So what do I mean by ‘editorial history?’ Looking back over several of my now numerous posts, there is an underlying theme beyond the negativity and hopelessness and gloom. I just wanted to chronicle something beyond my psychological collapse or any other clinical term applied when someone’s life is falling apart. And I can’t even claim that this is happening, because it really isn’t. My life is rather fulfilling. I am married to a woman that I love and I have loved her almost from the first time I met her. I have two wonderful children (at least wonderful from my biased perspective, as their father), a dog, a cat, a nice house, a solid income, both of my parents are still alive and I sometimes get to live my dream and be a real writer–kind of like the Pinocchio of words.
Of course these essays are not what I mean by being a ‘real writer.’ No, that is reserved for other work. I started this blog in the first place as a promotional tool and have seen some mild success. I have been hard at work on various projects and several are nearing fifth draft completion (which, by the way, is about as far as I will go self-editing–these pieces here get only one edit and there are still many mistakes or errors in judgment or simply poor phrasing and meandering sentences). But this is not what I wanted to talk about.
Editorial history, to me, is a scrapbook of different opinions and different ideas throughout the history of mankind. I have been writing an extended series here on the development and history of religious belief throughout the ages and this is crouched in the heading of ‘lies and how they have impacted the world.’
Of course there are political opinions and no doubt I have my own. But herein I would much rather question all beliefs (even those I privately agree with because it is important to understand the justifications on every side of an issue). I have argued in favor of ideas that I have found reprehensible in order to get feedback from the sides I actually believe in. It is too easy to provoke your ideological rivals. To you they are wrong and it is no effort to say so.
So editorial history, for all its wannabe literary flourish, is merely a discussion of how everything we have ever believed is wrong, and of how we try to convince ourselves that that view is wrong. That the truth as we see it is the only truth there is.
‘Truth’ is a difficult word to define in today’s age of opinion. Everything is an editorial, an expressed belief, and so we substitute opinions for facts. The television news, if we do not like what is being reported, we condemn as lies, regardless of your political persuasion. And if a truth is actually reported there will always be naysayers, people who deny reality and invent their own variations of what actually happened.
Here’s an example: say that the actual truth, a verifiable, fact-based link were to come out about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or the truth about what really happened on 9/11 and how the other buildings came down. Now right here I do not wish to express my own beliefs because, without any proof, all I can offer is conjecture based upon how much I am willing to trust other people. (It is like belief or disbelief in God. No one can ever know for sure.) The more conspiratorial you are, the less faith you have in humanity.
Anyway, say the truth, as it actually really happened were released to the public in an effort to swell pride in a truthful nation. What would happen? Just another theory, just another theory, a cover-up, another fucking cover-up and now they are lying even more because they came up with a far more logical explanation that is not so easy to explain away. But I still know they’re lying. It cannot have been so simple. Someone or something is still working behind the scenes, pulling the strings.
And so a whole new variation of mistrust and the truth expands our already overwhelmed minds. This is editorial history. I am merely a recorder . . .