Kiss Off

I like the evolutionary explanations for kissing.

Sheril Kirshenbaum, a research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, gives an engaging overview of the possible evolutionary basis for two people mashing their mouths together -- a practice that is actually pretty odd, once you think about it. There's the way sexy red lipstick plays on our hunter-gatherer past, how swapping spit can help us develop immunity against disease and why it might have first developed as a way to literally sniff out genetically appropriate sexual partners.

As our ancestors began to walk upright, rather than males being attracted to the female's posterior, they began to focus on the breasts and the lips -- they call this "genital echoes."

Hey, I'm still drawn to a female's posterior. What can I say, I'm old-school!

Has kissing changed much over time? Do certain styles of kissing come into fashion?

Well, I love the French kissing story. It turns out that when people were traveling through Europe, there was this notion that women in France were more openly affectionate. There became this saying: "While in France, get the girls to kiss you." That sort of evolved to be: "Get a French kiss." But in France they don't call it that, they call it a "tongue kiss" or a "soul kiss," because it's supposed to feel like two souls merging.

"Soul kiss." That's amusing.

What happens physiologically when we kiss?
 
A lot. It depends on the kind of kiss, of course. If you're talking about a good kiss, our pulse quickens and our pupils dilate, which is probably part of the reason we close our eyes. There's also a rise in dopamine, which is responsible for the craving and longing, that can't-wait-to-be-with-you sensation. It's also stimulated by a lot of recreational drugs like cocaine; kissing sends us on a natural high. Dopamine spikes from really longing for something for a while and then getting it. When we've been dreaming about someone for a long time and then finally get it, dopamine is involved.

Serotonin causes obsessive feelings about someone. It's also the same neurotransmitter involved in people with obsessive-compulsive disorder. It sounds a lot like the symptoms of falling in love. Everyone loves to talk about sex, but kissing is probably the most intimate activity we can engage in.

I'm a good kisser. Just saying.

There's a strong gender divide in how we view kissing, isn't there?

Absolutely. There's a huge gender divide. In one large study of college-age students, strong patterns emerged: Women were constantly complaining about too much tongue and men were saying, "I really like wet kisses, lots of saliva!" The guys were usually eager to foray into sex without kissing and very few women were. Women paid a lot more attention to the teeth and breath of the person. Men tended to say they would consider starting a relation with someone just because they were a good kisser, and women were not that way. The act of kissing has a lot more significance for women than men. Men tend to report that kissing is a means to an end; women tend to try to figure out what the kiss means about their relationship, what it says about how their partner feels toward them.

Why might this be?

I started getting really frustrated by these findings, because I felt the results were very stereotypical. So I got together 80 of my own friends and acquaintances, and I was pretty shocked to see that they fell almost completely in the same pattern. When you start looking at reproductive strategies, it makes sense: A woman puts a lot more investment into the [sexual] decisions she makes, because she is fertile for a much shorter period of time each month, and a man can theoretically inseminate countless women throughout his life. Women are a lot more sensitive to smell and taste, which can tell a lot about a partner's health and reproductive capacity.

There's a great study looking at attraction and scent. It turns out that women are able to identify men who have a very different genetic code from their own, and they tend to be more attracted to them, because if they mate, their children would be healthier and stronger and more likely to survive because of the diversity in their genetics. Interestingly enough, women who are taking the birth control pill seem to have the opposite reaction. They're more attracted to men with genetic immunities similar to their own. It starts to make you wonder what all these hormones that we take are starting to do to our bodies and whether they're masking these signals that we've developed over thousands and thousands and thousands of years. I came across some pieces asking, "Is it possible that for some couples divorce is a result of the woman going off hormones and all of a sudden feeling less attracted to her partner?" It's certainly an important question to ask.

I don't know where I come down on this -- for me, it's never a means to an end. A good kiss is wonderful, but she can't have bad breath; that's just instantly off-putting for me. I don't particularly dwell on meaning, because if you're kissing at all, she's got to be digging you on some level, at least I'd like to think so. But I think a woman's health (and, heh) reproductive capacity does matter to me. Like if she looks sickly, she's going to not be appealing to me. The idea that birth control pills can twist a woman's attraction response is kind of freaky.

Quick, Dirty, Saucy

I'm making spaghetti tonight, one of my savory sauces, in this case, a marinara with a Southern Italian kick to it. Was just kind of tossing in various ingredients I had on hand, to good effect. I'd post what I did here, but do I really want one of my yummy pasta sauces getting out on the Internet, for just anybody to enjoy? I don't know....

The one thing I'm lamenting is the absence of any Italian bread on hand. I'll have to make do with that I have. But the sauce is good. I'd call this one my Quick and Dirty Sauce -- Spaghetti Che Calci Nel Culo.

Blast from the past....

Urgh.

