the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 7 the Wakefield Doctrine | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 7

Friday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

This is the Doctrine’s contribution to the Unicorn Challenge.

Hosted by jenne and ceayr, as an image-prompt bloghop it has but one rule: stories are not to exceed 250 words in length.

 

“Oh, man!”

“Come on!”

The Writer shifted in his chair as he tee’d up the image-prompt from his third favorite bloghop.

Winter’s relatives, ice and snow, sat listlessly outside the window of his office. The Writer glanced at the smudged and streaked document, its title broken into near-illegibility by the seasonal process of crumple-in-rejection and smoothing-of-resignation. In a fit of irony, all his mind’s eye could discern was ‘Do (Not) Re(s)us(citat)e

The man sighed. Absentmindedly, he spun the faux-bronze coin on his desk.

The second-to-first optical illusion caught his aye, as the old appetite began its slow, internal massage. Lacking the rough, ‘let’s get through the foreplay’ of a young author, the overtures of his addiction felt relaxing. The slow familiarity of the urge, far more dangerous to a mature tale-spinner. As if by subversive intent, its centrifugal spin transformed the disc into a globe, the words embossed on each side, obscured, neutered.

Looking back at the photo image on the screen broke the hypnotic lure of the spinning coin and, in the way of countless unanticipated plot-twists that beckoned him down the endless path, he saw only the wet-dark threshold of the gate. The spell was broken.

Pushing away from his computer, he left the room, started his car and headed to the only safe place he knew.

“I’m a Writer. For me one Garden of Eden metaphor is too many and a thousand are not enough.”

“Hi, Writer!”

 

Share

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine- [an Ian Devereaux Six]

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

This is the Doctrine’s contribution to the Six Sentence Story bloghop.

Hosted by Denise, subject to the Rule of Six.

Previously, in our SSC&B story… where Ian realizes that, dosed with the right drug, Life could be a dream.

Prompt Word:

PERFECT

A vibration overwhelmed my brain, a sheet of static lit up my scalp, all as a soundless roar filled my ears; when it passed, the man across from me was not there.

And, I mean ‘not there’ as in: no evidence of him, (or anyone), sitting opposite me in a booth overlooking the IHOP parking lot; no coffee cup, plate of pancakes, cheap cutlery kimono’d in a paper napkin, not so much as a blue and white printed place mat.

My first thought was, ‘Man, am I high’, but, as everyone knows, if you can say that, you’re not, not really; for reasons that I’d just expressed and immediately forgot, laughter began to blossom somewhere in my chest, fortunately I was able to plea bargain it down to a giggle which, as spontaneous, albeit irrational, gaiety often does, it died of self-consciousness.

I looked out on the parking lot, the blue Chevy Bel Air wagon, my erstwhile time machine, was still where I parked it; confronting it’s reality made my head swell up and my face fall, all while fear kicked my stomach off an invisible cliff.

I struggled to remember something I thought I saw, when it came to me…. a detail about the car… the license plate!

Unlike in old detective movies, license plates are not the critical information in an investigation that they once were, that said, I felt definite relief to be thinking in terms that were part of my pre-time travel/drugged hallucination life, more importantly, I realized that deciding on whether this was perfect or pluperfect tense didn’t matter, what did matter was the single word along the top edge of the license plate and it got me to stand and say, “Check please!”

*

Share

Wednesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

ok. let us leave it to our (weak) tertiary rogerian aspect to do the intro to today’s post.

“Only because you’ve been badgering us for more RePrint posts, and, by-the-way? love that formatting with the caps… perfect, here we go. And, in case anyone is muttering, ‘Sure, if I have three thousand posts I wouldn’t feel the need to write new content everyday. Besides, how new can any post be, after writing that many descriptions of a single perspective on personality. And, since you brought it up, and I hate to be the one to tell you, the Doctrine has a flaw. When I read and learned then applied the description of those clarks, scotts and roger types, it was clear that despite what they insist about only one predominant worldview, I have all three in equal amounts. But I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade. Don’t say I said this…” tertiary r.

(ed. lol btw remind us to describe the latest project on time management. got ourselfs one of those task-time tracker apps. curious about where all the time that I’ve found going missing of late. Still in the habit-of-use phase, no good stats yet. has promise.)

Also, part of the rush (there it is, that time problem again!) being Wednesday we need to finish our contribution(s) to Denise‘s Six Sentence Story bloghop. Doors open at six o’clock (of course they do lol). You should stop by for a read. Better yet ask for permission… damn! movie reference (free Grat Item for your next TToT post for anyone who gets the reference without google). Better yet, write and link a story!

….lol

“Diogenes, C.W. Post and Jean Lafitte are sitting at a bar…” the Wakefield Doctrine (‘…early Tuesday morning, lets see you write your way out of this one!’)

