Brontë Sisters: Three, Two, One

I'm finally deleting a blog that I was briefly experimenting with for work in 2011, but there was one good post on it that I actually liked, so I'm transferring it here for posterity (well, as much posterity as one can expect from a Blogger blog):

Three Books By Charlotte Brontë

While other works by Charlotte Brontë have been published since her death, Charlotte saw three novels published during her life-time, which were written under the pseudonym "Currer Bell":

Jane Eyre: An Autobiography

Well, obviously Jane Eyre wasn't Charlotte's autobiography, that was just a common way to indicate the book was written in first person and told a character's life-story. However, some aspects of Jane Eyre were autobiographical - Charlotte based some of the characters and settings in the first volume on her own childhood.

Jane Eyre is the most famous of Charlotte's novels, and the first she successfully published. It's one of the classic gothic novels of the early 19th Century. In the first volume we get to read all about Jane's miserable childhood. She's an orphan, left to the care of her aunt. The trouble is her aunt hates her and her cousins are all evil. They send her to Lowood - which has to be one of the worst schools ever encountered outside of a Dickens novel. She manages to avoid starving to death, freezing to death and dying of typhus fever. She even manages to avoid punching the school director, Mr Brocklehurst, in the face - something readers may be sorely tempted to do.

The second volume is the part that gets the most screen time in the many, many adaptions. Jane, now 18 years old, gets a job as a tutor for a young French girl living in an old house in the middle of nowhere. The girl's "guardian" (who may or may not be her father) is a thirty-something English man by the name of Rochester. He usually spends very little time at the family home, but after Jane moves in he sticks around for a bit. He is mysterious and brooding. The house contains a secret locked away in the attic. Things go bump in the night. She falls for him, but believes he is going to marry the rich, beautiful girl who keeps coming to his parties. And just what is in the attic, anyway? Or, rather, who*? There's a declaration of love, a promise of happiness and a wedding gone horribly, horribly wrong.

The third volume is a tale of lost families, secret identities and the mysterious, all conquering power of love. There's a fire, some disfigurement and mysterious psychic link that may or may not be based on the power of the moon. Or, it could just be Thursday Next** trying to save the day. Either way, it's a corker of a story and one that has been adapted into no less than twenty movies or television series – with more on the way.

Shirley: A Tale

Shirley is the second of Charlotte's novels to be published. While Jane Eyre was written as part of a writing circle with her sisters, Shirley was written after both Emily and Anne had died and is something of a tribute to them. It's remarkably different from Jane Eyre, and seems to have more in common with the works of Elizabeth Gaskell*** than any of the other novels written by the Brontë sisters. It’s the story of a love quadrangle: Caroline, who is poor, is in love with her (wealthier) cousin Robert, who is wooing Caroline’s (rich) new best friend, Shirley, who quite fancies Robert’s (poor) brother Louis. Robert and Shirley don’t really fancy each other that much, but Robert could do with the money and Shirley’s family don’t approve of Louis, so…

But it’s a social and historical novel, as much as a love story. It’s set during the height of the Luddite movement, and Robert finds his textile mill is under threat when he buys some of those new-fangled, labour “saving” frames that will put many of his employees out of work. Caroline and Shirley are trying to find their place in a world where the role of women is changing, and the future holds unknown opportunities. Apparently denied the man she loves, Caroline feels destined to become an Old Maid, but chafes at the lack of useful activities allowed to unmarried women. Shirley, a young woman with a man’s name, who has inherited a man’s property, finds expectations increasingly hard to juggle.

And it’s also a family story. The character of Caroline is a lot like Anne Brontë, and Shirley bares some striking similarities to Emily. The affection Charlotte has for these two characters shows – in spite of the fact that the book was written “in character” by “Currer Bell” and is dripping with irony. In the end, the characters are looking forward to the kind of bright future Emily and Anne would never see.

Villette

Villete was the last book published during Charlotte’s lifetime, and it’s something of a return to many of the themes that made Jane Eyre so popular. There’s a girl’s school, something mysterious happening in an attic and a dark, brooding man. Once again we are treated to the first-person narration of a vulnerable-yet-spunky young woman, and once again there is a family secret getting in the way of true happiness.

