pervasive: you want to watch a trailer. First, submit to an ad for a product, any product. You want to read an article: first, answer our survey about internet providers, or forget about reading on. You’ve now read all your free articles for the month. You must sign on for further access. etc.
This message addressed to one of the characters: something happens during that momentous day. Something you haven’t reported – or perhaps, it escaped your notice given all the dramatic events. The something is important to the writer. Without it, your decision to carry on with a job you never wanted lacks an element of solid grounding. Thank you for taking some time on this, despite all the pressures you’re experiencing.
Things that don’t go away: I know my version of our exchanges. It doesn’t jive with what the woman said to me the other night. Knowing my version won’t make a lick of difference. So let’s assume for a moment that she is right. Let’s assume she did read off exactly what she had submitted in writing at a previous meeting. Let’s assume hearing the texts read out loud made them ring less “true” – as in emotionally right. Does it follow from this that value judgments have nothing to do with the writing per se, which is what she claims to be the sum total of what she learnt from those meetings?
The discomfort doesn’t go away, so it’s worth whatever attention it insists on getting.
Howard Zinn, une histoire populaire américaine, seen at this juncture in the revision process and at this time in the political one. Brings me back to the question addressed above to one of the characters. What makes someone decide: this is where I stand, for better, for worse and for every other pleasant and unpleasant consequence in between.
Plus, of course, the same questions, in real time.