Month: May 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 Month: May 2010 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

its about caves, and cavemen too. About a time when the Earth was new

So, the end of another week here at the Doctrine. (If you measure the week, a 5 day week with Saturday and Sunday as buffer/days off). But who has experienced a 5 day work week recently? They are vestiges of a time gone by, never to been seen again. (No, no nostalgia Post here.)

Ok, week in review Post? nah…if you want to review the week, then click backwards or or go to the Archive pulldown.

So, then what will the Post for Friday, May 21st in the year 2010 be about?

Nah…(god I love living in a pre-Ridley Scott world)…so what do we “discuss”* today.

Actually “we” do not “discuss” anything. I write. You read. Unless you are a scott or a roger who is bored at the moment of encountering this Post, then you will Comment.

Still, that is hardly a topic worthy of a such an impressive forum, which I say not with total sarcasm. Consider the fact that this Post (with attendant images and videos and music) is being published and made available to virtually the entire population of the planet. Really. Wherever there (hey grreat opp to clip some art)

I’ll be all around in the dark. I’ll be everywhere. Wherever you can look, wherever there’s a fight, so hungry people can eat, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a cop beatin’ up a guy, I’ll be there. I’ll be in the way guys yell when they’re mad. I’ll be in the way kids laugh when they’re hungry and they know supper’s ready, and when the people are eatin’ the stuff they raise and livin’ in the houses they build, I’ll be there, too

That was from the Grapes of Wrath, Steinbecks feel-good novel of that happy-go-lucky Joad clan and their wacky adventures in Post Depression America.

So…still Friday and still no coherence to this Post. So, why am I still typing? Not really sure. Mostly, just ’cause I been writing one of these each day for the last week or 2 and while there is no virtue to simply continuing to do what I have been doing, to ‘break the streak’ seems to be giving something up. (No ego over-investment here, huh?)

So, unless one of you has something to suggest…I might as well close with some entertainment…hey as much as I appreciate the Comments from our scotts (with the dependable contribution of the clarks) am I the only one getting the feeling that this thing is stagnating, getting into a rut? (To anticipate the Comment of our more vocal scotts, yeah I know this is wonderful and I will keep up the good work, but in terms of furthering the promulgation of the Wakefield Doctrine, this blog is in severe danger of devolving into a clever, personalized facebook page for bored scotts and frustrated clarks.)

Nah, no interest in that…so this weekend, all you Readers put on your thinking caps (on your damn heads) and decide where (or even if) you want this blog to go next. (Glenn and AKH are precluded from Commenting.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlejykEhQ4

(a little of a change up…cellant voice)
(…and which of the three is Ms Joni)
(this is too easy, people…)

* (by discuss, I mean I write shit you read** it)
**( by read I mean you enjoy it and get on with your day, unless you are a scott***)
***(by scott in this context I mean the Readers who will write to read themselves written with the associated vicarious getting off on knowing that others are being forced to recognise their existence****)
****(by existence I mean to infringe upon the consciousness of another person*****)
*****(by another person, I mean everyone but you)

Share

Couples in Love, yeah, yeah, yeah

The Wakefield Doctrine is comprised (human being-wise) of a group of people referred to as Progenitors and DownSprings;  (the) clark, scott and roger being the Progenitors and everyone else being Downsprings.  (The original idea was that all would have a perspective on the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers and by contributing (to the blog) would allow us the broadest of appeal, in terms of making this thing accessible to the masses and the throngs who would surely be beating on our digital doors).  Well, maybe that was a little over-expectorant on our part (to coin a rogerian expression*).  However, back around last December,  the newest member of our group, a certain Ms. AKH, wrote a Post (sub) Titled:  “…scott/roger…couple in love…take 2…” .  The Post dealt with the question of how one (of the three types) view the other two types, in the context of a romantic relationship. (In AKH’s case, from the perspective of a scottian female).  We got good Comment on it, so we have decided that we needed to tap that well/tree/source (complete the metaphor with the image of your choice, while still maintaining a modicum of decorum), one more time.  But since the original Post discussed the authors’ relationship (at the time) and given the scottian propensity for, variety, shall we say?  Well in any event we asked her to be more general in her observations. So we pretended someone wrote to the Doctrine with questions, but we know that you know that we made them up. (You do know that, don’t you? Come on people, there are not thought balloons over your heads like in old cartoons to tell us what you are thinking and besides I can’t see you at your computers as you read this.  At least not at  this stage of the game.  No, that doesn’t mean anything.  Of course, I know what you are thinking when you read this (allowing for whether you are a clark or a scott or a roger) and no, I do not need to prove that last statement…clark.  Let’s stay focused on today’s Post, shall we?)
So, let’s get to the discussion of matters relationistic.