Lucy Snowe takes up employment at a girls’ school in a small French town called Villette. Amongst her struggles to “make it” as a teacher in a community that considers her an outsider, she also has to deal with her feelings for the gorgeous Dr John – something that is complicated by the fact that Dr John is quite taken with the equally gorgeous Polly.

Oh, and then there’s that French professor who is so rude and frustrating. He really is quite an annoying man. And why does he insist on spending so much time with her if he clearly doesn’t like her? And why does she let him get to her when she should just ignore him? And why is his cousin trying so hard to stop him from talking to her? And why does she feel so peculiar at the thought of talking to him…?

And what is in the attic anyway? The ghost of a dead nun? Surely you can’t be serious?

Be warned: the ending will make you want to slap someone. Probably Charlotte.

Two Books by Anne Brontë

Anne, who wrote under the pseudonym “Acton Bell”, was the youngest of the Brontë sisters, and hasn’t enjoyed the same enduring success as Charlotte and Emily. This is possibly because she had a strange tendency to think her romantic leads should be nice guys, rather than brooding jerks.

Agnes Grey

Agnes Grey and Wuthering Heights were published at the same time – both before Jane Eyre was on the scene. Keen observers might note that Jane Eyre definitely “follows” the other books – it combines the gothic tones of Wuthering Heights with the “helpless governess in love” central character from Agnes Grey

Agnes, a poor young woman of some intelligence, is in dire need of a job. As an unmarried, educated woman of the lower middle-classes, the only job she’s really allowed to have is that of a governess. Unfortunately, most governesses are treated rather poorly. She goes to work for a family of rich obnoxious people. They are horrid, their children are horrid – heck, the whole town is horrid. She gives up that job and goes home.

She still needs the work, and she still has no other option but to work as a governess, so she takes up another position with another horrid family. These children (one of which is a teenage girl on the cusp of being considered a “woman”) are less likely to torture birds to death, but more likely to ruin your life for their own personal amusement. The teenage girl, Rosalie, is particularly brutal. Once she notices Agnes has taken a shine to the new curate, she goes out of her way to flirt with the poor man specifically to practise being a coquettish heartbreaker.

There’s much angst as Agnes watches a man she “truly admires” become the sport of someone she can’t stand but can’t stop. After her father’s death, she returns home to start a school with her mother and assumes she’ll never see her dear Mr Weston again…

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall

This is Anne’s most famous book, and the one that comes closest to matching the style of her sister’s novels. There is a dark, brooding man in this one, but he sure as heck isn’t the romantic lead. Anne seems to be of the opinion that self-obsessed alcoholics aren’t really nice people and you probably shouldn’t marry them.

The lead character, Helen, flees from the self-obsessed alcoholic in question before he can be too bad an influence on their son. Oh, and also because he’s an abusive jerk who treats her badly. She takes up residence in the run-down Wildfell Hall using a fake name (secret identities) and tries to work to earn a living, using one of the only means available to her. No, this time it’s not as a governess, but rather as an artist. Both poorly paying jobs with little respect.

The townsfolk are suspicious, that Gilbert fellow living next door is quite nice (the story is largely narrated by him as a really long letter to a friend), and there is a secret waiting to catch up with them all…

One Book By Emily Brontë

Emily (Ellis Bell), the second youngest of the Brontë girls, only wrote one novel in her lifetime. This one novel, however, is insanely popular and has eclipsed everything written by her sisters with the exception of Jane Eyre. Beyond that, she is known for some poetry****

Wuthering Heights

This is the only book by the Brontë sisters to be adapted as a hit song. However, Jane Eyre has more film adaptions - Wuthering Heights has only been adapted into fifteen film versions (so far). Just to put things in perspective, they’ve only made nine adaptations of Pride and Prejudice (so far [in 2011]).

