Sometimes there are those topics that you really want to discuss, but that you avoid for whatever reason. This is a topic I’ve been wanting to write about for a while, now, but haven’t because I couldn’t come up with just the right words.

Then I found a link to an interesting entry at Michael’s journal, “Almost Abel” on MethodX.

Am I sick of church?

Yes and no.

It may shock people to hear a Christian say he’s sick of church. I imagine that there are some people who are every much as Christian as I am, and every much as devoted to God as I am if not moreso, who feel exactly the same way.

Michael writes:

I’ve been thinking about how many people seem to have been hurt by churches (even though many are well meaning). I’ve also been thinking that there are probably a large number of people who have been hurt but don’t know what to do with that hurt. Some people leave the church. Some people leave GOD.

I’ve never considered leaving God, because a long time ago, it was revealed to me in a personal way that defies any reasonable description that God exists. To explain how I know would be like explaining how I know that the sky is blue; I know it because I experience it.

But the church itself is a different matter. While it is God’s house, and while its purpose is to allow believers to come together to worship God, the church isn’t run by God. It’s run by men. And therefore, the church cannot be perfect. Even the preacher, who is supposed to be the messenger of God, isn’t always perfect.

Different people have their own, unique reasons for feeling the way I do. There was a time I would feel bad because I didn’t fall into the “cliques” that invariably form within a church. We’re all in God’s clique, of course, but sometimes it’s easy to lose sight of that. Not that being part of a social group is the main reason to go to church, but at the same time, fellowship is one of the main reasons to go to church: you can worship God in the privacy of your own home. If you go to church to fellowship with others and you feel excluded, why would you want to go back?

I once visited a non-denominational church where people who didn’t really fall into any specific category or fit under any single label joined each other to worship together. And the sad thing is, I received a warmer welcome here than at any other church I’ve visited since I moved to Virginia. That should sting regular church-goers. It made me do a lot of thinking about how I greet new people at church. Do I come off as cold as some others?

I’ve been part of churches that contained what I generously refer to as “over-eager” members who are a little too much into other people’s personal business in an apparent attempt to make sure those folks are worthy of inclusion. In their mind, it may be that they’re trying to keep their peers accountable, but in reality, they’re being busybodies and that can turn people off quickly.

Most churches are plagued by the “holier than thou” types who actually try to keep count of how much others attend. I don’t attend church regularly, but I challenge anyone who is inside a church building during every service to prove that my belief in God isn’t just as strong as their own.

The sad part is, if we’re not supposed to judge others, I would think that the last people we’d try to be judging is fellow believers!

The church as a political entity is always a problem for some. I could do a separate post on this subject. There was a time when being associated with a church didn’t automatically mean association with any single political party or assumptions of one’s own political views. Separation of Church and State is the popular phrase that people like to throw around, when, in fact, there was never an intent to keep religion on the back burner. Our founding fathers simply wanted to be able to live in a country where they weren’t forced to belong to (and more importantly, to financially support) a church they didn’t want to be part of. A survey I read indicated that most of the people polled wanted leaders who were religious in some way. I think the distinction is that they didn’t necessarily want those religious views to get in the way of running the country and providing for the people.

As with all things, it’s the extremists, those who are so close-minded that they can’t even bring themselves to realize that an alternative viewpoint can reasonably exist, that damages what the majority of people hope to achieve. But churches get the blame for this since a lot of the extremists tend to wave their church attendance — and the “holiness” they think it affords them — as a flag for all to see.

My biggest turn-off at the moment is the blatant business mentality. There’s no question that churches are a business. They take in money, they have budgets, they hire employees and pay salaries. To be effectively run, a church must operate as though it were a business to make sure it can cover its debt. But I have been in a church where the members who contribute more — or who at least think they do — have begun considering themselves to be the bosses of the church. If an idea doesn’t meet their approval, whether it seems to be consistent with reaching out to the community, it doesn’t happen. When they put behind-the-scenes politics as a priority, instead of serving God, I have a problem with that. I’ve heard of pastors — good pastors — run off solely because some of those “high-paying” members didn’t feel like the donations were coming in quickly enough. If the consideration of a pastor’s worth to a church is measured solely in the collection plates rather than his ability to spread God’s word, I’m not sure that’s a church I want to belong to.

