help people see morality as something that can be discussed more scientifically than returning to preaching scenes from the Bible. I want to find those people out there who also like homesteading and ballet and learning new things and enjoying family without the sermons at the end. 

I am sure that it will take more episodes to fully understand the seeming paradox of a name like “The Atheist Nun,” but for now I have opened up the conversation, I hope. And in the most fleshed-out way, I am a person without faith who finds a kind of spirituality in humanity and the morals that keep us on the true path to happiness.  

And finally, please leave your comments and thoughts. I don’t mean to appear intense or intimidating; apparently, I just come off this way because of my drive to see myself and others do well. Additionally, here’s an important disclaimer: I will be very careful not to try to tease out other living people’s thoughts on this channel, other than my own, when discussing morality in order to avoid what Ayn Rand calls “psychologizing.” This term is essentially used to mean judging others for merely their thoughts or subconscious motives. It is unfair for me to try to weasel into another’s mind and presume to know why they feel what they feel or why they do what they do—only they know that. I can only look at the actions that they took or the words consciously communicated either orally or written down, and only then can a moral judgment be made. 

At the end of the day, I know we can do better as a society if we let go of the notion that we are not responsible for our own destinies, or that some deity or deities control every aspect of our lives, or that life is completely up to chance. We have free will, and the greatest teachers are shut up in books building up dust. I want people to blow off those cobwebs, crack open the best minds, and peer into their honest, naked thoughts. Take the time to digest them and integrate admirable minds into your own to become the kind of person that is never forgotten by time. 

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Excerpts from American Etiquette and Rules of Politeness by Walter R. Houghton, 1883

I will be sharing several interesting excerpts from the books that I have been reading as of late. This one is an etiquette book written by Walter R. Houghton, a Victorian historian, in 1883 entitled American Etiquette and Rules of Politeness. I will also put the link to the full text at the end of the excerpts if you want to read the complete work.

Let’s begin.

O estimate the real value of etiquette, decorum, or good manners, is to measure the breadth and scope of modern civilization. That culture only is valuable which smooths the rough places, harmonizes the imperfections, and develops the pure, the good and the gentle in human character. The revenge of the savage, the roughness of the barbarous, and the rudeness of even some who claim to be civilized, are all lost in the good will and suavity of gentle manners. The efficiency and usefulness of a liberal education are dwarfed unless developed under the genial influence of proper decorum. The actual worth, then, of politeness is such as to make everyone who would be refined and cultured seek to cultivate it to such an extent as to make it practical in all the walks of life.  

***

EXCHANGEABLE VALUE.  

“A man’s manners are his fortune,” is a saying as true as it is old, as valuable as it is true. Many commodities are exchangeable, and money is the pivot upon which they turn. This is not less true of good manners than it is of the theories of the political economist. Who will number the times fortune has smiled upon penniless men who have had a good countenance and a pleasing address at their command. Good manners are made a leading business qualification in all pursuits. Neither sex is exempt, and the best positions with the fattest salaries are always commanded by the best mannered, most courteous individuals. Then, as an avenue to wealth and position, good manners constitute a desirable acquisition.  

***

VALUE TO SOCIETY.  

What is called society would be impossible were it not for the laws and usages of etiquette. So many interests are to be served — some to be protected, others to be restrained, and still others to be allowed the privilege of growth and expansion — that all these could not be done without some acknowledged standard of action, of which all may acquire some information both on entering and while in society. The best manners are to be found in the society of the good, and they are only the outgrowth of what is actually essential to regulate intercourse among such people. Man can not do without society, and society can not be maintained without customs and laws; therefore we have only to think of the mistakes, the heart-burnings and the mortifications which are the experience of the unrefined and ill-mannered, to see how valuable to society is a knowledge of the rules of decorum.  

***

VALUE TO GENTLEMEN.  

The name gentleman indicates one who is gentle, mild, even-tempered. Some are born so, and will naturally exercise these qualities in having to do with their fellows. Many have these qualities to acquire, and some, at least, have to use them as a cloak to gain admission to circles otherwise closed against them. The polished way, smooth speech and easy bearing of a complete gentleman pleasurably affect any company of persons, neither are they soon forgotten. Unconsciously we imitate them, and thus the grace of good behavior becomes an influence well worth the while of any one who would be a gentleman, to seek it.  

***

VALUE TO LADIES.  

Woman is peculiarly the organizer and refiner of elegant society. Men will seek the essential principles, but all the nicety and elegance of polished manners must and do come through woman. A woman rude and uncultured in her manners, however beautiful in person she may be, is like an uncut diamond, whose sparkle and lustre, though like that of the dog-star, are lost by the roughness of the exterior. The graceful mien and pleasing address of a cultured and refined woman make her a favorite in every company, and the radiant of a courtesy as wide and as luminous as her manners are pleasing. Worthy men strive to please and honor noble, virtuous, amiable women. So that woman, who by her courtesy has acquired these attributes, has in her power the touch-stones which test and at the same time claim the best society among gentlemen.

***

VALUE TO THE POOR.  

It is the birthright of an American citizen to rise from the ranks of poverty to the highest gift of the people, if he but possess the ability. Whatever the circumstances, no one likes to admit his poverty. Of all things which make us most easily forget a man’s poverty, the practice of good manners is most efficient.

***

All education begins at home. The home is the most powerful and really the most effective institution on earth for training the rising generation. Home influence is the truest character moulder; and if continued from infancy through early childhood to manhood, it will shape the moral and intellectual man or woman in spite of all outside directive power. For this influence is early, coming with the first possibilities of man, and therefore most impressive; it is constant, continuing through all the formative period of life. The child who never learns anything at home will never know much, whether in science, morals or religion. Here he forms his habits — either habits of idleness, ignorance and vice, or habits of industry, intelligence and virtue —and as the twig is bent the tree will grow.

***

It is only by attention to little things that we can become mannerly.

***

Education is a means of culture; by it each one may contribute to the elevation of society. It softens the manners, refines the tastes, and fills the soul with nobler purposes and higher aspirations.

***

HOME may be the brightest place on earth, or it may be the gloomiest. To make it the grandest of all institutions — to make it the one place ever dear to the heart, should be the ambition alike of parents and children. While all can contribute to its joy and happiness, there is no concealing the fact that it is pre-eminently the kingdom of woman. It is hers to embellish it, to make it tasteful and cosy.

***

Husband and wife should remember that they have taken each other for better or for worse. Their companionship is to end only with death; hence they should see to it that their affection as lovers ripens into a permanent devotion. They can not become congenial companions without some effort to be such. If one should have tastes and inclinations to which the other is averse, they should not be obtruded. In matters where conscientious conviction is not involved, each should willingly yield to the other. One thing is indispensable to the happiness of married life, and that is, confidence in each other. 

***

Politeness is a habit. He who would be truly polite in society must render politeness habitual at home.

***

HOME is the fountain of life. If our character could be resolved into its elements, and these traced to their beginnings, the lines would all run back to home influence. There begin our earliest and best recollections. “The mother’s heart is the child’s first school-room.” The influence of home extends beyond the fireside and familiar walls, even to the third and fourth generations. Be, therefore, what you wish your children to be. 

***

Upon the mother devolves the duty of planting in the hearts of her children those seeds of love and virtue which shall develop useful and happy lives. There are no words to express the relation of a mother to her children. Indeed, it is more than a relation; they are the same bone and the same flesh. The mother’s supremest delight is in her children. They are the objects of her care and love. She cares not for the outward world, and is, in fact, alienated from it. Wealth may’ come to them, great honors may be heaped upon them, but she never thinks of them other than as her children.

***

Industry is a virtue; idleness is a vice. Industry sharpens the faculties of the mind and strengthens the sinews of the body, while indolence corrodes and weakens them. If the child is not industrious he soon becomes discontented, envious, jealous, and even vicious. “An idle brain is the devil’s work- shop.” In this busy world there is no room for idle men or women. They are dead weights on society. The industrious man is the happy man. He feels that he is doing something by his industry for society — at least, he is paying his own way through the world. Parents should encourage labor, in some useful form, as a duty. If you give your children money for any purpose, teach them to make some return for it — to engage in some extra work about the house or farm or office. Make them feel that they must earn their enjoyment. Industry is a security against shiftlessness and a lavish use of money. There is no virtue like that of industry

***

Industry is a virtue; idleness is a vice. Industry sharpens the faculties of the mind and strengthens the sinews of the body, while indolence corrodes and weakens them. If the child is not industrious he soon becomes discontented, envious, jealous, and even vicious. “An idle brain is the devil’s work- shop.” In this busy world there is no room for idle men or women. They are dead weights on society. The industrious man is the happy man. He feels that he is doing something by his industry for society — at least, he is paying his own way through the world. Parents should encourage labor, in some useful form, as a duty. If you give your children money for any purpose, teach them to make some return for it — to engage in some extra work about the house or farm or office. Make them feel that they must earn their enjoyment. Industry is a security against shiftlessness and a lavish use of money. There is no virtue like that of industry.

***

Cultivate the desire of your children for reading. First be a reader yourself, if possible; this will enable you to advise and direct the tastes of your children in this direction. Reading is not only valuable for the information it gives, but, what is of more value to the young, it redeems the hours from idleness and mischief. The habit of reading will keep your son in off the street at night, or from running over the country on idle days, in search of companions to help him kill time. It will turn the tastes of your daughter from the ballroom, and fit her for more cultivated society.

***

The very sight of a library is an inspiration.

***

A gentleman should never lower the intellectual standard in conversing with ladies. He should consider them as equal in understanding with himself. A lady of intelligence will not feel complimented by any means, if, when you talk to her, you “come down” to common-place topics.

***

A young lady should never walk the streets alone after dark.

***

READING gives fullness, writing exactness, and speaking readiness of information; but it remains for traveling to combine all of these things in one.

***

[…] the priceless essence of womanly worth which exists within the mind.

***

Women must have employment. Employment is the instrumentality, in making woman. No woman of health and sound mind should allow herself to be or feel dependent on anybody for her living. Thousands of women have no employment, and live through life in a state of abject dependence. What are they — what can they be, under such circumstances? They are nothing else than burdens to their fellow men. A woman can no more be a true woman than a man can be a true man, without employment and self-reliance. How can a woman who spends a listless, trifling life possess weight of character and force of mind and mental worth? How can she answer with honor to herself when she is called upon to do anything? Our homes are full of necessary and useful employment; girls must engage in it with zeal. Useful employment is the primary means of developing a true womanhood. Life is given that work may be done. We are here for a purpose. All young ladies should determine to do something for the honor and elevation of their sex. At least they should determine that they will possess and always wear about them, as their richest possession, a true womanhood.

***

Every such woman is a central sun, radiating intellectual and moral light, diffusing strength and life to all about her. Woman is the hope of the world.

***

When a couple become engaged, the gentleman presents the lady with a ring, which is worn on the right finger of the right hand.

***

The most approved bridal costume for young brides is of white silk, high corsage, a long veil of white tulle, reaching to the feet, and a wreath of maiden blush roses with orange blossoms. The roses she can continue to wear, but the orange blossoms are only suitable for the ceremony. 

***

The bridegroom and ushers, at a morning wedding, wear full morning dress, dark blue or black frock coats, or cut-aways, light neckties, and light trousers. The bridegroom wears white gloves. The ushers wear gloves of some delicate color.

***

When the bridal party has arranged itself for entrance, the ushers, in pairs, march slowly up to the altar, and turn to the right. Behind them follows the groom alone. When he reaches the altar, he turns, facing the aisle, to await the coming of his bride. After a slight interval, the bridesmaids follow, in pairs, and at the altar turn to the left. After another brief interval, the bride, alone and entirely veiled, with her eyes cast down, follows her companions. The groom comes forward a few steps to meet her, and taking her hand, places her at the altar. Both kneel for a moment’s silent devotion. The parents having followed her, stand just behind and partly to the left. The ceremony now proceeds as usual. While the bride and bridegroom are passing out of the church, the bridesmaids follow slowly, each upon the arm of an usher, and they afterward hasten on as speedily as possible to welcome the bride at her own door, and to arrange themselves about the bride and groom in the reception-room, half of the ladies upon her side and half upon his, the first bridesmaid retaining the place of honor.

***

A jeweled ring has been for many years the sign and symbol of betrothal, but at present a plain gold circlet with the date of the engagement inscribed within, is generally preferred. The ring is removed by the groom at the altar, passed to the clergyman and used in the ceremony. A jeweled ring is placed on her hand by the groom on the way home from church.

***

Wedding invitations should be handsomely engraved in script.

***

The invitation requires no answer. Friends living in other towns receiving it, enclose their cards and send by mail. The invitation to the wedding breakfast is enclosed in the same envelope, generally on a square card half the size of the sheet of note paper containing wedding invitation.

***

To every well-bred man and woman physical education is indispensable. It is the duty of a gentleman to know how to ride, to shoot, to fence, to box, to swim, to row, and to dance. He should be graceful. If attacked by ruffians, a man should be able to defend himself, and also to defend women from their insults. Dancing, skating, swimming, archery, games of lawn tennis, riding and driving, and croquet, all aid in developing and strengthening the muscles, and should be practiced by ladies. The better the physical training, the more self-possessed and graceful she will be. Open-air exercise is essential to good health and a perfect physical development.

***

Before we enter society we should subdue our gloomy moods. It is our duty to speak kindly and look pleasantly. Unless others make us the confidant of their woes, we should not inflict them with any dismal account of our health, state of mind or outward circumstances. We should appear sympathetic.

***

The art of being a good listener is almost as great as that of being a good talker; but you should do more than listen. It is your duty to seem interested in the conversation of those who are talking. To manifest impatience is a mark of low breeding.

***

THE PAPER, COTTON AND LEATHER WEDDINGS.  

The first anniversary of the wedding-day is called the paper wedding, the second the cotton wedding, and the third the leather wedding. Invitations to the first should be printed or written on a gray paper. Articles made of paper should be the only presents given.  

For the cotton wedding invitations should be printed on fine cotton cloth. Presents, if given, should be of articles of cotton cloth.  

Issue invitations for the leather wedding upon leather, nicely gotten up. Only presents of leather are appropriate.  

***

THE WOODEN WEDDING.  

The fifth anniversary of the marriage is called the wooden wedding. In issuing invitations use thin cards of wood, or enclose in an envelope a card of wood with invitation, which may be written upon wedding paper. Articles made of wood are suitable for presents.  

***

THE TIN WEDDING.  

The tin wedding is the tenth anniversary of the marriage. The invitations should be upon cards covered, with a tin card enclosed. Presents may be selected from the list of articles made of tin.  

***

THE CRYSTAL WEDDING.  

The fifteenth anniversary is called the crystal wedding. The invitations for this anniversary may be on wedding paper with a sheet of mica enclosed, thin transparent paper, or colored sheets of prepared gelatine. Presents should be articles of glass.  

***

THE FLORAL WEDDING.  

The floral wedding occurs on the twentieth anniversary of the wedding day. The invitations should be on exceedingly fine paper, elegantly printed and enclosed in an envelope, with a small pressed flower bearing a sentiment that you wish to express. If presents are offered, they may be tastefully arranged bouquets, wreaths or garlands, or floral emblems, suitable to that for which they are designed.  

***

THE SILVER WEDDING.  

The silver wedding is the twenty-fifth anniversary of the wedding-day. The invitations may be issued upon an excellent quality of note paper, printed in bright silver, with monogram or crest upon both paper and envelope, in silver also. Presents of silver are appropriate.  

***

THE PEARL WEDDING.  

The pearl wedding is the thirtieth anniversary. The invitations should be printed with pearl type on a very fine glazed card, oval-shaped, and of a silvery or bluish white color. Presents, if offered, should be articles of pearl.   

***

THE CHINA WEDDING.  

The china wedding is the thirty-fifth anniversary. The invitations for this wedding should be on a superior quality of fine, semi-transparent note paper or cards. Any article of china ware, useful or ornamental, is suitable for a present on this occasion.  

***

THE CORAL WEDDING.  

The coral wedding occurs on the fortieth anniversary of the marriage. Invitations maybe issued upon a fine wedding paper. Presents may be of white or red coral.  

***

THE BRONZE WEDDING.  

The forty-fifth anniversary of the wedding-day is called the bronze wedding. The invitations should be issued upon bronzed cards. Articles of bronze may be offered as presents.  

***

THE GOLDEN WEDDING.  

The close of half a century of married life is truly an event worthy of celebration. When man and wife have clung together and braved the storms of this life for fifty years, they certainly deserve hearty congratulations and offerings of gold. Invitations should be upon superfine note paper, printed in gold, with highly burnished crest or monogram on both paper and envelope. If presents are offered, they should be in gold.  

***

THE DIAMOND WEDDING.  

Diamond weddings are seldom celebrated. Few persons dwell together under the holy bonds of matrimony seventy-five years. So rare is the diamond wedding that no particular form of invitations is in use. A general offering of presents on this occasion is impossible, since the means of most persons will not admit of making gifts of diamonds.  

***

PRESENTS AT ANNIVERSARY WEDDINGS.  

Custom and the rules of etiquette do not require that an invitation to an anniversary wedding be acknowledged by a gift. The members of the family and intimate friends are usually the donors on such occasions, and may use their own judgment as to giving presents.   

It is not amiss and is generally customary in issuing invitations to a golden or silver wedding, to have printed at the bottom the words “No presents,” or to inclose a card announcing — “Presents are not expected.”  

***

INVITATIONS TO ANNIVERSARY WEDDINGS.  

Below is given a model invitation to an anniversary wedding. The names of the husband and wife, and the dates of the marriage and the anniversary may be inserted in their proper places.  

A proper variation will make the above form suitable for all anniversary weddings. 

***

THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY.  

The marriage ceremony is often repeated at silver or golden weddings. The officiating clergyman may so change the exact words of the marriage ceremony as to render them appropriate to the occasion. The earliest anniversaries are almost too mirthful occasions upon which to introduce this ceremony.

***

THE WEDDING DRESS.  

A full bridal costume should be white from head to foot. The dress may be of silk, heavily corded satin, or plain silk, merino, alpaca, crape, lawn or muslin. The veil may be of lace, tulle or illusion, but it must be long and full. It may or may not cover the face. Orange blossoms or other white flowers and maiden blush roses should form the bridal wreaths and bouquets. The dress is high, and the arms covered. Slippers of white satin and white kid gloves complete the dress.  

***

DRESS AT WEDDING RECEPTIONS.  

Full evening dress should be worn by the guests at evening receptions. No one should attend in black or mourning dress, which should give place to grey or lavender. At a morning reception of the wedded couple, guests should wear the richest street costume with white gloves.  

***

MOURNING.  

In the United States no prescribed periods for wearing mourning garments have been fixed upon. When the grief is profound no rules are needed. But where persons wear mourning for style and not for feeling, there is need of fixed rules. For deep mourning one should wear the heaviest black of serge, bombazine, lustreless alpaca, delaine, merino or similar heavily clinging material, with crape collar and cuffs. Mourning dresses should not be trimmed. No ruffles, bows, or flounces are admissible. The bonnet is of black crape; a hat should never be worn. The veil is of crape or barege with heavy border; black gloves are worn and black bordered handkerchiefs should be used. Black furs may be worn in winter. Jewelry is forbidden; jet pins and buckles should be used. Black silk and alpaca trimmed with crape may be worn for second mourning with white collars and cuffs. The crape veil is laid aside for net or tulle, but the jet jewelry is still retained. A less degree of mourning is worn of black and white, purple and gray, or a combination of these colors. Crape is retained in bonnet trimming and crape flowers may be added. Light gray, white and black, and light shades of lilac indicate a slight mourning. A black lace bonnet, with white or violet flowers, supersedes crape, and jet or gold jewelry is worn.  

***

PERIODS OF WEARING MOURNING.  

The deepest mourning is that worn by a widow for her husband. It is worn two years, sometimes longer. Widow’s mourning for the first year consists of solid black woolen goods, collar and cuffs of folded untrimmed crape, a simple crape bonnet, and a long, thick, black crape veil. The second year, silk trimmed with crape, black lace collar and cuffs, and a shorter veil may be worn, and in the last six months gray, violet and white are permitted. A widow should wear her hair perfectly plain, and should always wear a bonnet; never a hat.  

The mourning for a father or mother is worn for one year. The first six months the proper dress is of solid black woolen goods trimmed with crape, black crape bonnet with black crape facings and black strings, black crape veil, collar and cuffs of black crape. Three months, black silk with crape trimming, white or black lace collar and cuffs, veil of tulle and white bonnet facings; and the last three months in gray, purple and violet. Mourning worn for a child is the same as that worn for a parent.  

Mourning for a grandparent is worn for six months. Three months black woolen goods, white collar and cuffs, short crape veil and bonnet of crape trimmed with black silk or ribbon ; six weeks in black silk trimmed with crape, lace collar and cuffs, short tulle veil; and six weeks in gray, purple, white and violet.  

Mourning worn for a friend who leaves you an inheritance, is the same as that worn for a grandparent.  

Mourning for a brother or sister is worn for six months, two months in solid black trimmed with crape, white linen collar and cuffs, bonnet of black with white facing and black strings ; two months in black silk, with white lace collar and cuffs; and two months in gray, purple, white and violet.  

Mourning for an uncle or aunt is worn for three months, and is the second mourning named above, tulle, white linen and white bonnet facings being worn at once. For a nephew or niece, the same is worn for the same length of time.  

The deepest mourning excludes kid gloves; they should be of cloth, silk or thread; and no jewelry is permitted during the first month of close mourning. Embroidery, jet trimmings, puffs, plaits — in fact, trimming of any kind — is forbidden in deep mourning, but worn when it is lightened.  

Mourning handkerchiefs should be of very sheer fine linen, with a border of black, very wide for close mourning, narrower as the black is lightened.  

Mourning silks should be perfectly lustreless, and the ribbons worn without any gloss.  

Ladies invited to funeral ceremonies should always wear a black dress, even if they are not in mourning; and it is bad taste to appear with a gay bonnet or shawl, as if for a festive occasion.  

The mourning for children under twelve years of age is white in summer and gray in winter, with black trimmings, belt, sleeve ruffles and bonnet ribbons.  

***

LETTER WRITING.

LETTER writing, practically considered, is the most important of all kinds of composition. It is indispensable in business, for much of business must be done by correspondence. A person who is able to write well is more likely to be called to a desirable situation than he who is deficient in the art. By letter writing, much can be done to maintain and strengthen our social ties. In receiving letters from absent friends, there is a pleasure that no one would wish to forego. The culture of a person is plainly indicated by his letters; “and it is as great a violation of propriety to send an awkward and badly written letter, as it is to appear in the company of refined people, with swaggering gait, soiled linen, and unkempt hair.” Letter writing is a practical exercise in English composition, and can be practiced by persons of any age or position. Many distinguished writers of other kinds of composition, have acquired much of their power of expression by their practice of writing letters. The advantages of the art are so obvious that arguments in its favor are not a necessity.  

***

PAPER.  

