DOGSANON, A SUPPORT GROUP








      DOGSANON

During walks, is it possible that bending down to examine fecal matter from your pet, on a daily basis, is strange?

Instead of trying to fall asleep, do you lie awake watching and listening to your sleeping dog, to learn whether he or she is coming down with a bronchial infection?

When your dog hesitates to eat, do you wonder whether you’re offering enough variety? Could the problem be texture? Aroma? Could there be something off-putting about the presentation?

Hello! This is an invitation to join a new online support group for those suffering from Dog Dependency.

Problems stemming from DD are similar to those related to OCD. People afflicted with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder are not able to leave the object of their obsession alone. With DD, the object—the dog—is in charge, not the person.

Does this idea speak to you?  You are not alone. You might also think of DD in terms of people who catch themselves organizing their afternoons around thoughts of Happy Hour. Is it a problem, they wonder, to be calling clients or tweaking the corporate website, and all the while hearing ice tinkling into a lowball glass?

Similarly, someone with DD sits working at her desk, hearing her dog starting to bark as she turns up the driveway, this followed by the dog going berserk on the other side of the door as she readies her key. 

When you see your dog staring at nothing, do you assume he or she is just experiencing a blank patch in the day? Or: could the vacant expression signal the onset of clinical depression? God forbid, could it be an early symptom of dementia?

Relax. The approach at DOGSANON is strictly supportive: You’re not wrong! Anyone who thinks you’re over the top about your dog is wrong! Anyone who questions your passion for your dog is wrong!

Come back, and bring your DD with you. We’ll tackle this thing together!

DOGS, CHILDREN, AND KINDNESS






















DOGS, CHILDREN, AND KINDNESS

Out of the depths of my hard drive, I happened upon this photo of a friend’s granddaughter with—amazingly—my dog Chelsea.

I say amazingly, because Chelsea never let us take her picture. She knew the sound of the camera motor, even the noise made by the camera-case zipper. I have other pictures, but they’re mostly of Chelsea running away.

Back to the little girl. Some years ago, she came with her grandparents and two older siblings to visit us in Florida. As you can see, she was beautiful and soulful. At the time, she was also willful, with a strong artistic bent that led her to make us of our walls and furniture. I loved her company, and loved waving goodbye.

So?

In terms of morals, little children don’t have them. At least I see no evidence they do. Like people who reach adulthood without a conscience (fill in the blank), children hate getting caught. But fearing punishment isn’t the same as being able to decide something is or isn’t “right.”

On the face of it, being kind would seem to require having a conscience. How can you be generous and tender towards others (or to a dog) without one? If the little girl in the picture doesn’t have any sense of right or wrong, doesn't that make the expression on her beautiful face, and her hand resting on my dog just one more aw-shucks-how-cute-is-that image?

I don’t think so. When the photo was taken, Chelsea was already an old eleven. She had always been blind in her left eye, and now had a cataract in the right. She was a little arthritic and tentative in her movements, but none of this had to be explained to Johanna. She saw, understood, and acted accordingly.

Throughout a visit characterized by madcap hours in our swimming pool, demands and refusals of many kinds, along with the acts of artistic expression mentioned earlier, this child gave no evidence of moral awareness, of conscience.

But she never failed to act in a slow, gentle manner toward my old dog. This was behavior absolutely at odds with the little girl’s commitment to pleasure based on chaos.

What can explain the suddenness with which she would change gears, slow everything down, sit beside Chelsea and do as you see? At the center of her small nuclear-reactor core, I’m convinced she knew what to do. I have seen this in other children meeting Chelsea for the first time. Not all. A few pull and pinch, but most don't. And it has always amazed me a little. They seem to know she’s old, seem to know they can’t roughhouse with her, and need to be gentle.

It’s something modestly profound, and worth thinking about. At least for me. I use Johanna’s gentleness with my old dog as a counterweight. When something in the news causes me to think dark thoughts, I summon up this image to re-balance the scales.
PLEASE VISIT ME HERE

MY DOG AND NEW YEAR'S RESERVATIONS: A LETTER TO THE EDITOR


MY DOG AND NEW YEAR'S RESERVATIONS: A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor:
As my dog has pointed out, it’s too late for New Year’s resolutions. But a review of recent letters to the newspaper convinces me the subject shouldn't be abandoned. Instead, let’s all agree to have New Year’s Reservations about what we write before sending it to the editor.

Example: “God-given.” This is a great favorite among those writing to newspapers. God-given rights, talents, freedom, etc. But, really, does this make much sense? For believers, God is the creator. He is the source of all life, objects and qualities. Believers need no reminder of this.

 Non-believers believe in a godless universe, and scoff at the idea of God-given anything. This being accepted, telling newspaper readers that God has given them something serves only to announce that the writer is a believer. Why does the writer want others to know this? God alone needs the information, and He has it already. He knows everything that ever happened, not to mention everything that ever will, so there you go.