I’m curious about your feelings on church. Do you ever get sick of church? What bothers you the most about organized religion?

Please leave “sick of church”-related comments at Michael’s blog as well. I think this is an important discussion for people who go to church and those who have felt turned away.

Last week’s poll gave you the chance to sound off on a proposed law to make desecrating the American flag against the law.

Of those who voted, 85% are in favor of protecting the flag.

Now it’s time for a new topic: Who is the greatest American in history? The Discovery Channel surveyed its viewers to narrow the candidates from 100 to 25 to 10. Of the top ten, Ronald Reagan came out on top!

Do you agree? The new poll on the sidebar gives you the chance to pick your choice of the top 10 as determined by the Discovery Channel. Is Reagan your top man, or would you have given the honor to someone else on the list? Cast your vote on the sidebar!

Here are just a few random pieces of interest I found while browsing over the past couple of weeks:

Ever wonder how long it’s really safe to keep those food items in your refrigerator or pantry? One website has compiled a list of expiration dates of 77 household, beauty and grocery items that you might want to check out.

Worried about junk food and the health of your kids? A study shows that they can be taught to eat better, according to the Associated Press. Kids from ages 8-10 who were educated about good nutrition ate healthier for three years, even though less-healthy snacks still made up an alarming percentage of their diet. Researchers are hopeful, though, that teaching kids at an early age about what foods to avoid might make our descendants healthier than we are.

On the other hand, it’s never too late to get yourself in good shape. In Nairobi, Daniel M’Mburugu was tending to his crops when a leopard darted of tall grass and lept on him. The peasant farmer had a machete in one hand, but dropped it. With his bare hands, this 73-year-old managed to kill the predator, according to this story from MSNBC. (Note: some may find the details disturbing. Visit at your own risk.)

And, do you ever feel watched when you shop? Shoplifters are more clever than ever these days, so stores resort to high-tech ways to catch them. The Food Marketing Institute has a list of the 50 Most Shoplifted Items as a PDF file on their website. How many do you buy?

Some info from Boing Boing. (I guess I’m the last one to find this potpourri of weblinks!)

A Paris restaurant, “Dans le Noir,” which means “In the Dark,” gives patrons a real taste of a disability. Customers are led into the darkened dining room by a wait staff that is blind. The motive is simple: to give the sighted a real-life lesson in living without sight.

And it’s not just that the lights are off and curtains are pulled in front of windows: the dining room is pitch black, and lights of any kind are forbidden.

“It awakens your other senses,” says owner Edouard de Broglie, who is not blind. “It alters your perspective, your relations with others. It shows what happens when you can’t see.”

More details about the restaurant and efforts of the City of Lights to make itself more handicapped-friendly can be found in this article from the Boston Globe.

It’s an intriguing idea, with a noble intent. But not being able to see what you’re eating in a restaurant? Sorry, that’s not for me. Call me pessimistic, but I’ve seen too many restaurant inspections over the years that show health violations that range from dirty dishes to undercooked food. In this day and age, blind trust in anyone’s cooking is a little too much of a long shot for me.

How about you? Would you go to this restaurant? Or would you prefer a different way to experience what a blind person does?

When you think of the Lord’s Prayer, do you think about the meaning of the words or do you just think about the memorized lines that you recite? When you say the same thing over and over again for years, it’s easy to lose sight of the meaning.

I came across an American Indian version of the Lord’s prayer and found it interesting because it takes the same theme and puts it in a slightly different perspective. I hope you find it useful.

Great Spirit, whose teepee is in the sky
And hunting ground is the earth
All afraid of You and mighty are You called;
Ruler over storms, over men and birds and beasts and mountains;
Have Your way over all, over earth ways and sky ways;
Find us this day our meat and corn that we may be strong and brave;
And put aside from us our wicked ways as we put aside the bad of all who do us wrong;
And let us not have troubles that lead into crooked paths;
But keep everyone in our camp from all danger;
For Yours is all that is; the earth and sky, the streams, the hills, and the valleys, the stars, the moon, and the sun: all that live and breathe. Wonderful, shining mighty Spirit!

-Author Unknown

“For yours is all that is.” That’s my favorite line of this version. Some might call this a simplified or less-sophisticated version of the more familiar prayer. But isn’t it interesting how clearly it makes its points?