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

You know what’s weird?  (no, not that…that’s simply strange), it’s that I find myself being  drawn to trying to learn to write. By that, I suppose I mean I am increasingly dissatisfied with my skills and at the same time find myself wanting to do it more. (Yes, paradigmatic of the adolescent male outlook).  This is, no doubt, a direct result of my association with writing-people over at the BBG* and  (new Friends of the Doctrine).
Nevertheless, I find myself creating challenges (for myself) with each effort to write Wakefield Doctrine Posts that are not only informative and interesting, but entertaining. I suppose, given my seemingly relentless drive to make the Wakefield Doctrine a damn household name,  this is not the worst thing that can happen.
And so, today’s Post Title.
I’ve mentioned in previous Posts and/or Comments that there are times when the Post you read in the Doctrine blog comes about simply because I hear a song fragment or get stuck with a single thought and I just try to ‘write my way out of it’. Today’s Post is one of those Posts.

…first, a little backstory.*** the Diogenes in our Title is Melanie’s fault! I was rummaging around ‘the Facebook’ and came across a Comment she made to the effect that she was having trouble with her internet connection and had to go find a more reliable source… now I know we all made the jump to that old… ‘in search of an honest man’ thing we all read about in grade school. So I wrote that as a comment. Naturally the next thing I thought was the old joke setup up,  “….were sitting at a bar” (or alternately,  “…walk into a bar”**).

(The work began.) I knew there should be three people in the set up, and since I was suspecting that Diogenes was a clark, I had to find a scott and a roger. I got lucky with C.W., in that the phrase, ‘best to you each morning‘ somehow got into my head and then the words, ‘Post Toasties’ and then on to our C.W. Post, who from my brief reading of his life struck me as a roger.  2/3s done!
Now all I needed was a scott!  Now most of us are thinking, “oh! how easy! a scott, flamboyant and aggressive and funny and predatory. The line forms here…’
No! unfortunately for me this morning, it is all too obvious that history favors those with a talent for self-promotion over those who are simply out to have a: good/ravenous/seduce-’em-all/conquer the country,  time.
But I came across our Jean Lafitte and the following line quoted in the Wikipedia**** :

Many Americans believed that Lord Byron‘s poem “The Corsair” was based on the life of Lafitte; the work sold over 10,000 copies on its first day of publication.[96] By 1840, Lafitte was widely known “as a fatal Lothario with women, and a cold-blooded murderer of men who yet observed some forms of honor”

So we had our scott!

So they are standing at the bar and Diogenes says to C.W. “what’s with the glass of milk?” and Jean interrupts and says, “”mais d’abord! roo roo un peu

I have to close now. I have a day job that I so cannot afford to give up!

 

*Cyndi and Janine and Rich and Michelle and Emily and Amy and them

** here’s one that I found on a site (http://www.schiesshouse.com/) probably public domain, but it can’t hurt to cite the source,
“A guy walks into a bar…. ok, he did not walk in, he was already there. One guy says, “I slept with my wife before we were married, did you?” The other guy says, “I don’t know; what was her maiden name?”

*** another excellent joke!! This is a reference to the joke about ‘roo roo’ which is noteworthy because it is a gender-tropic joke! Yes, I’m making that word up, but it’s true! Of the Readers reading this, I am willing to bet a Wakefield Doctrine DocTee that every guy will immediately recognize (and know and find hilarious, the joke that I am referring to)…the womenly Readers?  sorry. it’s to your credit and a sign of a higher state of evolution that you guys do not get the reference.

**** Wikipedia motto: ‘that’s right! like Cliff Notes, but with pictures and easy access to footnotes to make it look like you did the research

*

Share

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Struggling to get started this morning. Quick search through archives…nah.

Recognized the twinge of guilt at using old content rather than typing new. Guilt is the preferred perfume/’after-shave’ of the Outsider, in no small part because we think it’s legitimate use is to divert attention from our-true-selfs and to abracadabra the impression everyone else has of us.

Funny thing, when we tend to wander about, writingistically-speaking, you know, like when you’re stumped on a multi-choice test question and, seeking reassurance in a fact/information of rather admittedly impeachable pedigree-opiniom, resort to counting how many times you’ve selected ‘D’ (None of the Above).

That said, the thing about clarks is, the above test strategy notwithstanding, we’re kinda immune to test anxiety.

Which ties in with Mimi’s Comment on yesterday’s post:

“Simple if not always easy.”

spoken like a: clark/scott/roger

lol

no! wait… just remembered how much we enjoyed being provocative in the early days of this blog and…

‘a scott alone in a room, isn’t’ (and) ‘clarks are crazy, scotts are stupid and rogers are dumb’ and, about applying the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine to your own life, ‘It’s fun and you can’t get it wrong.’

so, in the spirit of ‘hey, it’s not so much what you do or say, it’s how you relate yourself to the world around us and the people wbo make it up’, lets add a new(ish) one:

clarks make the hard things easy and the easy things hard’

 

 

 

Share

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

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

Antigone and Oedipus, yo

Here’s one of the simplest descriptions of the three predominant worldview (‘personality types’) of the Wakefield Doctrine:

clarks think, scotts act (and) rogers feel

Here’s one of the simplest overviews of the application of the principles of the Wakefield Doctrine:

The Wakefield Doctrine is gender, age and culture neutral.

Finally,

Here’s one of the simplest test-to-elicit-self-identification (vis-à-vis) as a clark (or) a scott (or) a roger:

How Much is Two plus Two?

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

 

 

Share