Skip to main content

The Flying Fish: Learning to Balance Passions

I'm not a fish flopping around on the boat, struggling to pull through my gills water that isn't there. That's the image Jon Morrow would have you imagine for people like myself: writers who don't get to write. In his very poignant piece, Morrow talks about the nightmares and pain stuck in a life he didn’t really enjoy, until he let go and gave himself to wordcraft.


I think anyone with a passion they’ve stifled can sympathize, but I don’t agree with his conclusions of advice to writers-who-could.


Contrasted to Morrow’s do-or-die struggles and deep dive to arguable save his life, I’m reminded of the always articulate Matt Gemmell’s announcement at the start of 2014 that he would be shifting to writing full-time and no longer continuing his successful programming career or his seven year self-employed stint in the Apple universe.


Look at the different ways these two writers describe their life away from writing.


My subconscious was trying to warn me that I was suffocating, just like a fish.


and


all fell by the wayside when I became really interested in programming


There is an frantic nature to Morrow’s history before going at writing full-time that contrasts immensely to the gradual realizations Gemmell reveals. But beyond this, the difference I notice most is a projection that screams from Morrow and is completely absent from Gemmell.


Jon Morrow doesn’t write about his own realizations of purpose except as a backdrop addressing “Writers struggling to find their courage”. I find this characterization presumptuous and quite possibly reaching. Maybe he needs to share this feeling of imprisonment with others, so that a shared appreciation of escape can be had?


Instead, I find myself connecting far more with Gemmell’s position and path. That isn’t to say that I’m not going to code anymore, or that I’m turning my life into something new and becoming a writer first and foremost. Just the opposite, in fact. It is not Gemmell’s decision to leave programming and write full-time that I relate to, but the casual nature by which he seemed to come to it that I relate to.


Instead of the frantic fear I read from Morrow, in Gemmell I see someone who is not diving in head first, but is taking stock of his surroundings and just being honest about where he already is. I see someone who is able to bridge two different kinds of lives with a grace that is refreshing among advice that such change requires risks that many of us really can’t afford to take.


And that’s okay.


I am a firm believer that there is no inherent value in those kind of big risks being taken. They hold a position of esteem that, to me, just hides the problems that push people to this edge in the first place. (But this is for another discussion)


So I’m not here announcing some big life change, just a small one I’m observing. I’m writing more again, lately. I like that. I’ve been writing more every day, and I feel happier for it. I’m not letting it take over my life, and I’m happy for that, too. I don’t think I need to give up everything else I love to pursue writing more seriously. I’m a firm believer that dedicating your life to one pursuit, while often seen as noble and honorable, is a waste of potential.


The breadth and depth of a human life is perfectly sufficient for being passionate of many things.


The the flying fish that soars through both ocean and sky, there are many people who have deeply engaged lives filled with creativities beside their office jobs and they like their office job, too. There are people who write and publish and wonder when they’ll have time to paint, so they do that on the side. There are people who spend all day getting tired in labor intensive jobs and really genuinely enjoy them and come home and hack on open source.

I reject the falsehood that passion requires isolation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Pythonic Defined

Introduction Losing is Good Strings Dictionaries Conclusion Introduction Veterans and novices alike of Python will hear the term "pythonic" thrown around, and even a number of the veterans don't know what it means. There are times I do not know what it means, but that doesn't mean I can define a pretty good idea of what "pythonic" really means. Now, it has been defined at times as being whatever the BDFL decides, but we'll pull that out of the picture. I want to talk about what the word means for us today, and how it applied to what we do in the real world. Languages have their strengths and their idioms (ways of doing things), and when you exploit those you embrace the heart of that language. You can often tell when a programmer writing in one language is actually more comfortable with another, because the code they right is telltale of the other language. Java developers are notorious for writing Java in every language they get their hands on. Ho