Like any proud pet owner, I take pictures of my dogs when I can. Every now and then, I’ll catch Zoey, the golden retriever mix that I adopted from a local shelter, peering out of the window, silently watching what’s going on outside.

She is a couch potato. Big time. She makes me seem like an Olympic athlete by comparison! When I walk her outside to allow her to take care of her business, she does so and then makes no bones about getting back inside to the air conditioning.

But still I wonder what she watches; I am curious about what she thinks. Does she fear that she will end up alone on the streets again, trying to find food and a warm place to sleep? Does she think some dark, evil thing is chasing after her? Does she wonder what happened to the two puppies she had with her when she was found, shivering and hungry? They’ve been adopted to their own families now, and she hasn’t seen them in two years. Would she recognize them now? When I see her like this, I’ll call her name and she’ll come to me, always happy to receive attention. I reassure her, and she settles herself and takes a nap.

Some people insist that animals don’t think. I know better.

GENESIS 1
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

There has been great controversy over the story of Creation. It causes problems in school because to teach it is considered the teaching of religion. Teaching the theory of Evolution, for which scientific proof exists, causes problems because it seems to go against the theory of Creation as described in the Bible.

Last year, textbooks in Texas schools which contained lessons about Evolution were required to be adorned with stickers that reminded students that Evolution was a “theory,” not necessarily fact. This was done by zealous Christians who fear that anyone who believes in Evolution cannot believe in God.

During a recent conversation with a family member, I was surprised to learn that this relative believed that God did create the world in six days as the Bible says. I asked her thoughts about evolution, wondering how she could dismiss archeological discoveries that tend to prove that we evolved over a period of time into our present state. She had no answer. In other words, she believed in the Bible, she did believe in the facts of science, but there was a tremendous gray areain which the two theories do not mesh and for her, she could not reconcilethis gap.

Is it not possible that the scientific proof those who support the theory of Evolution put forth is true? Yes. Does this dispute the Biblical story that God created all that exists? Not really.

If you read the story of Creation as depicted in Genesis, you will learn that on the first day, God created light, implying that before light there was only darkness. On the fourth day, God created the sun, moon and stars to govern the day and the night and to mark the seasons, days and years. This brings up an interesting question: if there was no such system to mark a “day” until the “third day,” how long did the “first day” and “second day” really last?

Remember: God didn’t write the Bible. Religious men wrote the Bible while they were inspired by God. To different degrees, those who did so believed that God was telling them exactly what to write. But would God have spent a great deal of energy to explain to unenlightened minds His own timetable?

Consider it this way: Do you measure each second of your life? Each minute? Even each hour? Most of us don’t make note of days as they pass. We mark our birthdays on a yearly basis, and for the most part, we live our life day to day as it comes. Why? Because we all assume that we have a certain lifespan ahead of us: an average of anywhere from seventy to eighty years. Minutes don’t matter when you have decades ahead, right?

Then consider the mayfly. This insect’s lifespan lasts less than a full day. A mayfly, fortunately, hasn’t the perception to realize the severity of its own mortality. But if it did, how do you suppose it might make use of its time? If you knew that you would die at midnight tonight, how many times would you look at the clock?

God doesn’t have to worry about the clock: He is infinite, the beginning and the end. Time itself has no real meaning to the Almighty because he transcends it. For God, measuring the length of a single day is useless since there is never an end to the days that follow. What difference would it make to God to create the heavens and the earth in six days or six weeks? Six months or six years? If God is ongoing, then His creation will unfold in His own time, whatever He considers appropriate. He might allow things to happen over eons or with the snap of a finger, create an entire universe in a flash.

If He intended his creations to mimic Him, it wouldn’t matter whether we appeared in a single flash of light or arrived in our present state over time; the point is that we became — one way or another — what He intended.

If the Bible had been written today and not when it actually had been written, can you imagine that it would be identical to the original version? Surely the basic messages, the themes of God’s love, the lessons God wanted us to learn would be there. But would the story be told in the same way? Would it address modern practices, or would a Bible written in 2005 still have customs such as the washing of visitors’ feet?