Wuthering Heights is the classic gothic novel of the early 19th Century. It’s famously dark and wretched, and many readers have difficulty finishing the novel. There are dark, mysterious houses in the moors, acts of cruelty passed down the generations, forced marriages and a touch of madness. All this, and a dark, brooding man. There may even be ghosts.

The book basically involves a lot of people making each other miserable. The characters seem to take turns at this task: Hindley makes Heathcliff miserable because he feels like it, Catherine Senior makes Heathcliff miserable because she’s selfish, Heathcliff makes as many people as possible miserable for revenge…

Most of the characters die a miserable death, but the kids are all right. After making each other miserable for a time, Catherine Junior and Hareton (Hindley’s son) end up potentially living happily ever after.



* [The Libary has] a copy of Wide Sargasso Sea
** [The Libary has] a copy of The Eyre Affair
*** [The Libary has] copies of most of Elizabeth Gaskell’s novels, as well as her biography of Charlotte Brontë
**** [The Libary has] copies of most of the Brontë sisters’ poetry – as well as books based on their early writings as children.

***** All images are taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/

Observe and Interact

For the past few years I've been mildly obsessed with the Permaculture Design Principles and their potential application to everything, but particularly my work in an academic library.

There are essentially two sets of Permaculture Design Principles. The most famous is the set of 12 by Davild Holmgren. Well, 12 design principles and three overarching general ethics:

Big Picture Stuff:

• Earth Care (take care of the planet and the natural resources)
• People Care (take care of each other)
• Fair Share (don't take more than you need, and give back where and when you can).

The 12 Holmgren Design Principles:

1. Observe and Interact
2. Catch and Store Energy
3. Obtain a Yield
4. Apply Self-Regulation and Accept Feedback
5. Use and Value Renewable Resources and Services
6. Produce No Waste
7. Design from Patterns to Details
8. Integrate Rather Than Segregate
9. Use Small and Slow Solutions
10. Use and Value Diversity
11. Use Edges and Value the Marginal
12. Creatively Use and Respond to Change

Then there's also the set developed by Bill Mollison, which has a lot of conceptual cross-over with Holmgren's set, but are much more practical focused and less broad-principle-y. I'll no doubt rabbit on more about his principles later. Just between you and me, one of these days I'm going to write a dang book about applying permaculture principles to the office, libraries and education.

And I'll no doubt rabbit on about Holmgren's set in more detail at some point as well, but right now I want to look at that first one:

Observe and Interact.

There's a reason why it's the first principle, and I really would like to see it catch on in the wider world as The First Principle.

The First Principle – the thing you do before you do anything – is remember to Observe and Interact.

Come in to any given situation with a spirit of curious and open observation. Look at what the situation actually is and give yourself time to really think about it, then interact intentionally with the things you have observed.

Look at the patterns, the flows, the way things interact with each other and depend upon or act against each other. Know what it is that you are sticking your nose into.

It's the essence of Evidence Based Practice, but it's less intimidating, I think. EBP carries with it a concept of surveys and measures (which all have their place), but Observe and Interact seems much more immediate and down-to-earth.

And then, when you are interacting with the situation that you have observed, continue to observe and interact!

It's like the Noble Eightfold Path – you shouldn't mistake any of the principles as a "one and done" step that you then move away from, but regard all of the principles (as all aspects of the Path) as something you keep doing simultaneously as you travel along.

You should constantly be Observing and Interacting. Constantly noticing how the patterns, flows and dynamics set and change, and what effect your interactions are having on the situation.

This is so very important to get out of the ridiculous mindset that once you've chosen a course of action you have to stick with it until it magically starts working. No. You keep observing, and you keep interacting. And this may mean you change from your original plan to something else – and that's fine.

In the comparison with the Noble Eightfold Path, Observe and Interact is essentially the equivalent of Right View* – you have to see things clearly in order to follow any of the other principles effectively. In fact, if you Observe and Interact, many of the other principles will come naturally (just like if you have Right Views, the other practices will come along naturally).

Without that clear view of what's happening and why, you're just stumbling around hoping for the best.

I find myself, these days, regularly railing against people making sweeping decisions without first observing and interacting. 