Most of the letters written now-a-days are on note paper. That called “commercial note” is generally used by gentlemen; smaller sizes are preferred by ladies. A private letter should never be written on foolscap paper. If its use be necessary, an apology should be made for it. A social letter ought to be written on a whole sheet of paper; and except on business, a half-sheet letter should never be sent. For any kind of letter no color is more tasteful than white, and gentlemen should use it exclusively. Paper delicately tinted and perfumed may be used by a lady; but its use by a gentleman would be out of taste. Paper with a black border is called “mourning paper;” this, with envelopes to match, may be used by persons who mourn the loss of a relative. “The width of the border should correspond somewhat to the nearness of the relationship and the recentness of the bereavement.” Ruled or plain paper maybe used without violating good taste; but unruled paper is preferable because it is more stylish, and furnishes opportunity for writing much or little on a page. The practice of putting lines under plain paper to aid in writing straight, is not to be commended, since it consumes time and prevents the proper discipline of the hand. 

***

ENVELOPES.  

The envelope should be of the same color or tint as that of the paper, and should be a little longer than the width of the written page. In their correspondence with one another, gentlemen may use either white or buff envelopes; “but it is not allowable to send a buff envelope to a lady, nor do ladies use that kind at all.” It is necessary to avoid the use of inferior paper and envelopes; fine paper seems to inspire fine thoughts.  

***

INK.  

Black ink is in better taste than fancy inks, and is more desirable and durable. A letter ought not to be written with red ink. From the fact that black ink does not fade, it is used exclusively for copying records in the War Department at Washington.  

***

HEADING.  

The heading is “a statement of the place where, and the time when, a letter was written.” If the “place” is in a large city, the heading should give the number, the street, the city and the state. The name of the state may be omitted if the locality is in a very large city. It is regarded as absurd to write, “220 Nassau Street, New York City, N. Y.” When a letter is written at a place outside of a city, the heading should embrace the name of the post- office and that of the state. The name of the county should be given in the heading of a business letter, and ought to be named in all letters, unless the writer is corresponding from a place whose locality is well known to the person addressed. The date consists of the month, the day of the month, and the year, as, “Nov. 12, 1882.” When the day of the week is important, it is written at the beginning of the date: “Saturday, Nov. 12, 1882.” The year is often omitted, when it is of less consideration than the day of the week. The heading may occupy from one to three lines, and “should begin on the first line, a little to the left of the middle.” A short heading can be written on one line, and it may be laid down as a rule, that the heading should contain as few lines as possible consistent with neatness. The model headings that follow indicate the position that the beginning of each line should occupy, and also show the punctuation of the parts of the heading. Business letters are always dated at the top. Social letters and those written in the third person are often dated at the bottom without violating any rule of propriety. When this is done, “the place and date must be begun near the left edge of the paper, on the next line below that on which the signature is written.”

***

THE INTRODUCTION.  

The introduction consists of the address and the salutation. The address comprises the title and name of the person written to, and his directions. In the following example: Mr. John J. Curtis, 23 High St., Boston; Mr. John J. Curtis is the title and name, and 23 High St., Boston, the directions. This address is the same as that which is put upon envelopes, and is called the “inside address” to distinguish it from the superscription, which is called the “outside address.” The name should be written so that it can be read easily, and politeness requires that some title should be added to it. As a rule, two titles can not be joined to one name; but to this there are two exceptions. When addressing a clergyman whose surname alone is known to us, we may write Rev. Mr. Spears, the Mr. being regarded as a substitute for the Christian name; and if a married man has a professional or literary title prefixed to his name, Mrs. may be used before it to denote his wife, as Mrs. Secretary Blaine. The directions must comprise the name of the post-office nearest the person addressed, and the state in which it is situated. The name of the county is necessary if the post-office is in a town not well known. If it be in a city, the number of the house, the street, the city, and the state should be given. The name of the state can be omitted if the post-office be in a large city. In business letters the address should be in full, and it ought to be found in every letter since the envelope is liable to be torn or lost, thus preventing the communication from reaching the person to whom it was written. The salutation is the term of politeness used to introduce a letter, as Dear Sir, My Dear Friend, My Honored, Father. Business letters generally begin with Sir, Dear Sir, Sirs, or Gentlemen. Never use “Gents.” for Gentlemen, nor “Dr.” for Dear. For a letter addressed to a married woman or a single woman not young, the proper salutation is Madam, Dear Madam, or My Dear Madam. In a business letter to a young unmarried lady, the address alone is generally used as introduction, that the repetition of Miss may be avoided. The kinds of salutation used depend upon the feelings of the writer and his relation to the person addressed. Extravagant salutations, such as Darlingest of Darlings should not be indulged in, since to sensible people the expressions sound flat and silly. Under the heading Models of Introduction, various forms of salutation can be seen. The place of the address in business letters and in those addressed to persons with whom we have but little acquaintance, is at the top of the page; in letters to relatives or very intimate friends, the address should be written at the bottom. The address should be on the first line below the date, and should begin at the marginal line that is from one-fourth of an inch to one inch from the left edge of the sheet. It may occupy from one to three lines. The first line should contain only the name and title, the second should contain the directions, if the last word is an abbreviation or a short word; but if the last item be a long word, it should be on the third line. The initial letters on the lines containing the address should be in a line sloping downward to the right as may be seen in the models. When the address makes three lines, the position of the first letter of the salutation is under the initial letter of the items on the second line of the address (Model 1), or under that of the first (Model 2). The former arrangement is preferred. If the address makes two lines, the salutation should begin about one inch from the initial letter of the second line (Model 3), or else under the initial letter of the first line (Model 4). When the address is on one line, the salutation should begin about one inch to the right of the marginal line (Model 5). If there is no address at the top, the salutation begins at the marginal line (Model 6). The salutation in familiar letters is often incorporated in the first sentence of the letter. When this occurs, the letter begins almost one-sixth of the distance from the left edge of the paper to the right edge (Model 7). Irregularity prevails in the punctuation of the introduction, but the following models give sufficient information on the subject for correct and polite letter writing:  

***

BODY OF THE LETTER.  

The body of the letter is that part of the communication that is between the introduction and conclusion. It should begin under the end of the salutation; but when the address is long, it may begin on the same line, a comma and a dash, or a colon and a dash, being placed between the last word of the salutation and the first word of the letter. (See Model 3 under Models of Introduction.)  

A blank margin that varies with the width of the paper should always be left on the left hand side of each page. The margin should be perfectly even, and should never be so wide or so narrow as to go beyond the limits of taste. On large letter-paper it should be about an inch; on note-paper, about three-eighths of an inch. When the sheet is quite small, a quarter of an inch is sufficient. A letter should be divided into paragraphs according to the rules for other composition. The first word of a paragraph should begin about one-sixth of the way across the line from left to right.  

The penmanship should be legible, neat, and elegant. Flourishes in a letter are out of place, skipping pages is not to be commended, crossing letters is not entirely respectful to the person addressed and blots and interlineations are not allowable.  

The closing lines of the body of the letter are usually some expression of respect or attachment; as in the following examples:  

“Deign, madam, to receive the assurance of my respectful attachment.”  

“Accept, madam, the homage of my respect.”  

“The sentiments with which you have inspired me, sir, are equally sincere and permanent.”  

“My tender and respectful attachment will end only with my life.”  

“I have the honor to be, sir, with sentiments of respect and consideration.”  

The closing lines, such as the preceding, are found with the ordinary formula that constitutes the conclusion. 

***

THE CONCLUSION.  

The conclusion consists of the complimentary close, and the signature; it also contains the address of the person written to, if the same is not found in the introduction.  

The complimentary close is the phrase of respect used at the end of a letter. It admits of a great variety of forms on social letters, such as your friend, ever yours, your affectionate father, etc.; but in letters written on business, or to strangers and mere acquaintances, the usual form is yours truly, or yours respectfully, which admits of but slight variation, as yours very truly, or truly yours. Official letters have a more formal close than others, as:  

I have the honor to be, sir, with the highest consideration,  

Your obedient servant,  

A. B.  

The signature is the name of the writer, and it should be attached to every letter, the name being written plainly and in full. If the writer is a lady, she should sign her name so as to indicate her sex, and whether she is married or single, this can be done by prefixing Miss or Mrs. A married lady generally uses her husband’s name, to which she prefixes the title Mrs. if he is living; otherwise, she should use her own name.  

The position for the complimentary close is on the line immediately below the body of the letter and may occupy from one to three lines.  

The signature is written near the right-hand edge of the sheet, on the line below the complimentary close.  

The close and the signature must be arranged so that the initial letter of the lines will present a regular slope downward and to the right.  

If the address is not written at the top of the letter, it should be placed at the close, the beginning of the first word being located at the marginal line and on the line immediately below the signature.  

The proper punctuation of the complimentary close and the signature can be learned by consulting the […]

***

FOLDING.  

Folding is a very simple matter, but it is often very awkwardly done.  

The paper should be folded so that the edges of the letter will be exactly even. The folds ought to be pressed with the thumb or a paper knife, so as to give them a neat appearance. Fine paper, of medium thickness, is most suitable for letters. The letter should be inserted in such a manner that, when taken out in the usual way and unfolded, it will be right end up.  

***

THE SUPERSCRIPTION.  

The superscription is the address written on the envelope, and consists of the name and title of the person to whom the letter is sent, and his full directions. It is called the outside address, to distinguish it from the address at the head or foot of the letter. What is said concerning those three items in the remark on the “inside address,” applies with equal fitness to the “outside address,” and need not be mentioned here.  

The upper edge of the envelope is the open one. Have that edge from you when you write the superscription, otherwise it will be upside down. The writing should be in straight lines, parallel with the upper edge of the envelope; the foolish affectation of writing diagonally across the corner is to be avoided. It is out of taste to use envelopes that are ruled either by a pen or some sharp-pointed instrument for making indentations. If you can not write straight without lines, slip into the envelope a card ruled heavily, so that the lines will show through. This may be used till straight lines can be written without the aid of ruled envelopes. The name should be a little below the middle of the envelope, the initial letter being near the left edge, “sometimes close to it, sometimes one or two inches from it, according to circumstances; and the other parts should be written at equal distances under it, each a little farther to the right, so that the last part shall come near the right-hand corner.”  

***

THE STAMP.  

Before sending a letter, affix to it a proper stamp. The communication will not be forwarded unless it is prepaid one full rate.  

The stamp should be affixed to the upper right-hand corner of the face of the envelope, at about one-sixteenth of an inch from the top and one-eighth of an inch from the end.  

The stamp is a picture, and should be right end up its edges being parallel with those of the envelope. “Putting the stamp on upside down or awry indicates carelessness rather than rapidity, and any appearance of carelessness in a letter is disrespectful to the person to whom it is sent.”  

Be sure to put on an envelope as many stamps as are necessary to send the letter; two stamps should be used if you are not certain that one is sufficient.  

***

A LETTER OF INTRODUCTION.  

As a guide is to a man in an unknown land, so is a letter of introduction to a man in a strange community. A person going to a strange place ought to be prepared with, such a valuable aid. A letter of this kind properly prepared must be brief, and must contain the full name and address of the person introduced, to which should be added an expression stating the pleasure that you think the new acquaintance will create. A letter of introduction may be sealed by the person introduced, but not by the writer. A gentleman delivering to a lady a letter that introduces him is at liberty to call upon her. By sending her a card he can ascertain whether it is more convenient to receive him then or appoint another hour that is more convenient.  

Great caution must be exercised in giving a letter of introduction. The writer must be well acquainted with the one introduced and with the person to whom he writes. A well-bred gentleman or lady who is the recipient of such a letter will, in twenty-four hours, attend to the demands of the letter by inviting the person introduced to dine, or engage in some agreeable pastime or amusement.  

A letter of introduction is often left with a card; in such a case a gentleman in the family may call upon the stranger the following day, or he may send a card with an invitation. Should the letter introduce a gentleman to a lady, she may answer by a note of invitation appointing a time for him to call.  

***

FAMILY LETTERS.  

Letters written from one member of a family to another are less formal than any other kind of epistolary correspondence. They should exhibit some characteristics of the writer; should contain information on minor matters as well as on subjects of more importance; and should be written so as to give the greatest amount of satisfaction to the recipient.  

***

LETTERS OF FRIENDSHIP. 

Letters of friendship are more formal than family letters, contain less gossip, and embrace matters in which both the writer and recipient are interested. Such letters should be answered with sufficient promptness to keep alive the friendship between the correspondents, unless there be a desire for this to cool.  

***

THE BUSINESS LETTER.  

This should be embraced in a few words and should relate directly to the business in hand. If an apology or explanation is necessary, let it be inserted after the business portion of the letter is finished. A business letter should be answered as soon as possible after its receipt. The response in some cases, may be on the same page with the original letter; but this kind of reply should not be made, save when the points in question are few and brief.  

There is a difference between an ordinary promissory note and a note payable in bank, that every person should understand. These notes are equally binding as to the original parties, but when transferred, the conditions change. A person in purchasing an ordinary note simply takes the place of the original payee, and is liable to any offset the payer may have. On the other hand, a note payable in bank, in the hands of a third party, is collectible whatever may be the offset against it, or whatever the fraud practiced in securing it; provided, the holder when buying the note was ignorant of such fraud. Sharpers often take advantage of people not understanding the nature of a bank note. A person is often induced to sign a note with a written contract, that it is not to be paid unless certain conditions are fulfilled. The note is then detached from the contract and sold to an innocent purchaser and is then collectible, whatever the fraud may have been. A plain note under such circumstances would not be collectible. All notes are transferable whatever be their form. Notes may provide for attorney’s fees or not as parties agree. All notes must read for value received. A bank note to have all its force must be transferred before due. A note does not draw interest unless it is specified in the note.  

***

LETTERS OF CONGRATULATION AND CONDOLENCE.  

They should be brief, and confined to the matter for which you offer your congratulations or condolence. A letter of congratulation may be written to any acquaintance whom you wish to inform of the pleasure you derive from his success; while a letter of condolence should be sent only to intimate friends or relatives, and should express real feeling for those in bereavement.  

***

THE LOVE LETTER.  

A love letter should be dignified in tone and expressive of esteem and affection. It should be free from silly and extravagant expressions, and contain nothing of which the writer would be ashamed were the letter to fall under the eyes of any person beside the one to whom it was written.  

***

REPLIES.  

A reply should promptly follow the receipt of a letter; it can not be civilly delayed for any great length of time. It is customary to begin a reply by noticing the date of the letter to which an answer is given.  

One of the following forms is generally adopted : 

“I hasten to answer the letter which you did me the honor of writing on the ;”  

“I have received the letter with which you honored me on the ;”  

“I have not been able, until this moment, to answer the letter which you did me the honor of writing on the .”  

***

RULES OF EPISTOLARY COMPOSITION.  

1. Every letter is of some importance: remember this before you begin to write.  

2. Do not consult grammarians, or lexicons, when you write a letter; depend rather on an attentive perusal of the best epistolary authors of both sexes. Study the letters of women in preference to those of men.  

3. Before you begin a letter, imagine that you are in the presence of the absent person; converse with him, pen in hand.  

4. Julius Caesar dictated several letters at once; do not imitate the Dictator of Rome, compose but one letter at a time.  

5. In your letters to a man in office, or to a protector, beware of exhibiting more intellect than he possesses.  

6. Do not write a letter of reproof, immediately after a liberal repast.  

7. Never write long letters to persons in easy circumstances.  

8. During your whole life, write to your instructors or instructresses with as much respect and gratitude as to your parents.  

9. In your letters, ask nothing and refuse nothing, which would cause you to blush, if you were to make the request or denial in person.  

10. Write all your letters in a simple style; especially those which are addressed to the unlearned, and to men of sense.  

11. When you propose to be laconic in your letters, avoid dryness; a dry style is the evidence of a barren mind.  

12. A letter is like a nosegay; the thoughts should be well assorted.  

13. In a crowd of persons, there are no two countenances exactly alike; let the case be the same with your letters.  

14. Speak of your friends, as if they were present; write to them in the same manner.  

15. In your letters, accommodate yourself to the respective capacities of your correspondents. A young man should slacken his pace, when he walks with an old gentleman, or with a lady.  

16. Do not amass a previous store of brilliant or profound ideas in order to dispose of them in your letters as occasion may require. In the epistolary style, it is especially true, that we must live from day to day.  

17. Every kind of style may enter into the composition of letters. In this respect everything depends on the subject and the writer. The sublime does not exclude simplicity; on the contrary, it includes it.  

18. If you can not avoid superfluities, in your letters, be incorrect rather than pedantic.  

19. Do not meditate long before writing a letter; but invariably revise it, after it is written.  

20. Be sparing in the use of puns in conversation; employ them still more sparingly in your letters.  

21. A father and son should not address each other as companions; but the letters of brothers may resemble those of friends.  

22. The mutual letters of a married pair, when absent from each other, should be affectionate and delicate. Many things should be the mere subjects of conjecture; they may occasionally be spoken, but never committed to writing.  

23. Let your tongue and your pen have full scope; but act like a skillful horseman, and let them constantly feel, that they shall be free, only while they abstain from abusing the liberty which you grant to them in your conversations or letters.  

24. Be brief when you write to magistrates; they have neither time nor patience to read long epistles.  

25. Where you inflict censure, or bestow praise in your letters, be concise.  

26. Let every expression in your letters have the air of civility. This will render affected compliments and politeness unnecessary. Too many persons are polite in order to avoid civility.  

27. Never send a letter which has produced weariness or trouble in writing. It would certainly weary the reader.  

28. When you are thirsty, you drain a cup at a single draught. Attend to the proper time for composition, and let your letter be commenced and finished, as it were with a single stroke of the pen.  

29. In all your conversations, forbear to sacrifice truth to considerations of civility or respect; avoid the same fault in your letters. A spoken falsehood is a great evil; a written falsehood is a still greater one.  

30. As the first thoughts are often the best, be careful to answer a letter without delay. No harm, however, will result from deferring the reply for a day or two, especially if it relates to an affair of importance.  

***

NOTES.  

NOTES, as considered in this book, are brief messages pertaining to transient and local interest, by which persons in the same community make known to one another their wishes, compliments or commands Notes, or billets, differ from ordinary letters in the four particulars: First, they are more formal; second, they are written wholly, or partly, in the third person; third, the date is generally at the bottom; fourth, they are without signature. Notes are appropriately used between equals in all matters of ceremony, such as weddings and dinners, and in brief communications between persons but slightly acquainted. They may be used between unequals in any brief and formal message.  

It is difficult to write a note in the third person, and great care must be taken not to change from the third person to the first or second.  

The paper and envelopes used for notes should be plain and of the best quality. White paper is always in good taste. For weddings no other kind is allowable, but for other occasion delicate tints may be used. The styles of note are constantly varying, hence no definite size or shape can be given.  

Wedding notes always bear a monogram consisting of the combined initials of the bridegroom and bride. Besides the fine envelopes that enclose what is written, outside envelopes, as a protection, are generally used. These are indispensable when notes are sent by mail. In such cases the full address should be written on the outside envelope, and the name only on the inner one.  

***

STYLE.  

The most fashionable notes are characterized by simplicity. The language is concise, courteous, plain and beautiful. Flourishes are out of place. Refined taste exhibits itself in richness of material, beauty of form, harmony of parts, and perfect adaptation to circumstances, rather than in excessive display.  

***

INVITATIONS- WEDDING.  

Wedding invitations are issued by the parents or nearest friends of the bride, about ten days before the ceremony. They may be written or printed on note paper or on cards, but for all ceremonious invitations the note form is preferred. Notes printed from engraved plates are greatly superior to those printed from type, and are used almost exclusively by fashionable people. When an answer is desired, the letters “R. S. V. P.” or the words, “The favor of an answer is requested,” are written or printed at the bottom.  

***

ANNOUNCEMENTS.  

ANNIVERSARY WEDDINGS, DINNERS, PARTIES,  

RECEPTIONS AND BALLS.  

These topics are treated of with sufficient fullness in the chapters on their respective subjects, and need not be noticed here, since in the proper connection model notes for invitations are given.  

***

ACCEPTANCES AND REGRETS . 

An acceptance is an affirmative answer; a regret is a non-acceptance. An invitation to a dinner should be promptly accepted or declined. Wedding invitations and receptions do not require an acceptance unless they contain the letters “R. S. V. P.” or their equivalent. This may be said of invitations to parties and balls. Invitations to weddings, receptions and balls should be answered, if an answer is required, not later than the third day. The answer to a joint note from a husband and wife, should be addressed on the envelope to the wife alone; but the answer should contain within it a recognition of both persons.  

***

SUPERSCRIPTION AND DELIVERY.  

The superscription on the envelope proper consists of the name alone, written as on an ordinary letter.  

The former practice of writing “present” under the name is now discarded. “The outside envelope should have upon it the full address of the person who receives it.”  

Notes are usually delivered by a private messenger; but the mail is used to convey notes to persons living in another town or city, or in distant parts of the same city.  

***

CARDS.  

To cultured and refined people, the visiting card conveys an unmistakable intelligence; but to the uncultured and unrefined, it is nothing more than a bit of paper, which to them has no significance whatever. The social position of a stranger is often determined by the texture, style of engraving, and the hour of leaving a card — indeed, the card is an exponent of one’s social standing. A perfect breeding may be easily expressed in the fashionable formalities of cards. The elegance of social forms are observed and preserved in proportion to the degree of culture and civilization of any community. Cards should be of fine texture, in plain script, or nicely written, and of medium size.  

***

CALLING CARDS.  

Nothing but the name should be on a card used in calling. The street and number may be on the card of the husband, but when necessary may be written in pencil by a lady. A business card must not be used for a friendly call. A physician may put the prefix “Dr,” or the affix “M. D.,” upon his card, and an army or navy officer his rank and branch of service.  

***

CARD TO SERVE FOR CALLS.  

A card may be made to serve the purpose of a call. It may be sent in an envelope, or left in person. In the latter case, one corner should be turned down, if for the lady of the house. Fold the card in the middle, if you wish to indicate that the call is on several, or all the members of the family. Leave a card for each guest, should any be visiting at the house.  

***

A CARD ENCLOSED IN AN ENVELOPE.  

A card enclosed in an envelope for the purpose of returning a call made in person, expresses a desire that visiting between the parties be ended. When such is not the intention, cards should not be enclosed in an envelope. P. P. C. cards are sent by post, and are the only cards that are, as yet, universally considered admissible to be sent in this way. Cards sent to the newly married living in other cities, or in answering wedding cards forwarded when absent from home, may be enclosed and sent by post.  

***

SIZE AND STYLE.  

The cards of unmarried or married men should be small. For married persons a medium size is in better taste than a large card. The engraving in simple writing is preferred, and without flourishes. Printed letters, large or small, are very commonplace, no matter what the type may be. The “Mr.” before the name should be dispensed with by young men.  

***

CARD FOR MOTHER AND DAUGHTER.  

A young lady may, with propriety, have cards of her own; or her name may be engraved or printed on her mother’s cards, both in script. It is also fashionable for the daughter’s name to be printed on the same card with the names of her father and mother.  

***

WEDDING CARDS.  