It has been said, scotts understand people instinctively, or maybe a better way to say that, ‘scotts perceive people on a very visceral level’;  so the questions being posed are meant as jumping off point.  It will be a focus on that condition of human nature called ‘couplehood’.

CSR:
So, Ms. Akh, welcome back, how have you been.

Ms. AKH: Great to be back!  While I was gone I received, it appears many, many questions from readers about “matters of the heart”.  So today I’d like to re-visit the “Couples in Love”  forum and talk about the interdependency (that is) inherent in Couple-hood.  As you recall from that Post, my perspective on relationships was that of  a scottian female in a coupleness with a rogerian male.  But important  to remember is that we know from the Doctrine that all people begin the same; we all have the potential of all three types, clarks, scotts or rogers.  It is just that we end up becoming mostly one of the three.  That being said, we know that our partners must be one of the three.  And we’ve all had trouble in “couples-ville.”  It is from the Principles of the Doctrine that this knowledge helps us to understand our partner and gives us the ability to apply this knowledge to our situations, good, bad or indifferent, in order to maximize the outcome of any situation.  And while this knowledge is power, we will all still question ourselves at times.  That being said, let’s get to our reader’s questions.

CSR: First off a question from a ‘Reader’ “I want to talk to my partner about our relationship and I can hear in my head what I want to say but in real life I freeze up”?

Ms. AKH: Sometimes discussing the relationship with our partner can be difficult because we don’t necessarily want to  come across as being presumptuous. There is the inherent fear that we might say something that will upset our partners or even drive them away.  But it is necessary.  If we can’t talk to our other half, that in itself becomes the problem.  Remember, understanding that your partner is a clark, scott or roger allows you to see things from their perspective, to appreciate their point of view and that is huge!  Most problems between people begins with the fact that we all have a different point of view, that we all, in fact have a different reality.  This difference is often small, but may be great and all of our actions and decisions come from how we are experiencing the world.  It is when we can ‘see what they are seeing”, we can understand why the other person in a relationship acts the way they do.  So let’s look at our “other halfs”.  scotts are the toughest.  They think they already know everything.  Confront them head on, don’t bother trying to tell them that ‘black is really white. They don’t see that there are subtleties and there can be shades of grey, for them it is either black or it is white, anything else and they lose interest.  With rogers, it is usually best to approach with kid gloves on, they are geared to respond to anything but complete agreement with a totally emotional reaction.  And as far as the clarks, well that’s probably the most difficult bridge to establish, because it is always a challenge just to understand them.  But which ever your partner is, you should not be afraid to talk to them.  It is your responsibility, knowing of the Doctrine, to remember that neither a clark, scott nor roger can read your mind (although a scott thinks she can).  It is up to you to let your partner know what you are thinking, regardless of the outcome.    

 
CSR: Here a an email: “I don’t hate the person I am with but I don’t like how they act when they are with their old friend, friends from before we got together. It seems like he/she changes when they are with old friends even though I am there. What the fuck is that all about”?

Ms. AKH: Unfortunately, what you describe is not all that uncommon. (Perhaps you, unknowingly, do the same thing?) There is a tendency in all of us, clarks, scotts or rogers, to revert back to times gone by when among old friends from the past.  If we are part of a couple and do not share that ‘past’, we cannot help but feel left out.  We weren’t part of “the gang.”  This effect is more pronounced with scotts, as they have the need to be the center of everything to begin with and will become totally immersed in the ‘pack’ they are sharing.  rogers are the most in tune with history, especially personal history!  They will totally revert to the time past, so much so that if you were not a part of that past, you might think that they totally forget who you are!  They will reminisce with their friends and you might feel that they have forgotten you, and they have!  rogers live in the past anyway, but when in the company of friends that they share a past with, this effect becomes quite pronounced and can really piss you off.  When the other half (of your couplehood) is a clark, you will feel this ”left behind” feeling the least.  Knowing which of the three (clark/scott/roger) your partner is will enable you to understand why they act the way they do and empower you to change how you feel and let you be more comfortable expressing it to your partner.  Sometimes the best thing to do is just roll your eyes and sit back and watch the show.  It’s entirely up to you regardless which of the three (clark/scott/roger) your partner is.  Remember, you are capable of changing any situation.      

