More great stuff, Fisher. Can't wait for the "All-Night Chronicles" to come out in book form.

exceptional on a few levels including the truth of their statements, and 13 year-old girls smoking - that about kills me

I wanna know how a 13 year old (actually, two of them) got tattoos and piercings in the first place.

'Round here, you gotta be 18. Or get your parents' permission.

What kind of parent allows their almost-preteen daughter to get all inked up and loaded with studs?

Because they ain't got no "values".

Well, yes BB, I would agree. But why? I mean, WHY? There must be a reason for this parental negligence.

Ain't ya takin' fictional wrytin' a little too seriously?

Bisydes. Ya gotta 'dmit ya lyked look'n at the stuff when y'all were a yonger man. Didn ya?

I was not certain whether this was fictional, or not. Color me foolish.

:-/

Dunno fer certain miself. Just guessin'

Aw, heck! I'm jus' as easily fooled as the nex' feller.

I'll be ri' back. Gotta go on 'nother brew run...

I'm curious. What 'value' does a piercing violate?

On a barely-teenager? Who is showing off such a sexually-inticing piercing by wearing as little clothing as possible?

Do you really have to ask?

I mean, why not just fuck your own 13 year old daughter on camera, and excuse it by selling the videos for her college fund? Nothing wrong with consentual incest, right?

Given the description of the 13 year olds in the story, in my opinion, not only were they inappropriately dressed for their age, but most adults shouldn't be dressed like that either.

But I was commenting really on comment 3 and comment 4, I should have mentioned that. Saying 'loaded with studs' is a bit much for having a naval ring. That's my opinion. And it struck me as funny that 2 tattoos (....all inked up?) and a naval ring were singled out but no complaint about minors showing butt crack and crotch. No complaint about the smoking and what a 'value' they exhibit by deceiving. *shrugging* just struck me as funny, what was being singled out as lack of values.

"I mean, why not just fuck your own 13 year old daughter on camera, and excuse it by selling the videos for her college fund? Nothing wrong with consentual incest, right?"

Wow. Where did that come from?

These stories are factual fiction ('faction'), as were my last three posts, each written immediately after working all night solo at a local deli. After a lifetime of listening jobs (janitor, cab driver, writer, limo driver), the all-nite deli offers the best perch by far. To protect privacy, all characters, including my own, are deliberately chopped, blended and baked to become more real than they used to be while remaining unknown even to the actual person on whom the character is based. Soon everyone in town will be convinced that every character is them. And they will be right.

I've put the narrator in the background to leave room on the couch for the reader, but also because I wasn't sure for the first month I was doing this if I wanted to write about it. As if it's the Play-by-Play of Curt's Life! And here he is, at the very bottom of his game...

So I put the narrator in the background because I really don't want anybody picturing me there. Or anywhere else for that matter, and if you're picturing me right now, stop it.

I am truthful about happenings, happenstance, monologues in whole or part and other long tramps across the stage these poor players assume beyond the meat chest.

It is truly remarkable what goes on in this place, and as the writer in residence I'd be a fool not to write it all down.

Fewer apostrophes would make it easier.

Coupla points:


1) re. '"...fucking your own 13 year old daughter..."

Ugh, I find that's even hard to type, let alone ponder, but the additional irony is that our resident Political Conservative (family values and all that, doncha know) is the one who brought it up -- seemingly out of nowhere.

RJ, welcome back!

I must say -- I did miss your over the top sorta pornographic hyperbolic analogies -- which, btw, makes me sound like Norman Vincent Peale meets Walter Cronkite on Quaaludes.

2) For those who
a) might wonder and aren't sure;
b) have the IQ of a banana slug,

here's a tip for the future:

EVERYTHING IS FICTION!

Everything. Got it?


Jees.

". . . chopped, blended and baked to become more real than they used to be while remaining unknown even to the actual person on whom the character is based."
Could you do this to my character? I need a vacation from myself, and your writing is just the ticket. Actually, never mind the "my character" part, and please keep writing these vignettes/observations/factual-fictions. They make me forget myself and live in other places, times and people, and that is the best compliment I have given to a writer.

Shark, you postmodernist (Justene, please don't delete this. I know it sounds harsh, but I mean it well--I think). To hell with postmodernpoststructuralistdeconstruction...ism? There is a Truth--I swear it. But no human will ever know it (unless he or she reads my blog--no chance of that happening. In case you are wondering, I'm not exactly human--I'm a German, Polish, Ukrainian, Mongolian, possible-Jew American--that beats Juan Epstein and David Koresh for sure). Varying degrees of closeness to the Truth do exist, however, but again, no person will ever know his or her relative closeness to it. Did I just embrace postmodernism? Please help me.

