Just in time: A tax form for freelancers.
April 6, 2010
Pizza and anarchy, all over again
I was a psych major in college and working at a community counseling program. We ran a crisis hot line, manned a “trip tent” at rock concerts, and took a lot of practical training in group dynamics as it was then studied by the Tavistock Institute.
A psychologist from the university facilitated a training for us in group processes that had a profound effect on my life.
At the training, seven or eight of us were put in a group and assigned what seemed a simple a task: to order pizza for lunch.
But by the end of an hour, we had no pizza, the group had split into two warring factions, and I was miserable.
It started when someone suggested ordering two pizzas, one with one type of topping, the second with another. There was a general murmur of “sounds reasonable” and “one of them should be vegetarian” and I joined in that affirmative chorus. Discussion of specific toppings had begun when my friend Tim, a glint in his eye, said loudly “Why does it have to be pizza? The restaurant has sub sandwiches, too. We could get meatball subs.”
Everyone looked at Tim.
“Good point,” someone said. But others in the group were frowning. Things were getting complicated.
There was discussion of getting a couple of subs and a pizza. Then someone pointed out “Look, the assignment for the group was to order pizza.” General agreement, in which I joined. The suggester, buoyed by the agreement, returned to the plan for choosing the toppings for two pizzas, and people began discussing what should go on the veggie pizza and what on the non-veggie.
“Why do we have to do what we’re told?” Tim asked. “No one said we couldn’t change or modify the assignment. Perhaps this is an exercise to see if we can stop being sheep.”
This made sense to me, and apparently to several other folks. People stopped talking about pizza toppings, and started talking about the assignment. Groups dealt with disagreement! This was natural!
After a while, discussion died down and there was a tentative suggestion that we go ahead and order sandwiches from a deli instead.
At which point, a fellow who’d been moving in to Tim’s camp said. “Why do we have to order anything at all? Why couldn’t we just decide to give the pizza money to charity? We could decide to do that, and just go home. Hey, we could just take the money and go to a bar and get drunk.”
I think, at this point, Tim got up and reached for his coat.
“Sounds good to me,” he said.
Not surprisingly, several people in the group began looking distinctly uneasy. They looked at the psychologist who was sitting on a couch, observing our group process. He, of course, looked utterly detached.
By now the group had polarized. At one end, there was Tim and the other anarchist. At the other end, the conservatives, who by now wanted to order the damn pizzas and forget Tim.
On the sidelines were a few people who thought Tim was being a clever jerk and the pizza people were getting ridiculously worked up over a pizza. By now, most of them looked bored and ready to leave.
And then there was me. All I could think was that this silly argument was going to go on for ever, and we’d never get anything accomplished. Or any lunch. And I was utterly miserable.
At the end of the second hour, the psychologist called a halt to it. He pointed out to us how the group had polarized, and what roles each of us had taken. He assured us that no matter how you constitute a group, certain people will fall into the roles of the leaders, the anarchists, the followers, and the deserters.
At the end of the training, the psychologist called me over. He said: “You need to stay out of groups. You take on the overall experience of the organization. Whenever there is conflict, which there inevitably is, you experience the conflict, and it will tear you apart.”
I heeded his advice, and worked for a number of years as a journalist, observing and describing conflicts without having to be part of the conflicts themselves. In recent years, I’ve been careful (and fortunate) to work with strong, decisive bosses and clients.
I’m just now starting to be involved with groups as a volunteer and, let me tell you, it’s pizza and anarchy all over again.
April 5, 2010
I never blog anymore
Untrue. But does truth matter?
As one of the owners of Snopes.com told the New York Times recently, “When you’re looking at truth versus gossip, truth doesn’t stand a chance.”
I found that pronouncement amusing and heartening. But I think the biggest enemy of truth these days is not gossip, but gossip’s close buddy, hyperbole.
It used to be that people who didn’t like a restaurant complained that the food tasted like sawdust, the waitpersons were rude, and the patrons at the adjoining table carried on like frat boys.
No more.
Now citizen reviewers on Yelp proclaim that “this taco place ruined my life” and “I was, like, permanently traumatized by this sashimi.” People who leave comments on Amazon.com frequently assure us that a book is “the worst book, ever.”
From an editorial perspective, hyperbole is like acid — splash around too much of it around and it starts to eat away the ground you’re standing on.
March 15, 2010
I’m voting for coherence
There are elections tomorrow in Washington state for members of regional conservation district boards. Only a few hundred votes get cast, apparently, and this isn’t surprising because it’s tough to find any information about the elections except the times and locations of the voting (at a few library branches).