 
CSR: From our last reader…and maybe the last thing they intend to ask in what, if I may, seems a pretty pathetic excuse for a life. “I am alone, I want to meet someone, someone who will make my life better, who will let me have a life as a couple, how do I do that?  I am just a normal person, not overly anything.  How do I find Mr/MS Perfect?

Ms. AKH: We all “strive for that one person who will “complete” us.  Applying the Principles of the Wakefield Doctrine is the key.  Knowing “who” you are (clark/scott/roger) will give you the power to weed out those with whom you are the least compatible.  To find that special someone (clark/scott/roger) who will let you be you while being one of a couple, of two people, unless you are a scott and then maybe more than one.  Ultimately only you can make your life better.  None of us are just “normal” people.  We all possess the knowledge, the power and therefore only we ourselves have the responsibilty to make the decisions that will ultimately be in our favor.  The Wakefield Doctrine gives us the key to understanding ourselves, but more importantly understanding those around us.  Use these tools to your maximum benefit and give that self-esteem a boost.  No one is going to be perfect.  But if you use the knowledge to empower yourself and your situation you may just surprise yourself.  And don’t settle for just anyone.  Only you can make your life better.  And when that special person comes along (and he/she will), your life as a couple will be that much more gratifying/satisfying/multiplying.

So remember folks, it is up to you to.  We all have the ability to change anything.  So don’t let yourself become a “fool in love.”

Well, said!  I know I speak for all our Readers when I say, thank you.  There is a certain refreshing…simplicity…make that clarity, to how you people see the world…granted not everyone has the requisite…’nerve’ to interact with the scottian member of the opposite sex, not counting rogers, of course…they have that affinity for scotts as you noted in the first Post.  But for others, hey no guts, no glory.  Thanks again.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RAQXg0IdfI

*(rogerian expression: look up it! Page on rogers. jeez totally basic concept, you can’t not know what a rogerian expression is..)

Share

God, He stole the handle and the train it won’t stop going, no it won’t slow down

 

5:30?  PM?!  no, no frickin way!!!  the Post always goes out in the morning…it is Wednesday right??!!  It can’t be that late…damn..

OK, OK I can deal with this…
“HI! Welcome to the Latefield Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clark, scotts and rogers).  We apologise for the lateosity of this Post, time just got away from us. (we already used all the Chambers Brothers references)?  So, we got a good response to yesterdays (really, I only took a short naplette this morning, I really meant…), to Mel’s guest appearance on the Doctrine.  The good news is that the (next installment) of Couples in Love (Part Tree) should be out tomorrow…sure, mid-day without doubt…Friday is a heart attack cinch, look for it bright and incredibly early Friday.

Will finish this tonight and get it up before days end, just because, I guess.  For the last few weeks it has been an article of pride that a new Post shows up each and every day. Yeah, the quality versus quantity debate is very much alive, but I want to decide it not under duress, which not getting a new Post in today would create.  So pardon my mediocrity for today, at any rate.  You know, maybe that is the appeal I will make to you Readers!  Damn straight!

Hey Readers!!  What do you want?  A new Post every day or only what I (personally) consider a good Post, irrespective of the rate, be it once a day or 3 times a week.
Tell me…I really want to know.  Right below the video, at the end of the Post is a place for Comment.  Leave a Comment, tell me what you think about the quality/quantity question.  I will let you know the response by the weekend, until then it is a new Post every damn day.

WARNING WARNING WARNING
the following section is to be read by clarks only!
…because you wouldn’t get it, that’s why….
…you don’t think that’s true?…let’s do this, I will ask you a single question and based on your first and immediate answer, you will agree to not read the following section, even if it means closing your eyes for the next few paragraphs.
If you answer this question with anything but a serious answer (including “what do you mean” and “why would I want to do that”) then you are a scott or a roger and so don’t need to read the next section.
…ready?
…..sure?

