Outsider Storyteller

What an outsider storyteller is:

I've been thinking about what an outsider storyteller is.  I think that certain concerns of creative writing are more universal than others, because they relate to the formal constraints of writing.  For instance, if you're writing fiction, you're writing a story on paper that may or may not be time bound and may or may not feature characters.  What makes good writing?  When do you write?  Do you have a schedule for writing?  Etc.  Basically, the process includes formal constraints and that means that a lot of writers have the same concerns, regardless if they've been schooled or given any opinion on what writing is.

I think that this concept of fiction and nonfiction writing crystallized with the 19th century novel, a recognizable plot, characters, temporal storylines, etc.  Modernism is recognizable as a reaction to that.  I think the first kneejerk is, "Who is this story about?  What is happening?"  Modernism is ensconced in the history of how fiction defined itself in the 19th century and is inextricable from it.  Postmodernism is also recognizable as reaction.  While picking up a book from the 19th century or what I will call a "conventional" book with a temporal background and recognizable characters today will be understandable for someone who is not studied in literary history, reading a book in the modernism tradition as well as a postmodernist one will not be understandable or enjoyable, nor will the reader be able to pick up insights. 

I think that an outsider storyteller is not recognizably tied to either a canonical way of telling the story in fiction (unconsciously "challenged" in the 18th century, cemented in the 19th century, and challenged frmo the mid to late 19th century on) in this reaction to the canonical way of telling fiction.  Thus, they have a possibly intuitive or traditional way of telling the story.  Perhaps their way of understanding how a story is crafted is more organic because they are not weighed down by the history of where they ought to be from?

