relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 12 relationships | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 12

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

So what if we say, the following is an example of a meta-Doctrine post?

Reader’s response (in reverse the traditional ordering):

  1. rogers: well, I don’t know how to tell you this but, that’s not quite what is happening, it’s simply a normal RePrint post with a power chord on the first beat
  2. scotts: (grin) lay it on me
  3. clarks: I’m listening

A quik Wik:

Metafiction is a form of fiction that emphasizes its own narrative structure in a way that inherently reminds the audience that they are reading or viewing a fictional work…”*

Yeah we can live with that. But of the three, clarks clearly have a deep-rooted affinity for meta (hell, they live in meta-time, narrating a life in which the audiance, on average, really wants to like the play, but they have lives. Real-person lives.)

We were going to go for something profound, but time is not our friend. (Time is no one’s friend. Time is the original incubus/succubus of the spirit*)

 

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine- “… of Mondegreen(s), reality and clarks”

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Live! From the waiting room of a dentist office. George Michael is singing an example of ‘the writer not realizing the true power of his own work*.

Which surely leads us to the wonderful word/concept ‘Mondegreen’

(…back in real time. A little more to tell you about)

This post is so for clarks (and scotts and rogers with significant secondary clarklike aspects).

It wasn’t ‘Careless Whisper’ that made me appreciate how interesting being a clark can sometimes be. It was Electric Light Orchestra’s ‘Don’t Bring Me Down’.

So I’m sitting there waiting for my hygienist (who is a clark) to call for me, so I did what any (of us would do) I looked things up. As it was, ‘Don’t Bring Me Down’ played from the ceiling. Naturally I thought, ‘so who is Bruce?’ And went to wikipedia (the best thing about the internet, from a clark’s perspective) and looked it up. I cite:

A common mondegreen in the song is the perception that, following the title line, Lynne shouts “Bruce!”. In the liner notes of the ELO compilation Flashback and elsewhere, Lynne has explained that he is singing a made-up word, “Grooss,” which some have suggested sounds like the Swiss/German expression “Gruß.” After the song’s release, so many people had misinterpreted the word as “Bruce” that Lynne actually began to sing the word as “Bruce” for fun at live shows”

OK I accept that.

Now this is where the fun we have (as clarks) begins…. mondegreen?!  What might that be… all blue in linkage.

A mondegreen /ˈmɒndɪɡrn/ is a mishearing or misinterpretation of a phrase as a result of near-homophony, in a way that gives it a new meaning. Mondegreens are most often created by a person listening to a poem or a song; the listener, being unable to clearly hear a lyric, substitutes words that sound similar and make some kind of sense.[1][2] American writer Sylvia Wright coined the term in 1954, writing about how as a girl she had misheard the lyric “…and laid him on the green” in a Scottish ballad as, “…and Lady Mondegreen”

of course!

I smiled (to myself). This is part of the better part of the world of the Outsider.

The fun and genuine pleasure in knowing the Wakefield Doctrine began when I heard my name called, ‘Clark?’

Given that we spend a few minutes twice a year together, naturally I had long since told my hygienist about the Wakefield Doctrine. And, equally naturally, by virtue of being a clark, she immediately ‘got it’.

So as I sat back in the chair this morning she said, “So whats new?”

I smiled the smile of one clark to another.

“So you  know that ELO song… I forget the name, its the one where they say ‘Bruce’?”

She nodded “I know the one you mean.”

“Well I looked it up and there’s this thing called a mondegreen and it’s a term for the times we hear one word and substitute it with another thats different but makes sense in a weird way, ya know?”

She smiled and nodded in acknowledgement and appreciation for the concept.

“You realize, of course, the implications of this for how we deal with reality, right?”

She laughed out loud and proceeded to tell me what it was I was thinking.

Thats the fun of the Wakefield Doctrine.

 

*  ‘Careless Whisper’ I would argue that Seether’s cover of the song is one of those rare ‘better than original’

 

 

*eh…. not really a punch in the face, but what can you do?