If you do nothing else – if you remember nothing else – try to remember The First Principle: Observe and Interact. It can only make things better.

*Just a flashback to Zen Master Raven by Robert Aitken:

Owl said, “What are Right Views?”

Brown Bear said, “We’re in it together, and we don’t have much time.”

Change One – Or, When a Publisher Developed a Diet, and it Didn't Completely Suck

Do you remember the Change One diet and fitness plan?

I expect you probably don't, it was a brief flash-in-the-pan thing that didn't take off the way the diet's creators were hoping it would. And those creators were... The Reader's Digest.

Literally, it was the Readers Digest – the magazine. Staff writers and editors. They created a diet and fitness plan for a book they were trying to sell.

I first encountered the Change One plan back in the early 2000s when the Reader's Digest magazine ran a few articles promoting the diet and the book they had published about it. They were probably hoping it would pick up the kind of traction the CSIRO's Total Wellbeing Diet had (and still has), but it didn't. They did reissue it in 2014, but the Readers Digest don't even mention it any more.

And yet, it was actually a really good idea. I didn't manage to read the book until a couple of years ago when I found it in a library, and the book itself was... well, it's what you might expect from a diet book written by the dietitians employed by the Reader's Digest. Which is to say: largely indistinguishable from any other cookbook based on a diet, and filled with recipes and "meal plans" that no one has time for.

I don't know why dietitians who write books with meal plans forget that most of us work full time and have no energy to cook, but they do. They seem to assume we've all got buckets of time to spend on food preparation and we're all really engaged in making "proper" meals in the kitchen. We are not. Those of us who aren't super food conscious are just looking for something we can throw together after work without a lot of planning, preparation or forethought. And, I think I'm not alone in saying this, we don't really want a meal plan that involves thinking of 21 different meals for the week. Eating the same thing for several lunches is okay. It really is.

But I digress.

Apart from the fact that the Change One meal plan had the same problems as pretty much every meal plan book I've ever seen, it was kind of sensible. Remarkably so.

In fact, I would go so far as to say the Change One programme (or, at least, the basic concepts behind it) was one of the best I've ever seen. Even better – dare I say it – than the CSIRO programmes. I think, if you put the CSIRO programme and the Change One programme into a blender, you might end up with one of the best things ever produced in this genre.

The basic idea behind the Change One programme was that you focus on changing one thing at a time. Instead of overhauling your entire diet, you overhaul breakfast. Spend a couple of weeks getting some new breakfast habits bedded down. Then change one aspect of your exercise habits, like making a point to go for a walk at the same time every afternoon.

After a few weeks of eating your overhauled breakfast and going for a walk every afternoon – so that it becomes a pattern you can just maintain, rather than something you consciously have to work on – change what you do for lunch, and build some healthier habits around that. And so forth and so on; just keep changing one part of your life at a time, give yourself a few weeks to absorb the new habits, and then stack another habit change on top of that.

A heck of a lot of the book was just the “sensible” advice you would get from your average middle-aged GP, who has seen the fads but isn't invested in them. Sure, the composition of the food they recommended was based on the preference for “low fat” food that existed at the time, but the idea behind the programme – that you overhaul your life one change at a time, and keep everything you do at a level you can maintain long term – is a good one.

I have a habit of reading self-help books for fun. They normally are a bit like reading a science fiction novel, or a holiday romance or cosy crime: something comfortingly familiar, but you aren't going to suddenly go out and fly a space ship, fall in love with a billionaire or solve a murder. I'm also not going to suddenly get my act together because I read a book that recommended I eat X number of calories in a day. I'm not going to count calories; I don't mix maths and food.

But, what I will do is potentially listen to a little bit of sensible advice that can work with my stupid executive dysfunction.

I may not do it immediately, but eventually something might stick. I can't remember the details of the diet, now that it's been a few years since I read it, but the idea of gradual, stacked improvements has been floating around in the soup that is my brain for some time now, and might eventually do me some good. Who knows?

The Master and the Student.

 

Image generated using DALL-E 3
via Bing Image Creator

I've been involved with (or I've been sitting in on) a lot of meetings at the moment about the future of assessment in a post AI world.

