Wednesday, 16 August 2017

RELATIONSHIPS ...


I don’t know whether this social phenomenon has ever been documented, but I’ve noticed it happen in playgrounds, in families, in work places, in clubs, even in churches.

It usually involves a controlling personality, let's call him or her Person 'A', and is often triggered by a minor, often insignificant error or omission by Person ‘A’, which causes another person, Person ‘B’ to be inconvenienced, upset or just confused.

Instead of just acknowledging or admitting the minor error, Person ‘A’ becomes aggressive towards Person ‘B’, displays anger, makes counter accusations and generally implies that Person ‘B’ has no right to be in the slightest bit inconvenienced or upset. Person ‘A’ might even claim that Person ‘B’ had, by action or omission, caused or contributed to the error.

Obviously, this causes Person ‘B’ to be more upset or disturbed.

What usually happens is a third person, Person ‘C’, will attempt to calm the situation. Almost always, Person ‘A’ will resent the intervention. With Person 'C' around, Person ‘A’ can no longer bully or subdue Person ‘B’.

Now Person ‘A’ knows he or she can’t bully Person ‘C’, so instead, in this hypothetical but frequently occurring situation, Person ‘A’ will openly denigrate Person ‘C’ to other classmates, friends, family or congregation members and in doing so, Person ‘A’ effectively persuades others that Person ‘C’ is responsible for escalating the minor problem into a major crisis.

To my way of thinking, the only way to resolve a situation like this is for Persons ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ work together on restoring friendships, relationships and trust at the earliest opportunity but that only happens in fairy tales, because in real life, Person 'A' wants to retain his or her dominance over Person 'B' and can't achieve that while Person 'C' is prepared to intervene.

Instead, Person 'A' works towards an understanding or reconciliation with Person 'B', but ensures Person 'C' is excluded from the process. In some (but not all) cases, Person 'B' is persuaded by Person 'A' to abandon the association with  Person 'C', which effectively increases Person 'C's isolation.

Having reached this reconciliation with Person ‘B’, Person ‘A’ switches his or her attention rebuilding a relationship with Person ‘C’.

This puts Person ‘C’ in a dilemma. On the one hand, Person ‘C’ wants to restore harmony in the playground, family, workplace etc so now Person ‘C’ has to choose whether stand aside and accept whatever tactic Person ‘A’ employs to regain his or her control over Person ‘B’, or to walk away, find another corner in the playground, resign from work, join another church congregation.
  
In all the times I’ve witnessed this social phenomenon, I’ve never encountered a Person ‘A’ type who makes any attempt whatsoever to reverse his or her denigration of Person ‘C’, thus Person ‘C’ is still ostracised or shunned by those he or she once counted as friends. Whatever the outcome, the relationship between ‘C’ and everyone else involved is damaged, tarnished and sometimes destroyed.

Such is the damage to these relationships, the ‘C’ type persons will sometimes change schools, resign from jobs, even leave the clubs or church. 

Every dictator or bully in history has succeeded through isolating the stronger while dominating the vulnerable, so this situation is nothing new.

Tuesday, 31 January 2017



Full marks for Never Say I Can't – Judges Commentary in full ...

Writers' Digest 4th Annual Self-Published e-Book Awards.

Judge4th Annual Self-Published e-Book Awards.”

Entry Title: Never Say I Can't
Author: Philip Catshill
Entry Category: Life Stories


Structure, Organization, and Pacing: 5
Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar: 5
Production Quality and Cover Design: 5
Plot and Story Appeal: 5
Character Appeal and Development: 5
Voice and Writing Style: 5

Judge’s Commentary*: 

Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
Author opens the book with an engaging scene, and we are soon – thanks to the author’s stellar talent in sharing his observations from inside the affected mind – immersed in the disorientation and fear of the post-stroke mindset. ‘Each every’ and the author’s early attempts at speaking are well-shared, and we get plenty of sensory detail such as the feel and temperature of the floor, the vinegar-cleaned windows, and other fascinating details he is able to process. We’re moved by how the author moved through the earliest stages of his recovery when progress has not yet been made. We sense the confusion, the wish to communicate better, the numbness.

Well done.
Author has created a very sensory account here. Very essential to the book’s success. I found the ‘rankings’ of patients in the care center according to whether or not they’ve had a ‘proper stroke’ fascinating. It was amazing to
think that the human race’s need to rank and impose status would ever apply to recovering from stroke.
It was a deep and moving scene when his friends preferred that he not accompany them to the ground floor for their departure, since it felt like they were abandoning him. That’s heart-wrenching, and the author presented this raw interaction with the concerned friends movingly.
‘I will manage’ uses terrific economy of words to show his empowerment and admirable courage. Settings are rich and detailed, and dialogue with caregivers is richly nuanced. We can feel that the caregivers are sticking to scripts that work with patients, but because they care so much for this patient, they show more heart and honesty with him.
Well done.
 We cheer for his progress, and we listen intently to his stellar writing voice.
Engaging and inspiring.