I know this is going to come off with the same ridiculous ring of any other “first-world” lament reverberation, but I am now convinced that it is possible to be too diverse; in short, it’s great to have a myriad of talents, but there is a certain kind of artistic schizophrenia that comes with them.
At least in my case. Depending on what room I walk into, I can be contexted, pigeonholed, rendered, slotted, painted, dubbed, christened, and categorized in a moment’s notice. To some, I a musician, but even with that comes a bunch of subheadings: singer, guitarist, harmonica player, writer, bass player, spoons . . . and even a few things I don’t play a lot, but make it work. I went to a Kish Moody concert the other night, thinking of myself contextually as a guitar player with a night off. Instead, I wound up on the drums. On my birthday.
Oh. Also, the Ukulele has managed to forge its own identifying markers as well.
Then there are the factions that are completely fascinated with the mechanical facility I’ve cultivated with playing cards. Granted, if I truly wanted to cheat at poker at mid-level games, I could. But I hate card games. I just happen to like card tricks, and have also managed to foment a notion that I could slip into a blackjack game and annihilate the house. Of course, the notion of using the pasteboards in a simulacrum Samson pulls down the Philistine house of cards” thing has the romanticized echoes Robin Hood. Doing it to the individual? Not so much.
Anyway, then there are some that have this notion that, because I happen the love fly-fishing, have a zen-like relationship with the water; that I know everything there is to know about the temperament of trout. Not true, but passion goes a long way. Thus, to some, I am the haggard guy at the river, flinging line and caterwauling about caddis flies.
Pretty much, if I’m relatively good at something–or at any rate interested in something, I’m going to write about the subjects and involve them at a level that I hope translates.
Thus, my concern for this title, Master of None. While I think it’s a nice summation of my hodgepodge talent quilt, I also think it’s too “inward” pointing. It’s no mystery that I’m the principal writer for this blog, but I was thinking that possibly the title could be changed to reflect something that focuses on the conceptual side of what this blog is: diverse. The blog is somewhat frustrating for a few, because one minute I’m on about Tenkara fishing, and the next I’m making a thoughtful overview of Stephen Hawking’s recent pronouncements . Right after that, I’m messing with baristas, book-mavens or lake hounds.
Or, I’m planking in the middle of Wal-Mart. Make no mistake; trolling is a talent. But at the bottom if it all, it becomes obvious: I am weaving all over the road.
So the expectations here can sometimes cause a bit of grief. A few people I know prefer it when I write about music. A few more wish I’d keep posting card tricks.
A bunch of you want me to explore the Grand Apologetic–thus make my own strategic arguments that contend for a God in our design, purpose, and destiny. And trust me, that book is coming. So is a ridiculous novel, of which I have just presented the structural outline to the person whom I want to write the foreword.
But a name. Where to go with a name that reflects the nature of this blog’s direction? No idea. Should I change it at all? Again. Not a clue.
Maybe I’m messing with scratching a useless itch. Maybe the blog’s title is perfect.
Or, maybe it’s sitting right there within reach.
I like the variety I find here. If I’m not interested in something, I know sooner or later you will write about something that grabs my interest. If this blog turned into a “Grand Apologetic” only, I would not find it nearly as interesting. I do not have to be convinced God exists, nor do I feel compelled to twist the proverbial arm of an atheist until he or she cries out “I believe.” But that’s me… I’m only one reader weighing in. Your high intensity frenzy of writing, and the topics you cover, kind of have a manic feel at times. It’s fun to go along for the ride along with you.
Oh I’ll never twist the arms. I just like tossing insight and moments of support for the winning team where it hits me to do so.
I do have friends that read this, that are not so convinced. And since Facebook by itself is a horrible forum to do anything like that (mainly because its notification structure can have the “Hey! Fight! Over there” kind of visibility, I don’t do it there. Only one time did I manage to engage a 100-comment discussion on the origin and power of music (and why I will refrain from playing songs with certain worldviews) without it devolving into the usual tirades about the Salem witch trials, etc. I was proud of everyone–and it was extremely interesting.
So I like the fact that the fever-swamp is avoided. I certainly do have the hope that one day, my atheist friends weigh in here at those times. I’d never demean their positions , and I’ve defended them against the tired old simplistic attacks from “my side” the ones that seem to believe that pithy one-liner meme fodder meant to “close the subject” will be sufficient to answer legitimate questions. Both sides engage in that behavior, and you know as well as anyone, I’ve had my own moments of laying the acid tongue out as well.
Manic . . . Frenzy . . . Guilty. I can’t explain the way my brain feels at times. But those are good enough, I guess 🙂
If ya do change it, how about Master of Diversity?
Not bad, and duly logged, sir!
I used the words “frenzy” and “manic,” but not guilty. I don’t see you as writing from guilt. As far as “arm twisting” goes, that was more my stuff coming out. I gave up trying to convince people of my position years ago. I’m happy to have a discussion with them, but the moment it breaks down along battle lines I’m out. I don’t think I’ve ever convinced one person of my position through debate or argument. People, including myself, are too invested in their position to give ground. Everyone has their biases. Happy are those who can recognize and admit them.
I meant to say “guilty as charged.”
And yes. I agree. That’s why I believe the Grand Apologetic involved the removal of instances between the cross the and the eyes–not a clever rhetorical tactic.
Personally, I like the name of this blog (it’s pseudo-Chestertonian so I’m definitely biased), but I can see why you’d want to change it. I also appreciate the variety of topics on this blog 😃. It makes me laugh; it makes me think; and it introduces me to totally new subjects (like fly fishing). Keep up the good rants!