Wedding cards are only sent to those people whom the newly married couple desire to keep among their acquaintances, and it is then the duty of those receiving the cards to call first on the young couple.  

***

P. P. C. CARDS.  

“P. P. C.” (Pour prendre conge) should be written in one corner of a card left at a farewell visit, before a long protracted absence. Such cards may be sent by messenger, or by post, it not being necessary to deliver them in person. It is not customary to send “P. P. C.” cards when the absence from home is only for a few months, nor when starting in midsummer for a foreign country. They are sent by ladies just previous to their contemplated marriage to serve the purpose of a call.  

***

LEAVE CARDS IN MAKING FIRST CALLS.  

In making the first calls of the season, both ladies and gentlemen should each leave a card, at every house called upon, even if the ladies are receiving. The number and street should be written on the cards of young gentlemen.  

***

LEAVE CARDS AFTER AN INVITATION.  

Cards must be left with those who have sent invitations, whether accepted or not. If it is desired to end the acquaintance, the cards can be left without inquiring whether the ladies are at home, but they must be left in person.  

When gentlemen are only on terms of formal visiting, they should not expect to receive invitations from ladies, until the yearly autumnal call has been made, or until their cards have been left to represent themselves.  

***

A BRIDEGROOM’S CARD.  

The bridegroom often sends his bachelor card (enclosed in an envelope) to those of his acquaintances with whom he wishes to continue on visiting terms. Those who receive a card should call on the bride, within ten days after she has taken possession of her new home.  

***

FUNERALS.  

THE saddest of all duties to perform is our duty to the dead. It becomes us to show in every possible way our sympathies for the bereaved and the deepest respect for the solemn occasion. Of late, forms of ostentation at funerals are gradually diminishing, and by some even mourning habiliments are rejected in whole or in part.  

***

INVITATION TO A FUNERAL.  

It is customary in cities to give notice of death and announcement of funeral through the newspaper, but for fear it will not reach all in time, invitations are sent to personal and family friends of the deceased.  

Private invitations are usually printed on fine small note paper with a heavy black border, and in such form as the following:  

***

FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS.  

It is customary to trust the details of the arrangements for a funeral to some relative or friend of the family; or, if there be none such, it can be safely left with the undertaker. It is prudent to name a limit for the expenses of the funeral, and the means of the family should of course govern this. Pomp and display should always be avoided. The lesson of death is too solemn to be made the occasion of mere show.  

***

THE HOUSE OF MOURNING.

Upon entering the house of mourning the hat should be removed, and all loud talking or confusion avoided. All differences and quarrels should be forgotten and enemies who meet at a funeral should treat each other with respect and dignity. No calls of condolence should be made upon the bereaved family while the dead remains in the house, and members of the family may be excused from receiving any but their most intimate friends at that time. The bell knob or door handle is draped with black crape, with a black ribbon tied on, if the deceased is married or advanced in years, and with a white ribbon if young or unmarried.  

***

FUNERAL SERVICES.  

If the services are held at the house, some near friend or relative will receive the guests. The immediate members of the family and near relatives should take a final view of the corpse just before the arrival of the guests, and should not make their appearance again until about time for the services to commence. The clergyman in taking his position should accommodate himself to the hearing of all, if possible, but especially to the family and near relatives, who will probably be in a room to themselves. In such case he should stand in the doorway. The guests will have taken a last look at the corpse before seating themselves, and at the conclusion of the services the coffin lid is closed, and the remains are borne to the hearse. The custom of opening the coffin at church, unless the person is one of distinguished prominence, is fast falling into disuse.  

***

THE PALL-BEARERS.  

The pall-bearers, usually six, but sometimes eight in number, are generally chosen from the intimate acquaintances of the deceased, and of nearly the same age. If they walk to the cemetery, they take their position in equal numbers on either side of the hearse.  

***

ORDER OF THE PROCESSION.  

The carriages containing the clergymen and pall-bearers precede the hearse, immediately followed by the carriages of the nearest relatives, more distant relatives and friends, respectively. When societies or masonic bodies take part in the procession they precede the hearse. The horse of a deceased mounted military officer, fully caparisoned and draped in mourning, will be led immediately after the hearse. As the mourners pass out to enter the carriages, the guests stand with uncovered heads. No salutations are given or received. The person who officiates as master of ceremonies assists the mourners to enter and alight from the carriages. At the cemetery the clergyman or priest precedes the coffin.  

***

FLORAL DECORATIONS.  

The decorations for the coffin are usually flowers, arranged in a beautiful wreath for a child or young person, and a cross for a married person. The flowers are mostly white. Friends may send floral devices as a mark of esteem. These should be sent in time for decorative purposes.  

***

CALLS UPON THE BEREAVED FAMILY.  

Friends may call upon the bereaved family in a week after burial and acquaintances within a month. It is the custom for friends to wear no bright colors when making their calls of condolence. Short notes of condolence may be sent as an expression of sympathy. Formal notes of condolence are no longer sent.  

***

HABILIMENTS OF MOURNING.  

Custom prescribes some indication of one’s bereavement in their dress. They who choose to adopt this custom may do so with perfect propriety. The widow dresses in mourning for life, or until a subsequent marriage. For the loss of a brother or sister or son or daughter, six months or -a year, as they may prefer.  

***

WASHINGTON ETIQUETTE.  

To our National Capital, where social standing is determined by official rank, there are some special rules of etiquette which we shall briefly notice in this chapter.  

***

THE PRESIDENT.  

The President is regarded as “the first man in the nation,” socially as well as officially. There is no special set of formalities necessary for forming his acquaintance. He receives calls, but is not required to return them. He is addressed as “Mr. President” or “Your Excellency.”  

When the President gives up the morning hours to receiving calls, those who have business with him take precedence over those who have not. In either case the caller is summoned into the room occupied by the President’s secretaries. Here he presents his card and is shown in to the President. The person who has no business with the President simply pays his respects and withdraws. On a private call it is always better to secure the services of some official, or friend of the President, to go with you and introduce you.  

***

RECEPTIONS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.  

While congress is in session, stated receptions are given at the White House which all are permitted to attend. The caller gives his name to the usher upon entering the reception room. The usher announces the name, and as the caller approaches the President, he is introduced by an official appointed for that purpose. Having been presented to the President and the members of his family, the guest passes on and mingles in the social intercourse of those assembled. A caller may leave his card if he wishes.  

***

PRESIDENTIAL STATE DINNERS.  

At state dinners given by the President, the same rules prevail as at any other formal dinner, but precedence is given to the guests according to official station. An invitation from the President can not be refused, and it affords a sufficient excuse for breaking any other engagement; but the parties with whom you may have other engagements should be informed of your invitation from the President.  

***

MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL FAMILY.  

The wife of the President is not obliged to return calls, though she may visit those who are special friends, or whom she wishes to honor by her company.  

The other members of the President’s family may receive and return calls.  

***

NEW YEARS RECEPTIONS AT THE WHITE HOUSE.  

New Year’s receptions are the most ceremonious occasions which occur at the White House. Ladies appear in the most elegant toilets suitable for a morning reception, and members of foreign legations appear in the court dress of their respective nationalities.  

***

ORDER OF OFFICIAL RANK.  

Next in rank to the President are, the Chief Justice, the Vice-President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives. These receive the first visits from all others. Next in order are the General of the Army, and the Admiral of the Navy. All these, so far mentioned, receive the first call from the representatives. The wife of any official is entitled to the same social precedence as her husband. Among officers of the army and navy, the Lieu tenant- General corresponds to the Vice- Admiral, the Major-General to the Rear- Admiral, Brigadier- General to Commodore, Colonel to Captain in the navy, and so on.  

***

CABINET OFFICERS.  

On all ordinary occasions the cabinet officers take equal rank. When it becomes necessary in state ceremony to have some order of precedence, it is as follows:  

Secretary of State, of the Treasury, of War, of the Navy, the Postmaster-General, Secretary of the Interior, Attorney-General.  

The wives of the cabinet officers, or the ladies of the household, give receptions on every Wednesday during the season, from the first of January till Lent. On these occasions, all who wish to do so, are at liberty to call, and refreshments are served. The ladies of the family are under obligations to return these calls and leave the cards of the cabinet officers, with an invitation to an evening reception. 

Cabinet officers are expected to entertain, by dinners and otherwise, senators, representatives and other high officials and distinguished visitors at Washington, as well as the ladies of their respective families. Hours for calling at the capital are usually from two till half past five.  

***

SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.  

It is optional with senators, representatives and all other officials, except President and cabinet officers, whether they entertain.  

***

FOREIGN TITLES.  

In this country where titles are not handed down from father to son, but won, if at all, by each for himself, we naturally know but little of hereditary titles. In Europe it is quite different, and, as many of our citizens go abroad, it will be well that they be informed upon this subject. For, in Europe, to fail to give a person his or her proper title is a serious breach of manners, and one not readily overlooked,  

***

ROYALTY.  

The head of the social structure in England is the King and Queen. They are addressed under the form “Your Majesty.” Second in rank is the Prince of Wales, heir- apparent to the throne. The other children while in their minority are all known as princes and princesses. The eldest of the princesses is the crown princess. When they attain to their majority the princes become dukes, and the princesses retain their former title, adding that of their husbands when they marry. Members of the royal house are all designated as “Their Royal Highnesses.”  

***

THE NOBILITY.  

A duke who inherits the title from his father is one grade below a royal duke. The wife of a duke is a duchess. They are both addressed as “Your Grace.” The eldest son of a duke is styled a marquis until he comes into possession of his father’s title. His wife is a marchioness. The younger sons of a duke are by courtesy called lords, and the daughters have the title of lady prefixed to their Christian names. An earl or a baron is spoken of as a lord, and his wife as a lady, though to the lady the title of countess or baroness would rightly belong. The daughters of an earl are ladies, the younger sons of both earls and barons are honorables. Bishops receive the title of lord, but with them it is not hereditary.  

***

THE GENTRY.  

Baronets are addressed as “Sirs,” and their wives receive the title of lady; but they are only commoners of a higher degree. A clergyman by right of his calling stands on an equality with all commoners, a bishop with all peers.  

***

ESQUIRE.  

In England the title of Esquire is not merely an empty compliment, as it is in this country. The following have a legal right to the title:  

The sons of peers, whether known as lords or honorables.  

The eldest sons of peers’ sons, and their eldest sons in perpetual descent.  

All the sons of baronets.  

All esquires of the Knights of the Bath.  

Lords of manors, chiefs of clans, and other tenants of the crown in capite, are esquires by prescription.  

Esquires, created to that rank by patent, and their sons in perpetual succession.  

Esquires by office, such as justices of the peace while on the roll, mayors of towns during mayoralty, and sheriffs of counties.  

Members of the House of Commons  

Barristers at law.  

Bachelors of divinity, law and physic. All who in commissions signed by the sovereign are ever styled esquires, retain that title for life.  

***

IMPERIAL RANK.  

Emperors and empresses rank higher than kings and queens. The sons and daughters of the Emperor of Austria are styled archdukes and archduchesses.  

***

EUROPEAN TITLES.  

Titles in continental Europe are so common and so often unsustained by landed or moneyed interests, that they have not the same significance which they hold in England. Many who have inherited high titles have nothing but the empty name. This is frequently the case in Germany, and still more often so in Italy.  

***

January — Garnet. Constancy and Fidelity.
November — Topaz. Fidelity and friendship.

***

Link: https://www.archive.org/details/americanetiquett00houg/mode/1up

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Excerpts from The Ladies Book of Etiquette, and Manual of Politeness by Florence Hartley, 1860

I will be sharing several interesting excerpts from the books that I have been reading as of late. This one is an etiquette book for ladies written by Florence Hartley, a Victorian writer, in 1860 entitled The Ladies Book of Etiquette, and Manual of Politeness. I will also put the link to the full text at the end of the excerpts if you want to read the complete work.

Let’s begin.

Miss S—— expects a few friends, on Monday evening next, at 8 o’clock, to take part in some dramatic readings, and would be happy to have Miss G—— join the party.

***

Always date your note of invitation, and put your address in one corner.

***

If your party meet for reading, have a table with the books in the centre of the apartment, that will divide the room, those reading being on one side, the listeners on the other. Be careful here not to endeavor to shine above your guests, leaving to them the most prominent places, and taking, cheerfully, a subordinate place. On the other hand, if you are urged to display any talent you may possess in this way, remember your only desire is to please your guests, and if they are really desirous to listen to you, comply, gracefully and promptly, with their wishes.

***

Upon your own visiting cards, below the name, put the day when it will be proper to return the visit, thus:

Mrs. James Hunter.
AT HOME WEDNESDAYS.
No. 1718 C—— st.

Your friends will, unless there is some especial reason for a call in the interval, pay their visit upon the day named.

***

In issuing invitations for a large dinner party, the usual form is—

Mr. and Mrs. G—— request the favor of Mr. and Mrs. L——’s company to dinner, on Wednesday, March 8th, at —— o’clock.

***

There is no branch of education called so universally into requisition as the art of letter writing; no station, high or low, where the necessity for correspondence is not felt; no person, young or old, who does not, at some time, write, cause to be written, and receive letters. From the President in his official capacity, with the busy pens of secretaries constantly employed in this branch of service, to the Irish laborer who, unable to guide a pen, writes, also by proxy, to his kinsfolks across the wide ocean; all, at some time, feel the desire to transmit some message, word of love, business, or sometimes enmity, by letter.

Yet, in spite of the universal need, and almost universal habit, there are really but very few persons who write a good letter; a letter that is, at the same time long enough to interest, yet not long enough to tire; sufficiently condensed to keep the attention, and not tedious, and yet detailed enough to afford satisfaction; that is correct in grammatical construction, properly punctuated, written in a clear, legible hand, with the date, address, signature, all in the proper place, no words whose letters stand in utter defiance to spelling-book rules; in short, a well-written letter.

Thousands, millions are sent from post to post every day. The lightning speed of the telegraph takes its messages from city to city; the panting steamer carries from continent to continent its heavy mail-bags, laden with its weight of loving messages; the “iron horse” drags behind it, its measure of the many missives; while, in the far-distant Western wilds, the lumbering wagon bears its paper freight, with its pen eloquence, to cheer and comfort, or sadden and crush, the waiting emigrants, longing for news of home.

To some, who, with hearts desolated by the separation from the home circle, could read, with an eager interest, volumes of the most common-place, trivial incidents, if only connected with the loved ones there, will come pages, from the pen of the dearest relative, full of learning, wit, and wisdom, wholly uninteresting to the receiver.

Why is this? Not from any desire upon the part of the writer to display learning or talent, but because, writing a letter being to them a great undertaking, and the letter being destined to go a long distance, they look upon it as an event too unusual to be wasted in detailing the simple, every-day details of domestic life, and ransack memory and learning for a subject worthy of the long journey and unusual labor.

Others will have, from mere acquaintances, long, tedious details of uninteresting trivialities, and from the near relatives, short, dry epistles, which fall like stones upon the heart longing for little, affectionate expressions, and home memories.

From some letter writers, who are in the midst of scenes and events of the most absorbing interest, letters arrive, only a few lines long, without one allusion to the interesting matter lying so profusely around them; while others, with the scantiest of outward subjects, will, from their own teeming brain, write bewitching, absorbing epistles, read with eagerness, laid aside with the echo of Oliver Twist’s petition in a sigh; the reader longing for “more.”

It is, of course, impossible to lay down any distinct rule for the style of letter writing. Embracing, as it does, all subjects and all classes, all countries and associations, and every relation in which one person can stand to another, what would be an imperative rule in some cases, becomes positive absurdity in others. Every letter will vary from others written before, in either its subject, the person addressed, or the circumstances which make it necessary to write it.

Letter writing is, in fact, but conversation, carried on with the pen, when distance or circumstances prevent the easier method of exchanging ideas, by spoken words. Write, therefore, as you would speak, were the person to whom your letter is addressed seated beside you. As amongst relatives and intimate friends you would converse with a familiar manner, and in easy language, so in your letters to such persons, let your style be simple, entirely devoid of effort.

Again, when introduced to a stranger, or conversing with one much older than yourself, your manner is respectful and dignified; so let the letters addressed to those on these terms with yourself, be written in a more ceremonious style, but at the same time avoid stiffness, and above all, pedantry. A letter of advice to a child, would of course demand an entirely different style, from that written by a young lady to a friend or relative advanced in life; yet the general rule, “write as you would converse,” applies to each and every case.

Neatness is an important requisite in a letter. To send a fair, clean sheet, with the words written in a clear, legible hand, will go a great way in ensuring a cordial welcome for your letter. Avoid erasures, as they spoil the beauty of your sheet. If it is necessary to correct a word, draw your pen through it, and write the word you wish to use as a substitute, above the one erased; do not scratch out the word and write another over it: it is untidy, and the second word is seldom legible. Another requisite for a good letter is a clear, concise style. Use language that will be easily understood, and avoid the parenthesis. Important passages in letters are often lost entirely, by the ambiguous manner in which they are worded, or rendered quite as unintelligible by the blots, erasures, or villainously bad hand-writing. A phrase may, by the addition or omission of one word, or by the alteration of one punctuation mark, convey to the reader an entirely different idea from that intended by the writer; so, while you write plainly, use good language, you must also write carefully, and punctuate properly.

If you are in doubt about the correct spelling of a word, do not trust to chance, hoping it may be right, but get a dictionary, and be certain that you have spelt it as it ought to be.

Simplicity is a great charm in letter-writing. What you send in a letter, is, as a general rule, intended for the perusal of one person only. Therefore to cumber your epistles with quotations, similes, flowery language, and a stilted, pedantic style, is in bad taste. You may use elegant language, yet use it easily. If you use a quotation, let it come into its place naturally, as if flowing in perfect harmony with your ideas, and let it be short. Long quotations in a letter are tiresome. Make no attempt at display in a correspondence. You will err as much in such an attempt, as if, when seated face to face with your correspondent, alone in your own apartment, you were to rise and converse with the gestures and language of a minister in his pulpit, or a lecturer upon his platform.

As everything, in style, depends upon the subject of the letter, and the person to whom it is addressed, some words follow, relating to some of the various kinds of correspondence:

Business Letters should be as brief as is consistent with the subject; clear, and to the point. Say all that is necessary, in plain, distinct language, and say no more. State, in forcible words, every point that it is desirable for your correspondent to be made acquainted with, that your designs and prospects upon the subject may be perfectly well understood. Write, in such a letter, of nothing but the business in hand; other matters will be out of place there. Nowhere is a confused style, or illegible writing, more unpardonable than in a business letter; nowhere a good style and hand more important. Avoid flowery language, too many words, all pathos or wit, any display of talent or learning, and every merely personal matter, in a business letter.

Letters of Compliment must be restricted, confined entirely to one subject. If passing between acquaintances, they should be written in a graceful, at the same time respectful, manner. Avoid hackneyed expressions, commonplace quotations, and long, labored sentences, but while alluding to the subject in hand, as if warmly interested in it, at the same time endeavor to write in a style of simple, natural grace.

Letters of Congratulation demand a cheerful, pleasant style, and an appearance of great interest. They should be written from the heart, and the cordial, warm feelings there will prompt the proper language. Be careful, while offering to your friend the hearty congratulations her happy circumstances demand, that you do not let envy at her good fortune, creep into your head, to make the pen utter complaining words at your own hard lot. Do not dampen her joy, by comparing her happiness with the misery of another. There are many clouds in the life of every one of us. While the sun shines clearly upon the events of your friend’s life let her enjoy the brightness and warmth, unshadowed by any words of yours. Give her, to the full, your sympathy in her rejoicing, cheerful words, warm congratulations, and bright hopes for the future. Should there be, at the time of her happiness, any sad event you wish to communicate to her, of which it is your duty to inform her, write it in another letter. If you must send it the same day, do so, but let the epistle wishing her joy, go alone, unclouded with the news of sorrow. At the same time, avoid exaggerated expressions of congratulation, lest you are suspected of a desire to be satirical, and avoid underlining any words. If the language is not forcible enough to convey your ideas, you will not make it better by underlining it. If you say to your friend upon her marriage, that you wish her “joy in her new relations, and hope she may be entirely happy in her domestic life,” you make her doubt your wishes, and think you mean to ridicule her chances of such happiness.

Letters of Condolence are exceedingly trying, both to read and to write. If the affliction which calls for them is one which touches you nearly, really grieving and distressing you, all written words must seem tame and cold, compared with the aching sympathy which dictates them. It is hard with the eyes blinded by tears, and the hand shaking, to write calmly; and it is impossible to express upon paper all the burning thoughts and words that would pour forth, were you beside the friend whose sorrow is yours. If you do not feel the trial, your task is still more difficult, for no letters demand truth, spoken from the heart, more than letters of condolence. Do not treat the subject for grief too lightly. Write words of comfort if you will, but do not appear to consider the affliction as a trifle. Time may make it less severe, but the first blow of grief must be heavy, and a few words of sincere sympathy will outweigh pages of mere expressions of hope for comfort, or the careless lines that show the letter to be one of mere duty, not feeling. Let your friend feel that her sorrow makes her dearer to you than ever before, and that her grief is yours. To treat the subject with levity, or to wander from it into witticisms or every-day chit-chat, is a wanton insult, unworthy of a lady and a friend. Do not magnify the event, or plunge the mourner into still deeper despondency by taking a despairing, gloomy view of the sorrow, under which she is bent. Show her the silver lining of her cloud, try to soothe her grief, yet be willing to admit that it is a cloud, and that she has cause for grief. To throw out hints that the sorrow is sent as a punishment to an offender; to imply that neglect or imprudence on the part of the mourner is the cause of the calamity; to hold up the trial as an example of retribution, or a natural consequence of wrong doing, is cruel, and barbarous. Even if this is true, (indeed, if this is the case, it only aggravates the insult); avoid such retrospection. It is as if a surgeon, called in to a patient suffering from a fractured limb, sat down, inattentive to the suffering, to lecture his patient upon the carelessness which caused the accident. One of the most touching letters of condolence ever written was sent by a literary lady, well known in the ranks of our American authoresses, to her sister, who had lost her youngest child. The words were few, merely:—

“Sister Darling:

“I cannot write what is in my heart for you to-day, it is too full. Filled with a double sorrow, for you, for my own grief. Tears blind me, my pen trembles in my hand. Oh, to be near you! to clasp you in my arms! to draw your head to my bosom, and weep with you! Darling, God comfort you, I cannot.

“S.”

That was all. Yet the sorrowing mother said that no other letter, though she appreciated the kind motive that dictated all, yet none comforted her as did these few lines. Written from the heart, their simple eloquence touched the heart for which they were intended. Early stages of great grief reject comfort, but they long, with intense longing, for sympathy.

Letters written to gentlemen should be ceremonious and dignified. If the acquaintance is slight, write in the third person, if there is a necessity for a letter. If a business letter, be respectful, yet not servile. It is better to avoid correspondence with gentlemen, particularly whilst you are young, as there are many objections to it. Still, if a friend of long standing solicits a correspondence, and your parents or husband approve and permit compliance with the request, it would be over-prudish to refuse. Write, however, such letters as, if they were printed in the newspapers, would cause you no annoyance. If the acquaintance admits of a frank, friendly style, be careful that your expressions of good will do not become too vehement, and avoid any confidential communications. When he begins to ask you to keep such and such passages secret, believe me, it is quite time to drop the correspondence.