Hitler, Nazi (or Nazism), European Socialism or socialist, Communist (or communism), liberal, right wing, ultra (fill in the blank), diabolical (fill in the blank), patriot (or patriotism), hero or heroes, etc. These are hugely popular among those who write letters to the editor, especially older men with childhood memories of World War Two and the Cold War. But as with God-given, the use of such terms serves only to align the writer with those who have used them--over and over--in previous letters.

What useful goal is achieved by doing this? Neuroscience tells us repetition works to fix ideas more firmly in the reader’s mind (ask anyone at Fox News). But whatever explains these letters to the editor, most of the writers aren’t crazy. Even so, this year, let’s all get on the composition treadmill. Let’s cut out the blubber before hitting the Send button.
PLEASE VISIT ME HERE

DOMESTIC ABUSE AND PETS: THANK YOU, SENATOR PETERS


                          

                         DOMESTIC ABUSE AND PETS: THANK YOU SENATOR PETERS

“Federal stalking law to include pets, support animals”

That’s the headline for a front-page article in the December 15 issue of the Detroit Free Press. Michigan U.S. Senator Gary Peters has managed to add a provision to this year’s farm bill. It targets those who threaten to harm or who do harm to a pet, as a way to harass or intimidate a victim of domestic abuse.

With this bill in place, anyone who’s guilty can be looking at up to five years in jail. (Personally, I’m for ten years, but that’s just me.)

Peters’ proposal aims to take away from wife beaters and sadistic boyfriends the leverage they can gain by threatening to go after a pet. Studies reveal that “as many as 25 percent of domestic violence survivors returned to abusive partners out of concern for their pets.”

Without provisions for pets in women’s shelters, victims of abuse must choose between saving themselves, or staying where they least want to be, in order to save their dog or cat.

Thank you, Senator Peters. You get this week’s Golden Leash Award.

Please visit me at  http://www.bwknister.com/

photo credit: https://unsplash.com/photos/KTRSG-4WF4U

CHRISTMAS: BEING THANKFUL FOR SURVIVING STUPID






CHRISTMAS: BEING THANKFUL FOR SURVIVING STUPID

Christmas is a good time to be thankful. This is especially true for me when I recall doing something so stupid that it should have stamped CANCELLED on every future Christmas I had coming.

In southeastern Michigan, helicopters regularly crisscross the sky. They carry media types reporting on weather or freeway traffic, also the governor on his way between the state capital in Lansing and his home in Ann Arbor. In the spring, other tiny helicopters join them, in the form of thousands of seeds from silver maple trees.

When we bought our house, the owner explained what I would need to do to take care of the pond in the backyard. This would be accomplished  with the quaint, old sump pump in the garage. Just stick it in, turn it on, and let old mister pump do the rest, she said.

So, that first spring in our new/old house, when the silver maple seeds finally stopped dropping, I got started. I managed to get the pump working, and effluvia began gushing from the attached hose. My dog Chelsea watched, lying before the pond. She was almost blind then, so what I was doing came to her mostly as smells--rotting vegetation, mosquito larvae, etc.

Mucking out our pond reminded me of an analogy Freud used to explain the process of psychoanalysis. He compared it to draining the Zeuderzee, a swamp in Holland. The more you drain, and expose what lies hidden below the surface, the more of it becomes part of your conscious life.

Joining this analogy for me now is the name of a Ron White comedy concert: “You can’t fix stupid.”

I noticed the pump's wiring was partially exposed, but since the thing worked, good enough. As the pump chugged along, exposing more and more of the yucky pond, I slipped off my shoes, stepped down into the water and began scooping out rotted leaves and seeds. As I worked, the oddest tingling played about my feet, even in my hands.

Who can say how long I felt this tingling before it dawned on Professor Knister, defender of Freud, scourge of the dangling participle, tireless enemy of the passive voice, that where water and electrical current are present, humans should be absent?

Hearing all this later, my friend the electrical engineer stared at me. After a long moment, he shook his head and shrugged. “Don't ever do that again,” he said. “You've used up all the luck you ever had coming to you in your entire life.”

Both my border collie Chelsea and the pond are gone now. I still remember them, my wise old dog lying on the sunny grass, watching me. I am thankful to have known her, and thankful for the many Christmases since that spring afternoon. Thankful to have survived stupid.
HERE'S THE BOOK

ARE WRITERS EXPECTED TO CREATE GOOD-LOOKING CHARACTERS?



ARE WRITERS EXPECTED TO CREATE GOOD-LOOKING CHARACTERS?

The question provoked controversy a while back at The Kill Zone, a website by and for crime-fiction writers.  Regular contributor Kathryn Lilley titled her post “Must our heroes be handsome?”  Lilley was moved to write on the topic after attending a workshop.  A well-known novelist had said he made his characters good-looking because “I like to write books that sell.”

When Lilley recovered from being shocked by simple honesty (the writer’s thrillers are  nothing if not commercial), she realized her favorite novels did in fact have “handsome and brilliant” protagonists.  Even so, most of those who wrote comments on her piece expressed outrage over the idea:  How dare any reader expect heroes or heroines to be lookers!   