How can you ensure the students are actually learning when they can use AI to complete any part of any assessment for which they have advanced warning? If your goal is to test their own, actual knowledge, the options available are limited. They grow even more limited if you don't want every assessment item to be some kind of invigilated exam.

So what can we do to make sure the graduates of our universities actually meet the graduate attributes? In a world where it's almost impossible to survive without hustling, how can we ensure the student who has graduated from your university actually learned anything, apart from how to hustle their degree?

To be honest, I'm not sure you can. The more I hear and read about this conundrum, the more I think about the implications of this Brave New World in which we find ourselves, the more I think our current education system can't continue to work like this.

What's the solution? 

Well, some clever bunny somewhere is going to come up with a better option for assessing large numbers of students with small numbers of teachers and markers, but I think the only "true" solution that will let us ensure the graduates actually know their stuff is to go back to the old "Masters' Apprentices" way of doing things. Small numbers of students attached to teacher who is able to regularly talk to them and watch them work, and glean from those conversations and observations if they know what they are doing.

This is going to fly in the face of budget conscious higher education institutions who want to have hundreds of "bums on seats" while only having scant handfuls of academic faculty members on the payroll.

But I honestly think this is the way we need to go to ensure we aren't completely deskilling ourselves and undermining our future. The Capitalist way of delivering education has just "Capitalist-ed" itself into a corner, and it was barely fit for purpose before it became possible to outsource your every thought and sentence to a machine.

How can you ensure your students actually know their stuff before they go out into the real world? By talking to them. Really, deeply, meaningfully talking to them. Have a real conversation with them about what they know and how they would apply that knowledge. Give them puzzles to solve and be with them, as they solve them – watching how they go about it, asking them about their processes.

This is, I feel, the best way to know if you are happy to release that student out in the world to be a professional in your field.

Tough and Competent, or: Ad Astra per Aspera

For some time, I had a badly drawn image of the Apollo 1 Command Module on my desk. I recently replaced it when I needed a badge design to upskill myself with the library's badge maker. Instead of a poorly drawn image, I now have a home-made badge using the official mission insignia.

I've been slightly obsessed with the Apollo 1 mission ever since I first read about it. You may be more familiar with Apollo 11 (landed on the moon) and Apollo 13 (had a movie with Tom Hanks), and maybe Apollo 17 (last manned mission to the moon), but Apollo 1 was the first manned Apollo mission. Then they had a bunch of unmanned missions and tests before having the second manned mission with Apollo 7.

Why such a long gap between manned missions? Because Apollo 1 was a death trap. All three astronauts were killed in a systems test before they even got close to launch.

The Command Module of Apollo 1 (which I had badly sketched to keep on my desk) was riddled with problems. It had faulty wiring, flammable materials and a badly designed hatch that couldn't be easily opened from the inside if it was under pressure. As it turns out, the hatch couldn't be easily opened from the outside either, if the inside was on fire. 

They pumped the thing with oxygen for the "plugs-out" test, then an exposed bit of wire overheated and the interior of the module went up in flames. Then, thanks to the poor hatch design, they couldn't get out of the module to escape the fire.

They also couldn't call for help, because the comms system was faulty and kept cutting out. The patchy recording of the crew's last words included the phrase "How are we going to get to the Moon if we can't talk between two or three buildings?"

Why did I keep a drawing of this death trap on my desk? Why do I now have the mission patch as a badge?

Because every single one of the faults that lead to the deaths of Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger B. Chaffee were noticed before the test. They knew each and every one of these problems (and many more besides) existed, individually, prior to trapping these three men in a tiny fire bomb.

No one took the time to fix them, because there were budgets and deadlines to meet. And no one made sure you could get out of the module if something went wrong, because everyone just assumed nothing would go wrong.

This disaster, and the knowledge that it was entirely preventable if people just took the time to fix the little isolated problems when they noticed them, lead to Gene Kranz, the Chief Flight Director of Mission Control, making the following speech:

“Space flight will never tolerate carelessness, incapacity and neglect. Somewhere, somehow we screwed up. It could have been a design in build or in test, but whatever it was, we should have caught it. We were too gung-ho about the schedule, and we locked out all of the problems we saw each day in our work.