P.S. CW, is there any way you can be a fly on the wall in the women's bathroom? I have always wondered what goes on in there that takes so long. I know it sounds childish, but my best explanation so far has been tampons. That couldn't be it, could it?

P.P.S. "The instability of your question leaves me with several contradictorily layered responses whose interconnectivity cannot express the logocentric coherency you seek. I can only say that reality is more uneven and its (mis)representations more untrustworthy than we have time here to explore." - Stephen Katz

"our resident Political Conservative (family values and all that, doncha know) is the one who brought it up -- seemingly out of nowhere.

"RJ, welcome back!"

Thanks!

Okay, two things:

1 - My comment was a stretch, but an INTENTIONAL ONE.

I mean, just how low will we go as a society? Piercings and tats are supposedly okay on a 13-year old, but how about sex? If sex is okay (they'll just do it anyway...), why not videotape it and sell it? (Supply and demand...) And if that's okay, why not incest? (As long as it's consentual...)

Sorry. A line has to be drawn at some point. I prefer to draw the line too early (tats and piercings) instead of too late...

2 - I am arguably not a "conservative." And, even if I was, I am DEFINITELY NOT a "family-values" type of "conservative."

I'm a "South Park Republican." Except I'm not a Republican.

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)" - Walt Whitman

Piercings and tats are supposedly okay on a 13-year old,

I never said that. I said 'what value do they violate'?

they violate my aesthetic values, and it shows extremely poor judgment to allow 13 year-olds to make decisions that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives

Dirtgrain, you called me a postmodernist!?

How dare you!

Talk about yer [personal insult] to be [deleted]!!!

I'm no post-modernist; I could never get that drunk. As I've said before, if I had to choose a label, it would be Liberal Reactionary -- which means I can justify killing for peace, love, flowers, and a healthy environment.

Or maybe a "Romantic Semiotician" -- which means I like to use symbols for strong emotions, imaginitive flights of fancy, freedom from classical correctness in art, and rebellion against social conventions...

--or if pushed, I'm a "Transcendental Facist" -- which means I picture Buddha's Bo tree as a brick wall, and His Mantra as "Up against it, motherfucker!"

PS: We're meeting at my house on Sat. night. *BYOBB

*"Bring yer own bongs and bombs"

Shark, I stand corrected. Appy polly loggies. However, the number on rule on nicknames is that you can't choose your own. I hereby dub you Avatar of Righteousness, Grokker of Faustian Texan Undertakings, Render of All Things Comfortably Accepted as True, Possessor of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, Master of Buddha Fist Koan, Corrupter of the Metaphysical, Brainfarter, Flaunter of Gigante Cahones, Esquire.

they violate my aesthetic values, and it shows extremely poor judgment to allow 13 year-olds to make decisions that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives

I kind of figured that it would be aesthetic values, but I wanted someone to say it to be certain. Again, I fall back on my original statement that it is odd to zero in on the naval ring and tattooes as 'parental negligence' and a 'lack of values' yet no heterosexual man has yet used that same train of thought on the minors clothing and their visible private parts.

As far as making a decision the 13 year old will have to live with the rest of her life, how about the cigarette in her mouth? How about the tendency to deceive? It's usually not a one-time trait.

Some cultures/societies pierce and tattoo their citizens in infancy. (National Geographic covers anyone?) I am surprised that an aesthetic value is what is zeroed in on, in this story. Does anybody see any other 'value violations' that perhaps could be a bit more important or is it just me?

Doesn't anybody also see that the values of love, stability are more important than the values of having a penis and a vagina in the household? Not to keep going back to that, but it is amazing to me what values people are more offended by.

My own personal thought is that the tattoos and piercings are inappropriate for a 13 year old, for the same reason, because they are permanent. My concern for them wouldn't be aesthetic though, but an indication that the child is running around with an older crowd. I see them as more of an indication to a possible problem, rather than a problem themselves.

I don't necessarily want to 'defend' piercings and tattoos. If a minor has a naval ring, I wouldn't automatically assume parental negligence though. It's possible the preteen did it on her own and hides it from her parents. Or maybe her parents are bikers and having a tattoo is a rite of passage like in the National Geographic example. I notice how both preteens have the exact same tattoos. I would think it is more of a community/cultural thing rather than a sign of parental negligence.