If one would expect that the time the Bible was written might impact how the stories within unfold, one must be able to accept the possibility that since there was very little scientific knowledge at the time of its writing, there is very little science in the Bible. The Bible was written long before men came to the “scientific” conclusion that the earth was flat! If they had known about evolution theories at that time, would the Bible have mentioned this? Might it not have suggested that God created man in His own image, and that over many, many years, his Creation grew from the most miniscule spark of life into the creatures He intended us to become in a slow, perfecting process?

If Christians believe that God created everything that exists, he must also have created the scientific evidence that suggests evolution, as well as the intelligence within us that interprets it.

Many Christians rule out the possibility of evolution out of the irrational fear that evolution must disprove the Bible. But such fears miss the real point: it’s not important whether Creation occurred in six days or over the course of eons as science suggests; the important lesson is that God is the Creator.

Even if the theory of evolution is correct, and even if the universe began with the Big Bang, there had to be something to create the initial matter that exploded and ultimately became the universe as we know it. There had to be a starting point. I don’t say this as a “cop out” over which theory is the correct one. My point is that both can be accurate; there are elements of truth in both.

I believe that the Bible is a textbook for humanity. There are lessons to be learned and principles we should carry into our day-to-day lives. But I do not interpret everything in the Bible literally. When science provides convincing evidence about our history, I am willing to accept that evidence if I believe it to be accurate. And I am willing to compare the theories to the stories put forth in the Bible.

In this case, I think it is entirely possible for the story of the Creation to co-exist peacefully with the scientific theory of evolution.

So what’s up with Tom Cruise?

I’m happy the guy is in love, even if he’s going a little overboard in showing his affection for his fiancé. I’m happy he’s getting lots of great publicity about his new picture. I’m happy for him that the constant speculation about whether he is or isn’t gay — which, in the grand scheme of things should make absolutely no difference whatsoever to anyone else who has a life of their own — doesn’t bother him. And I’m happy that he’s found so much personal fulfillment with his religion, Scientology.

(I would be more likely to call it a psuedo-religion because it does not require one to necessarily abandon their religious beliefs to practice it. Cruise himself states, “You can be a Christian and be a Scientologist” and “(Scientology is) tools that you have that can actually…that you apply to your life.”)

But after his appearance on the “Today” show Friday, I’m more than a little perplexed. And I’m not the only one, apparently. The appearance had New York Daily News writer Tracy Connor asking whether the “War of the Worlds” star was “lost in space!”

If you missed the interview, and the subsequent clips rebroadcast on every show from “Entertainment Tonight” to “Inside Edition,” he was chatting with Matt Lauer about how wonderful life was…until Matt turned nasty and asked him about his remarks about Brooke Shields.

Shields wrote in her memoir that she had suffered from post-partum depression and took anti-depressants to beat the condition. Cruise, who shares the Scientologist distrust of psychiatry, criticized her for having done so.

“I’ve never agreed with psychiatry, ever. Before I was a Scientologist I never agreed, and when I became a Scientologist, I never agreed. … All it does is mask the problem,” he told Lauer.

Lauer asked Cruise why, if the medication worked for her, it was a problem for him, precisely the question I’d have asked.

Cruise defended his earlier criticism, assuring the audience that he only wants what’s best for Shields, but told Lauer, “You don’t know the history of psychiatry. I do.” He went on to suggest that Shields “doesn’t understand the history of psychiatry. She doesn’t understand in the same way that you don’t understand it, Matt.”

He then suggested that there is no such thing as a “chemical imbalance,” and said that “mood disorders” can be cured with vitamins, exercise and “various things.” He didn’t say whether the “various things” included Scientology, but one can only assume…

But wait a second here. No such thing as a chemical imbalance? That’s funny. If mood disorders aren’t caused by a chemical imbalance, then vitamins, which are also chemicals, shouldn’t have an effect on them any more than anti-depressants. And if there is no chemical imbalance going on, exercise, which produces physiological and chemical changes in the body, likewise shouldn’t have an effecct.

Shields last month called Cruise’s comments about her “outrageous:”

“Tom should stick to saving the world from aliens and let women who are experiencing postpartum depression decide what treatment options are best for them.”

Cruise also attacked drugs used to treat hyperactivity in children. Here is an excerpt from that exchange:

Cruise: Matt, you have to understand this. Here we are today, where I talk out against drugs and psychiatric abuses of electric shocking people against their will, of drugging children with them not knowing the effects of these drugs. Do you know what Aderol is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug? Do you understand that?