Letters of Enquiry, especially if they request a favor, should contain a few lines of compliment. If the letter is upon a private subject, such as enquiry with regard to the illness or misfortune of a friend, avoid making it too brief. To write short, careless letters upon such subjects, is unfeeling, and they will surely be attributed to motives of obligation or duty, not to interest. Letters of enquiry, referring to family matters, should be delicately worded, and appear dictated by interest, not mere curiosity. If the enquiry refers to matters interesting only to yourself, enclose a postage-stamp for the reply. In answering such letters, if they refer to your own health or subjects interesting to yourself, thank the writer for the interest expressed, and answer in a satisfactory manner. If the answer interests your correspondent only, do not reply as if the enquiry annoyed you, but express some interest in the matter of the letter, and give as clear and satisfactory reply as is in your power.

Letters offering Favors—Be careful in writing to offer a favor, that you do not make your friend feel a heavy weight of obligation by over-rating your services. The kindness will be duly appreciated, and more highly valued if offered in a delicate manner. Too strong a sense of obligation is humiliating, so do not diminish the real value of the service by forcing the receiver to acknowledge a fictitious value. Let the recipient of your good will feel that it affords you as much pleasure to confer the favor as it will give her to receive it. A letter accompanying a present, should be short and gracefully worded. The affectionate spirit of such little epistles will double the value of the gift which they accompany. Never refer to a favor received, in such a letter, as that will give your gift the appearance of being payment for such favor, and make your letter of about as much value as a tradesman’s receipted bill.

Letters of Thanks for enquiries made, should be short, merely echoing the words of the letter they answer, and contain the answer to the question, with an acknowledgement of your correspondent’s interest. If the letter is your own acknowledgement of a favor conferred, let the language be simple, but strong, grateful, and graceful. Fancy that you are clasping the hand of the kind friend who has been generous or thoughtful for you, and then write, even as you would speak. Never hint that you deem such a favor an obligation to be returned at the first opportunity; although this may really be the case, it is extremely indelicate to say so. In your letter gracefully acknowledge the obligation, and if, at a later day, you can return the favor, then let actions, not words, prove your grateful recollection of the favor conferred upon you. If your letter is written to acknowledge the reception of a present, speak of the beauty or usefulness of the gift, and of the pleasant associations with her name it will always recall.

Letters of Recommendation should be truthful, polite, and carefully considered. Such letters may be business letters, or they may be given to servants, and they must be given only when really deserved. Do not be hasty in giving them; remember that you are, in some measure responsible for the bearer; therefore, never sacrifice truth and frankness, to a mistaken idea of kindness or politeness.

Letters of Introduction must be left unsealed. They must not contain any allusion to the personal qualities of the bearer, as such allusion would be about as sure a proof of ill-breeding as if you sat beside your friend, and ran over the list of the virtues and talents possessed by her. The fact that the person bearing the letter is your friend, will be all sufficient reason for cordial reception by the friend to whom the letter is addressed. The best form is:—

Philadelphia, June 18th, 18—.

My dear Mary:

This letter will be handed to you by Mrs. C., to whom I am pleased to introduce you, certain that the acquaintance thus formed, between two friends of mine, of so long standing and so much beloved, will be pleasant to both parties. Any attention that you may find it in your power to extend to Mrs. C. whilst she is in your city, will be highly appreciated, and gratefully acknowledged, by

Your sincere friend
A——.

Letters of Advice should not be written unsolicited. They will, in all probability, even when requested, be unpalatable, and should never be sent unless they can really be of service. Write them with frankness and sincerity. To write after an act has been committed, and is irrevocable, is folly, and it is also unkind. You may inform your friend that, “had you been consulted, a different course from the one taken would have been recommended,” and you may really believe this, yet it will probably be false. Seeing the unfavorable result of the wrong course will enable you fully to appreciate the wisdom of the right one, but, had you been consulted when the matter was doubtful, you would probably have been as much puzzled as your friend to judge the proper mode of action. You should word a letter of advice delicately, stating your opinion frankly and freely, but giving it as an opinion, not as a positive law. If the advice is not taken, do not feel offended, as others, more experienced than yourself upon the point in question, may have also been consulted. Let no selfish motive govern such a letter. Think only of the good or evil to result to your friend, and while you may write warmly and earnestly, let the motive be a really disinterested one.

Letters of Excuse should be frank and graceful. They must be written promptly, as soon as the occasion that calls for them admits. If delayed, they become insulting. If such a letter is called forth by an act of negligence on your own part, apologize for it frankly, and show by your tone that you sincerely desire to regain the confidence your carelessness has periled. If you have been obliged by positive inability to neglect the fulfilment of any promise you have given, or any commission you have undertaken, then state the reason for your delay, and solicit the indulgence of your friend. Do not write in such stiff, formal language that the apology will seem forced from you, but offer your excuse frankly, as if with a sincere desire to atone for an act of negligence, or remove a ground of offence.

Letters of Intelligence are generally the answer to letters of enquiry, or the statement of certain incidents or facts, interesting both to the writer and reader of the letter. Be careful in writing such a letter that you have all the facts in exact accordance with the truth. Remember that every word is set down against you, if one item of your information prove to be false; and do not allow personal opinion or prejudice to dictate a single sentence. Never repeat anything gathered from mere hearsay, and be careful, in such a letter, that you violate no confidence, nor force yourself upon the private affairs of any one. Do not let scandal or a mere love of gossip dictate a letter of intelligence. If your news is painful, state it as delicately as possible, and add a few lines expressive of sympathy. If it is your pleasant task to communicate a joyful event, make your letter cheerful and gay. If you have written any such letter, and, after sending it, find you have made any error in a statement, write, and correct the mistake immediately. It may be a trivial error, yet there is no false or mistaken news so trifling as to make a correction unnecessary.

Invitations are generally written in the third person, and this form is used where the acquaintance is very slight, for formal notes, and cards of compliment. The form is proper upon such occasions, but should be used only in the most ceremonious correspondence. If this style is adopted by a person who has been accustomed to write in a more familiar one to you, take it as a hint, that the correspondence has, for some reason, become disagreeable, and had better cease.

Autograph Letters should be very short; merely acknowledging the compliment paid by the request for the signature, and a few words expressing the pleasure you feel in granting the favor. If you write to ask for an autograph, always inclose a postage stamp for the answer.

Date every letter you write accurately, and avoid postscripts.

Politeness, kindness, both demand that every letter you receive must be answered. Nothing can give more pleasure in a correspondence, than prompt replies. Matters of much importance often rest upon the reply to a letter, and therefore this duty should never be delayed. In answering friendly letters, it will be found much easier to write what is kind and interesting, if you sit down to the task as soon as you read your friend’s letter. Always mention the date of the letter to which your own is a reply.

Never write on a half sheet of paper. Paper is cheap, and a half sheet looks both mean and slovenly. If you do not write but three lines, still send the whole sheet of paper. Perfectly plain paper, thick, smooth, and white, is the most elegant. When in mourning, use paper and envelopes with a black edge. Never use the gilt edged, or fancy bordered paper; it looks vulgar, and is in bad taste. You may, if you will, have your initials stamped at the top of the sheet, and on the seal of the envelope, but do not have any fancy ornaments in the corners, or on the back of the envelope.

You will be guilty of a great breach of politeness, if you answer either a note or letter upon the half sheet of the paper sent by your correspondent, even though it may be left blank.

Never write, even the shortest note, in pencil. It looks careless, and is rude.

Never write a letter carelessly. It may be addressed to your most intimate friend, or your nearest relative, but you can never be sure that the eye for which it is intended, will be the only one that sees it. I do not mean by this, that the epistle should be in a formal, studied style, but that it must be correct in its grammatical construction, properly punctuated, with every word spelt according to rule. Even in the most familiar epistles, observe the proper rules for composition; you would not in conversing, even with your own family, use incorrect grammar, or impertinent language; therefore avoid saying upon paper what you would not say with your tongue.

Notes written in the third person, must be continued throughout in the same person; they are frequently very mysterious from the confusion of pronouns, yet it is a style of correspondence much used and very proper upon many occasions. For compliment, inquiry where there is no intimacy between the parties, from superiors to inferiors, the form is elegant and proper. If you receive a note written in the third person, reply in the same form, but do not reply thus to a more familiar note or letter, as it is insulting, and implies offence taken. If you wish to repel undue familiarity or impertinence in your correspondent, then reply to the epistle in the most formal language, and in the third person.

It is an extraordinary fact, that persons who have received a good education, and who use their pens frequently, will often, in writing notes, commence in the third person and then use the second or first personal pronoun, and finish by a signature; thus—

Miss Claire’s compliments to Mr. James, and wishes to know whether you have finished reading my copy of “Jane Eyre,” as if Mr. James had finished it, I would like to lend it to another friend.

Sincerely yours,
Ella Claire.

The errors in the above are too glaring to need comment, yet, with only the alteration of names, it is a copy, verbatim, of a note written by a well educated girl.

Never sign a note written in the third person, if you begin the note with your own name. It is admissible, if the note is worded in this way:—

Will Mr. James return by bearer, the copy of “Jane Eyre” he borrowed, if he has finished reading it, and oblige his sincere friend,

Ella Claire.

If you use a quotation, never omit to put it in quotation marks, otherwise your correspondent may, however unjustly, accuse you of a desire to pass off the idea and words of another, for your own.

Avoid postscripts. Above all, never send an inquiry or compliment in a postscript. To write a long letter, upon various subjects, and in the postscript desire to be remembered to your friend’s family, or inquire for their welfare, instead of a compliment, becomes insulting. It is better, if you have not time to write again and place such inquiries above your signature, to omit them entirely. Nobody likes to see their name mentioned as an afterthought.

Punctuate your letters carefully. The want of a mark of punctuation, or the incorrect placing of it, will make the most woful confusion. I give an instance of the utter absurdity produced by the alteration of punctuation marks, turning a sensible paragraph to the most arrant nonsense:

“Cæsar entered; on his head his helmet; on his feet armed sandals; upon his brow there was a cloud; in his right hand his faithful sword; in his eye an angry glare; saying nothing, he sat down.”

By using precisely the same words, merely altering the position of the punctuation marks, we have—

“Cæsar entered on his head; his helmet on his feet; armed sandals upon his brow; there was a cloud in his right hand; his faithful sword in his eye; an angry glare saying nothing; he sat down.”

Be careful, then, to punctuate properly, that you may convey to the reader the exact sense of what is in your mind.

If you receive an impertinent letter, treat it with contempt; do not answer it.

Never answer a letter by proxy, when you are able to write yourself. It is a mark of respect and love, to answer, in your own hand, all letters addressed to you. If you are obliged to write to a friend to refuse to grant a favor asked, you will lessen the pain of refusal by wording your letter delicately. Loving words, if it is a near friend, respectful, kind ones if a mere acquaintance, will make the disagreeable contents of the letter more bearable. Try to make the manner smooth and soften the hardness of the matter.

Every letter must embrace the following particulars: 1st. The date. 2d. The complimentary address. 3d. The body of the letter. 4th. The complimentary closing. 5th. The signature. 6th. The address.

There are two ways of putting the date, and the address. The first is to place them at the top of the sheet, the other is to place them after the signature.

When at the top, you write the name of your residence, or that of the city in which you reside, with the day of the month and the year, at the right hand of the first line of the sheet. Then, at the left hand of the next line, write the address, then the complimentary address below the name; thus—

Willow Grove, New York,
June 27th, 1859.

Mrs. E. C. Howell,

My dear Madam,
I received your letter, etc.

At the end of the letter, on the right hand of the sheet, put the complimentary closing, and then the signature; thus—

I remain, my dear Madam,
With much respect,
Yours sincerely,
S. E. Law.

If you place the date and address after the signature, put it at the left of the sheet; thus—

I remain, my dear Madam,
With much respect,
Yours sincerely,
S. E. Law.

Mrs. E. C. Howell.
June 27th, 1859.

For a long letter, it is better to put the date and address at the top of the page. For a letter of only a few lines, which ends on the first page, the second form is best. In a letter written to a person in the same city, you need not put the address under the signature; if not, write it—

S. E. Law,
Willow Grove, New York.

In writing to a dear friend or relative, where there is no formality required, you may omit the name at the top of the letter; put the date and address thus—

Willow Grove, New York,
June 27th, 1859.

Dear Anna:

I write, etc.

It is best, however, to put the full name at the bottom of the last page, in case the letter is mislaid without the envelope; thus—

E. C. Law.

Miss Anna Wright.

If you use an envelope, and this custom is now universal, fold your letter neatly to fit into it; then direct on the envelope. Put first the name, then the name of the person to whose care the letter must be directed, then the street, the city, and State. If the town is small, put also the county.

This is the form:—

Miss Anna Wright,
Care of Mr. John C. Wright,
No. 40, Lexington street,
Greensburg—Lee County.
Mass.

If the city is a large one, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or any of the principal cities of the Union, you may omit the name of the county. If your letter is to go abroad, add the name of the country: as, England, or France, in full, under that of the city.

The name of the state is usually abbreviated, and for the use of my readers, I give the names of the United States with their abbreviations:

Maine, Me. New Hampshire, N. H. Vermont, Vt. Massachusetts, Mass. Rhode Island, R. I. Connecticut, Conn. New York, N. Y. New Jersey, N. J. Pennsylvania, Pa., or, Penn. Delaware, Del. Maryland, Md. Virginia, Va. North Carolina, N. C. South Carolina, S. C. Georgia, Ga., or, Geo. Alabama, Ala. Mississippi, Miss. Missouri, Mo. Louisiana, La. Tennessee, Tenn. Kentucky, Ky. Indiana, Ind. Ohio, O. Michigan, Mich. Illinois, Ill. Wisconsin, Wis. Arkansas, Ark. Texas, Tex. Iowa, Io. Florida, Flo. Oregon, O. California, Cal. Minnesota, Minn. District of Columbia, D. C. If you are writing from another country to America, put United States of America after the name of the state.

On the upper right hand corner of your envelope, put your postage-stamp.

If you send a letter by private hand, write the name of the bearer in the lower left hand corner, thus:

Mrs. E. A. Howell,
Clinton Place,
Boston.

Mr. G. G. Lane.

In directing to any one who can claim any prefix, or addition, to his proper name do not omit to put that “republican title.” For a clergyman, Rev. for Reverend is put before the name, thus:—

Rev. James C. Day.

For a bishop:

Right Reverend E. Banks.

For a physician:

Dr. James Curtis.

or,

James Curtis, M.D.

For a member of Congress:

Hon. E. C. Delta.

For an officer in the navy:

Capt. Henry Lee, U. S. N.

For an officer in the army:

Col. Edward Holmes, U. S. A.

For a professor:

Prof. E. L. James.

If the honorary addition, LL.D., A. M., or any such title belongs to your correspondent, add it to his name on the envelope, thus:—

J. L. Peters, LL.D.

If you seal with wax, it is best to put a drop under the turn-over, and fasten this down firmly before you drop the wax that is to receive the impression.

Cards of compliment are usually written in the third person. I give a few of the most common and proper forms.

For a party:

Miss Lee’s compliments to Mr. Bates, for Wednesday evening, Nov. 18th, at 8 o’clock.

Addressed to a lady:

Miss Lee requests the pleasure of Miss Howard’s company on Wednesday evening, Nov. 18th, at 8 o’clock.

For a ball, the above form, with the word Dancing, in the left hand corner.

Invitations to dinner or tea specify the entertainment thus:

Mrs. Garret’s compliments to Mr. and Mrs. Howard, and requests the pleasure of their company to dine (or take tea) on Wednesday, Nov. 6th, at 6 o’clock.

The form for answering, is:—

Miss Howard accepts with pleasure Miss Lee’s polite invitation for Wednesday evening.

or,

Miss Howard regrets that a prior engagement will prevent her accepting Miss Lee’s polite invitation for Wednesday evening.

Mr. and Mrs. Howard’s compliments to Mrs. Garret, and accept with pleasure her kind invitation for Wednesday.

or,

Mrs. Howard regrets that the severe illness of Mr. Howard will render it impossible for either herself or Mr. Howard to join Mrs. Garret’s party on Wednesday next.

Upon visiting cards, left when the caller is about to leave the city, the letters p. p. c. are put in the left hand corner, they are the abbreviation of the French words, pour prendre congé, or may, with equal propriety, stand for presents parting compliments. Another form, p. d. a.pour dire adieu, may be used.

No accomplishment within the scope of human knowledge is so beautiful in all its features as that of epistolary correspondence. Though distance, absence, and circumstances may separate the holiest alliances of friendship, or those who are bound together by the still stronger ties of affection, yet the power of interchanging thoughts, words, feelings, and sentiments, through the medium of letters, adds a sweetness to the pain of separation, renovating to life, and adding to happiness.

The wide ocean may roll between those who have passed the social years of youth together, or the snow-capped Alps may rise in sublime grandeur, separating early associates; still young remembrances may be called up, and the paradise of memory made to bloom afresh with unwithered flowers of holy recollection.

Though we see not eye to eye and face to face, where the soft music of a loved voice may fall with its richness upon the ear, yet the very soul and emotions of the mind may be poured forth in such melody as to touch the heart “that’s far away,” and melt down the liveliest eye into tears of ecstatic rapture.

Without the ability to practice the refined art of epistolary correspondence, men would become cold and discordant: an isolated compound of misanthropy. They would fall off in forsaken fragments from the great bond of union which now adorns and beautifies all society. Absence, distance, and time would cut the silken cords of parental, brotherly, and even connubial affection. Early circumstances would be lost in forgetfulness, and the virtues of reciprocal friendship “waste their sweetness on the desert air.”

Since, then, the art and practice of letter-writing is productive of so much refined and social happiness, a laudable indulgence in it must ever be commendable. While it elevates the noble faculties of the mind, it also chastens the disposition, and improves those intellectual powers which would otherwise remain dormant and useless.

Notwithstanding the various beauties and pleasures attendant upon the accomplishment, yet there are many who have given it but a slight portion of their attention, and have, therefore, cause to blush at their own ignorance when necessity demands its practice. There is no better mode by which to test the acquirements of either a young lady or gentleman than from their letters.

Letters are among the most useful forms of composition. There are few persons, who can read or write at all, who do not frequently have occasion to write them; and an elegant letter is much more rare than an elegant specimen of any other kind of writing.

The more rational and elevated the topics are, on which you write, the less will you care for your letters being seen, or for paragraphs being read out of them; and where there is no need of any secrecy, it is best not to bind your friend by promises, but to leave it to her discretion.

***

Always select words calculated to convey an exact impression of your meaning.

***

Let your articulation be easy, clear, correct in accent, and suited in tone and emphasis to your discourse.

***

When you have decided upon what evening you will give your ball, send out your invitations, a fortnight before the evening appointed. To ladies, word them:—

Mrs. L—— requests the pleasure of Miss G——’s company on Wednesday evening, Jan. 17th, at 9 o’clock.

Dancing.

The favor of an early answer is requested.

To gentlemen:—

Mrs. L——’s compliments to Mr. R—— for Wednesday evening, Jan. 17th, at 9 o’clock.

Dancing.

The favor of an early answer is requested.

***

In the present age, when education is within the reach of all, both rich and poor, every lady will endeavor to become, not only well educated, but accomplished. It is not, as some will assert, a waste of time or money. Not only the fingers, voice, and figure are improved, but the heart and intellect will become refined, and the happiness greatly increased.

Take the young lady after a solid basis has been laid in her mind of the more important branches of education, and rear upon that basis the structure of lighter education—the accomplishments. To cultivate these, disregarding the more solid information, is to build your castle without any foundation, and make it, not only absurd, but unsteady. The pleasure of hearing from a lady a cavatina executed in the most finished manner, will be entirely destroyed, if her first spoken words after the performance are vulgar, or her sentence ungrammatical.

A lady without her piano, or her pencil, her library of French, German, or Italian authors, her fancy work and tasteful embroideries, is now rarely met with, and it is right that such arts should be universal. No woman is fitted for society until she dances well; for home, unless she is perfect mistress of needlework; for her own enjoyment, unless she has at least one accomplishment to occupy thoughts and fingers in her hours of leisure.

First upon the list of accomplishments, comes the art of conversing well. It is always ready. Circumstances in society will constantly throw you into positions where you can use no other accomplishment. You will not have a musical instrument within reach, singing would be out of place, your fancy work at home, on many occasions, and then you can exert your most fascinating as well as useful accomplishment, the art of conversing well.

Little culture, unfortunately, is bestowed upon this accomplishment, which, beyond all others, promotes the happiness of home, enlivens society, and improves the minds of both speaker and listener. How many excellent women are deficient in the power of expressing themselves well, or, indeed, of expressing themselves at all! How many minds “cream and mantle” from the want of energy to pour themselves out in words! On the other hand, how some, equally well-intentioned, drown the very senses in their torrent of remarks, which dashes, like a water-fall, into a sombre pool of ennui below!

One lady will enter society, well-dressed, well-looking, polite; she does not intend to chill it by her presence; yet her absence is found a relief. She takes her place as if she considered it sufficient to dress and look well. She brings no stock to the community of ideas. Her eyes return no response to the discourse which is going on. When you have once glanced at her, she becomes a mere expletive in the company.

Another one will be found a talker. She is like a canary bird; when others begin to speak, she hurries in her remarks, in an accompaniment. Her voice must be uppermost; conversation becomes a contest who can speak the most rapidly. The timid and modest retire from the encounter—she has the field to herself. She goes on, without mercy; the voice of a syren would fatigue, if heard continually. Others revolt at the injustice of the monopoly, and the words fall on ears that would be deaf if they could.

These are extreme cases; there are many other minor errors. The higher qualities of conversation must undoubtedly be based upon the higher qualities of the mind; then it is, indeed, a privilege to commune with others.

To acquire the power of thus imparting the highest pleasure by conversational powers, attention must be paid to literature. I am supposing the solid foundation of a good education already laid, but by literature, I do not mean only that class of it which is taught at school.

Reading, at the present day, is too much confined to light literature. I would not speak against this. The modern novels, and the poets of all ages, are good reading, but let them be taken in moderation, and varied by something more solid. Let them be the dessert to the more substantial dinner of history, travels, and works of a like nature.

Independent of the strength and polish given to the mind by a thorough course of reading, there is another reason why a lady should devote some portion of her time to it; she cannot do without it. She may, lacking this, pass through life respectably, even elegantly; but she cannot take her part in a communing with superior minds; she may enjoy, in wondering, the radiance of their intelligence; but the wondering must be composed, in part, of amazement at her own folly, in not having herself sought out the treasure concealed in the fathomless depths of books. She cannot truly enjoy society, with this art neglected. She may, for a few brief years, be the ornament of the drawing-room; but it must be, like many other ornaments there, in still life; she can never be the companion of the intellectual; and the time is gone by, when women, with all their energies excited, will be contented to be the mere plaything of brother, husband, or father.

