Not My Fault

Yesterday I was traveling to Manchester to meet a dear friend, but due to some bridge maintenance work had to stop in Preston. The rail replacement bus service was over half an hour away, so instead of hanging around idly, I decided to visit Fishergate Shopping Centre. I didn't have any choice; if I'd hung around outside I would've frozen to death, and if I'd waited inside I, er, risked... being hit by a train.

Lo and behold, the first shop that grabbed my attention was the Book Clearance Centre, because of their bright displays. Next thing I knew I was inside the shop. I have no memory of actually going inside, so they must've been using mind control (not my fault, honestly). A moment later I'm walking out with these new books:

• Less Than Zero - Bret Easton Ellis
• The Picador Book of Forty: Forty Writers Inspired by a Number - Charlotte Greig (ed.)
• Mersey Minis Volume Four: Loving - Deborah Mulhearn (ed.) [featuring Ginsberg!]

Now you know I'd never go out buying books when I'm not earning any money. That would be irresponsible. I'm telling you, they musta used witchcraft on me, or... or mind-altering substances diffused into the atmosphere in gaseous form. Maybe it was UFOs - crop circles or something. It wasn't my fault, though.

Why won't you believe me?

Truth Lies

I were just thinking about telling lies. Thinking about the act of lying, not thinking about actually doing it, you understand. It seems to me that lying gets an unfair rap. It's generally seen as morally wrong and I think that's a little ridiculous. If telling the truth and lying are binary opposites, it's strange that the truth is 'standard', almost 'morally neutral', 0 on the scale, but lying is perverse, morally negative and -100 on the scale.

The real crux of the issue is that this focus on the act is simplistic and outdated. The next logical progression is that the effects of lying/telling the truth should be scrutinized. Just as lying to keep from hurting someone's feelings (bloody humans and their petty emotions...) shows the act is not the issue but the effect, so does telling the truth when it causes emotional distress.

The acts of telling truths and telling lies are simply the act of communication. Yes this seems an oversimplification to a superstrate term, but there's more. The act of communication is integrated with our psyche, and our acts are mitigated by our personality or mood.

We make communications choices consciously and sub-consciously. Often sub-conscious is our use of standard or non-standard language. For example, when we're with friends we often use less standard terms to adhere to the informal atmosphere and thereby reinforce our identity within the group. When it comes to the aforementioned moral issues, the choices are perhaps more conscious. 'I don't want to hurt his feelings, so I'll tell him I like his present' might be something that'll flash through your synapses before a Christmas lie, for example. This knowing lie helps, in the short term at least, prevent confrontation and ill will.

So it is evident that the effects can be fine. This islike authors who create truth/lie professionally. They aren't immoral (well, I've not met all of them to be honest...). In fact, as with before, the effect can be very positive (a message about human equality like the one what's in To Kill a Mockingbird as an example). Now this is just a 'brief' (ish) post to pique your interest and stimulate thought. Obviously there's been no critical opinion, you can find that yourself. I know it'll have been said before by others, but they've not said it the way I have and that's what might make my musings worth perusing.

Peace out.