I keep waking up too early, and am unable to go back to sleep. Probably a manifestation of stress. I may try to conk again in a few, since I'm too muzzy-headed at the moment to write or anything.

(pausing, staring at the screen and yawning)

Yeah.

Frickin' brain.

Cynical, right?

Seeing "Jersey Shore's" Snooki with her book deal just makes me so cynical about publishing. Not just a book deal, but a novel that's being ghostwritten by some poor soul. The publishing industry is a dreadful place if Snooki is their hope. What the hell?

I get very cynical in moments like that. What am I even doing? I write, I'll always write, but I don't believe the quality of the writing even matters to most in the industry -- anymore than the quality of movies particularly matters to most studios. They just want what will deliver the bucks, with maybe a tip of the hat to art here and there, so long as it doesn't affect the bottom line.

Publishing relies a lot on readers for the punters of the world -- readers are basically a firewall to protect the publishing house from the tsunami of manuscripts that head their way. Their job is to eliminate that flood. They're publishing's plumbers, standing there up to their waists with a monkey wrench in hand, while somebody upstairs calls down "Would you fix that, already?" There's a chance that something might float on by the readers, but that's not what they're there for; they are there to stem the tide.

That's why I think agents are so vital to the process -- I wager that they let you bypass the plumbers, and turn the writer into a marketable and desirable commodity all by themselves. An agent lets you get in touch with editors, the folks who actually matter in the publishing process, or with the publishers themselves, if the agent is really good.

It's also why connections in the publishing world are so vital -- say your Uncle Harvey treated the dislocated shoulder of Editor X (or Publisher Z), and you tell your Uncle Harvey that you have a manuscript you wanted them to see, and Uncle Harvey brings that up in conversation with Editor X or Publisher Z. Do you think they're going to say "We have to run that by some readers, first?" Nah. They'll say "Really, Harvey? Sure, run that by me, I'll give it a look." Congratulations, you're in.

This is why writing programs from particular places (say, the Iowa Workshop) are so valuable -- they let you build a network. So, Mentor A at the Workshop knows Publishers D, E, and F personally, and Mentor A says "He's a promising writer, has some work you'd just love." and they're more than happy to see it, because they dig Mentor A.

In none of this does the quality of the writing matter -- in fact, I would actually say that the quality of writing is meaningless on some level to the industry, because plenty of books (bestsellers, even) are published that are actually shit writing. All that matters to the industry is the ability to move product, and since quality is a subjective experience, when contrasted with the lucrative, objective quantity of moving books -- that's how bad information drives out the good, how bad writing that sells will crowd out good writing that doesn't.

Of course, like objectivity in journalism, there is the ghost of quality looming over it all, the noble profession of publishing, the desire to see good work and art ennobling the world around it. But it's a business first and foremost; it is not subsidized -- so, what sells is what matters most.

If you're stuck depending on readers to vet your work, you are screwed. The deals that get made don't come by way of the publishing plumbers; they come from upstairs, higher in the food chain. If you have to prove your worth to a publisher through your writing, you are also screwed -- it's like trying to woo somebody who's indifferent to you. You're not going to be able to persuade them to be into you. There's a certain Zen logic to that -- if you have to say "But I'm a good cook, and I'm funny, and I'm nice" -- if you have to say stuff like that, you've already lost the game.

And in publishing, if you have to say "My work is good, please, please read it." You've lost as well. Those writers who get multi-million dollar book deals (and they did exist at least in the past) -- that came about because an agent pimped the writer to some publishing houses, and the houses then competed with one another for the writer. They get into a bidding war with one another. In no way is the quality of the writer or their work a real consideration, here -- rather, it's an irrational, market-driven desire to add a strong potential seller to their lists, for whatever reason. The publishing houses don't say "Wow, we love how that gal uses pluperfect in her fiction." They don't give a fuck about that. They just say "Publisher C is trying to get this gal, as is Publisher D -- we want her, too. Let's get her, by any means necessary!" And a literary star is born, and the writing is meaningless in this process.

Can you move books? That's all that matters. That's the real challenge to a writer -- dodging the plumbers and communicating your ability to move books as artfully as possible.

Deception

Am I like the only person in the country who didn't like the movie, "Inception?" I thought it was boring. I won't got into a full-blown review of it again, but c'mon -- the drama wasn't dramatic, the action scenes were boring, the dream sequences weren't nearly "dreamy" enough, and the big ending to it had me thinking "Who cares?" Seriously, it's like an action movie for people who don't like action movies, a drama for people who don't understand drama, science fiction for people who don't read science fiction, a caper movie for people who don't watch caper movies, blah blah blah. The most interesting facet of the movie was largely downplayed (the character of Leo DiCaprio's wife, who is basically a ghost in his dreams, thanks to his monkeying around with her mind using his dream-weaver powers). Instead of making that the core of the story, they spackled on about four layers of "Who Gives a Fuck" around it. "The Matrix" handled action sequences and even layered perceptions of reality far better than "Inception." But people mistook a complicated plot with a complex one, and they're not entirely the same. Anyway, it did well, and people seem to like it -- like everybody I know who's seen it, but I just didn't like it.