“Every element of the program was in trouble and so were we. The simulators were not working, Mission Control was behind in virtually every area, and the flight and test procedures changed daily. Nothing we did had any shelf life. Not one of us stood up and said, 'Damnit. Stop.'

“I don’t know what the Thompson Committee will find as the cause, but I know what I find. We are the cause. We were not ready. We did not do our job. We were rolling the dice, hoping that things would come together by launch day when, in our hearts, we knew it would take a miracle. We were pushing the schedule and betting that the Cape would slip before we did.

“From this day forward, Flight Control will be known by two words, 'tough’ and 'competent.' 

"Tough means we will forever be accountable for what we do or what we fail to do. We will never again compromise our responsibilities. Every time we walk into Mission Control, we will know what we stand for.

“Competent means we will never take anything for granted. We will never be found short in our knowledge and in our skills. Mission Control will be perfect."

 "Tough and Competent."

Tough means we will not compromise when it comes to our responsibilities, competent means we will not fall short in our knowledge and skills.

I have this reminder of Apollo 1 floating around to remind me that I should try to take care of a problem when I see it. I should make sure that, when I do a job, I should make a point of doing a good job. 

I know nothing I do will ever be perfect. I know I'm not capable of doing perfect work – and I'm especially not capable of single handedly changing an organisational culture that is far from "tough and competent"... But...

But insofar as it's within my ability to do so, I should strive to be tough and competent. Insofar as it's in my ability to do so, I should encourage the people I work with and work for to be tough and competent.

It's easy to forget this when you have deadlines and budgets to meet, and when some of the problems you notice aren't yours to fix, and some of the jobs you have to do are outside of your current abilities.

Sure, no one is going to die in a fireball if I let something slide, but I expect whoever didn't get around to checking they'd removed the nylon from inside the Command Module before the plugs-out test didn't expect a tragic outcome either.

No harm comes from doing a good job.

Yes! And...

It took me a ridiculously long time to understand the point of "Yes, And..."

I didn't get it at all when I was in school and my drama teacher was trying to get us to learn improv skills.

I didn't really get it at university, where I was studying to be a drama teacher (gods save us).

I barely got it when I was a drama teacher, and certainly didn't understand it well enough to teach it to my students (one of many reasons why I'm not a drama teacher today).

It wasn't until after I became a librarian and found a book on Improv Skills in the library I was working in that it all clicked into place. And, like many things that should be self evident, it was both a life-changing revelation and an embarrassing "well, duh!" moment.

"Yes, And...", for those of you who haven't been introduced to the joys of Improv, is an improvisational technique, but also the name of a Theatre Sports "game" that is designed to teach that technique. 

In this game, whenever anyone says anything, the other person is supposed to reply with "Yes, and..." and then say something that builds on what the other person said:

"Isn't it a lovely day today?"
"Yes, and the whether forecast is looking very promising for the weekend."
"Yes, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the football match."

"That person just shot a gorilla!"
"Yes, and not before time – that escaped gorilla was about to climb the Empire State building."
"Yes, and it would be dreadful to have to get the biplanes in."

"I really wish I hadn't watched that horror film straight after eating all that weird street food."
"Yes, and I really wish I wasn't sitting next to you at the time."

That's the game. In Improve, the principle of  "Yes, And..." is essentially the same, but you don't actually have to say the words "Yes, and..." You just have to keep going in the spirit of what has gone before:

"My goodness, Jack, you look like you've been dragged backwards through a hedge!"
"I was! A Hawthorn! By a Sasquatch!"
"Oh, no, don't tell me Benny's back in town?"

The fundamental idea of "Yes, And..." is that you just accept whatever reality has been offered to you and riff on it without hesitation – and offer the other players in the improv something to build on and riff with in return. It requires a complete lack of defensiveness and an open-handed generosity, with the understanding that your pride isn't at all important, but the flow of the story is.