(If you could), who would you rather be right this moment?

alright, that should take care of the scotts and the rogers…yes, clark?
no, gender and age are not optional variables in the context of this particular question…good thought though…

So here it is.  This whole Wakefield Doctrine thing is obviously the work of a clark.  And because of that, the intent of the the Doctrine is to develop a tool to help us attain our goal.
(…clearly stated in the page on clarks, clark)
(yes, I know you knew that, but you still have to read those particular words to get what I am driving at)…
Because, my blog , my rules.  (You know you are talking to another clark, because they will already have some sort of system to help understand the world and find the secret)…yeah I know I’m running on…waiting for the last scott or roger to get totally bored….

Alright.  I want to let you know that this Doctrine is proving to be efficacious, even at this early point and I am discovering some previously un-anticipated effects…(very funny…). I will not go into detail, but will say this…as the effect increases you will begin to see a fundamental change in the scotts and rogers in your world…a ‘thinning out’, an ‘increasing transparency’, try not to be alarmed.  Will report more as I learn more.
Just wanted you to know.

…” and the roger said to the scott, that’s not my….” Oh hi!  Didn’t see you come back.  Yeah all done here.

Don’t forget coming in a day or two, “Couples in Love”,  gooood Doctrine.

Share

Strong of heart and true to her name

 We have a treat today, an Interview with (Friend of the Doctrine), Mel Thompson, creator of the Spatula in the Wilderness! (…cough…cough…) who has taken time out of his busy schedule to talk with us…(…I have a question!!… ) As everyone knows, the Spatula was the first blog to put the Doctrine on it’s blogroll and certainly has helped our efforts to bring the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers to the world. (…ahem…they can see me…even if you don’t… ).

After having consulted with the Progenitors and DownSprings, what we have today is (…imaginary?…define imaginary! hey this guy has a whole staff with…no, I do not intend to sit down and listen…well alright…since you ask.. )…what harm can it do?…alright Miss Sullivan, here are the questions….yes, you can leave the parentheses at your desk and come up here…(…what?, ok  I’ll stay in brackets…please…now if you will, the Readers are waiting….)
 

CSR: Hello Mr. Mel. Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers). We appreciate your ‘coming by’ and talking to us about blogs and such things.
Mel: Thanks so much for ‘having me over’ to talk about blogs. I also would like to thank all of you for the kind words regarding the firstaversary (nice term you’ve coined with that one) of Spatula and for mentioning my blog in your post The Wakefield Doctrine (…”The Time Has Come,” the Walrus said, “To Talk of Many Things”). You’ve been extremely supportive of Spatula over the past year and I really am grateful to you and your readers for all of the visits and great comments.

CSR: So, If I may start by saying am a big fan of  Spatula in the Wilderness. Is this your first blog?
Mel: Again, thank you. This is actually not my first blog. Five years ago I started a blog which took off too quickly for my own good and I pulled the plug on it. In my naivety, I fired off an e-mail to the administrators at the Big Friendly Corporate Entity asking them to promote my blog after the first week. To my surprise, the site advertised the blog generously (more importantly, at no cost to me). I busied myself with the running of the blog and stopped composing quality posts. Live, and/or learn, I guess.

CSR: Are you working on your own there? (other than Otto and them)…and just where is there (geographically speaking)
Mel: Cue Eric Carmen’s All By Myself.  The imaginary chimp typing pool and inflatable editor aside, the blog is just me. When anything with the blog goes wrong, I’d love to be unaccountable and pass the buck, but I am responsible for the whole shebang. Geographically, I’m writing from the Southwest corner of Michigan. I live and work about 20 minutes from the lovely campus of Notre Dame University and a little over an hour East of Chicago. Saint Joseph, the lakeside  community I call home, is situated adjacent to the tough little town of Benton Harbor (the strained relationship is portrayed in Alex Kotlowitz’ book The Other Side of The River).

CSR: (I gotta ask)…Where/how do you get your ideas (lol)  We have mentioned it in the past Posts, the volume of your work is rather impressive.
Mel: Oddly enough, there is a process to writing the Spatula. I usually trundle over to the computer shortly after 5:00 in the morning and sift through headlines on The Times, The Washington Post, NPR, and maybe a few minutes of Morning Joe. Usually, I let ideas rattle around for a day, or so, unless there is some story that feels immediate. Many times, I put the topics on a whiteboard and just walk by them until something clicks.  NPR ran a story the other day about a guy who’d been run over in a cross walk and the name on his driver’s license was Lord Jesus Christ. While it would have been fun to riff on that for 500 words, I am learning not just to shoot fish in a barrel. Most days, personal pondering and my befuddlement with the world trumps anything in the news cycle, anyway.