Lauer: Aren’t there examples, and might not Brooke Shields be an example, of someone who benefited from one of those drugs?

Cruise: All it does is mask the problem, Matt. And if you understand the history of it, it masks the problem. That’s what it does, that’s all it does. You’re not getting to the reason why. There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.

Lauer: But aren’t there examples where it works?

Cruise: Matt, Matt, Matt, you don’t even - you’re glib. You don’t even know what Ritalin is. If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay? That’s what I’ve done.

His personal research was quickly called into question by members of the mental health community. The National Mental Health Association issued this harshly-worded statement:

“Tom Cruise’s destructive, anti-mental health comments on the Today Show this morning — and over the course of the last few weeks — fuel an already intense stigma associated with mental illness that can force people with real needs to go without care.

“Each year, 54 million Americans experience a mental illness, such as depression or an anxiety disorder. Yet, only one-third receive any treatment at all despite very high treatment success rates. In fact, the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health wrote in its final report, ‘Mental illnesses are shockingly common; they affect almost every American family.’ Clearly, the real crisis facing our nation is not that we over- or mistreat people, but that we fail to meet basic needs of most Americans living with mental health problems. The gap between the number of adults and children with mental health needs and those receiving treatment will certainly widen if people are dissuaded from seeking treatment because of such visible misinformation.

“Cruise’s comments could have very damaging consequences for Americans with mental health needs by increasing stigma and shame, discouraging treatment and forcing people to go without needed care. Celebrities, like Cruise, have an organic platform to share their talents and their viewpoints. However, this opportunity comes hand-in-hand with a responsibility to not mislead the American public with unfounded rhetoric.”

One of the few points that I agreed with Cruise on, and I suffer from anxiety and depression myself badly enough to know that it’s not something taking a walk or popping a One-A-Day vitamin will fix — I’ve tried that, thank you, Tom — is that to merely pop pills is to mask the problem.

That’s definitely true.

But part of dealing with anxiety, panic, depression, or any of the other mental disorders is to use medication as part of the treatment, not all of it. Psychiatrists prescribe such medication after talking one-on-one with their patients and urging them to undergo counseling as well.

To pop a pill and do nothing more for depression is like popping an aspirin to ease the headache from a brain tumor: the symptoms may ease themselves, but the underlying condition is still there. Surgery will take care of the tumor, and therapy can take care of the root causes of the anxiety.

The beliefs of Scientology include this interesting tidbit:

“Xenu, the evil intergalactic ruler who implanted “thetans” or alien spirits, in earth’s volcanoes 75 million years ago, after which they escaped and invaded human bodies. The ultimate belief of Scientology is that you are possessed by the spirits of aliens murdered 75 million years ago by ‘Xenu’ and you have to exorcise these spirits.”

For someone whose religious beliefs involve the notion that my problems today are the result of space aliens who died 75 million years ago to try to dictate to me and others what is and isn’t science fiction seems a little over the top.

If those beliefs work for him — and clearly they do — then that’s fine. He has every right to believe what he considers to be the ultimate truth in his heart. But don’t preach to me that I’m wrong for taking medication while claiming that the study of space aliens has given you the real story about real science. Those beliefs definitely do not work for me.

Religion is a touchy subject.  Occasionally, I’ll deal with religious issues that I want to discuss. I’m not a religious zealot, and I’m not trying to convert anyone with this blog.

I know that there are some people completely turned off by such topics. If you’re one of them, don’t worry: you’ll find plenty of other topics here. You don’t have to agree with me on religion, and I don’t have to agree with you. One day, most likely on the day of our death, we’ll find out who was really right. As it is, I’m confident enough that my religious views are right for me, thank you.

So I begin with this: I found a religion test on Dave’s journal and decided to give it a try. The test promises to give you the religion that is the best match to your personal views after 20 simple multiple choice questions.

Here are my results:

According to the SelectSmart.com Belief System Selector, my #1 belief match is Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants.
What do you believe? Visit SelectSmart.com/RELIGION

Here’s more about this branch of religion, according to the site:

Also sometimes referred to as secular, modern, or humanistic. This is an umbrella term for Protestant denominations, or churches within denominations, that view the Bible as the witness of God rather than the word of God, to be interpreted in its historical context through critical analysis. Examples include some churches within Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, United Church of Christ. There are more than 2,000 Protestant denominations offering a wide range of beliefs from extremely liberal to mainline to ultra conservative and those that include characteristics on both ends.