This whole conversation just strikes me as odd, what values people condemn others by. How quick people can be to condemn and what they condemn others for.

"they violate my aesthetic values, and it shows extremely poor judgment to allow 13 year-olds to make decisions that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives"

What about parents who get their children's ears pierced. Or who circumcise their newborn sons?

I guess those don't violate most people's aesthetics, but one of them definitely should. [Eric, I'm not singling you out - I think you're saying what most people think.]

Is it any better when the parent makes irreversible decisions for a child that the child will have to live with for the rest of his/her life?

Both daughters have had their ears pierced, one of them twice. All piercings have closed up, even though we left earrings in over a year. A naval piercing doesn't seem as permanent. I agree with Boom, naval piercing, rather than ear piercing, shows running with an older crowd.

I grew up in a conservative, yet tolerant, household. There were many good values that were instilled in me, namely the value of family (I believe that is where my strong desire to carry on the tradition comes from). Yet like many teens (in my case, I was 15), I went through a rebellion stage. I got tattoos. I pierced an ear and grew my hair down to my lower back. I became a heavy metal fanatic who lived the 'lifestyle'. I ran around with the bad crowd.

If one reads this thread, one would think that my parents were negligent and awful. But they were conservative, caring, and VERY involved in the lives of our kids. Yet kids are independent and will rebel. I guess my point is be careful about blaming the parents as being lacking in their skills just because a teen has a tattoo or a piercing. Passing judgement on others tends to be subjective and often has no relation/bearing to the actual situation.

re: piercings and tattoos - I object to any fashion trend that automatically includes physical pain, (especially my own).

re: circumcision - I say wait till the boy is old enough to decide on his own.

(That oughtta kill that cultural ritual real quick!)

"C'mon Johnny, just close yer eyes and lay your dick on the cutting board."

interesting how these topics cycle back - we did a long one on circumcision: I reject the rejectionism and side with the lineage of David on that one. Before Alex was born, we went over the various pros and cons of circumcision with our doctor, who is a very loquacious, open-minded man. He cited all the party line reasons why it wasn't necessary. Then we asked what he had done with his son, and he said, "Oh circumcised, of course, it's much more sanitary and they are now finding in some older boys, especially if they play sports, that they are much more prone to infection and it's a hell of a lot more traumatic at 14 years than at 4 minutes." That's what I thought, doc.

And the reason I mentioned the aesthetic regarding the girls is I thought we had already agreed that 13 year-old girls out roaming around in skimpy clothing, trying to buy cigarettes, tattooed and pierced showed some obvious problems and lack of supervision at home: didn't think it needed to be said again.

And I really hate tattoos, especially on women. It about killed me when my daughter got a small round one of her own design near her bikini line within a week of her 18th birthday.

And the reason I mentioned the aesthetic regarding the girls is I thought we had already agreed that 13 year-old girls out roaming around in skimpy clothing, trying to buy cigarettes, tattooed and pierced showed some obvious problems and lack of supervision at home: didn't think it needed to be said again.

*scanning back up the thread*. No, the ones who zeroed in on the piercings and tattoos still haven't brought any of that up. You did make one reference to smoking, Eric, but beyond that, there has been no mention, by those my question was directed at, (commenters 3 and 4) about anything other than the piercings/tattoos and what parental negligance they signify. Any references to anything else, have been brought up by me, and always in the question as to why people aren't focusing on such. I'm sure though, we all would agree that it's a given that the values the girls in the story are exhibiting are sub-par.

My point is, that it just strikes me as odd that piercings and tatts means parental negligance, and even on the same level as televised incest to someone. I thought if there was child neglect, then the child should be removed from the home. I'm wondering if some people feel that a tattoo should be a certain width/height before we forcefully remove the child from the home. (With a thorough search of course, to make sure the father hasn't been molesting the daughter on camera).

I would say all of the factors taken together are a pretty good indication of poor parenting and too much free time for the new teens.

Pierced ears don't bother me but I don't think it's something parents should impose. If kids ask somewhere in the 11-12 range, that's fine with me.

Okay, I'll say it: JonBenet Ramsey. Some parents just have weird ideas about how a kid should look.

I think 11 or 12 piercings are too many, Eric.

CC, I titter in your general direction.

That was phrased imprecisely.