(the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers
This is the Doctrine’s contribution to the Unicorn Challenge bloghop.
A word-count constrained imagination contest* hosted by jenne and ceayr, the prompt is an image and the only limit is ‘tell your story in under 250 words’
“and a…?!?!”
*
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Six Sentence Story bloghop.
Hosted by Denise, there is one rule: Six (no more, no less) Sentenceses to the story
Prompt word:
HAUNT
“Hey, pal, c’mere need to talk to ya.”
The Sophomore was pulled from his walking-reverie as he halved the last city block before the Six Sentence Café & Bistro.
As is often the case with waking dreams, he was in a dark place with an unlikely girl, negotiating the terms of the never-ending truce between Life’s dominant hemispheres.
“Just take a second of ya time, I promise.”
For some reason a conversational shard, from a talk with Mimi one quiet Tuesday night cued itself up in his mind, “Listen cher, don’t you give no never mind to them lowlifes that hangout at the vacant lot, they think they real, but ain’t nothin’ but a haint in a low-rent neighborhood.”
The hair on the back of his neck rose at the immediacy of the voice; adding to his fear was the horrible paradox common to nightmares and broken relationships, the security and safety of the nightclub seemed to elongate away even as he quickened his pace.
*
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Six Sentence Story bloghop.
Hosted by Denise, there is one rule: Six (no more, no less) Sentenceses to the story.
Previously, in our serial story…
Prompt word:
HAUNT
Through my re-closed eyes, I felt the car slow to a stop; smooth hum of rubber-on-asphalt modulated to a tenor-crunch of gravel as Diane parked in front of the Administration building; for some obvious reason, I had a flashback of Zelazny’s novel, ‘Roadmarks”
“Last Stop for the Recollection-Regrets-Reconciliation Express, please have your ticket punched, baggage weighed and Multiple Personality Identity Badge, sorry, bad-ges, conspicuously displayed,” Diane Tierney managed to look older, wiser and mischievously-sexy holding the passenger-side front door open. I stepped out with the desperate enthusiasm of a family dog, resigned to an annual vet visit, pulling on the leash towards the door.
“Only if you come with me…”
“Only if we go sit under the bleachers and smoke some dope, I can see you now, a young Private Investigator to be, all non-descript, clumsy arms and legs watching the cheerleaders …cheering.”
The flashes of memories I had as I lead Diane towards the athletic field were not what I would have predicted had someone said, “Hey Ian, meet’cha at the old high school, we’ll hangout and recall the good times;” the thing about memories, and/or the haunts they frequent, they end up being half-clever memes on facebook, accurate enough to get the Reader’s attention but not powerful enough to hold it.
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
A Comment from, Misky the following:
That is, of course, in reference to: If you’re still reading, congratulations! You have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. enjoy!
Thanks, Misky
Funny thing about Chuck Berry, (sample below). Back when we were as young as the music was new, we took to the change in stride. But like Vinko Bogataj, we both under-and-over appreciated the new music. Over-appreciated in the sense of the technical innovation of Mr. Berry’s guitar playing and under-appreciated how fundamental to modern music it would be. (Hint: showmanship, while never absent in popular music, to the student impatient with the dull, routine of playing scales by rote, represented a license to evade the drudgery of practice.)
the Wakefield Doctrine, in this caffeine-stumble of a Post (that started with such an impeccable thesis: ‘Essay Question: Typical Response of the three predominant worldviews (clarks, scotts and rogers) to first encounter with the Wakefield Doctrine. Compare and Contrast’
clarks: damn/huh!/shit
scotts: “You fuckin’ clarks!” (infectious laughter)
rogers: “Sorry, but while this is interesting, I seem to be a fourth personality type consisting of all three equally”
So, back to the implied essay question: Why is having a significant secondary clarklike aspect necessary for scotts and rogers to best appreciate this little personality theory of ours?
The inability of clarks to believe anything.
There’s an old saying, “The greater the power of imagination, the higher the barrier to belief.”
In simple terms*: a scott or a roger without a secondary clarklike aspect is a perfectly balanced personality. They live in perfect worlds, leading perfect lives. The relationship they (each) maintain with their respective worlds accounts for everything. While individuals may appear to search for answers and strive to develop, they are all Chuck Berry. They advance their personal realities. Develop and become more sophisticated. But they are, (to themselves, in silent affirmation), good and sufficient people.
There’s another old saying, “If you need to identify the clarks in a crowd of people gathered in an auditorium, pose the question: “Who would be interested in becoming another person?”
the clark’s gift (and curse) is the prominance in their personal reality of the challenge, “Yeah, but what if?”
*(lol ok, we’re trying. having, of late, spent time with early-Doctrine posts, our efforts to duplicate the naturally provocative voice of those days… (visual: opera singer complete with tuxedo and pince-nez singing: ‘Deep down in Louisiana close to New Orleans…’)
Program Note!! Tomorrow is when Denise‘s bloghop, the ‘Six Sentence Story’ goes live. Be there or be…
*
Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
(tonight we walk among the Herd…shhh)
The ‘Everything Rule’ notwithstanding, we can make the following observations:
clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel
when manifesting creativity, clarks are the only one to bring into being something that was/is/otherwise would not be; the creativity of a scott is to allow the other person to imagine they might have had a hand in bringing to the world something wonderful, and rogers, they are the Fabergé manipulators of the world in common (which explains why rogers in whatever art they may engage are the more successful. if popular success was the only measure.)
the Wakefield Doctrine offers a perspective that you would have/probably already noted (if you’re a clark), watched and enjoyed others become entertained by (a scott lives to live, not consume or otherwise deplete), rejected before fully-appreciating, (those rogers with insufficient secondary clarklike aspects)
more often than not, ‘its them, not you’
that said, the ‘them’ (in this contrived provocative statement) is also you (or rather, the ‘them’ in your life are almost (almost) entirely a function of the manner in which you relate yourself to the world around you and the people who make it up.
the Wakefield Doctrine is the simplest of toys/tools. you can’t break it. you can’t even ‘get it wrong’.
If you’re still reading, congratulations! You have a significant secondary clarklike aspect. enjoy! (the clarks knew that already)
Don’t worry about ‘getting’ the Wakefield Doctrine. It’s not a get. It’s more a ‘oh yeah, I see what you’re doing here. you won’t tell them, right?’
Absolutely.
mums the word
trick your friends into coming by and checking this thing out. natural selection at work. (the way young clarks, with the best of intentions, deluded themselves into thinking the world could be, and continued trying to maintain it. yet, you’re here.)
cool
Congratulations! - You’ve just discovered the Wakefield Doctrine!!
Read the rest of this ...you can thank us later... [Read More…]