Still it is not to the erudite, nor to the imaginative only, that it is given to please in conversation.

The art of imparting our ideas easily and elegantly to others, may be improved by ourselves, if there are opportunities of mingling in good society, with little study. The mind must first be cultivated; but it should not abash those who are conscious of moderate talents, or imperfect cultivation, from taking a due part in conversation, on account of their inferiority. It is a very different thing to shine and to please; to shine in society is more frequently attempted than compassed: to please is in the power of all. The effort to shine, when fruitless, brings a certain disgrace, and engenders mortification; all good people are inclined to take the will for the[182] deed, when they see a desire to please. A gentle, deferential, kind manner, will disarm even the most discerning from criticising too severely the deficiencies of the inexperienced; confidence, disrespect of others, volubility, eagerness to dispute, must irritate the self-love of others, and produce an averseness to acknowledge talent or information, where they may even happen to exist.

It is wiser and safer for a young lady, in general, to observe the good, old-fashioned rule of being addressed first; but then she must receive the address readily, meeting it half way, repaying it by enlarging a little upon the topic thus selected, and not sinking into a dull silence, the moment after a reply is given. Some young ladies start, as if thunderstruck, when spoken to, and stare as if the person who pays them that attention, had no right to awaken them from their reverie. Others look affronted, possibly from shyness, and begin a derogatory attack upon the beauty of their dress by twitching the front breadth—or move from side to side, in evident distress and consternation. Time remedies these defects; but there is one less curable and less endurable—that of pertness and flippancy—the loud remarks and exclamations—the look of self-sufficiency and confidence. But these offensive manifestations spring from some previous and deep-seated defects of character, and are only to be repelled by what, I fear, they will frequently encounter—the mortification of inspiring disgust.

Neither is the lengthy, prosy, didactic reply, consistent with the submission and simplicity of youth; egotism, and egotism once removed, that is, the bringing into the topic one’s own family and relations, are also antidotes to the true spirit of conversation. In general, it is wiser, more in good taste, safer, more becoming, certainly more in accordance with good breeding, to avoid talking of persons. There are many snares in such topics; not merely the danger of calumniating, but that of engendering a slippery conscience in matters of fact. A young girl, shy and inexpert, states a circumstance; she feels her deficiency as a narrator, for the power of telling a story, is a power to be acquired only by practice. She is sometimes tempted to heighten a little the incidents, in order to get on a little better, and to make more impression. She must of course defend her positions, and then she perils the sanctity of truth. Besides, few things narrow the intellect more than dwelling on the peculiarities, natural or incidental, of that small coterie of persons who constitute our world.

It is, in general, a wise rule, and one which will tend much to insure your comfort through life, to avoid disclosures to others of family affairs. I do not mean to recommend reserve, or art; to friends and relations, too great frankness can hardly be practised; but, with acquaintance, the less our own circumstances are discussed, the happier, and the more dignified will our commerce with them continue. On the same principle, let the concerns of others be touched upon with delicacy, or, if possible, passed over in silence; more especially those details which relate to strictly personal or family affairs. Public deeds are, of course, public property. But personal affairs are private; and there is a want of true good breeding, a want of consideration and deference, in speaking freely of them, even if your friend is unconscious of the liberty taken.

It seems paradoxical to observe that the art of listening well forms a part of the duty of conversation. To give up the whole of your attention to the person who addresses himself to you, is sometimes a heavy tax, but it is one which we must pay for the privileges of social life, and an early practice will render it an almost involuntary act of good breeding; whilst consideration for others will give this little sacrifice a merit and a charm.

To listen well is to make an unconscious advance in the power of conversing. In listening we perceive in what the interest, in what the failure of others consists; we become, too, aware of our own deficiencies, without having them taught through the medium of humiliation. We find ourselves often more ignorant than we could have supposed possible. We learn, by a very moderate attention to the sort of topics which please, to form a style of our own. The “art of conversation” is an unpleasant phrase. The power of conversing well is least agreeable when it assumes the character of an art.

In listening, a well-bred lady will gently sympathize with the speaker; or, if needs must be, differ, as gently. Much character is shown in the act of listening. Some people appear to be in a violent hurry whilst another speaks; they hasten on the person who addresses them, as one would urge on a horse—with incessant “Yes, yes, very good—indeed—proceed!” Others sit, on the full stare, eyes fixed as those of an owl, upon the speaker. Others will receive every observation with a little hysterical giggle.

But all these vices of manner may be avoided by a gentle attention and a certain calm dignity of manner, based upon a reflective, cultivated mind.

Observation, reading, and study, will form the groundwork for good powers of conversation, and the more you read, study, and see, the more varied and interesting will be your topics.

A young lady should consider music as one branch of her education, inferior, in importance, to most of those studies which are pointed out to her, but attainable in a sufficient degree by the aid of time, perseverance, and a moderate degree of instruction. Begun early, and pursued steadily, there is ample leisure in youth for the attainment of a science, which confers more cheerfulness, and brings more pleasure than can readily be conceived.

A young lady should be able to play with taste, correctness, and readiness, upon the general principle that a well educated woman should do all things well. This, I should suppose, is in the power of most persons; and it may be attained without loss of health, of time, or any sacrifice of an important nature. She should consider it as an advantage, a power to be employed for the gratification of others, and to be indulged with moderation and good sense for her own resource, as a change of occupation.

Consider in this light, music is what Providence intended it to be—a social blessing. The whole creation is replete with music,—a benignant Power has made the language of the feathered tribe harmony; let us not suppose that He condemns his other creatures to silence in the song.

Music has an influence peculiar to itself. It can allay the irritation of the mind; it cements families, and makes a home, which might sometimes be monotonous, a scene of pleasant excitement. Pursued as a recreation, it is gentle, rational, lady-like. Followed as a sole object, it loses its charm, because we perceive it is then over-rated. The young lady who comes modestly forward, when called upon as a performer, would cease to please, were she, for an instant, to assume the air and confidence of a professional musician. There is a certain style and manner—confined now to second-rate performers, for the highest and most esteemed dispense with it—there is an effort and a dash, which disgust in the lady who has bad taste enough to assume them.

And, whilst I am on this topic, let me remark that there is a great deal in the choice of music, in the selection of its character, its suitability to your feelings, style, and taste, and this especially with respect to vocal music.

There is no doubt that a good Italian style is the best for instruction, and that it produces the most careful and accomplished singers. Suppose a case. Your parents, most fair reader, have paid a high price to some excellent professor, to instruct you—and, with a fair ear, and a sufficient voice, you have been taught some of those elaborate songs which are most popular at the opera. A party is assembled—music is one of the diversions. Forth you step, and, with a just apprehension of the difficulties of your task, select one of those immortal compositions which the most eminent have made their study; you execute it wonderfully, only just falling a little short of all the song should be; only just provoking a comparison, in every mind, with a high standard, present in the memory of every cultivated musician near you. A cold approval, or a good-natured “bravo!” with, believe me, though you do not hear it, a thorough, and, often, expressed conviction that you had better have left the thing alone, follows the effort which has merely proclaimed the fact that, spite of time and money spent upon the cultivation of your voice, you are but a second-rate singer.

But, choose a wiser, a less pretending, a less conspicuous path. Throw your knowledge into compositions of a less startling, less aspiring character. Try only what you can compass. Be wise enough not to proclaim your deficiencies, and the critics will go away disarmed, even if they are not charmed. But if there be any voice, any feeling, any science, the touching melody, made vocal by youth and taste, will obtain even a far higher degree of encomium than, perhaps, it actually merits. You will please—you will be asked to renew your efforts. People will not be afraid of cadenzas five minutes long, or of bravuras, every note of which makes one hope it may be the last.

It is true that, to a person who loves music, the performance of one of the incomparable songs of Bellini, Rosini, Flotow, or Mozart, is an actual delight—but; when attempted by a young amateur, it should be, like many other delights, confined to the private circle, and not visited upon society in general.

Do not suppose that I mean to recommend poor music, or feeble, ephemeral compositions. What is good need not, of necessity, be always difficult. Ballad music is rich in songs adapted for the private performer—and there are many, in Italian, of great beauty, which, though they would not be selected for a concert-room, or for brilliant display, are adapted for ladies.

Music is the greatest, best substitute for conversation. It has many merits, in this light. It can never provoke angry retort; it can never make enemies; it can injure no one’s character by slander; and in playing and singing one can commit no indiscretion.

Music is a most excellent amusement, and, in society, an indispensable one. It aids conversation by occasionally interrupting it for a short period, to be renewed with a new impetus. It makes the most delightful recreation for the home circle, varying the toil and trouble of the father’s or husband’s working day, by the pleasures of the evening made by music’s power to glide smoothly and swiftly.

There are but few persons who are entirely without a love for music, even if they do not understand it. They will be borne along upon the waves of a sweet melody to high, pure thoughts, often to delicious memories.

The piano is, at the present day, the most popular instrument in society. The harp has ceased to be fashionable, though it is sometimes heard. The latter is a most beautiful accompaniment for the voice, but requires a large room, as, in a small one, it will sound stringy and harsh.

The guitar, while it makes a very pleasant accompaniment for the voice, has also the advantage of being easily carried from place to place.

It requires as much judgment to select proper instrumental pieces for a parlor performance, as you would display in a choice of songs. Page after page of black, closely printed notes, will drive those who see them from the piano. They may be executed in the most finished style, but they are not suited to general society. In their place, for practice, or for a musical soirée, where every one puts forth her best musical powers, they are appropriate, and will give pleasure, but they are not suited for a mixed party. When asked to play, choose, if you will, a brilliant, showy piece, but let it be short. It is better still to make no attempt at display, but simply try to please, selecting the music your own judgment tells you is best suited to your audience.

Avoid the loud, thumping style, and also the over-solemn style.

Be sure, before you accept any invitation to play, that you know perfectly the piece you undertake. It is better to play the simplest airs in a finished, faultless manner, than to play imperfectly the most brilliant variations.

Avoid movement at the piano. Swinging the body to and fro, moving the head, rolling the eyes, raising the hands too much, are all bad tricks, and should be carefully abstained from.

With respect to drawing, modeling, or any pursuits of the same nature, so much depends on taste and opportunity, and they are so little the accomplishments of society that they require but few of those restrictions which music, in its use and abuse, demands. Drawing, like music, should be cultivated early. Its advantages are the habits of perseverance and occupation, which it induces; and the additional delight which it gives to the works, both of nature and of art. Like music, it gives independence—independence of society. The true lover of the arts has a superiority over the indifferent, and, if she be not better prepared for society, is much better fitted for retirement than those who are not so happily endowed with tastes, when in moderation, so innocent and beneficial.

There is no accomplishment more graceful, pleasing, healthy, and lady-like, than that of riding well. Avoiding, at the same time, timidity and the “fast” style, keeping within the bounds of elegant propriety, gracefully yielding to the guidance of your escort, and keeping your seat easily, yet steadily, are all points to be acquired.

To ride well is undoubtedly an admirable qualification for a lady, as she may be as feminine in the saddle as in the ball room or home circle. It is a mistaken idea to suppose that to become an accomplished horse-woman a lady must unsex herself. But she must have a reserve in her manner, that will prevent contamination from the intercourse which too much riding may lead to. To hunt, or follow the field sports, in a pursuit which is the track of blood, disgusts the true admirer of gentle breeding. And such diversions will certainly result in a coarseness of manner and expression, growing upon the fair equestrian slowly but surely. A harsh voice, loud tone, expressions suited only to manly lips, but unconsciously copied, will follow her devotion to the unfeminine pursuit.

Nothing is more revolting than a woman who catches the tone and expressions of men. To hear the slang of jockeyism from female lips, is very offensive, yet ladies who mix in field sports are liable, nay, almost certain, to fall into a style of conversation which is ten times worse than the coarsest terms from the lips of a man. Instances there are, of the fairest of our sex, from a fondness for such diversions, and a habitual participation in such society, becoming hard, bold, and disgusting, even whilst retaining all their female loveliness of person.

A lady, unless she lives in the most retired parts of the country, should never ride alone, and even then she will be awkwardly placed, in case of accident, without an escort. In the cities, not only is it unfeminine, but positively dangerous, for a lady to ride unaccompanied by a gentleman, or a man servant.

Although it is impossible, within the limits of this little volume, to give many hints upon riding, a few may not be amiss. Like many other accomplishments, a teacher is necessary, if you wish to attain perfection, and no written directions can make you a finished horse-woman, unless you have had tuition and practice.

1. In mounting you are desired, gentle Amazon, to spring gracefully into your saddle, with the slight assistance of a hand placed beneath the sole of the shoe, instead of scrambling uncouthly to your “wandering throne,” as Miss Fanshawe wittily calls it, from a high chair, as is frequently done by those who have not been properly instructed. To mount in the orthodox manner, you should stand nearly close to the horse, level with the front of the saddle, and taking the reins slackly in your right hand, you should place that hand on the nearest pommel, to secure your balance in rising, and with your left hand gather up the front of the habit, so as to leave the feet clear. The gentleman should place himself firmly, near, but not so near to you as to impede your rising, and with the same view must hold his head well back, as should he lose his hat from a whisk of your habit the effect produced is not good. You should then present your left foot, and the gentleman placing one hand beneath its sole, and the other above, so as to possess a safe hold, should, with nice judgment, give just such assistance as will enable you easily, with a spring, to vault gracefully into the saddle. You will then arrange your right leg comfortably over the pommel, your cavalier will then place your left foot in the stirrup and arrange the flow of the habit-skirt, and all is complete. All this, though so seemingly simple and easy, requires some little practice to effect neatly and gracefully.

2. Secondly, when riding with a gentleman, remember that you are best placed on the left side; because in that position the graceful flow of your habit is seen to the greatest advantage, while it does not inconvenience the gentleman by getting entangled with his stirrup, nor does it receive the splashes of his horse.

3. But when you have a double attendance of cavaliers, if you be at all a timid rider, it may become discreet to “pack” you (forgive the homely phrase) between the two, since, in this position, you are the most thoroughly protected from your own horse’s shying, or from other horses or vehicles approaching you too closely, being thus forced to take that part of the road to which the better judgment of your companions inevitably guides you. If you be an accomplished equestrian, you will prefer being outside, and (as has been said) to the left.

Sit erect in the middle of your saddle, turning your face full towards the head of your horse. Cling as closely as possible to the saddle, but avoid stooping forward, or using your hands to keep you in your seat. Nervous motions on horseback are not only ungraceful, but dangerous, as your horse will not make any allowance for the delicacy of your nerves, and may prove his objections to a jerking hand, or a twitching rein, in a most decided and disagreeable manner.

The riding-dress, or habit, is best made to fit the figure tightly, with tight sleeves. It may be open in the front, over a neatly fitting chemisette, or buttoned close to the throat, with a neat linen collar and cuffs. The loose sacque is ungraceful, but a basque is most becoming on horseback. Gauntlet gloves, of leather, are the most suitable, and must be loose enough to give your hand perfect freedom, yet not so loose as to interfere with its motions. Do not wear the skirt too long; it will be dangerous in case of accident, and it may prove annoying to your horse. Your habit must be made of a material sufficiently heavy to hang gracefully, and not move too much with the wind. For a winter habit, a warmly-lined basque, trimmed at the throat and hands with fur, is an elegant and appropriate dress, and a round cap of the same cloth as the habit, with a band, and pieces to cover the ears, of fur to match the dress trimmings, makes a handsome and appropriate dress.

In summer, your hat should be of fine straw, and slouched to shade the face; in winter, of felt, or, if you prefer, a close cap of cloth. The hat may be trimmed with feathers or knots of ribbon, and the shape should be one to protect the complexion, at the same time graceful and becoming.

Avoid any display in a riding dress. Choose a material of some dark or neutral tint, and never use showy trimmings.

Curls, or any flowing loose style of wearing the hair, will be found exceedingly troublesome on horseback. Arrange it neatly and compactly under your hat, for if a stray curl or lock annoys you, or is blown across your eyes by the wind, your hands will be too fully occupied to remedy the difficulty.

Your whip should be light and small, tasteful if you will, but not showy.

At the period for which these hints are intended, the Modern Languages should form a portion of acquirement. As in music, an intelligent and assiduous girl may, I believe, acquire an adequate degree of proficiency in French, German, and Italian, without having been abroad, though a foreign tour will be of the greatest use in the acquisition of the accent and niceties of each tongue. With respect to French, it is no doubt essential to comfort to understand it; it is one of the attributes of a lady to speak it well; still, it is not indispensable to speak it so well that the American lady is mistaken for a Parisian. This, which but seldom happens, can only be acquired, in most cases, by a residence abroad. But French is thoroughly and grammatically taught in America. It is only the habit of speaking, the idioms and niceties, which cannot be acquired except by converse with a native.

There are hundreds of competent instructors in this country, French ladies and gentlemen amongst the number, who form classes for conversation and familiarizing their pupils with these very idioms. After availing herself of such advantages, a young lady will find that a very short residence abroad will improve and facilitate her French conversation.

Much, however, will depend upon how you use the opportunities within your reach. There are many opportunities of practice in large towns; and foreigners give all facilities, by their readiness to converse, their good-nature in listening, and in helping the beginner by kind hints. If a young lady, with simplicity, good breeding, and good taste, endeavors to speak whenever she has an opportunity, words will come as if by intuition. Do not think of by-standers and lookers-on; think only of the individual to whom you are addressing yourself. If possible, be not abashed by one or two errors at the first plunge—swim on till you have confidence. The effort, I grant, is great, and it may be obviated by a foreign education; but where this is impossible, the freedom acquired will more than repay the exertion.

In foreign literature, walk carefully, and if you have an older, wiser head than your own to point out the best paths, improve the advantage.

One cannot help deeming it a great era in education that German is cultivated as well as Italian and French, and that stores of literature are opened, to vary the delights of intellect, and to give freshness and interest to the studies of youth.

The rapture with which the works of Schiller are perused in the original, seems to repay the hours devoted to German; and I am sure the perusal of Tasso, or of the Aristodemo of Monti, would reward the study of Italian, were not the acquisition of that exquisite language of itself a source of poetic pleasure.

The modern French writers have increased an everlasting responsibility in corrupting the sources of amusement, open to the young readers, and it is remarkable that most of the distinguished French authors seem to have felt that they had erred, and to have retrieved in some of their works the tendencies of their other productions. Take for instance, Madame de Stael; her books cannot be judged altogether; the effect of some of her eloquent and almost incomparable writings varies in an extraordinary degree. Whilst “Delphine” is unfit for the perusal of a modest woman, her “L’Allemagne” is finely written throughout, and her criticisms and analyses of German writers are full of instruction as well as interest.

Still the works open to readers of French are numerous. The tragedies of Corneille and Racine are forcible and finished, and should be read because classical. The “Alzire” of Voltaire and his “Zaire” with the dramas of Casimir de la Vigne are also worthy of perusal. It is not an inspiriting kind of reading, but it is rich in sentiment, and perfectly unexceptionable in moral tone. Although the scepticism of most German writers renders this literature dangerous to a young mind, there are fields of pure, noble writing open in that language. The works of Schiller, for example. His mind was originally noble, his heart good, his love to mankind, and his enquiry after truth were sincere. In early life, he wavered; and the besetting scepticism of the Germans dimmed, for a time, his perceptions of all that is most sublime, as well as true, in our finite knowledge. He was chastened—he suffered—he believed. He died an early but a bright instance that great genius may exist with true and humble piety, and that the mind is never so powerful as when illumined by divine light. His works are a magnificent library in themselves—and I could almost say, be contented to learn German and to read Schiller. Some of his works are open to objection, his “Bride of Messina,” portions of “The Robbers,” are better omitted from your collection, but “Wallenstein” and “Maria Stuart” are noble and admirable productions. On this subject, and, indeed, on the whole of German literature, Madame de Stael is an excellent guide in her “L’Allemagne,” to which I refer the young German student, who is sincerely desirous of gleaning the good, and avoiding the evil in German compositions.

Italian literature furnishes a delightful theme for comment. It is singular that an enslaved, and, during many ages, a depraved and degraded people, should have possessed the purest poetry, the least exceptionable drama, in Europe. There is little to exclude, and much to recommend, in this beautiful language. The works of Tasso abound with high sentiment; the “Inferno” of Dante is a sublime picture of eternal retribution, softened with most touching pictures of human woe. Happy are those who have leisure to pursue extensively the acquisition of Italian literature, they may read and commit to memory without fear of an insidious meaning beneath the polished verse, or the prose which has all the charm of poetry.

Spanish literature will require the same judicious pruning which is necessary in French and German, but of all languages, it is the most musical for speech, and singing.

A lady in society must, if she would not grow utterly weary in company, know how to dance. It has been the practice among many excellent people to represent the ball room as a “pitfall covered with flowers;” a sheet of breaking ice; above, all gayety and motion; below, all darkness and danger. It may be that to some minds the ball room may be replete with temptations; but there are minds which find temptations everywhere. The innocent may be innocent, nay, the pious may feel devout, even in a ball room. There is nothing immoral or wrong in dancing; it is the tendency of youth to dance—it is the first effort of a child—the first natural recreation. It seems so natural that I confess I am always doubtful of the sincerity of those young ladies who profess to dislike the ball room.

In the present day, you must understand how to move gracefully through quadrilles, to dance polka, Schottische, Varsovienne, and waltz. To these you may add great variety of dances, each season, probably, bringing a new one. “Dancing,” says Mr. Sheldrake, “is one of the most healthy, as well as one of the most pleasing amusements that can be practised by the young. If it is learned from those who are well qualified to teach it, and practised, as it ought to be, consistently with the instructions given, it will contribute more to improve the health, as well as the form of the human frame, than any other exercise. For the discovery and promulgation of the true and correct principles according to which dancing should be taught, the world is indebted to France, a country which has long taken the lead in the elegant arts. In France, dancing was first raised to the dignity of a science, a royal academy being founded for the purpose of teaching and perfecting it, in the reign of Louis Quatorze. In this academy were trained many of the most distinguished dancers of both sexes.” One of the most celebrated, Madame Simonet, gave the following account to Mr. Sheldrake of the mode of instruction pursued in the academy:—”All the pupils, before they were permitted to attempt to dance, were completely instructed in what were called the preparatory exercises; that is, a system of exercises, which endued all their limbs with strength, firmness, elasticity, and activity; when they had acquired these properties, they began to dance.

“In these preparatory exercises, the motions were of the most simple kind, the object being to teach the pupil, gradually and separately, all those movements which, when combined, and rapidly executed, constitute dancing.” Madame Simonet thus described those elementary instructions, as gone through by herself:—“She successively learned to stand flat and firm upon both her feet, with her limbs quite straight, and the whole person perfectly upright, but not stiff; then to lift one foot from the ground, and to keep it so for some time without moving any part of her body; she then replaced that foot on the ground, and raised the other in the same manner. These simple actions were repeated till the pupils were quite familiar with them; they were then directed to keep the body quite erect, but not stiff, and bearing firmly upon one leg, to raise the other from the ground, gradually and slowly, by bending the upper joint of the limb, at the same time making the knee straight, and putting the toe to its proper extent, but no more. The foot, after it had been kept in this state for some time, was returned to the ground from whence it was taken, and the other foot treated in the same manner; when quite familiarized to these actions, they were directed to walk (march, as some people will call it) slowly, performing the same motions with the feet alternately.” The exercises which followed these, were upon the turning out of the feet, the balancing of the body, and other attitudes, which need not be particularized.