 

 

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Mimi said something in a Comment yesterday that got us thinking.

[New Readers? Who among you just muttered , ‘As opposed to acting? Instead of feeling?’ Very good!]

She say,

“How to have fun? What do you think I’m doing, I wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t to have fun.”

>Fun Fact? Pretty much everyone who returns to this blog more than twice, if not a clark then (they) have a significant secondary clarklike aspect.<

No, it’s true!

From the very beginning we’ve described the Wakefield Doctrine as a ‘fun, productive way to look at the world we live in with the added benefit of knowing the other person better than they know themselfs‘.

The thing about the Doctrine is that it is but one more perspective on the world. And the single hardest, nay impossible for some, is what we used to call ‘flexible intelligence’. This is the capacity to accept that what we all refer to (out of either necessity or need or both) as ‘reality’ is not necessarily one thing. That there is such a thing as personal reality. Nothing weird or made-up. Just a certain part of the day we experience, say today, is created by us/for us/at us.

And, this is captured in our, if we had one, mission statement:

With the practice of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine, we increase our ability to see the world as the other person is experiencing it.

>Fun Fact? The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, age neutral, culture neutral.<

 

 

Share

Twosday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

While the action in FictionLand is cranking up, i.e. Six Sentence Story, this is still the Wakefield Doctrine. And the raison d’être for our little blog has not changed. It’s always been about presenting the principles of our little personality theory in a manner both entertaining and easily understood.

oh yeah? I’ll step in yer frickin river as many times as I

Yeah, it is Sunday again.  And no, there is no rule that we have to get all weird (alright, weirder) on Sunday Posts.  But the Doctrine allows for virtually anything, as long as there is something (in the Post) that advances the understanding of the Wakefield Doctrine.
The Wakefield Doctrine Lesson of the Day:  talking yesterday to a person who has recently encountered this blog.  She expressed some concern about knowing for certain which of the three (clarks, scotts or rogers) she was, which is appearing to be a rather common experience among new Readers and as such is important to us here at the Doctrine.  We want everyone to immediately get the Wakefield Doctrine and then conribute to the blog through Comments.  As to the un-comfortable part,  I suspect there is an element to the writing “style” of these Posts that imparts some kind of “you better get this right” vibe to the First Time Reader.  Damn.Hey Readers, yo. (No you’re wrong, I am totally entitled to affecting any (writing) style, slang, patois, pidgin, dialect or any other form of projectile cool (including a delusional perception of sounding cool, inevitably limited to my own imagination) if I want to cause I am the one writing this Post and who is anyone else to say that I am not in fact a dreadlocks-sportin, surfboard-on-the-car drivin’, pants-worn-down-about-mid-thigh wearin’ scott or roger or, for that matter clark(except the part about the surfboard and pants and dreadlocks but otherwise, I’m there) Sorry, lost control of the parentheseses.  Besides, the job is open, anyone got a Post you want to write then step right up.  Let us know in the form of a Comment and we will be too damn happy to let you write one of these rascals.Anyway, the important thing here is this:  the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and roger) proposes that all of us start life with the qualities ascribed to  three (‘personality’) types (clarks, scotts androgers).  Further, at some relatively early point in life, we begin to experience the world mostly from the perspective of one (of these three).  At that point we can say we are a clark or a scott or a roger.  Having said that, we always retain the qualities/capabilities/capacities of the other two types; but except for you Readers, we all seem to forget that we have a rogerian side or a scottian aspect.
The reason you are reading this is that you have the intellectual flexibility to imagine that which is not. (Yes, I know what you clarks are thinking at this point, but let’s just keep that to ourselves for now, shall we?)
The short form (lol, as if) is this: you already know this shit.  The Doctrine is a productive, unique and fun way to look at the behavior of those around us and understand why the people in our lives act the way that they do.  Pretty simple, isn’t it?So, New Reader…relax take a deep breath (not too loudly, scott) (not too dramatically, roger) (breath! clark, breath!).  There is no rush.  Since you are already all three, deciding for yourself which of the three you are predominately will take care of itself.
The most frequent experience of new Readers is to say, “Yeah, I get the theory, but sometimes I am like  one type and at other times one of the other two. Almost as if I am all three”.
To which we say, “Very good!  Many of us feel that way when we start, then we frickin read what is written about being all three and it being predominately one of the three and we get over it!”  Jeez…come on, people I know you have an extra capacity to understand new shit or you wouldn’t still be reading this, you would have long since moved on to crocheting-with-emily.com or wrench-and-sports.com.  Relax, trust your instincts and get over it.  Have fun! (clarks, see us after class and we can help you apply an overly long, convoluted, tail-eating definition with complete instructions on how-to have fun).And write a Comment.  Win a hat (for your damn head).