Still, it's a question worth asking.  But it should also be said that good writers don’t give readers elaborately detailed descriptions, either of people or places (never say never: the exceptions are certain kinds of romance novels). Instead, good writers carefully select a few details that will lead their readers to imagine the rest.

But that begs the question: do readers want to be led to imagine a hunk or  dish, or characters like themselves and their neighbors?    

Those who read mostly to be entertained want idealized characters. They don’t have to be beautiful, but they should be exceptional in some way: charming, ruthless, menacing, witty, etc. In life, of course, people can be charming or ruthless or both.  Just not all the time.
Look at the person in the photo. Everything about her says she's beautiful, witty, charming--especially charming, considering her hat. My first impression of it was of an impossibly bizarre birth defect. Anyone who wears a hat like that to a funeral (Margaret Thatcher's) has got to be charming.  But wearing such a hat also makes the wearer look even better.

OK. Now imagine that when we next meet up with this real person, we're in a pub having lunch.  And she sneezes.  And she has a nasty sinus infection.  God--she gets something really disgusting on her dress, and yells “Don’t look at me!” She snatches a dirty napkin off the table and works to wipe off what’s on her front--but the napkin now adds ketchup from some fries (excuse me, chips, she's British) to what’s already there, which, understandably, leads to more not-so-charm-school behavior.
Funny. Come to think of it, I like her better already.  
(photo courtesy of Julian Mason)
HERE'S THE BOOK

WRITING AND DRINKING, PART ONE


WRITING AND DRINKING; PART ONE

Other than writing itself, no behavior is more often associated with the writing life than drinking. For this reason alone, writers do well to avoid the subject. What can be left to say? From the biographies of famous boozers like Hemingway and Fitzgerald, to Mailer to Cheever, up to Caroline Knapp’s very good personal memoir on the subject, Drinking: A Love Story, we have been down this road many times.

Perhaps, then, it’s just the challenge that makes this heavily mined topic register with me this morning. Can I come up with anything new?

In the seventies and eighties, I attended several summer writers’ conferences. Thinking them over, and comparing them with the last conference I was involved with in the New Millenium, I see some stark contrasts.

The first conference I attended was in 1977, in Rochester, New York. It took place on the University of Rochester campus, and was the brainchild of L.J. Davis, a novelist. Some notable figures were there, either flown in to deliver inspirational talks, or hired to run workshops.

I wasn’t in his group, but the star workshop leader that year was William Gaddis. His fifties-era novel, The Recognitions, was considered a later representative of the High Modernism associated with James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, and many others. He had recently published his second novel, J.R.

The only reason for mentioning Gaddis is that, at the end of each afternoon’s class session, the various groups of poets, short-story writers and would-be novelists came from their meeting rooms and congregated in the lobby. Magically each afternoon, someone had prepared a trestle table for our arrival: bottles and setups, cheese, chips, nuts.

At later conferences I attended, this same scene was repeated with jug wine and beer. But at Rochester, conference director Davis's personal sense of happy-hour decorum required--in abundance--gin, scotch, rum, vodka, and bourbon. But probably not tequila. Jimmy Buffett hadn't yet made the scene, so tequila’s time as a staple in the booze canon was yet to come.

Gaddis was at all other times quiet, even furtively reserved. He was then in his fifties, small and good-looking, tanned, always dressed smartly, usually in a linen suit. Other than a question or two that I asked of him at these cocktail hours—invariably answered obliquely--what I remember about Gaddis is seeing him, exactly at five o'clock, striding purposefully out of his classroom ahead of his students, calling “Whisky time! Whisky time!”

The room was soon filled with cigarette smoke, the volume increasing steadily as whisky time worked its magic. What it did was lubricate a multi-generational collection of strangers, all of them self-absorbed, self-described writers and poets who were not usually chatty. Alcohol did what it does: people talked, compared notes, laughed, postured, became grandiose or combative.

It was fun, a well-deserved reward after a day of listening to and commenting on the inspiring, inferior work of other members in your group. Or after sitting silently with arms folded, forced to hear the depressing work of pure genius produced by someone other than yourself.

Alcohol, tobacco and creative work are what the writers of Mad Men dumped in the blender to produce a frothy hit TV series. Something of this mood was present at that first conference. It was breezy, unencumbered by thoughts about calories, brain cells and lung cancer, electrolytes, early-onset dementia, liver or kidney disease, hypoglycemia, diabetes, etc.

It was an innocent time, made possible by an ignorance that would soon end. I know new delights have taken the place of our primitive pleasures. But my memory of that first conference is sepia-tinged. It was a happy time, and however much it compromised my various systems and ductwork, I have no regrets.
HERE'S THE BOOK

DOGS AND CULTURE WARS IN PARADISE

DOGS AND CULTURE WARS IN PARADISE This photo of two cocker spaniels makes me think of an old saying: "Let sleeping dogs lie....