I like action movies, but they should have compelling action. I like dramas, but they should have compelling drama. I like science fiction, but it should have the depth of the genre behind it. Caper movies should propel you through them. "Inception" dips its toes lightly in those three pools, and we're supposed to find it immersive. I remember being bored very early in the movie -- and those fucking dream sequences, interminable things (nobody but nobody has dreams as lame as the dreams in "Inception" -- and if you do dream like that, you have my sympathy).

Anyway, I don't know how it managed to strike a resonant chord with so many people, and leave me just bored. I'm out of step with the world, clearly.

Lego, man!

What people do with Legos cracks me up...

Time Passages

Until I say otherwise, just assume that I'm editing the book I've mentioned before, since that's what I'm doing, and it's just boring to mention that -- it's why I pursue a general policy of writing more and talking about writing less.

I saw a total hipster clerk at a local liquor store. He had it going on in spades -- the carefully upswept hair (not full-on hipster bedhead jackassery, but definitely carefully rendered, squintingly similar to what I just linked to), a tweed jacket, carefully rolled jeans. Oh, my. I was too amused at the overall effect to take in the remaining details, but it was something special.

Weather or not

We got a fairly righteous snowfall the other day, I think getting the back end of the nor'easter that was slamming the East Coast. It looked pretty. Maybe four inches of snow, give or take. Almost tempted me to take out the toboggan and have the boys sit in the back while I sledded them to school. Almost, but not quite.

Still working on the edits for this latest book; I really want to get it done by the weekend, get it all finalized so I can sling it out next week. We'll see. It's so damned big, it's taking time to ensure continuity and what-not.

I'm totally not watching television these days -- aside from kids' shows, I just don't watch anything. There's just nothing compelling for me, show-wise. That's good, though -- the less television, the better, in my view. Especially since I don't have premium cable, so I only get junk stuff, anyway.

Hard to believe I'll be 41 in a few months. What the hell? Hard to believe that B1 will be 10 next year. That kind of floors me, too. He's so tall, such a big boy, and has the kindest, sweetest heart of anyone I know. But I laugh, too, because he has a bit of the Dwarvish mafioso in him, too, sometimes. He'll warn his little brother "I'm holding back, but if you keep pushing me, I'm going go push YOU." B2 is so much of a rough-and-tumble lil' scrapper, even though he's dwarfed by his big brother, it doesn't deter him -- he'll divebomb him any chance he gets. B2 loves his big brother, but he also loves taking the piss. He just loves it.

It makes me laugh -- both boys have different aspects of my sense of humor, and B2 has that innate piss-taking sensibility I have. Who'd have known that this could be a heritable trait? Being a smartass? Amazing. B1 has my warmth of spirit, but it's in a latticework of a fundamental sense of How Things Should be -- he has an orderly mind and outlook. He is truly decent and good, but I'm pleased at his stubbornness, too -- it provides that sweet soul some much-needed armor for the world. When we go to school, I see him kind of go inside that armor -- when other kids are busy chasing each other and playing, B1 stands in line, waiting to be let in, lost in his own thoughts.

He's not introverted per se -- he's outgoing and affable, but there is a definite inner life to him that comes into play in some situations. Any time we go to his school, that distance comes up, and he's in School Mode, gearing up. It makes me ache a little to watch him. Everybody has their own survival strategies for school -- for me, it was that smart mouth, my sarcasm, my sense of humor, and later, my size. B1 is already taller than nearly all the kids in his grade, so he has that going for him.

I'd love to know what he's thinking when he's in line, in his own thoughts like that. I'm tempted to ask him, see what he says.

Shew

After working most of yesterday on it, I pared the book down to >188,000 words. I think when it's properly finished, it'll actually be closer to 200,000 words. I'm trying to get that done by the end of the week, think I should be able to do that.

Working

Editing the fuck out of the epic. I have trimmed it from over 500,000 words to over 350,000 words, now. That's a lot of work! Getting it all sparkly for slinging out to publishers. Big-ass book.

Postal

Is the US Postal Service (USPS) getting less reliable or what? Or does Chicago just have exceptionally bad service? I mean, I've known that Chicago's had a crappy system, but lately, it seems to be getting crappier, especially in terms of lost bills and so forth. It's getting ridiculous, is making me think I need to just have everything be paid online. I just hate that I can't rely on something that should, in theory, be both straightforward and reliable. WTF? It's just incredibly frustrating, because I'm doing my part, getting things mailed out in time, but they're not getting to their destinations, and then I'm the one left holding the bag, despite it being the USPS that boned things up.

Bahah

"Who do you have to dickslap to get some bread around here?"

Asshole For Hire from James Van Der Beek