Mr. Sheldrake gives several examples of persons trained upon these initiatory principles to the profession of dancing, who have lived in health to a great age. “This,” says he, “is not the chance lot of a few; for I have, through life, been accustomed to see many persons of the same profession; I have communicated my own observations to many others, and all have agreed in remarking, that those who follow this profession have, very generally, excellent health, which very many of them carry into extreme old age. This indisputable fact can only be accounted for by supposing that the preparatory exercises which these persons go through, are a modification of what I have called regulated muscular tension, or action, and the early and constant practice of which lays a firm foundation for that high health which accompanies them through life. It is upon the same principle that a soldier is never seen with spinal curvature, or other personal deformity, or a stage dancer of either sex with a deformed person; it is, perhaps, impossible that such things should exist, for the plain reason, that the exercises which they begin to practice early in life, and continue regularly through its whole course, render it impossible for them to become so.

“The inference to be drawn from these incontrovertible facts is, that if we, in very early life, teach young children to practice similar exercises, and follow them steadily afterwards, we shall confirm them in excellent health, and prevent the accession of those evils which so often cause deformity to the figure, and destruction to the constitution, at later periods of life. I do not propose to make every boy a soldier, or every girl a dancer upon the stage, but to adopt the principles, by the application of which those persons are trained to the successful practices of their several occupations, and so to modify them, that they may qualify other classes of society to follow their different pursuits with equal success; and I am not without hopes that this undertaking will contribute something towards producing this desirable effect.”

Dancing is an exercise which has been practiced by mankind from the most remote ages. With the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Persians, the founders of the three great empires of the ancient world, dancing was the favorite exercise or accomplishment, and the practice was not less prevalent among their successors in power and importance, the Greeks and Romans. The Jews, also, we learn from Scripture, were strongly attached to the exercise at all periods of their history.

At the present day, almost every people that exist, whether barbarous or civilized, has its own form of dancing. It is this universality of the exercise that makes dancing a subject of importance. Being so extensively practiced, it must be the instrument either of good or evil to the human race.

It is one of the most healthful and elegant amusements, and cannot be too highly recommended. Among a rude and dissolute people it may degenerate into something worthy of condemnation; but all the blessings we have are similarly liable to abuse, and it would be most unjust to condemn a cheerful domestic amusement, merely because it has, at times, been degraded by people of low, vulgar, immoral tastes. By all physicians, dancing, when pursued in moderation, is recommended as highly conducive to bodily health; and it may be truly said, that, allied with music, nothing is more conducive to mental health, more calculated to drive away melancholy, and put the whole temper into good humor.

Dancing is the poetry of motion. It must be performed with ease and grace, and always with a perfect regard for propriety of movement.

As an art it is taught by professed masters; and one of the leading rules given to the learner is to raise and lower herself gracefully on the elastic part of her feet, and to keep perfect time to the music. Dancing is really a simple and elegant gliding on the toes, which bend more or less to accommodate the steps, and prevent harsh, ungraceful motion.

The most popular dances of the present day, are, first, the quadrille.

These are of French origin, comparatively tranquil in their character, and generally danced once or more in every party. They are danced by four couples, one standing on each side of a square. There are many sets of quadrilles, the figures in each varying from the others. But there are five figures in each set. The plain, fancy, Lancers, Polka, Mazourka, and German, are among the most popular.

In plain quadrilles, a lady takes no steps, merely walking gracefully through the figures, but her feet must keep perfect time to the music, and she must know the changes of position perfectly.

A quadrille may be very properly described as a conversation dance, as there are long pauses between the figures, when the dancers must have a fund of small talk ready for their partners.

When moving in the figures, hold out your skirt a little with the right hand, merely to clear the ground, and prevent the possibility of treading upon it.

Next come the round dances, the Valse, Polka, Schottische, Varsovienne, and Redowa.

The Waltz is danced both à troistemps and deuxtemps. In the waltz, the position is a most important point. You may so lean upon your partner’s arm, and so carry your figure, that the prudish can find but little fault, but you can also make the dance a most immodest one. I cannot, within the limits of my book, go into a long argument as to the propriety of these round dances. Opinions differ, and I am not writing a sermon, but giving, as far as is in my power, hints to ladies in society. It is, therefore, enough for me to know that these dances are tolerated, and that, even were I so inclined, I could not exclude them.

To return to the position. Stand a little to the right of your partner, that, in clasping your waist, he may draw you upon his arm to his shoulder, not his breast; the last position is awkward. By observing the first, you have your head free; turn it a little towards the left shoulder; need I say, never lay it upon your partner’s shoulder? Throw the head and shoulders a little back, not too much to be consistent with easy grace, place one hand upon your partner’s shoulder, and the other in his disengaged hand. So, you are ready to start.

The waltz may be danced to very fast time, or to slow music. The last is the most graceful, and there is not so much danger of giddiness. Grace can only be gained by a perfect timing of the steps to the music, and also evenness of step. It is, when properly timed with perfect step, and easy, gliding motion, the most graceful of dances. The Germans, who dance for the sake of dancing, will only allow a certain number of waltzers on the floor at one time, and these waltz in streams, all going down one side of the room and up the other, thus rendering collisions impossible.

An English writer, in a recent work published on etiquette, speaks of waltzing thus:—

“It is perhaps useless to recommend flat-foot waltzing in this country, where ladies allow themselves to be almost hugged by their partners, and where men think it necessary to lift a lady almost off the ground, but I am persuaded that if it were introduced, the outcry against the impropriety of waltzing would soon cease. Nothing can be more delicate than the way in which a German holds his partner. It is impossible to dance on the flat foot unless the lady and gentleman are quite free of one another. His hand, therefore, goes no further round her waist than to the hooks and eyes of her dress, hers, no higher than to his elbow. Thus danced, the waltz is smooth, graceful, and delicate, and we could never in Germany complain of our daughter’s languishing on a young man’s shoulder. On the other hand, nothing is more graceless and absurd, than to see a man waltzing on the tips of his toes, lifting his partner off the ground, or twirling round and round with her like the figures on a street organ. The test of waltzing in time, is to be able to stamp the time with the left foot. The waltz is of German origin, but where it is still danced in Germany in the original manner, (as, for instance, among the peasants of the Tyrol,) it is a very different dance. It is there very slow and graceful; the feet are thrown out in a single long step, which Turveydrop, I presume, would call a jeté. After a few turns, the partners waltz alone in the same step, the man keeping the time by striking together his iron-shod heels, until with a shout and clapping of hands he again clasps his partner and continues in the same slow measure with her.”

The position for the polka, redowa, and other round dances, should be the same as that for the waltz, and for the steps, they can only be acquired from a dancing teacher, and are impossible to describe properly.

One of the most delightful accomplishments which a lady can possess, and one which is unfortunately but little cultivated, is the art of reading aloud well; reading with expression, taste, animation, and correctness; and this art once acquired, let her also be able to recite well.

Long lectures may be given upon elocution, but the advice can be condensed into two directions. First, be sure you pronounce, accent, and enunciate every word correctly; then, throw your whole soul into the words. Study your author carefully, that you may know precisely what he means by each expression, and then try to bury your personal identity, to become, for the time, the character you represent.

One of the most delightful ways to spend a social evening, is to devote it to dramatic literature. Invite only guests who read well, or who are really interested listeners, and select a play, or scenes from several plays, and cast the parts among your guests. All jealousy must be put aside, and to-night’s Hamlet must condescend to direct Richard to

“Stand by, my lord, and let the coffin pass,”

to-morrow.

After a few meetings, the peculiar talent of each reader will be recognized, and you can select your tragedy hero, comedy hero, queen, chambermaid, and other members of the force, with a view to the display of each one’s best powers. Vary the entertainment by reciting monologues and dialogues. A whole play will often be found tiresome; it is best to select several scenes, keeping up the thread of the plot, and introducing the best characters, and leave out what is mere interlude, and dispense with some of the subordinate characters.

Leave one end of the room entirely vacant for the readers. You will find it more interesting to have the readers stand, and use some little motion; the words will flow more easily, the expressions come more forcibly if the appropriate gesture is made. Love scenes will, of course, require delicate handling, and embracing can be easily omitted; neither would I recommend the action of a dueling scene, or a murder, but merely to add gesture enough to give interest to both readers and audience.

You will find some little difficulty from bashfulness, and the “don’t like to” people at first, but soon you will discover with delight how many of your friends possess the talent for reading well, and never knew it themselves.

You will do well to take a few lessons in elocution, but you need not fear to read if you have never made the accomplishment a study. With a correct knowledge of your own language, and a love for fine writing, you will soon read well.

Give to every part you undertake, the full effect intended by the writer. Do not throw all your energy, your whole soul, into a leading part at one time, and slight a subordinate character at another. If you have but five words to read, read them as they would be spoken were you the character you represent for the time. To hear a splendidly written, tragic burst of passion read in a weak, whining voice, is no worse than to have a few simple words from a servant’s lips delivered with the gesture and emphasis suited to a Medea or Lady Macbeth.

I shall be condemned by many serious and well-judging persons, if I say one word in favor of private theatricals; yet, as it appears to me, there are in these diversions some advantages which are not to be found to excuse the waltz, or the polka, or the ballet, or the hunting field. In private theatricals there is the possibility of some benefit. The study of the finest dramatists, especially of Shakespeare, is not likely to demoralize the mind, or to cool the enthusiasm for what is good. We can scarcely know too well those works which have tended more to form character than any collection of any kind whatsoever.

Shakespeare, Sheridan, Bulwer,—but I cannot go through the list of fine dramatic writers whose works elevate the mind and taste. The plays of Sheridan, Knowles, and Bulwer, are, in most instances, well adapted for private representations—the most exquisite delineations of female character may be found in the dramatic library, and high, pure, manly thoughts, may be traced, line after line, to the same source.

Private theatricals should, however, be regulated with much judgment. I see no reason to restrict too severely talent of this kind where it exists, any more than to crush a dawning taste for the other fine arts. What we have to do is to raise and direct it; never to let it occupy too much time, nor to become the business of life; never to let it infringe upon duties; never to allow it to lead us into an unreasonable, and, therefore, criminal expense. Our ancestors were content to strew their stage at the end of their halls with rushes, and to hang up the name of the scene, instead of a scene, before each act. The best preparations, which generally render private theatricals both laborious and expensive, add but little to the pleasure of the beholders, whose attention is fixed upon the actors, and who can always see far finer scenes at a minor theatre than at any private theatricals. Were we content with greater simplicity in our amusements, how much vain ostentation, heart-sickening expense, self-recrimination, and trouble, might be avoided!

As a valid objection to private theatricals, it has been urged that they are apt to encourage a taste for the green-room of the public theatre in young men and boys; in women the risk is less, for few women are ever known to go on the stage except from necessity. I own this objection to theatricals is the greatest that can be urged. It can only be answered in mitigation that, where there exists a taste of the kind, it is better that it should be indulged at home, instead of at the theatre, with the modest inmates of a well-governed house, instead of with professional actors. Like all other amusements, the abuse is probable, but the power of restraint rests within ourselves.

Under the same head as private theatricals may come dramatized charades and proverbs, so much in fashion at the present time. These last have some great advantages over the standard plays; they are better suited to a parlor; they do not provoke comparison between the young actors, and the favorite public idols; they require but little scenery and arrangement; they are short; and they do not require so many subordinate characters.

Impromptu charades and proverbs are delightful, and are the occasion for much merriment; the mistakes, the absurd contrasts between character and costume, the scenery—a deep, hanging wood, the court of Louis Quatorze or the deck of a man of war, being improvised at a moment’s notice, only add to the merry enjoyment.

One rule you must observe if you join in these amusements: never to carry your gayety into romping. Merry and laughing you may be, yet never forget you are a lady. You may personate a newly-caught Irish chambermaid, use the broadest brogue, wear the commonest dress, throw yourself heartily and thoroughly into the part, losing your personal identity almost entirely, and yet you may retain that nameless charm, which will place you in the mind of each of the audience as a lady of refinement.

You must also be perfectly good-natured and self-sacrificing; ready to play the smallest parts with the same interest you would throw into the principal ones. Try to throw out all the good points in the parts taken by the other members of the company. If you play an insignificant part, play it well, with all the grace you can, make the most of it, but do not try to raise it to the first place. Yield gracefully the prominent position to those who claim it in the plot of the play, and never try by conspicuous dress or by play, to go beyond the position set down for you.

Another delightful accomplishment, and one which will aid you if you are studying drawing and painting, is that of arranging tableaux vivants.

Mrs. Severn gives the following hints upon this subject:

“Perhaps there is no intellectual amusement in fashionable life, the nature of which is so little understood, as the tableau vivant; it being generally considered as only a vehicle for display, whereas its real purpose is to arrange scientifically a combination of natural objects, so as to make a good picture according to the rules of art.

“A tableau vivant is literally what its name imports—a living picture composed of living persons; and, when skilfully arranged and seen at a proper distance, it produces all the effect of a real picture. It is said, that the first living picture was contrived by a profligate young German nobleman, who having, during the absence of his father, sold one of the celebrated pictures belonging to the old castle, which was an heir-loom, to conceal the deficiency, placed some of his companions behind the frame, so as to imitate the missing picture, and to deceive his father, who passed through the room without being conscious of his loss.

“A tableau vivant may be formed in two ways: it may consist of a group of persons, who take some well-known subject in history or fiction to illustrate, and who form a group to tell the story according to their own taste; or, it may be a copy, as exact as circumstances will permit, of some celebrated picture.

***

The next subject upon the list of accomplishments, should be filled by some words upon fancy sewing. Under this head will come—Crochet, Knitting, Tapestry work, Embroidery, Chenille work, Netting, Canvas work, Berlin wool work, Frame work, Braiding, Bead work, etc.

Small social gatherings will be much more entertaining, the time will pass much more quickly, and the conversation flows more freely if the fingers are employed with some light work.

Pretty presents—nay, beautiful ones—may be made in this way, when the fingers would otherwise be idle, and these will have an additional value in being the work of your own hands.

***

It was formerly objected by the adversaries to mental cultivation in women, that the acquirement of book learning would make them neglect needlework; but so far from this being the case, the present, which is often called the age of learning, is preëminently a working age.

***

In preparing a bridal outfit, it is best to furnish the wardrobe for at least two years, in under-clothes, and one year in dresses, though the bonnet and cloak, suitable for the coming season, are all that are necessary, as the fashions in these articles change so rapidly. If you are going to travel, have a neat dress and cloak of some plain color, and a close bonnet and veil. Avoid, as intensely vulgar, any display of your position as a bride, whilst traveling.

Take, first, the weddings at church. In this case none are invited to the ceremony excepting the family, and the reception is at the house of the bride’s mother, or nearest relative, either on the wedding-day or upon her return from the bridal tour.

In sending out the invitations, let the card of the bridegroom and that of the bride be tied together with a white ribbon, and folded in the note paper upon which is printed the name of the bride’s mother, with the date of the reception-day, thus:—

Mrs. John Saunders.
At home, Thursday, Oct. 16th,
from 11 till 2.

No. 218, —— st.

of course the hours and dates vary, but the form is the same.

If there is no bridal reception upon the wedding day, the cards are worded:—

Mr. and Mrs. James Smith.
At home, Wednesdays,
On, and after, June 6th.

No. 17, —— st.

Tie the card with the bride’s maiden name upon it to this one.

Enclose the invitation in a white envelope, and tie it with white satin ribbon. If you send cake, have it put in a white box, and place the note outside the cover, tying it fast with white satin ribbon.

The bride’s dress must be of white entirely. If she is married in the morning, a plain white silk, white mantle, and white bonnet, full trimmed with orange flowers, with a plain veil, is the most suitable dress, and she may wear a richer one at her reception, when she returns from her bridal tour.

As soon as the carriages come, let the bridesmaids, and relatives set off first.—Last, the bride with her parents. The bride, her parents, and the bridesmaids go immediately to the vestry, where they meet the bridegroom, and the groomsmen. The father of the bride gives her his arm and escorts her to the altar, the bridegroom walking on the other side. Then follow the bridesmaids and groomsmen in couples.

When they reach the altar the bridegroom removes his right hand glove, but the bride keeps hers on until the clergyman takes the ring. The first bridesmaid then removes the left hand glove, and it is not resumed. The bridesmaids should wear white dresses, white mantles, and bonnets, but not veils or orange flowers.

The bride and groom leave the church first, after the ceremony is over, and take the carriage with the parents of the bride, and the others follow in the order in which they came.

If there is a breakfast or morning reception, the bride will not change her dress until she retires to put on her traveling attire. If the wedding takes place in the evening at church, to be followed by a full dress reception at home, the bride should wear a white lace dress over satin, or any other material to suit her own taste, a veil, falling from her head to her feet, fastened to the hair by a coiffure of orange flowers; white kid gloves, and white satin slippers. A bouquet, if carried, should contain only white flowers.

The bridesmaids may wear white, or some thin, light-colored material over white, a head-dress of flowers, and carry bouquets of mixed flowers.

When the wedding takes place at home, let the company assemble in the front drawing-room, and close the doors between that and the back room. In the back room, let the bride, bridegroom, bridesmaids, and groomsmen, the parents of the bride, and the clergyman, assemble. The clergyman should stand in the centre of the room, the bride and groom before him, the bridesmaids ranged beside the bride, the groomsmen beside the bridegroom. Then open the doors and let the ceremony begin. This arrangement saves that awkwardness attendant upon entering the room and taking the position before a large company.

After the ceremony is over, the parents of the bride speak to her first; then her near relatives, and not until then the other members of the company.

It is not usual now to have dancing, or even music, at a wedding, and the hour is named upon the cards, at which the guests are expected to retire.

A very pretty effect is produced in the wedding group, if the bride wears pure white, and the bridesmaids white, with flowers and trimmings of a different color. Thus, one in white, with a head-dress and trimming of green leaves; another, white, with blue ribbons and forget-me-nots; another, white, with pink roses and ribbons.

If the wedding is in the morning, the bride and family may wear full dress; in that case the shutters should be closed and the rooms lighted as in the evenings.

Let the supper be laid early, and ready when the ceremony is over, that the guests may pass into the dining-room, if they wish, as soon as they have spoken to the bride. If a morning wedding, let the table be set as for an evening wedding.

If the bride gives a reception at her own house, after her return from her bridal tour, she should not wear her wedding-dress. If in the evening, a supper should be set. If a morning reception, let her wear a handsome light silk, collar and sleeves of lace. Wine and cake are sufficient to hand to each guest at a morning reception. At an evening reception let the bride wear full dress, but not her wedding-dress.

At parties given to a newly married couple, the bridesmaids and groomsmen are always invited, and the whole party are expected to wear the same dresses as at the wedding.

***

Walking, which has for its aim some pleasing pursuit, and, therefore, animates the mind, is efficacious to the majority. Gardening, which is a modification of walking, offers many advantages both to the delicate and the strong, and it is a species of exercise which we can adjust to our powers. In a continued walk you must go on—you must return; there is no appeal, even if you have gone too far, and would willingly give up any further exertion. But, while gardening, you are still at home—your exertions are devoted to objects the most interesting, because progressive; hope and faith form a part of your stimulus. The happy future, when flowers shall bloom around you, supersedes in your thoughts the vexatious present or the mournful past. About you are the budding treasures of spring, or the gorgeous productions of summer, or the rich hues of those beauties which autumn pours forth most lavishly before it departs,—and is succeeded by winter. Above you are the gay warblers, who seem to hail you as you mingle in the sylvan scenes which are not all theirs, but which you share and appropriate. The ruffled temper, the harassed mind, may find a solace in the occupation of gardening, which aids the effect of exercise and the benign influence of fresh air. Stores of future and never-dying interest are buried in the earth with every seed, only to spring up again redoubled in their value. A lady, as a writer in the ‘Quarterly Review’ observes, should ‘not only have but know her plants.’ And her enjoyment of those delights is truly enhanced by that personal care, without which few gardens, however superintended by the scientific gardener, can prosper, and which bless as they thrive; her plants bestow health on the frame which is bowed down to train them—they give to her the blessing of a calm and rational pleasure—they relieve her from the necessity of excitement—they promote alike, in the wealthy and the poor, these gentle exertions which are coupled with the most poetical and the sweetest of associations.

***

Dancing, which is the most frequent mode of exercise with ladies in great cities, practiced, as it is, in heated rooms, and exhausting from its violence, often does more harm than good, from producing languor and over-fatigue. Unhappily there are but few modes of exercise in-doors adapted for women. If, from any circumstances, they are confined to their homes, and they become feverish and languid from want of exercise, it never occurs to them to throw open the windows and to walk about, or to make use of battledore and shuttlecock, or any other mode of exertion. They continue sitting, reading, or walking, or lounging, or sleeping, or gossiping,—whilst the bloom of health is rapidly giving place to the wanness and debility of the imprisoned frame.

***

“Manners,” says the eloquent Edmund Burke, “are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend. The law can touch us here and there, now and then. Manners are what vex or sooth, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarise or refine, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe in. They give their whole form and colors to our lives. According to their quality they aid morals, they supply them, or they totally destroy them.”

***

Depend upon it, silvery hair is better adapted to the faded cheeks of middle age, than are tresses of nut-brown or coal-black, or any of the mysterious shades produced by a dirty decoction called Hair-dye.

***

Men of sense—I speak not of boys of eighteen to five and twenty, during their age of detestability—men who are worth the trouble of falling in love with, and the fuss and inconvenience, of being married to, and to whom one might, after some inward conflicts, and a course perhaps of fasting and self-humiliation, submit to fulfil those ill-contrived vows of obedience which are exacted at the altar, such men want, for their wives, companions, not dolls; and women who would suit such men are just as capable of loving fervently, deeply, as the Ringlettina, full of song and sentiment, who cannot walk, cannot rise in the morning, cannot tie her bonnet-strings, faints if she has to lace her boots, never in her life brushed out her beautiful hair, would not for the world prick her delicate finger with plain sewing; but who can work harder than a factory girl upon a lamb’s-wool shepherdess, dance like a dervise at balls, ride like a fox-hunter, and, whilst every breath of air gives her cold in her father’s house, and she cannot think how people can endure this climate, she can go out to parties in February and March, with an inch of sleeve and half-a-quarter of boddice.