CSR: (the Progenitor roger is working on a semi-solo project, a ‘written in installments’ novel/story thing (contributions on a rotating basis by other DownSprings and Progenitors)  and he asked me to extend an invitation to you to join in on one or more chapters or segments. I will get more info if you think you might want to join in the fun…(work in progress, I have it in the Features Column as Chronicles of roger (working title)…
Mel: I’d love to be involved with contributing to roger’s solo project and it would be a lot of fun to add pieces. ‘Looking forward to hearing the details.

CSR: You work alone?…that sounds so relaxing (relative to working with, say…Progenitors and DownSprings)…(if ever you would like to borrow one or two…just ask..)
Mel: Writing alone can be cathartic and helps clear the board if I’m extremely vexed. Having said that, I am working out a way to take on contributors this year (details to follow and invitations will be forthcoming). I would love to keep on with a pace of three to four posts per week, but I think the blog suffers a bit. It will be exciting to post quality writing by others that fits into the Spatula cannon.

CSR: Do you get much culinary related emails? From what I see out there  food is a popular topic for blog writers…
Mel: I still write often about ‘food porn’ and the industry’s push to sell unhealthy products at any cost. Those posts generate some mail and I’d like to keep going with the theme. When I started last year, the idea was to write a cooking and recipe related blog, but I squashed the idea. This was at the time when Julie Powell’s success had a Sgt. Pepper effect on blogging. Becoming a chef and writing the next food masterpiece were just a mouse click away, and there seems to be a renaissance of food writing on the internet. I respect the recipe bloggers tremendously, but it does present an unrealistic vision of the restaurant and hospitality industry. It’s a joy to see someone’s elaborately produced dish on a website, but I always want to ask if they can produce it 25 times a night exactly the same for months on end. I always refer anybody who is serious about cooking to Bill Buford’s book Heat and Anthony Boudain’s Kitchen Confidential.

CSR: One of my favorite Posts at the Spatula (which sounds awful now that I see it in print), was “Wedded Bliss” (loved your answer to the question (paraphrasing here) about favorite marriage related movies: being Burning Bed.) Did you get much mail on that one?
Mel: Wedded Bliss was one of the only times that I post-scripted a blog with a retraction the next day. My wife Lori was really ticked at the time, because I made fun of the class. When I said the line about Burning Bed and Kramer Vs. Kramer, my friend, a local morning hard rock deejay, was sitting beside me in class and afterward said “Dude, I wouldn’t have even gone there.” I squeaked out of that blog post without too much negativity and got out of the doghouse at home fairly quickly.

CSR: Speaking of real life, how is it for your friends and family in terms of support for your work…(‘clark! can you complete a single sentence without the words Doctrine or gottafinishthisPost, is often heard around my house…)
Mel: I go through the same issues at home. For instance, what led to the birth of ‘Daisy’ started with one of those conversations involving “You love your blog more than us.” Overall, though, I’ve had a lot of support from my wife and her family, my little group of friends in the community and friends from high school and college on Facebook.

CSR: Well,
thank you very much for coming by!  We are still working on the fashion center and we look forward to adding any Spatula Fashion if that is possible.
(oh!, oh! sorry, DownSpring#1 wants to know if you want a hat (for your damn head) and she says “yes, you do have to pick one of the three”)
Mel: Oh, I absolutely want a hat! The hats (I dig the #3 headwear) are great and I totally want to wear, with pride, some Wakefield Doctrine swag! I will send along shirts when they are ready mid-summer. Again, I appreciate you having me here and your questions.

CSR: Any parting advice or tips to any or the Readers out there (can translate to Slovenian if necessary) on blog writing, life, cooking or all of the above?
Mel: On blog writing, I can only repeat some good advice I got several months ago and that’s to just write often about whatever moves you on a particular day. The response from others is often surprising. Life boils down to what one of my college professors was famous for saying: “You’ll have a good day, whether you know it, or not.” Stay positive, and don’t let negativity rule your existence. Finally, as for cooking, go with medium heat. Turn the dial down and let the food cook. See you around the Doctrine!
 