It would appear that much like my political views, I’m not an extremist even within the Protestant faith. I’m actually satisfied that this represents my views fairly accurately.

Brian over at “All the Makings of Insanity” took the challenge host James Lipton uses on guests of the Bravo series, “Inside the Actor’s Studio.” At the end of the interview, Lipton lays a set of six questions originally used by Bernard Pivot on the French program, “Bouillon de Culture.”

His answers are in his journal, and he has challenged the rest of us to play along. Here are my answers.

What is your favorite word?
Friend.

What is your least favorite word?
Numb

What turns you on?
Honesty to the point of humility…the kind where you open your heart and let all the defenses down. It’s so rare these days.

What turns you off?
Close-mindedness.

What sound or noise do you love?
The long, contented sigh my dogs make when they snuggles up against me and go to sleep.

What sound or noise do you hate?
Rap music, when played from any enclosure so loudly that I have to listen to it within my own, separate enclosure, be it my car or my apartment. (My neighbor downstairs decided to play his to the point that my floors were shaking at 9am on Sunday morning. Thanks, neighbor.)

What is your favorite curse word?
Damn. It’s such a simple word and it pales in comparison these days to most of the “bombs” that people drop, it’s earned rather a special place in our language…it’s almost now the “non-curse word curse word.” And that one word by itself still manages to convey so much.

What profession other than yours would you most like to attempt?
Massage therapist.

What profession other than yours would you least like to attempt?
Medical Examiner.

If heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the pearly gates?
“Nice job.”

Remember, this isn’t my set of questions: be sure to visit Brian’s journal and leave your answers there or comment there with the link to your answers in your journal.

This week really blew by quickly, which isn’t a bad thing because it means we’re already at another weekend. But before the weekend can officially start, I have six questions to get things going for you.

Jennifer of “Ramblings from off the top of my head” was first to play last week. Congratulations, Jennifer!

It was the first time that Foggy and Gdireneoe played the “Saturday Six.” Be sure to stop by their journals and say hello.

And Debi, of “The Asylum Unpadlocked,” who was first to play two weeks ago has this week’s Reader’s Choice question!

The rules are simple: You don’t have to answer the questions on Saturday. There’s no time limit. Either answer the questions in a comment here, or put the answers in an entry on your journal…but either way, leave a link to your journal so that everyone else can visit! If you don’t have an AOL journal, you can still play, but of course you’ll at least need an AOL screen name, which you can get for free with AOL Instant Messenger, to be able to leave a comment here. To be counted as “first to play,” you must be the first player to either answer the questions in a comment or to provide a complete link to the specific entry in your journal in which you answer the questions. A link to your journal in general cannot count. (Again, if you’re playing for the first time, please be sure to say so in the comment!) Enjoy!

1. Yesterday, I linked to the journal “Mall Of America,” a collection of photos from shopping malls of the 1960s and 1970s. What store do you associate most with your childhood in terms of happy memories and why? Is the store still around?

6. READER’S CHOICE QUESTION #56 from Debi: If you found the house of your dreams, right price, then discovered that a murder or suicide had taken place in the house, would you still consider buying the house?

If you have a Reader’s Choice question you’d like to see asked (and answered), click the e-mail link on the About Me bar and send it to me.

MY ANSWERS:
1. Oddly enough, the store I associate most with my childhood is the Kmart closest to my parents’ house. I recall all of the seventies-style colors and design in the store, and I recall the elevator music they used to play. I had a dream I still remember years back in which I was in that store, back in time, and the song “Up, Up and Away (In My Beautiful Balloon)” kept playing over and over on the loudspeaker. Odd! Obviously, Kmart is still alive and kicking, although it’s not much like the old store I remember from my childhood these days.

6. Tough question. I think I would, but I would require a special inspection to make sure there were no biohazards that hadn’t been improperly cleaned up. It’s not so much the “ghosts” I’d be afraid of but the physical “residue.”

A recent edition of Writer’s Digest featured an article from Nancy Kress, who states:

“If you’re three-quarters of the way through a first draft, and you still haven’t found an ‘Aha!’ moment, your entire story is probably dead.”