All circumstances well examined, there can be no doubt Providence has willed that man should be the head of the human race, even as woman is its heart; that he should be its strength, as she is its solace; that he should be its wisdom, as she is its grace; that he should be its mind, its impetus, and its courage, as she is its sentiment, its charm, and its consolation. Too great an amelioration could not be effected, in our opinion, in the system generally adopted, which, far from correcting or even compensating the presumed intellectual inequality of the two sexes, generally serves only to increase it. By placing, for example, dancing and needle-work at the extreme poles of female study, the one for its attraction and the other for its utility, and by not filling the immense interval with anything more valuable than mere monotonous, imperfect, superficial, and totally unphilosophical notions, this system has made of the greater number of female seminaries, establishments which may be compared alike to nursery-grounds for coquettes and sempstresses. It is never remembered that in domestic life conversation is of more importance than the needle or choregraphy; that a husband is neither a pacha nor a lazzarone, who must be perpetually intoxicated or unceasingly patched; that there are upon the conjugal dial many long hours of calm intimacy, of cool contemplation, of cold tenderness; and that the husband makes another home elsewhere if his own hearth offers him only silence; or what is a hundred times worse, merely frivolous and monotonous discourse. Let the woman play the gossip at a given moment, that is all very well; let her superintend the laundry or the kitchen at another, that is also very well; but these duties only comprise two-thirds of her mission. Ought care not to be taken that during the rest of her time she could also be capable of becoming to her husband a rational friend, a cheerful partner, an interesting companion, or, at least, an efficient listener, whose natural intelligence, even if originally inferior to his own, shall, by the help of education, have been raised to the same level!

***

A knowledge of domestic duties is beyond all price to a woman. Every one of the sex ought to know how to sew, and knit, and mend, and cook, and superintend a household. In every situation of life, high or low, this sort of knowledge is of great advantage. There is no necessity that the gaining of such information should interfere with intellectual acquirement or even elegant accomplishment. A well-regulated mind can find time to attend to all. When a girl is nine or ten years old, she should be accustomed to take some regular share in household duties, and to feel responsible for the manner in which her part is performed—such as her own mending, washing the cups and putting them in place, cleaning silver, or dusting and arranging the parlor. This should not be done occasionally, and neglected whenever she finds it convenient—she should consider it her department. When older than twelve, girls should begin to take turns in superintending the household—making puddings, pies, cakes, &c. To learn effectually, they should actually do these themselves, and not stand by and see others do them. Many a husband has been ruined for want of these domestic qualities in a wife—and many a husband has been saved from ruin by his wife being able to manage well the household concerns.

***

Link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35123

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Excerpts from How to Behave: A Pocket Manual or Republican Etiquette, and Guide to Correct Personal Habits by Samuel R. Wells, 1887

I will be sharing several interesting excerpts from the books that I have been reading as of late. This one is an etiquette book written by Samuel R. Wells, a Victorian phrenologist and author, in 1887 entitled How to Behave: A Pocket Manual or Republican Etiquette, and Guide to Correct Personal Habits. I will also put the link to the full text at the end of the excerpts if you want to read the complete work.

Let’s begin.

III.—POSITION AND MOVEMENT.

Study also the graces of manner, motion, and position. Grace is natural, no doubt, but most of us have nearly lost sight of nature. It is often with the greatest difficulty that we find our way back to her paths. It seems a simple and easy thing to walk, and a still easier and simpler thing to stand or sit, but not one in twenty perform either of these acts with ease and grace. There are a hundred little things connected with attitude, movement, the carriage of the arms, the position of the feet and the like, which, though seemingly unimportant are really essential to elegance and ease. Never despise these little things, or be ashamed to acquire the smallest grace by study and practice.

You desire to be a person of “good standing” in society. How do you stand? We refer now to the artistic or esthetic point of view. If you are awkward, you are more likely to manifest your awkwardness in standing than in walking. Do you know where to put your feet and what to do with your hands? In the absence of any better rule or example, try to forget your limbs, and let them take care of themselves. But observe the attitudes which sculptors give to their statues; and study also those of children, which are almost always graceful, because natural. Avoid, on the one hand, the stiffness of the soldier, and, on the other, the ape-like suppleness of the dancing-master; and let there be no straining, no fidgeting, no uneasy shifting of position. You should stand on both feet, bearing a little more heavily on one than the other. The same general principles apply to the sitting posture. This may be either graceful, dignified, and elegant, or awkward, abject, and uncouth. The latter class of qualities may be got rid of and the former acquired, and depend upon it, it is a matter of some consequence which of them characterizes your position and movements. Walking is not so difficult an accomplishment as standing and sitting, but should receive due attention. It has a very close connection with character, and either of them may be improved or deteriorated through the other. A close observer and a sensible and trustworthy monitor of their own sex thus enumerates some of the common faults of women in their “carriage,” or manner of walking:

“Slovenliness in walking characterizes some. They go shuffling along, precisely as if their shoes were down at the heel—“slipshod”—and they could not lift up their feet in consequence. If it is dusty or sandy, they kick up the dust before them and fill their skirts with it. This is exceedingly ungraceful. If I were a gentleman, I really do not think I could marry a lady who walked like this; she would appear so very undignified, and I could not be proud of her.

“Some have another awkwardness. They lift up their feet so high that their knees are sent out before them showing the movement through the dress. They always seem to be leaving their skirts behind them, instead of carrying them gracefully about them. Some saunter along so loosely they seem to be hung on wires; others are as stiff as if they supposed only straight lines were agreeable to the eye; and others, again, run the chin forward considerably in advance of the breast, looking very silly and deficient in self-respect.

“Sometimes a lady walks so as to turn up her dress behind every time she puts her foot back, and I have seen a well-dressed woman made to look very awkward by elevating her shoulders slightly and pushing her elbows too far behind her. Some hold their hands up to the waist, and press their arms against themselves as tightly as if they were glued there; others swing them backward and forward, as a business man walks along the street. Too short steps detract from dignity very much, forming a mincing pace; too long steps are masculine.

“Some walk upon the ball of the foot very flatly and clumsily; others come down upon the heel as though a young elephant was moving; and others, again, ruin their shoes and their appearance by walking upon the side of the foot. Many practice a stoop called the Grecian bend, and when they are thirty, will pass well, unless the face be seen, for fifty years’ old.”

Gymnastics, dancing, and the military drill are excellent auxiliaries in the work of physical training, though all of them may be, and constantly are, abused. We can not illustrate their application here. They will receive the attention they deserve in “Hints toward Physical Perfection,” already referred to as in preparation.

***

Out of rights grow duties; the first of which is to live an honest, truthful, self-loyal life, acting and speaking always and everywhere in accordance with the laws of our being, as revealed in our own physical and mental organization. It is by the light of this fact that we must look upon all social requirements, whether in dress, manners, or morals. All that is fundamental and genuine in these will be found to harmonize with universal principles, and consequently with our primary duty in reference to ourselves.

***

[…] but the basis of all true politeness and social enjoyment is the mutual tolerance of personal rights.

***

The husband should never cease to be a lover, or fail in any of those delicate attentions and tender expressions of affectionate solicitude which marked his intercourse before marriage with his heart’s queen. All the respectful deference, every courteous observance, all the self-sacrificing devotion that can be claimed by a mistress is certainly due to a wife, and he is no true husband and no true gentleman who withholds them. It is not enough that you honor, respect, and love your wife. You must put this honor, respect, and love into the forms of speech and action. Let no unkind word, no seeming indifference, no lack of the little attentions due her, remind her sadly of the sweet days of courtship and the honey-moon. Surely the love you thought would have been cheaply purchased at the price of a world is worth all you care to preserve. Is not the wife more, and better, and dearer than the sweetheart? We venture to hint that it is probably your own fault if she is not.

The chosen companion of your life, the mother of your children, the sharer of all your joys and sorrows, as she possesses the highest place in your affections, should have the best place everywhere, the choicest morsels, the politest attentions, the softest, kindest words, the tenderest care. Love, duty, and good manners alike require it.

And has the wife no duties? Have the courteous observances, the tender watchfulness, the pleasant words, the never-tiring devotion, which won your smiles, your spoken thanks, your kisses, your very self, in days gone by, now lost their value? Does not the husband rightly claim as much, at least, as the lover? If you find him less observant of the little courtesies due you, may this not be because you sometimes fail to reward him with the same sweet thanks and sweeter smiles? Ask your own heart.

Have the comfort and happiness of your husband always in view, and let him see and feel that you still look up to him with trust and affection—that the love of other days has not grown cold. Dress for his eyes more scrupulously than for all the rest of the world; make yourself and your home beautiful for his sake; play and sing (if you can) to please him; try to beguile him from his cares; retain his affections in the same way you won them, and—be polite even to your husband.

***

V.—WEDDINGS.

We copy from one of the numerous manners books before us the following condensed account of the usual ceremonies of a formal wedding. A simpler, less ceremonious, and more private mode of giving legal sanction to an already existing union of hearts would be more to our taste; but, as the French proverb has it, Chacun à son goût.

For a stylish wedding, the lady requires a bridegroom, two bridesmaids, two groomsmen, and a parson or magistrate, her relatives and whatever friends of both parties they may choose to invite. For a formal wedding in the evening, a week’s notice is requisite. The lady fixes the day. Her mother or nearest female relation invites the guests. The evening hour is 8 o’clock; but if the ceremony is private, and the happy couple to start immediately and alone, the ceremony usually takes place in the morning at eleven or twelve o’clock.

If there is an evening party, the refreshments must be as usual on such occasions, with the addition of wedding cake, commonly a pound cake with rich frosting, and a fruit cake.

The dress of the bride is of the purest white; her head is commonly dressed with orange flowers, natural or artificial, and white roses. She wears few ornaments, and none but such as are given her for the occasion. A white lace vail is often worn on the head. White long gloves and white satin slippers complete the costume.

The dress of the bridegroom is simply the full dress of a gentleman, of unusual richness and elegance.

The bridesmaids are dressed also in white, but more simply than the bride.

At the hour appointed for the ceremony, the second bridesmaid and groomsman, when there are two, enter the room; then, first bridesmaid and groomsman; and lastly the bride and bridegroom. They enter, the ladies taking the arms of the gentlemen, and take seats appointed, so that the bride is at the right of the bridegroom, and each supported by their respective attendants.

A chair is then placed for the clergyman or magistrate in front of the happy pair. When he comes forward to perform the ceremony, the bridal party rises. The first bridesmaid, at the proper time, removes the glove from the left hand of the bride; or, what seems to us more proper, both bride and bridegroom have their gloves removed at the beginning of the ceremony. In joining hands they take each other’s right hand, the bride and groom partially turning toward each other. The wedding ring, of plain fine gold, provided beforehand by the groom, is sometimes given to the clergyman, who presents it. It is placed upon the third finger of the left hand.

When the ceremony is ended, and the twain are pronounced one flesh, the company present their congratulations—the clergyman first, then the mother, the father of the bride, and the relations; then the company, the groomsmen acting as masters of ceremonies, bringing forward and introducing the ladies, who wish the happy couple joy, happiness, prosperity; but not exactly “many happy returns.”

The bridegroom takes an early occasion to thank the clergyman, and to put in his hand, at the same time, nicely enveloped, a piece of gold, according to his ability and generosity. The gentleman who dropped two half dollars into the minister’s hands, as they were held out, in the prayer, was a little confused by the occasion.

When a dance follows the ceremony and congratulations, the bride dances, first, with the first groomsman, taking the head of the room and the quadrille, and the bridegroom with the first bridesmaid; afterwards as they please. The party breaks up early—certainly by twelve o’clock.

The cards of the newly married couple are sent to those only whose acquaintance they wish to continue. No offense should be taken by those whom they may choose to exclude. Send your card, therefore, with the lady’s, to all whom you desire to include in the circle of your future acquaintances. The lady’s card will have engraved upon it, below her name, “At home, ——evening, at—o’clock.” They should be sent a week previous to the evening indicated.

***

VI.—FUNERALS.

When any member of a family is dead, it is customary to send intelligence of the misfortune to all who have been connected with the deceased in relations of business or friendship. The letters which are sent contain a special invitation to assist at the funeral. Such a letter requires no answer.

At an interment or funeral service, the members of the family are entitled to the first places. They are nearest to the coffin, whether in the procession or in the church. The nearest relations go in a full mourning dress.

We are excused from accompanying the body to the burying-ground, unless the deceased be a relation or an intimate friend. If we go as far as the burying-ground, we should give the first carriage to the relations or most intimate friends of the deceased. We should walk with the head uncovered, silently, and with such a mien as the occasion naturally suggests.

***

Link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26597

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Excerpts from Manners for Men by Mrs. Humphry, 1897

I will be sharing several interesting excerpts from the books that I have been reading as of late. This one is an etiquette book for gentlemen written by Mrs. Humphry, a late Victorian novelist, in 1897 entitled Manners for Men. I will also put the link to the full text at the end of the excerpts if you want to read the complete work.

Let’s begin.

Apart from faults of temper, men fall into careless habits of speech and manner at home, and one form of this, viz., habitually using strong language in the presence of women and children, is particularly offensive. Besides, it defeats itself; for if the forcible expressions are intended to express disapprobation, they soon become weak and powerless to do so, because they are used on every possible occasion. After a time they lose all meaning.

***

The strict rule is that when walking with a lady a man should never leave her side.

***

Sometimes ladies are very anxious to take the reins and drive themselves, a circumstance which has often occasioned agonies of nervousness to other women on the coach. It is quite possible to refuse such a request in a polite and gentlemanly way, partly by seeming to ignore it or laughing it off.

***

The old-fashioned rule that a man must approach the father of a girl before offering himself in marriage to her has now, to some extent, died out.

***

The usual way to ask for the admired one’s hand in marriage is in person. This is always preferable to writing, though some men have not the courage to adopt the first course. 

Should the lady accept the offer, the happy wooer must take the earliest opportunity of seeing her father, or, failing him, her nearest friend, and begging him to permit the engagement. Should he consent, all is well; but in the contrary case, his decision must be accepted.

***

Immediately upon having the engagement ratified, the accepted suitor gives the lady an engagement ring. This should be as handsome a present as he can afford to buy. Together with all other presents and correspondence on both sides, this ring must be returned if the engagement should be broken off.

***

No man should drag a girl into a long engagement. Nor should any man propose to a girl until he is in a position to provide for her. 

He is only standing in the way of other wooers who may be well supplied with this world’s gear. Such trifles as wealth and ease may appear as nought to the mind of the youthful lover, not to be weighed for a moment in the balance with love and young romance. The girl, too, may be of the same way of thinking at the time, but it the more behoves the man, the stronger, to consider her and to remember that poverty is such a bitter and a cruel thing that it even kills love at times.

***

Custom demands that the bridegroom shall present her bouquet to the bride, as well as bouquets and a present each to the bridesmaids. He must furnish the house for the bride in every detail, not excepting the house and table linen, which, in the old days of spinning-wheels, was wont to be contributed by the bride herself. 

He must provide the wedding ring and the carriage in which his best man and himself go to church. He pays the fees to clergyman and clerk, but it is the best man who hands them over. With him the bridegroom waits at the altar till the bride arrives. She takes her place at his left hand for the first time, and at the proper moment he produces the ring which is the symbol of their union. 

The usual dress of a bridegroom consists of a very dark blue frock-coat, light trousers, light or white scarf-tie, patent boots, and a new hat.

***

Addresses of Letters. 

Her Majesty the Queen. 

To His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. 

To Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. 

This same form is used in addressing communications to all other members of the Royal Family, adding the title where the word “Prince” or “Princess” would be incorrect, as:— 

To His Royal Highness the Duke of York. 

To Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York. 

Below the rank of royalty there is the distinction between letters addressed by persons on an equality with those to whom formal and they write, and by inferiors. 

***

Address for the envelope—formal and informal. 

I shall call them formal and informal, and range them in separate lines. 

Informal. Formal. 
The Duke of —— To His Grace the Duke of —— 
The Duchess of —— To Her Grace the Duchess of —— 
The Marquis of —— To the Most Honourable the Marquis of —— 
The Marchioness of ——    To the Most Honourable the Marchioness of —— 
The Earl of —— To the Right Honourable the Earl of —— 
The Countess of —— To the Right Honourable the Countess of —— 
The Viscount —— The Right Honourable the Viscount —— 
The Viscountess —— The Right Honourable the Viscountess —— 
Lord —— The Right Honourable Lord —— or Baron —— 
Lady —— The Right Honourable Lady —— or Baroness— 

***

Addressing Privy Councillors. 

Members of the Privy Council are also addressed as “Right Honourable,” in the same way as Peers. In this case the names of commoners are not followed by the abbreviation “Esq.,” as:— 

The Right Honourable James Balfour, M.P. 

***

Ambassadors. 

Ambassadors and their wives are addressed as “His Excellency,” “Her Excellency,” the personal and official titles following the word, as:— 

To His Excellency the Earl of——, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to France. 

To Her Excellency the Countess of——. 

Other official personages are addressed in the following way:— 

To His Excellency Lord Blank, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. 

To His Grace the Archbishop of——. 

The Right Reverend the Bishop of——. 

The Very Reverend the Dean of——. 

***

Degrees. 

Academical distinctions are indicated by the initials placed after the name—LL.D. for Doctor of Laws and Learning, D.D. for Doctor of Divinity and so on. 

***

Beginning the letter. 

So much for the envelopes. The proper way to begin letters is as follows. As I have mentioned, the Queen is addressed as “Madam” in the inside of a letter. A gentleman writing 

***

To the Queen. 

to the Queen would sign himself, “I have the honour to submit myself, with profound respect, Your Majesty’s most devoted subject and servant.” Above the word “Madam” should be written “Her Majesty the Queen.” Lord Beaconsfield struck out a line of his own and in writing to the Queen began, “Mr. Disraeli,” continuing in the third person and addressing Her Majesty in the second. 

***

To the Prince and Princess of Wales. 

The Prince of Wales is addressed as “Sir,” above this word being written “To His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.” Persons on intimate terms sometimes begin “Sir” or “Dear Prince,” others “My dear Prince.” The Princess of Wales is occasionally addressed by friends as “My dear Princess.” The two orthodox endings to such letters are respectively “Your Royal Highness’s dutiful and obedient servant,” or (a humbler style) “Your Royal Highness’s dutiful and most obedient servant.” To all other Royal Princes and Princesses the ending would be “Most Humble and Obedient Servant.” 

***

To a Duke and Duchess. 

Dukes other than royal are addressed inside letters by intimates as “Dear Duke,” by others “My Lord Duke, may it please your Grace.” In writing to a Duchess her title is placed above the “Madam.” In formal letters Marquises would be addressed as “My Lord Marquis.”

***

On omitting christian names from courtesy titles. 

A very common form of mistake is that of omitting the Christian name from the courtesy titles of the sons and daughters of dukes, marquises, and earls. The sons have the title “Lord” prefixed to the Christian and surname: for instance, “Lord Alfred Osborne,” “Lord Henry Somerset.” It is extremely incorrect to call either of these “Lord Osborne” or “Lord Somerset.” The daughters of dukes, marquises and earls have the title “Lady” before their Christian and surname; “Lady Emily Heneage,” for instance, must not be addressed as “Lady Heneage.” Should she marry a commoner only the surname is altered, the “Lady Emily” remains. This may all appear a little involved to those unaccustomed to titles, but neglect of these forms indicates very clearly a lack of savoir faire. It is a source of great annoyance to the owners of courtesy titles to have the Christian name omitted. Anybody, even a knight’s wife, may be a “Lady Smith” or “Jones”; the insertion of the Christian name before the “Smith” or “Jones” means that the possessor is the daughter of a duke, marquis, or earl. 

***

Beginning a letter to the above.

In beginning a letter to any of the above a stranger would say “Dear Lady Mary Smith,” but the usual form would be “Dear Lady Mary.” Inferiors would begin by writing the lady’s title over the word “Madam,” or merely beginning “Madam” and writing the title at the end of the letter. 

***

To an ambassador with conclusion. 

In writing to an ambassador or his wife the title is placed above the word “Sir” or “Madam.” Inferiors would write “May it please your Excellency,” and would conclude with “I have the honour to be Your Excellency’s most humble, obedient servant.”

***

An archbishop. 

In writing to an archbishop a correspondent would begin “Your Grace,” ending, “I remain Your Grace’s most obedient servant.”

***

A bishop. 

To a bishop the form would be, “My Lord,” or “Right Reverend Sir,” or “May it please Your Lordship,” the last being, of course, the humblest form of address. The conclusion would be, I remain, “My Lord” (or “Right Reverend Sir”) “Your most obedient servant.” 

***

A dean. 

The beginning of a letter to a dean would be, “Reverend Sir” or “Mr. Dean,” the title of all these dignitaries being, in formal letters, indited above the beginning. Those having slight acquaintance would begin, “Dear Mr. Dean.” Strangers would end the letter, “I have the honour to be Your most obedient servant.” 

***

Doctors of Divinity. 

Doctors of divinity are addressed as “Reverend Sir,” as well as archdeacons and all other clergy.

Intimates would begin letters to the above with: “Dear Archbishop,” “Dear Bishop,” “Dear Dean,” or “Dear Doctor.” 

***

Officers in the army. 

With the sole exception of lieutenants in the army, all officers have their military rank prefixed to their name. Ensigns and lieutenants are addressed as “Esq.” 

And navy. 

***

Letters of condolence. 

A very unusual fault committed is to begin by dilating upon the shock or grief felt by the writer. The absurdity of this becomes apparent when one compares mentally the shock or grief as felt by the recipient. Two lines conveying the expression of sympathy are better than pages of even the most eloquent composition. Mourners require all their fortitude at times of loss, and anything likely to impair their self-command is the reverse of a kindness.

***

In this connection it may be as well to remark that about a week after the funeral it is customary to call and leave cards of inquiry. When these are responded to by cards of thanks for inquiries, it is a sign that the family is willing to receive callers.

***

Link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53262

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Excerpts from A Word to Women by Mrs. Humphry, 1898

I am learning to embrace my unique lifestyle by reading more about the Victorian era, a period in which I find most of my favorite art and some of the most amazing inventions. Perhaps our historic, Queen Anne-styled home has rubbed off on me too, as I am surrounded by its beauty every day. Hopefully, learning what a middle-class Victorian woman did in the home will help guide me on my own journey through life.

I will be sharing several interesting excerpts from the books that I have been reading as of late. This one is an etiquette book for ladies written by Mrs. Humphry, a late Victorian novelist, in 1898 entitled A Word to Women. I will also put the link to the full text at the end of the excerpts if you want to read the complete work.

Let’s begin.

His wife is an education to him…

***

The ideal girl is she who combines with high culture a love of the domestic and a desire to please.

***

It is good to encourage the love of simple pleasures. It is the way to keep our souls from shrinking.

***

To possess a grateful spirit is to increase the happiness of life.

***

It is good to teach young people to appreciate the infinite, everyday pleasures that surround them. It adds immensely to their happiness…

***

To grow old is tragic, especially for women.

***

And as one of Nature’s decrees is that which causes us to adjust ourselves to altered surroundings after change or loss, we accept the altered circumstances, and allow our thoughts and feelings to grow round what is left to us.

***

We were surely meant to be happy, we humans, so indomitable is the inclination towards joyfulness under circumstances the most adverse. It is easy enough in youth, and even the sceptic, the pessimist, the cynic, if they live long enough, will find that it is not so very difficult in middle age, when scepticism, pessimism, and cynicism are apt to be outgrown. There lies the true secret of the matter. There is a joy in growth, and we must see to it that we do not cheat ourselves of it. Stunted natures are seldom happy ones, and their middle age is merely mental shrinkage, with a narrowing of the heart and a corresponding drought in all the sources of joy.