Thank you Miss Sullivan, thank you Mel. We do appreciate your being round. We will be getting a shipment-lette of hats (for your damn head) and if you will email a mailing address, we will ship it off straight-away. And once we get our Fashion Center into a more ‘professional’ looking’ layout we will welcome any Spatula clothing items to put up there. (Now where did that janitor go?) Mr. B!! Our guest has a request ( …lol… ), would you mind putting down the viola and find the video. (…you had your shot at that career…hey a scottian wife is worth more than that, isn’t she?)
 
Share

a crazy little thing called love

  • Introduction   (damn!, Jimmy said this thing came ready to fill-in)  The purpose of this Report is to review and critique the book: the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) (ok, ok  that’s a start, stay calm, not due for another hour…)
  • This part of High School book reports presents the most general information on the book: (no shit, sherlock you better believe it is ‘most general’ lol) This book was a very interesting Introduction to a very Interesting Theory of Personality( where is Janie!! she said she would help me with, “don’t worry Britney, we can knock this off in a half hour”,  yeah right) The book explains a very unique and productive way to understand those around us. (they better not read the book, damn that from the cover…)

    • Title/Author; The Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) clarkscottroger
    • Publication information; a weblog hosted by bluehost; https://wakefielddoctrine.com
    • Genre; Crazy Shit (lol) Theories of Personality ( yeah, sure thing that’s surely what it is…)
    • 1-2 sentences-long Introduction to your book report. (aww come on, I’ve already written that many… ) This is an un-conventional theory of personality that is based on how a person experiences the world instead of the way that they act most of the time. ( ok, ok don’t use it all up…) This book says that by understanding the way a person sees the world what they do will not be a surprise. This is a very good theory.
  • Body (very funny Jimmy! bout time you got here, wheres Janie? how late?!  yeah like you’re gonna be a help…)
    • What is the book about? The book is about the Wakefield Doctrine. (hey all they asked was what it is about…I’m not writing a book you know…)
    • What do you think about the book? (no, I am not going to write that…I need the grade …no let me think…) I thought that this book was a very thoughtful  insightful book about a very interesting subject.
  • Analysis and evaluation (oh, man I’ll never get this done by first period…shut up Jimmy…)
    • Is the writing effective, powerful, difficult, or beautiful? The writing is very effective and is not too difficult.  It explains the Wakefield Doctrine in words that most people can understand and benefit from. (yes I can end on ‘from’  stop distracting me… )
    • What are the strong and weak points of the book? The strongest thing about this book is the examples the Author gives for the three different personality types.  Each of the three (clarks, scotts and rogers) are clear and easy to see in the everyday world.  The weak points is when the writer uses various literary constructs to advance his theory (…Janie did…this text…she said she will have to meet us at class…shit)
    • Did its author achieve his/her purpose? Yes he/she/they did. (…I don’t care anymore…I just want to have something to hand in… )
    • Do you agree with the author’s point of view? Why? I agree with the Authors point of view because it seems to be true.  If you look aorund you with the three types of people in mind you will see one right away.  Usually it is a scott or a roger. Once you see one you will see the others.  The hard part is seeing which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) you are because the Author says you are all three but you are mostly one of the three (…and the other can be reached at the crazy old people home…lol stop it Jimmy…)
    • What is your impression from the book? Is it interesting, moving, or boring? This is a very interesting and moving book and I would recommend it to everyone.
    • Your recommendations. I recommend that you do not go out on a SUnda y night. I recommend that everyone read the book, the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) because it lets you see how people will act and will let you not be fooled by how they act especially if you are a clark.
  • Conclusion I conclude that I must hand this in  In conclusion, this book is a good book because it really makes sense.  Really once you get past the amateur writing technique and the quirky elements (including imaginary characters!!) what this Author is saying makes a crazy kind of sense.  If you let yourself see the rogers and scotts and clarks around you, you will then see how they always act the way they are described in the book.  Kind of spooky in a funny sort of way. THe end.
  • Pull your thoughts together and make a brief conclusion. (hey Janie…thanks so much for your help…. ) (…yeah he was a little help…very funny Jimmy…do you think your Janitor friend would get me a video real quick? …first period!! I told you on the phone…no,  no problem…maybe not a A but I am not the over-acheiver her, am I…lol  )

    Share