Whatever the other person says to you, you're all in. Whatever character is suggested to you, that's who you are – no questions asked. Whatever offer is made, you accept whole-heartedly, without any ego.

Which is, of course, why high school students struggle with it so much. All teenagers instinctively feel very embarrassed at all times, and they want to try to protect themselves from anything that might threaten the appearance they want to present to the world. Teenagers and youths instinctively want to control the narrative, so they can control how people see them. 

In addition to this, conversations amongst teens and youths have a tendency to become combative. In a good Improv, the conversation is a volley and the aim is to keep it going for as long as possible while making it interesting for the audience. But most kids can't engage in a conversation as a game without trying to "win" by scoring points off your "opponents".

A good improve is supportive. You carry the rest of your team through it because you want everyone to be able to shine. Sometimes, for the sake of an amusing performance, this involves making at least one person an unfortunate clown. But this should never be done out of malice – only for the sake of the story. If everyone knows that they are safe, then they can play the clown happily without feeling like they are being attacked.

Because that's the point of "Yes, And...": to know that you are all part of the same team, and whatever ball you throw, you are throwing to a member of your team, and whatever ball is thrown in your direction is something you should catch and play, for the good of the team. And because we all have each other's back, we know to throw the balls in good faith, and to catch them with good grace.

Which is one of many reasons why I'm ashamed that it took me so long to understand the point of "Yes, And..." It's a principle I try to live by, these days – to varying degrees of success, it must be said, but I'm working on it.

Permitted and admitted

 With the rise of casual use of Generative AI software over the past year and a bit (has it really only been that long?), we've also seen a lovely little moral panic sweeping the nation(s).

Should we be using AI? Is it cheating? Is it being lazy? Is it ripping off millions of authors who actually had to work on something? Will it spawn a group of people who can't string a sentence together to save themselves?

The answer to every single one of those questions is "Yes... and no." 

Ever since the Industrial Revolution (which was, as far as I'm concerned, a Bad Idea) we have been devising ways to get a machine to do the bulk of our work for us. 

We replaced ourselves in the field with tractors (and then we replaced ourselves in the tractors with remote control and robots).

We replaced ourselves in the factories with rigs and jigs (and then with robots).

We replaced ourselves in the copyroom with printing presses, and then we replaced ourselves in the typing pool with computers... it was really only a matter of time before we replaced ourselves at the computers with robots.

Replacing ourselves with robots is just something we do. As our main industries moved from field to factory to office, where and how we replace ourselves moved with us.

Should we do it? Heck, we should probably still be tilling a field somewhere with a couple of oxen. Or at least making a cabinet out of actual wood with honest-to-god hand tools. And then we should be writing a letter with pen and paper to send to our friend who lives a 6 day journey from here. 

We're not going to do that, though. We're going to use whatever tools are available to us. It behooves us to learn to use them well so we can make a quality product.

Every time we invent a new tool to do the "heavy lifting" for us, we deskill ourselves in the old ways. We could keep whining about that, or we could just accept that this is what we do, and make a point of learning to use the new tools in a way that keeps us actively engaged in the quality control of the process.

Oh, and have a secret enclave of people who can still write actual sentences with their own brains and hands, for when the solar flare (or the cyber-terrorist EMP) wipes out technology and we need to rebuilt society after the resulting apocalypse. Basically, writing is going to become like knitting and woodwork - a quaint little hobby that will eventually save the human race.

Not that we're worth saving.

The important thing with using a tool that replaces us intellectually is that everyone is on the same page with this – we need to ensure no one reads something written by a machine and assumes a human wrote that.

Eventually, it will be assumed that all copy was written by a machine unless otherwise noted (just like we assume everything we use was made by a machine, even though the vast majority of the things we touch in our lives are still "handmade" by actual people in factories. Very, very poorly paid people in very, very unsafe factories...), but at this point in our evolution it's still the other way around.

So, for now, we still need to insist that any use of Generated AI is "permitted and admitted" – you don't use it when you were told not to, and whenever you do use it, you outline/admit to what you used it for.