By an “Aha!” Moment, she is referring to the point at which all story arcs come together and the whole thing makes sense.

Over at the Yahoo! Writing Group, “Born to Write,” Gabe Gregoire writes that his experience has been more of a “step-by-step engineering where the moments of revelation are somewhat minor, but constant.” He says that since he there hasn’t been a “Eureka” moment for him, yet, he’s beginning to worry about his story.

In the back of my head, as I write, and as I get closer and closer to the end of the story, I feel that such a moment is still down the road. I think I’ll get there, but it hasn’t hit me as an obvious part of the story just yet. And I’m not sure that’s so abnormal: so much of making a story better comes in the rewriting process when you can take the story you have completed the first time around, look at it as a whole, and see new opportunities to make new connections and arcs that you didn’t realize when you were so engrossed in just getting the thing written.

Another writer in the group pointed out that some readers, such as those who prefer mysteries, might prefer an “Aha!” Moment to tie up all the loose ends, while other audiences might enjoy being able to have some things left to interpretation rather than having every little thing explained for them.

As a reader, I think I fall somewhere in the middle. I think I want the basic story to make sense, particularly in terms of character motivation. But life itself contains too many unanswered questions to make stories with only answered ones seem completely believeable to me. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with leaving a few questions unanswered or an occasional loose end flapping in the breeze.

In my work in progress, I am right around the two-thirds mark now. The story’s plot has changed many times from the original version because I’ve come up with new ways that I like better to get to the same ending. I have found that I’m telling a better story if I don’t nail down every step of the journey in advance: that meandering between the beginning and end is what makes the story interesting for me, and I hope my interest translates to the reader, too.

But when my story closes, there will be a few unanswered questions. It’s not because I want to set up the circumstances for a sequel, although down the road I might consider taking just the main character and exploring a little more with him. But it’s because I want there to be some questions at the end that I want the reader to decide the answers to. If my work ever does see the ink of a printer, I would be intrigued to know what the reader actually decides about what did — and more importantly, what didn’t — happen.

I think an “Aha!” Moment is much more important to the writer, who gains from it the feeling that the plot is working well, than to the reader, who may or may not want the option of figuring out at least a few things on his own.

AOL’s message boards are often the scene of trivial bickering that doesn’t accomplish much else than alienate fellow writers when they should be looking for ways to encourage each other. (Nothing like a rant confined to a single sentence!)

Occasionally, however, something interesting appears.

I thought I had found this survey as I posted it there. What I actually found was a longer version of this survey posted by Wry. His version had some innane questions thrown in. One of my readers from New York state pointed out that the version below is a paraphrased version from the blogosphere. Curiously, she didn’t mention which blog she had in mind — I don’t know whether she has a journal with the same questions and she felt I had stolen hers or not.

But after a search of my Bloglines subscription list, I find several blogs with these same questions and it turns out that they originated in Shelly’s Journal, “The Write Stuff.” I guess that’s what happens when I have multiple tabs open at the same time on Mozilla and I absent-mindedly copy and paste from the wrong one.

So with thanks to Anne and apologies to Shelly, here are my answers to her version of the questions, which I like much better than the “Ask No Editors” version at AOL.

1. What was the first actual work of creative writing you ever wrote? Preferably the piece that led you to think you would enjoy doing this again, or even for publication.

The first short story I remember writing was a science fiction tale when I was about six. The story was about two robots with human qualities who battled a villian who could turn himself into stone as a defense mechanism. (Okay, give me a break: I was six!) My teacher was sufficiently amused and gave me an A.

Shortly after this, I started role-playing with some friends in the school yard that we were part of a “Star Trek”-like crew and that a section of the playground was our “space ship.” (I was still six years old!)

In my first post at this journal, “The Beginning,” I wrote about the first time I realized that people might actually enjoy reading what I could create on the page. I hope that would still be true.

2. Do you write under your own name?

I’ve never written under a psyuedonym, but I have thought about using one when it comes to novel writing. Why? All right, I warn you in advance: the answer will sound very conceited and I don’t mean it to be at all. I do not expect to ever be any big-name author. I don’t expect to be a best-seller. I hope to be published and that people will actually want to shell out some money for my work, but that’s about as far as my confidence goes.