On Food

The subject of health has been obsessing me lately due to the fact that I'm in this moderation morass until I know specifically where to turn.  I know that I disagree with the fanatically calorie counting, next big thing Huffington Post lists of "super" foods, and people who subscribe to a Paleo diet of meat and eggs and such, or the people who supplement their workouts with meat and whey protein.  I think.  I used to see the sense in Ayurveda, which argues eating a mix of raw and cooked foods and carefully scheduling your life in the interest of balance.  Now I see people making gains in their skin, body, and energy level from restrictive diets and it makes me think if perhaps I'm not missing anything.  I've been toying a lot with the idea of moving slowly toward raw veganism, and have at least been including more raw foods and token raw vegan foods (chia seeds, flax) in my diet.  There is a concept of perfect practice rather than practice makes perfect that makes the eating of a diet that keeps you vital so deliberate.  To sloppily jump into raw veganism tends to spell low b12 levels and disaster, to pound lots of water all day because someone told you to can lower the metabolism, to eat well, but at irregular times in the day can also cause a problem, and to include raw food that is not organic or to lightly cook foods incorrectly and not release most of their nutrients is a waste, for instance, apparently carrots release more of their nutrients when (boiled or roasted?) in the skin and then cut up or most of the nutrient content of potatoes, kiwis, and other skinned fruits and vegetables lie just below the skin, which means having to eat the nasty orange pith.  I've been obsessing about buying a juicer which also involves the idea of "perfect practice," because while a juicer allows you to up your nutrient and vitamin content, centrifugal juicers slightly heat the fruit and vegetables and produce a lot of waste and masticating juicers are expensive, plus I already got a Breville incoming as a gift.  I've also been thinking of buying the Ferrari of blenders if I have a less fancy juicer, to make green smoothies and other healthy smoothie gains.  The problem is, when I drink a green juice, I tend to automatically go into headache detox mode because it is so rich in vitamins, just like when I go to Souen and eat macriobiotic food.  I have an intuition that juices are not as good in gains for me as smoothies, though, and the fact that my trying keeps not being even close to good just sucks.  Like, I bought cayenne pepper, which is a fancy new food, but I bought it at the supermarket.  I made myself a turmeric almond milk tea, but I added cayenne instead of black pepper which apparently activates turmeric, used turmeric that I worry is not that good, and Almond Breeze instead of making my own nut milk..  Some people emphasize the eating of beet greens and chards, others claim they are toxic due to oxalic acid and have you boil them.  When I sauteed them and forced myself to drink the juice, bet your ass I was disappointed.  There is a morass of opinions, on the one hand, there is nothing wrong with adding raw, hopefully organic fruits and vegetables and rotating your greens.  On the other hand, others claim it is about metabolism, extol the benefits of potatoes, and cite scientific studies against every fad food lifestyle.  Or you eat less inflammatory foods, tell that to my mom who loves nightshades and fish.  It is not that simple to eat intelligently and live healthfully.  Mainstream types claim the benefits of whole grains and lean meats, while others counter that fatty fish have a higher count of omega3s, oh and I eat sardines, Costco sardines, or even claim it is more about reducing the omega6 ratio, still others like the Wheat Belly guy claim that commercial wheat and even whole grain is chock full of amylopectin and spikes the blood sugar, so good to cut it out all together, this guy is also pro people eating meat.  I mostly get annoyed when people tell me to eat more of stuff I hate, beets, yams, and less of stuff I like, beet greens, kale.  The truth is that with any theoretical discipline, particularly one with a lot of "forget what you know because the bigwigs have been lying to you" there is a mix of scientific study and knowledge on the back end, academic cross talk, "established scientific knowledge" being levied in a simplified form by magazines and faux medical websites, types who favor you proceed with the intuitive, your own opinion, types who pitch the counter-intuitive or "don't trust yourself or what you've heard, trust me," and the conspiracy theorists who favor a model out of the mainstream, but feel suspect because they don't supply as much concrete scientific evidence.  The way the concept of diet for a healthier life applies to the issues dearest to my heart is quite wide.  The thing is, in Child Development, what I consider a more crucial and contentious discipline, it's hard to figure out the diet children need.  Children are different from adults trying to restructure their lifestyle in a way that has more to do with workaday concepts of exercise or meal because you "have to" rather than play or eating what you want when you're hungry.  Yes, adults are different from children.  A raw diet or cutting out dairy might not benefit a child the way it does you.  Adults lament their lack of imagination, wonder, or tuning naturally into what they might need due to socialization and the formation of logic based on their life.  The fact is, some good things do come with adulthood, even with that stuff you hate, like the regimentation of routine in work and the "have tos" of now we run like guinea pigs on a wheel to get our exercise rather than playing with super soakers or rolling down a hill.  I think that envying ourselves as we were as kids shortchanges the gains we've made in maturity, learning to compromise, learning to respect our own boundaries with people, learning to work and contribute to others, and learning to give.  This does require the development of cumbersome logic, unfortunately, going into the box of work makes it harder to think "outside" it.   But, we are on the trajectory of acquiring wisdom and insight.  By learning to deal with failure, disappointment, difficulty, and crisis.  I stress so much about the concept of a good, simple, sustainable way to eat that enhances health because I think if I find an intelligent solution to this I could serve others.  I could serve others.  Not necessarily children, but people my age or slightly younger or older.  There is a big, disgusting debate on obesity in this country and the trajectory from eating mostly processed foods to intelligent eating that may go against the way your parents ate or fed you is a fraught one and can go through many stages, specifically, overly regimented eating, perhaps an eating disorder, body image issues, obsession with food.  I am against too strict eating and I'm worried that forcing the way we live and eat on people who have been eating mostly processed food may be a mistake.  I don't think chaining kids who have been accustomed to playing and having fun to a calorie system and causing them to run on an uninspiring treadmill system like we do is the answer.  I think that incorporating whole raw food like fruit or vegetable as a valued eating accessory and snack is.  Processed foods are specifically calibrated in umami and various other taste balances to be addictive.  Middle class America's obsession with diet, regimentation, and deprivation is just as toxic.  There is not that easy an answer to what way to eat best supports health and also does not obsess us.  And I don't think the pundits who have appointed themselves to regiment our food or recommend processes live a good life free of obsession or food unhealthiness either.  I guess I should stick to my own food theories and advice, add organic raw fruit and vegetables, eat at the sameish times during the day, eat greens and beans and colored fruit and vegetables, reduce inflammatory foods, and have plenty-ish of water.