***

Sometimes two who have loved each other in their youth meet again when middle age has come to both. Such a meeting can never be commonplace to either. Nor do the two see each other as they are visible to ordinary acquaintances. In the eyes of memory, the grey hair is replaced by the sunny locks of youth; the saddened eyes are bright again and eagerly out-looking into a world of abundant promise; the worn and furrowed brow becomes smooth and white, the pale cheeks touched with youthful bloom; and with a delicious sense of reciprocity each knows that the lost youth of both is present to the mind of either. 

***

But time gives us all something in return; a growing patience which brings sweetness and gentleness in its train; a wider outlook on the world and a deeper insight into the hearts of friends; a tender sympathy with those who suffer, and a truer sense of comradeship with our fellow-travellers on life’s road. And all these things write themselves clearly enough on the ageing faces, sometimes beautifying what once was almost destitute of charm; and sometimes spiritualising what once was beautiful in form and colour, but lacked the loveliness that results from an equal balance of mind and heart.

***

The Boy’s Lament

“What can a boy do, and where can a boy stay,
If he always is told to get out of the way?
He cannot sit here, and he mustn’t stand there,
The cushions that cover that gaily-decked chair
Were put there, of course, to be seen and admired;
A boy has no business to feel a bit tired.
The beautiful carpets with blossom and bloom
On the floor of the tempting and light-shaded room,
Are not made to be walked on—at least, not by boys.
The house is no place, anyway, for their noise.

.

There’s a place for the boys. They will find it somewhere,
And if our own homes are too daintily fair
For the touch of their fingers, the tread of their feet,
They’ll find it, and find it, alas! in the street,
’Mid the gildings of sin and the glitter of vice;
And with heartaches and longings we pay a dear price
For the getting of gain that our lifetime employs
If we fail in providing a place for our boys.

.

Though our souls may be vexed with the problems of life,
And worn with besetments and toiling and strife,
Our hearts will keep younger—your tired heart and mine—
If we give them a place in our innermost shrine;
And till life’s latest hour ’twill be one of our joys
That we keep a small corner—a place for the boys.”

***

Link: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36330

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Creating a Lifestyle Worth Living

As I approach my thirties, I have come to truly learn what kind of job I can not only handle but not dread from day to day. From micromanaging bosses to the gossip around the watercooler, I have not looked back since choosing to go freelance. I worked during college at my school’s private library for four years as a part-time student assistant, then as a receptionist in a law firm, and finally as a library assistant in a public library before being fed up with the pace and lifestyle those kinds of jobs made for me.

I have always been self-driven and goal-directed without the “helpful push” of a boss. I have always been my own boss. (My carefully filled-out agenda each school year would tell you as much). And with this personality came the difficulty of watching my peers slack off and enjoy standing still in their jobs while I felt like I was suffocating. Once I had paid off my student loans in about five years, I resigned from my last employee-centered job and went full-time freelance.

I began my freelance proofreading journey by taking the Proofread Anywhere course in 2017, and by 2018, I had completed the exam successfully. At this time, I was a receptionist at a law firm because the law had always interested me. My philosophy professors in college certainly pushed their students into law during my time there. It was considered a more “practical job” over becoming a philosopher, I suppose.

Proofreading has now become my longest-held job, and I have no plans to quit now. To me, typos had always jumped out on the page while reading books or other people’s papers. Perhaps I can thank my mother and father for reading to me at an early age and allowing me to challenge myself with more difficult reading material. My mother was also a writer and her day job consisted of copywriting for publishing houses, and my father wrote poetry for pleasure. Words were always a part of my world.

As a child, I loved holding my younger brother hostage, reading out loud from any book I could get my hands on. I would read for hours until my voice gave out. All of those moments of getting lost in a book, listening to the cadence of my voice rising and falling like waves, were so deliciously addictive. Nothing interested me more than continuing to read…and I still feel the same way.

With copious amounts of reading blossoms a desire for quiet, space, and routine. I grew accustomed to sitting in my home alone in silence and maximizing my time to accommodate more reading. This lifestyle translated extremely well into becoming a remote proofreader. I pull up the chair to my desk with my rather small laptop open on it, sitting in the quiet and reading most of my transcripts and manuscripts out loud. The lull of my voice carries the words back into my head, tripping an alarm every time I come across an error or something that simply does not sound or look right.

I usually have a split screen between the piece I’m proofreading and the Internet or a style guide sheet. Usually, reference books are strewn around me on various tables to my left and right. The thing about proofreading is that you have all the answers at your fingertips—you just have to know where to quickly search for them. Decision fatigue sets in after answering a million questions that crop up after reading every sentence with so much care. This is why I am being paid to do it. Proofreading can cause headaches, eyestrain, and fatigue. I have experienced it all. But I am good at it, and, while it is hard work, I love it.

Opening up a fresh transcript from a court reporter, I learn so much about any number of topics. I always wanted to learn everything growing up, and since we have yet to produce a chip to insert into our brains, I have had to spend time reading to learn. My desire to know more is not hindered by my job now—it is quenched. I learn new legal terms in Latin or medical terms or criminal slang on any given day.

When a publishing company asked me to copyedit and/or proofread for them a few years into my proofreading career, I paused. In college, we had creative writing workshops which were essentially learning to give editorial advice on everything from developmental, structural, and grammatical aspects. And I loathed it. Why? Sadly, the culture in this country, especially in the universities, is one of liberal, collectivist thought. I disagreed to my core with most of the stories. The fictional pieces were filled with things the college students had read in their other classes or filled with childish clichés from a lack of reading enough or riddled with grammatical errors that were acceptable to pass off as a “stylistic choice” thanks to modern writers everywhere. Not only was editing not appealing to me, but freelance writing and journalism paid for writers to produce work for businesses and products that I did not care about. My words (and brainpower) felt too precious to waste on those challenging jobs, writing was already hard enough.

My college days taught me that I would never be able to become a professor, though I loved learning, or an editor, though I loved writing, or a traditionally published author, though I knew my writing was good enough. My choices were made and shaped so much by this culture. But without feeling too much pity for myself, I decided that I still wanted to live a happy life on this earth right here and now.

So I pulled away from the “traditional 9–5” in exchange for the atypical freelance life. I took control of who I interacted with on a daily basis, which mostly consists now of my husband, family, and friends. I behave with the proper etiquette to all strangers I meet, but I do not engage any more than I need to. I guard my time carefully, and I devote myself to the most black-and-white type of work possible in the writing world: proofreading.

In another blog post, I wrote about how I considered proofreading a skill, calligraphy a craft, and writing an art. I wrote the novels that were in my soul when they needed to be written and put them out into the world myself. I practiced calligraphy after a long workday to help free my mind from the meaning of words to focus more on the beautiful shapes they made instead. (Plus, I had always wanted my cursive to look like my mother’s when I was young). However, in the spirit of transparency, living in Iowa and in this dormant age, the royalty checks are not large enough and the calligraphy clients are few and far between. Most of my money comes from proofreading alone.

While I struggle financially, I am not a “starving artist” thanks to the help of my wonderful husband. I surely help supplement our family income, but I am not at all the breadwinner. I am learning to be okay with my status, investing myself in more of the domestic duties around the home while continuing to learn as much as I can, since knowledge means much more to me than wealth. In a proper society, the value that I produce would bring me the appropriate amount of money, but this is not a healthy period. I acknowledged this reality, and so I adapted my life accordingly.

I continue to incorporate my skill, craft, and art into my daily life, and it is not something I ever plan to retire from. I won my freedom back from a school system that expected us to conform to the traditional workforce. I have created a life that I feel good about. And with my husband and me beginning to plan for children, I can stay at home with them in the future while working. A new chapter of my life is beginning and, for once, I feel grounded and in control of it.

My hope is more people think critically about the work that would fit best with their own personality and lifestyle. I realize that my path of being very much a homebody and self-directed is not for everyone. But it is what makes me happy. What makes you happy? If you had all the free time in the world, what would you do with your time? Is there a way you can monetize your passion for something? Go out there and create the world you want to live in, even if that is only within your own four walls.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Why Did I Write A Man of Action?

***WARNING: SPOILERS***

I essentially wrote A Man of Action as a means of updating my “fictionalized scrapbook” and expressing my frustration with the law. My concerns had to do with whether a life sentence without the possibility of parole was really a punishment equivalent to the crime committed. I have always believed that prison is meant as punishment, not necessarily for rehabilitation.

I see a deadly crime as one that only comes after many transgressions have occurred before the worst one. It is a downhill trajectory. I was inspired by the Barbie and Ken Killers’ case this time. What if they lived in my husband’s beautiful Queen-Anne-styled house? What kind of psychological hold did Paul Bernardo have over Karla Homolka, or was she just as guilty for the crimes they committed? Could a man like him truly love a woman who is “of the flesh” after killing another human being? A woman’s defining trait, after all, is her ability to create life.

Conrad has these constant thoughts of killing people, and he believes that he is fighting “for the good” by only hurting other criminals. But what is he losing by committing each offense against another individual, and what about Elizabeth?

One other aspect that frightened me about this idea is how quickly the human body can be harmed as opposed to how slowly it takes to create and heal—a single bruise can take two weeks to heal, a deeper wound can take half a year! All the little bits that make up you took nine months in your mother’s womb, only to have some other beast come to destroy it all in seconds. Creating is so hard, in any form, that it is almost unbearable to me to see it annihilated so easily.

Both Conrad and Elizabeth end up dead in this tragedy because I could see no other way out for their deeds. In my mind, a woman would be destroyed just from carrying the burden of death and being separated from her lover, while a man would be ruined without a purpose by being holed up in prison for life. Death only seems to beget more death. So, I say, let the legal system do its work and hope that justice is served, only don’t sacrifice yourself to it.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Why Did I Write A Man of Silence?

***WARNING: SPOILERS***

I essentially wrote A Man of Silence as a way to describe what daily gratitude looks like in slow living, while also coming (somewhat) to terms with my own divorce.

The idea of a cathedral (which then became a monastery) came to me when I began college. I think I noticed for the first time just how sheltered I had been and this new, fast, hard lifestyle made me vulnerable. I learned that I ached for my time alone and in silence.

Could I live happily without religion? Could I be a moral person without religion? Those were my main concerns throughout college as I was still unclear about how vital secular morality was to my life, even though I had already found Objectivism. I had yet to truly delve deep into the philosophy.

Brother John escapes from his former “normal” life in search of the one he desires—the monastic one. However, he is an atheist. So, the main conflict for me was to show how religious people blindly follow their passions or what religious leaders tell them or the Bible, while the rational, secular Man follows his own mind and his own interests. The picture leads to one that paints the religious as more often “sinful” than the nonreligious.

Though, Brother John is not without his own demons either, since he is searching through his routine and rituals for some ultimate standard of “Truth” and “Beauty,” as a poet might, all while denying his passions entirely. It makes for a man who is oftentimes struggling with himself. Still, I find his behavior less reprehensible than the religious men in the story who have sex with prostitutes, or flagellate themselves just for suffering’s sake, or call upon students to hurt other people for political gain.

Secular morality has to be learned; it is not innate. And I believe that as long as a person is trying to learn something honestly, even when mistakes are made, they are still morally perfect. But those who are living dishonestly and are never truly bettering themselves, such as the other monks presented in this story, well, they are imperfect human beings who will never find peace.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Why Did I Write The Dormant Age?

***WARNING: SPOILERS***

I essentially wrote The Dormant Age as a way to praise and commemorate my lifelong hobby as well as a critique on modern ballet and its destructive ways.

Madame Roberts is clearly the good foil to the bad Madame Angulaire. She teaches her students not only ballet but how to live with grace throughout life—from youth (Dawn) to old age (Natalie).

The main launching point for the conflict came from a college course (of course) called, Meaning and Purpose of the Arts, where I was introduced for the first time to Martha Graham’s work. I will never forget the day when I watched that video of her thrusting herself to and fro in that ridiculous and ugly purple tube of fabric to the choppy, sporadic sounds of the piano (Lamentation, 1930). Ballet requires music, otherwise it is just pantomime or without movement it is no longer dance. But even the music deteriorated into irrational bits, screeching out with no rhyme or reason. The whole scene felt like some sick charade. I wanted to scream in the middle of class I was so angry. My body shook as if I had been slapped violently across the face, or as if my professor had spit on me for daring to believe that classical ballet was beautiful, something above the rest, when I should be wriggling in the ground like a worm.

The way I knew ballet was as a set of purposeful movements aimed at ennobling Man. Dance was not meant to show him ugly and weak and utterly irrational. Yet, here before me was a dancer trying to turn the art I knew and loved and honored into garbage.

So, I wrote about how our “modern art” movement is destroying the simple line. There is nothing wrong with this line. People just want to be different and get their doctorates based off of lies. The post-modern movement in art means doing the exact opposite of anything classical. It is upholding death over life.

Already being a staunch Objectivist, I could feel the evil in that classroom that day. The book idea was clear to me then, only earning my degree and then earning enough money pushed back the writing work until recently.

Classical ballet is all about growing up learning to refine one’s movements, to take hold of the subtle changes in the body. A child has minor control over their mind and body, but an adult controls both. The ideal Man has grace and poise—utter control—over his entire being. (Remember Tolstoy’s line about how bad families are equivalent to how many bad philosophies there are out there versus the few good ones). Classical ballet upholds a good, rational culture, while modern ballet seeks to destroy it and leaves nothing in its place.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Why Did I Write The Paper Pusher?

***WARNING: SPOILERS***

I essentially wrote The Paper Pusher as a way to further connect with my mother’s memory and myself as a young adult. It seems, unfortunately, that we both suffer(ed) with anxiety. And, sadly, I tend to feel closest to her when I am panicking.

As with all my work, I find them to be like fictionalized scrapbooks of my life. I have also had difficulties with my mother’s side of the family in the past. However, I will not get into any of that here.

The rest of the novel was inspired by Gypsy Rose Blanchard’s crime. She had her boyfriend stab her mother after being abused since childhood by her. It was said that her mother was suffering from Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, which means that her mother deliberately caused symptoms of illness in her child to basically gain attention from others. It is a sick form of child abuse, and I wanted to explore the psychological impact of Munchausen on a figure like Gypsy.

Sophia is a combination of my mother and myself attempting to escape the tyranny of another, more powerful figure. But the novel never really comes to a solid conclusion since abuse takes years to heal from and there may never be full closure.

Sophia feels she has escaped only to latch onto another manipulative and dominant character in that of Damian. The pain she feels mixes with the pleasure of being able to defy her mother in a way that still remains a “known” world to her. By the end, she begins to notice his graying hair and is flung into the realization that he is not perfect or immortal and cannot take care of her forever.

While the reader may be disappointed with the very end, in my mind, it is conclusive. It doesn’t matter whether Gertrude is actually dead or not because she has been among the “living dead” for so long. She has a heart of stone and no will to change it.

The novel is a tragic one. But I hope for readers to take away yet another way of how not to live or treat others. Mental illness can destroy the lives of everyone around you. Go get help if that’s you; become better than yesterday.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

On the Current Cultural Decay

Today’s cultural climate is full of desensitized and inefficacious people who assume that things just “happen” to them. People who are inefficacious disgust me. I have always sympathized with the truly great Men who take action. I love Men who fight against those who try to stop their innovation. They have efficacy and, therefore, my undying respect.

I can still remember, having been raised Protestant, seeing men, specifically, in church kneeling and I cringed, even as a child. I thought, “How lowly and weak they look!” Fast-forward to college and another late night reading session for tomorrow’s class where I have the works of Milton’s Paradise Lost and Marlowe’s version of Faust in my hands, further empathizing with the devil and the snake and Man who desires knowledge.

My sense of life became clearer to me when I felt this ferocity rise within at Man who is refused the ability to know and refused to feel proud of knowing. After all, our tool of survival is our mind, our reason! Why must Christianity squash the very thing that makes us capable of living? I find it pure evil.

Perhaps this moment of fierce rebellion in my soul, sitting in my college’s library, is why I always seem to come back to motifs of snakes and birds, heaven and hell, God and Satan, and Adam and Eve in my work. I cannot help but rage against those who tell me not to know when I have spent all my life trying to know everything! I’ve always said that if I could have a chip inserted into my brain with all human knowledge known today, then I would.

My fear is that we can go backwards as a society. Literary fiction and other art dies in a bad or sick culture. Today, all literary fiction is tribalistic and not about morality at all. The Left has thrown morality away since they believe it is incurably tied to religion, while the Right has kept to their small Christian publishing presses to put out more of the same religious morality texts. But where, oh where!, are the secular moralists who are capable of shining through the rubbish? Where are the writers and readers who want to learn how to be better and happier living their ever-longer lives on earth?!

Why are publishers saying no to any books that are not liberal or tribalistic in nature? Why is there outrage over “literary fiction” books even existing anymore? Because our culture is dying.

I can blame liberal ideology and religious ideology to a certain extent, but beyond that I am unsure. All I know is that the worst thing an individual can do is desensitize themselves to life. And, yet, drugs, drinking, hedonism in general, even rushing from one loud event to the next or traveling all over the world without one moment to rest are causing a group of desensitized people to roam around the earth and teach their children the same. When the music dies down and the party leaves, people can no longer stand being with their own thoughts and so they repeat the numbing process over and over again in one endless cycle.

I remember when I was presenting my literary thesis to my professors in undergrad. When I finished, one commented about how they thought it was a theatrical performance because of the way I read it and openly mocked me when I said that the meaning of life was about happiness. My professors were a product, in the most extreme way, of a culture that is dying, if not already dead. They were cynical, could not take their own subject seriously, and believe that “Truth” is outside of reality. My rebellious heart raged that day, and I will never forget it. Yet, again, here is the Left telling me that I cannot know anything, just as much as the religious Right does.

Well, I refuse to believe that I cannot know how to be happy or that it is not a worthy goal. And I would rather feel too much anxiety about every little thing in my life than nothing at all. I would rather feel deep gratitude for what appear to most as “boring” or “inane” things; I would rather feel endless sorrow for a loss in my life than to drown them in drink; I would rather behave as innocently as a child, than as cynically as a manic-depressive professor. Life becomes more bearable when you know madness does not arise “out of the blue” but is built up by hundreds of little acts of transgression over time that you and the others around you never cared to notice. Being in a desensitized state is a killer to human beings; don’t let it get you next.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

On Writing and Why I Chose Literary Fiction

As far as my opinions on writing go and the way I write, I have a few tips, though I am still young and things may come into sharper focus as I age.

Ever since childhood, I have used my “microscope” to help me find the words to say. I can look at something that others would pass right over and by noticing what makes it special, then the words and ideas come. It sort of is like a meditative process. One word of warning though if you become “stuck” in this writer’s perspective, then going to overly stimulating places (which, unfortunately, so very many people are fond of today) may cause great anxiety. I cannot seem to come out of this mindset or attention to detail, so I tend to feel the need to prepare myself before attending anything loud or overcrowded (medication helps too).

By staying with these “moments,” there is in the nature of them a sense of urgency, so holding onto them with words is akin to catching them in a net. The best way to access these special moments is by becoming a soldier of the arts. You should get up and follow a routine every day that allows your mind to focus on the unique bits and bobs that stray from the norm. They become more obvious to you when you are not rushing around your house looking for the house keys before running out the door for work.

My sense of gratitude and happiness comes from the effort that goes into working with a purpose—not from sunshine and rainbows. I never aim to suffer, but I surely am willing to give it my full effort to achieve my goal that promises more of a long-lasting feeling of contentment and pure bliss.

In terms of more specific writing tips, I would say to never introduce too many characters early on (like Dickens). It becomes “crow-blowing” (unlike in Les Misérables when one character is described for many pages). Only when the readers grasp the present character can they then move on to understanding another.

I also believe that it is a corrupt idea to say that fiction does not mirror reality, but instead creates a “new reality.” Literary fiction is only meant to show how reality (singular) ought to be and what it truly means to be human. There is no “other” reality being created.

Also, in scattershot form: always give details to bring the reader closer to the perspective/experience/character; never become too focused on the environment/social over the individual; main characters without values are not worth writing about because they are unrealistic; always remember that the universe is benevolent! 

To be a great writer, one must observe the world, study it, and then integrate to produce a creative product.

I love writing stories because I can walk through a moral problem that I am having from a rational (not spiritual) perspective and come to a conclusion that is satisfactory. That is why I find that outlines never really helped me because I had to work from a single scene in a logical progression until, due to contextual circumstances, I could only come to a single conclusion and that becomes my ending. Personally, it makes a book more enjoyable to write when you are unsure what the main answer is.

Although, I would say that ideas have come to me in many ways for the books I have written so far: sometimes it’s a single scene or vignette floating around in my head for a while, or the first sentence, or the last, or even just an environment that embodies an entire idea. If the idea is strong enough, then I find that I do not even need to write it down as other ideas for the next piece just keep building on themselves in my mind.

Ultimately, my desire is to bring the body back into literature—bring Man back into literature. My novels range from exploring the worst evils to the highest good done by Man. However, the naturalist movement of the late nineteenth century ripped the story away from the romanticized individual and onto the piece of land being sown with seed. Well, I would like to be remembered as the writer who analyzed a few moral topics within the philosophical branch of ethics that is set down in Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. My goal in life is to teach people about secular morality by pointing to a time in history, such as mid-nineteenth century America, when I believe the culture was better. Literary fiction should teach and make Man better.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

On Gratitude and Attention to Detail Using a Writer’s Microscope

I have been highly sensitive to my surroundings since I can remember and this contributes to my writerly perspective. There has always been this kind of narrative voice inside my head, which comes out whenever I focus my eye on something for a while. As a child, car trips often threw me into a state of contemplation all before sleep won over my heavy lids.

Though being sensitive to everything has contributed to my struggles with anxiety, I do believe that most people could benefit from trying on the writer’s perspective on the world from time to time. I truly believe that savoring moments in life comes from being more sensitive to little, everyday things. After all, I consider that “this is it” so you may as well suck all the pleasure you can get from life’s marrow. Go look outside at each uniquely designed snowflake when it snows in winter, breathe in heavily the cool spring’s morning air, caress new buds blossoming in summer, traipse through the crunchy leaves as they fall in autumn.

I like to think of my writing as using a microscope to look at daily life. Everything I do throughout the day is not just “boring chores” or “simple cooking,” rather it’s being surprised by new spider webs to dust away or being gently warmed by the oven baking some potatoes for dinner. Life is so much richer when you open yourself up to it. Become as vulnerable as a poet or, as the metaphor stands, a priest. Learn gratitude through a writer’s perspective of the world and live more slowly.

Ayn Rand taught me to look at the world benevolently with a sense of life that worships Man. In reality, I find that my sentiments look a whole lot like many of the “slow living” and “cottagecore” and “romanticize autumn” videos out there online, only my work does not end with a biblical quote. For I do not believe that a god creates things, you do.

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.