Close, but not quite. (Michael Jackson)
Well, you would think that in all of the discussions about the recent death of Michael Jackson I'd have my new Poetry Is Doomed column. I have a column forming in my head, but so far there isn't enough of a poetry slant to the issue - except that I'm hearing from a lot of poets - to justify a PID column. It isn't about poetry yet, so it doesn't belong in the PID pile.
I've had a couple of really good discussions about the MJ "question", but you know me: I have to pick things apart too much for the average person, so I've been really careful about who I have that conversation with. One of them ended up involving very dark secrets from my past. Another required the use of an iPod to illustrate a point. It's the kind of discussion that you don't have short unless you're just not interested in much beyond your point.
I will say this much: who would have thought that, with all the things going on in this world and with all of the things people have discussed and debated and broken up acquaintances over, it would be Michael Jackson that polarizes people on such a level and in so many ways? My running joke when someone brings up any part of the matter is, "Is this the part where we break-up because you loved his music and I thought he was a pedophile? Or vice versa? Which one do I get to be?" And then I proceed to not have the conversation anyway because, you know, I can be Googlesque about stuff and turn into a time-suck, so I dodge it entirely with my charm and distracting afro-to-be. I'm learning how to shut up sometimes...and not a moment too soon!
But remember: If someone is your friend, where they stand on the MJ question will not generate cause to de-friend them. If you thought someone was your friend, but because of their answer to the MJ question you're now done with them, then they were not your friend, you were not their friend, or both.
I guess we are not the world. Or perhaps we are exactly like the world.
I've had a couple of really good discussions about the MJ "question", but you know me: I have to pick things apart too much for the average person, so I've been really careful about who I have that conversation with. One of them ended up involving very dark secrets from my past. Another required the use of an iPod to illustrate a point. It's the kind of discussion that you don't have short unless you're just not interested in much beyond your point.
I will say this much: who would have thought that, with all the things going on in this world and with all of the things people have discussed and debated and broken up acquaintances over, it would be Michael Jackson that polarizes people on such a level and in so many ways? My running joke when someone brings up any part of the matter is, "Is this the part where we break-up because you loved his music and I thought he was a pedophile? Or vice versa? Which one do I get to be?" And then I proceed to not have the conversation anyway because, you know, I can be Googlesque about stuff and turn into a time-suck, so I dodge it entirely with my charm and distracting afro-to-be. I'm learning how to shut up sometimes...and not a moment too soon!
But remember: If someone is your friend, where they stand on the MJ question will not generate cause to de-friend them. If you thought someone was your friend, but because of their answer to the MJ question you're now done with them, then they were not your friend, you were not their friend, or both.
I guess we are not the world. Or perhaps we are exactly like the world.