But in today’s society, where we have people so obsessed with people in the public eye, those authors who do break through face the same kind of scrutiny. I don’t like being the center of attention.

And from a business standpoint, I have considered psyuedonyms because I don’t necessarily want to be held to one specific kind of story. Dean Koontz wrote under several different names because he wrote different types of stories. When you think of Anne Rice, what kind of novel comes to your mind? My first novel is a vampire story. The second novel I have started outlining is more of a techno-thriller (although not too over the top in the “techno” part). Other ideas for novels I might do down the road include a traditional drama with no supernatural or conspiracy theory elements at all, and a dark horror tale about a murderer who thinks he’s doing everyone a great favor. I might be better off (and easier to categorize, since that seems to be a requirement at book stores) if I wrote under multiple names.

Of course, I’ll bow to my agent’s wisdom on this one…but it is a topic I’ve spent a little time thinking about.

3. Why did you start writing seriously?

The easy answer to this question is that I started writing seriously as a television reporter while still in college. That is when I actually started making an income from writing, and realized that I could earn a living — very modest — at it. I do a lot of writing in my professional life as a television promotion producer to this day, so while I’m no longer in front of the camera, writing remains a major part of what I do.

The more difficult answer, about when I decided to start writing fiction seriously for publication came around high school. I was a reporter and subsequently editor-in-chief of my high school newspaper, so even then I had some amount of writing discipline and had seen my name in print plenty of times. Fiction gave me an escape that reporting didn’t, where I could work out some demons by thrusting them upon unsuspecting characters to see how they would react and to play out scenarios in which they acted in ways I had not.

The novel I wrote while I was in college was a 325-page extension of that, about a young man who takes his own life and the friend he leaves behind.

4. Did you write or try to write in someone else’s style? Whose? Or did you find your own voice from the start?

The only thing I try to do that emulates the style of anyone else is to try for the pacing of Dean Koontz or James Patterson. They write stories that have a pace that makes me want to keep reading, and that is one of the goals every writer should have with regard to his readers.

I like to think I have my own voice, but I have so many voices in my head at any given moment that there are plenty to choose from, so I hope that I’m using the same one every time I write.

5. What one artistic work of any media or writer most inspired you to write?

Of novelists, Dean Koontz was by far the most influential on me, because after going quite a long time without reading because I couldn’t find anything that suited me, one of his novels, “Lightning,” not only satisfied me in terms of giving me something enjoyable, but it actually made me want to come back and read more when I had spare time. That was a major accomplishment to me, and he sort of “re-introduced” me to reading for pleasure.

6. Do you have any rituals when you write? Lucky clothing you wear? Music you must listen to? A writing place? Absolute quiet? Tell all.

Rituals…let’s see…no lucky clothing or other adornments. Whether music or television, I listen to something while I write. Perhaps I have a mild case of ADD, but I can’t write in complete silence: after a while, if I’m pausing to think about the next line, the sound of no keys being pressed makes me crazy! I try to write longhand during the day when an idea comes to me, or I write wherever I am at the moment on a laptop. There is normally some kind of activity going on, and I find that people-watching can help remind me about the differences in characters as I write.

7. Do you reward yourself when you finish a project? How? Do you dole out the rewards at various stages of the project or save them for the end?

When I finished my first novel in college — a disasterous manuscript that would never see the light of day without a major rewrite I’m just not ready to contemplate, yet, I’m sure I must have done something to celebrate its conclusion.

I don’t really reward myself for my accomplishments: I’m more likely to berate myself for the lack thereof along the way.

8. What word do you most overuse when you write, not counting common words like “had” or “the?”

Seem.

It’s hard not to get nostalgic when you browse through Keith Milford’s journal, “Malls of America.”

Keith has created a photo journal of old images from shopping malls of the 1960s and 1970s. I think every city had malls that looked something like this back then, and unfortunately most of those malls today are either deserted or have been demolished to make way for more “modern,” “upscale” shopping “locales.”

It certainly brought back a lot of memories for me.

(Link via Boing Boing.)

MIT is conducting a Weblog survey for those of us who keep these crazy weblogs. They are inviting all who do so to participate.

Click the graphic above, or click here for more details about the survey and what they’re looking for.

It only takes about ten minutes, and none of the questions are too involved. It should be interesting to see what they turn up from these questions.