You want pressure?  I give you pressure…watch the following music video and tell me (through a Comment) if the Conductor is a clark or a scott or a roger…(come on scotts, some of you must like classical music)…but the challenge is identifying the type.
Not easy, of course, but I don’t want anyone to feel that they should not submit an answer….there is a hat (for someone’s damn head in it) for the correct answer!

ed note link below was bad (this is from 2010) but if you would like an updated quizlet, just go ahead and write in the comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZwgLrVEw84…put down your keyboards, your time is up…answers are in…remember what we say here at the Doctrine,  “there are no stupid questions, just your questions”

(Come on Readers, lighten up.  Take a chance, clark; don’t feel threatened, roger;  hey scott, you can do this)

 

*

Share

Frieturday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

We join them crazy-gifted fictioneers over at ceayr and jenne‘s place, the Unicorn Challenge. As a mixed social gathering, it’s less intimidating than Spin the Bottle or Seven Minutes in Heaven, but given the skills exhibited in their two-hundred-fifty-word stories (based on the photo-prompt below), we’re surprised we work up the nerve to join in even every-other-Friday.

Wish us luck.

 

The Number 9 (Direct Express to Liverpool-Hertfordshire-Manchester) blurred past those waiting on the platform with no more warning than a brief Doppler’d shriek of its horn. A negative-tunnel of air passing the station; all confetti-litter and iron-rattles blurred by it’s quantum state of permanent indeterminacy.

The quiet it left behind was one of the few insights into the world God intended, after the fiasco in the Garden. The only certainty He intended his flawed, if not prolific, Race of Man to have was simple: Loud/Not Loud. The Unified Theory of Getting Through Life.

For the most part, those on the platform were not there by choice. Comprised almost entirely of Commuters waiting to leave Home to Go To Work, the essential itinerary of capitalism.

The only free humans that morning were a young couple and a child.

The remainder of the people, (standing in for Heisenberg’s mythical ‘Observers), wore the shackles of Adulthood (tastefully accessorized by his slutty half-sister, Sophistication) affected not to notice these three societal outliers.

The child, in the forest of adults, stood with eyes wide in wonder. Being young he perceived the world as but forces and temporary objects, leaving little behind other than emotion solidified into hope and fear.

The couple had each other. They were at the peak experience of this relationship because they were parting. Why is inconsequential. When was all that matter to them.

Like the child, but unlike everyone else, they felt the incidental gift of a certain Garden, loss.

 

 

*

 

 

Share

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

This is our weakly contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop. Long considered the apex Grat-blog in the ‘sphere. Often imitated, the TToT is still the go-to for anyone needing a quick attitude adjustment.

1) Phyllis —————————————————————–↓

2) Una ———————↑

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) continued non-snowistic climate.

5) the Six Sentence Story bloghop. (Week’s fave Six: ‘Entrée’)

6) the Unicorn Challenge bloghop (Doctrine Pick of the Week: ‘Now, that’s one hell of a development opportunity‘ )

7) writing and such

8) technology that allows a photo of the rather exceptional Sailor’s Warning sky at sunrise yesterday. The photo at the top of this post does not do justice to how red the sky was.

9) something, something

10) Secret Rule 1.3

 

music vids

*

*

*

*

Share