It’s almost impossible to find a list of candidates and their position statements, so you’re left to depend on guidance from the more obscure political blogs. The left wing blogs just say “vote for the guy the Sierra Club endorses.”
As it happens, a friend of mine burrowed around and located the five candidate’s statements. Fortunate there were two or three candidates who were politically acceptable to him because the Sierra Club’s endorsed guy was completely unimpressive in print. I read the fellow’s statement and came away undecided — undecided, that is, about whether I was more appalled by his typos, poor spelling, sentence fragments, bureaucratic jargon, or just his general incoherence.
“I am running for the board position of King Conservation District, because I am a conservationist that leads by example represents the Mission and Vision of the Conservation District.”
“During my teenier as Chair I increased our partnerships with Landowners within King County either privately or entity owned.”
“In CLOSING; I request your vote so that the word CONSERVATION and partnership remains the main focus of King Conservation District.”
Has the Sierra Club actually read anything this person writes?
It’s all the sadder because one of the other candidates has a great background in natural resources and works with many of the newer and more successful sustainability efforts in the area — the ones that are effectively communicating the value of their work to the general public.
One of those groups, Urban Foodlink, has a good blog post about the election. You might want to take a look, and then swing by a polling place tomorrow and vote.
March 6, 2010
That’s what I like about the South
What makes a great blog?
2. A great writer who’s passionate about that topic
3. Nice design and photos
I’m delighted to introduce you to Stuff Southern People Like (“all manner of dixie delicacies and doo-dads”). Enjoy, y’all.
March 4, 2010
Rules for fiction writers
Thank you to the leader of the Seattle Speculative Fiction Writers Meetup for pointing me to this recent article in The Guardian. It’s called “Rules for Writing Fiction” but it might better be called “Rules for Fiction Writers” — you’ll see why when you read it.
It includes tips from Elmore Leonard and Neil Gaiman. Leonard says:
Never use the words “suddenly” or “all hell broke loose”. This rule doesn’t require an explanation. I have noticed that writers who use “suddenly” tend to exercise less control in the application of exclamation points.
I’d add to that: Avoid using the word “somehow,” and never, ever, use it multiple times in the same story. The only exception to this rule is in dialogue or narrative spoken by a highly confused character.
February 18, 2010
Thank you, Seanet
This week I did something that can be risky and even traumatic for a small business: I changed my internet service provider.
This was particularly tough for me because I’d been with Seanet, one of the best ISPs in Seattle, for about 15 years. They installed DSL at my house in Wallingford at a time when I was one of the first broadband customers in North Seattle. Ten years ago, when a change in DSL service required that I move from another telecom service to Qwest service, they walked me through it. And when the old DSL service got shut off before the new service got turned on, they went to extraordinary lengths so that my business was online and none of my clients were inconvenienced (this was in days before coffee shop wifi).
However, I no longer use the email and hosting features of my Seanet account. And Qwest technical support service has improved to the point that I am willing to let them handle the ISP portion of my account (which I’d been paying for, but didn’t use.) It was a way to save a significant chunk of change every year.
At any rate, it’s done. I’m completely shifted over to Qwest service, and just had a very pleasant farewell call with Seanet. I’ll sure miss them.
February 3, 2010
Terry Pratchett’s “Shaking Hands with Death”
Imagine a very, very slow-motion car crash. Nothing much seems to be happening. There’s an occasional little bang, a crunch, a screw pops out and spins across the dashboard as if we’re in Apollo 13. But the radio is still playing, the heater is on and it doesn’t seem all that bad, except for the certain knowledge that sooner or later you will definitely be going headfirst through the windscreen.
Whatever your views on death, if you are a writer, you can’t help but admire this speech by Sir Terry Pratchett, given as a Richard Dimbleby lecture. It was read Feb. 1 on BBC1 by Tony Robinson.
February 1, 2010
Old media 1, Amazon 0
Three reasons to read novelist John Scalzi’s color commentary on the Amazon vs. Macmillan catfight this weekend:
1. You followed the Tweets and blog posts documenting the mysterious disappearance of one-sixth of Amazon.com’s books (those published by Macmillan) from the website Friday evening and want to know what was going on behind the scenes.
2. You tried to ignore the back and forth, but want to know how it ended and why.
3. You are a public relations or marketing professional and you want to follow along as Scalzi documents all the ways that Amazon set the scene for a PR disaster and made things worse every single step of the way.


