Creative Nonfiction Blog by Brenda Gaines Hunter

License: All manuscripts on this site are the work of Brenda Gaines Hunter. You may share a link to this site and/or manuscripts, but you may not distribute, reproduce, or alter the manuscripts in any way. The remainder of the content is free.

About Me

One day I realized I was writing a book in my head and decided to put it on paper. When I did, the magic was there. I knew I had arrived as a writer and had found my voice. I had tried to write when I was younger, but I always struggled with putting enough of myself, my experiences, into my writing. So I thought I needed a PhD to write nonfiction. What I really needed is for creative nonfiction to come into its own.

I essentially reframe and explore topics that are related to identity. Over the next few years "This is How it Ends"--a memoir and "Heroes"--a book of personal essays, will be released. "This is How it Ends" is undergoing editing right now and "Heroes" is more than a twinkle in God's eye.

Quote of the Week

I don't want to know what the law is; I want to know who the judge is. ~ Roy M. Cohn

Heaven

I started thinking about free will again. Free will is not a quality that humans have that is separate from God, but instead it is a gift that is granted freely by God to keep us engaged in life. However, I am now wondering if during my afterlife (I guess I'm assuming that I'll have one), God will allow me to have my vices. In "heaven" can I have all of the food I want: lobster, crab, steaks, ribs, white sauces, butter. I haven't had butter in almost two years, and I want some. How about smoking? Will I be able to smoke and not worry about the repercussions? or will food and smokes be unnecessary and, therefore, absent from heaven? But will I still retain a memory of them? See, this is why people are afraid to die. We can see death as an adventure, but we cannot go home if we get disappointed. What will keep me engaged in an afterlife after a year or two, if I can't have my vices? Ooops! I'm ducking a thunderbolt. Being with God is its own reward. Faith, Brenda! Faith. Faith. See, I'm really not that smart.

What Do You Want to Be When You Grow Up?

I have never been able to answer that question. Perhaps had I actually grown up I'd know by now. When I was a child, I told my parents that I wanted to be a lawyer, like Perry Mason, and I later reiterated that I wanted to go to college. They just stared at me. I've always loved architecture and astronomy, as well.

As a child, I spent hours and days and weeks building houses and entire cities out of anything and everything imaginable. But life went awry. I ended up in foster care and could not wait to get out on my own, and once I did, I wanted nothing more than to do an about face. I realized that I hadn't grown up; I had simply been biding my time.

Rigor

I was asked today, What does elegance and beauty have to do with rigor? During my Beautiful Theories post, I included rigor when discussing the beauty and elegance of a theory. I didn't know why I threw that in either at first. I've stated that "simplicity is elegance". I believe that is true. When a statement or argument is simple, almost 'commonsense', it is difficult to defeat. It has already been reduced to it lowest constituents. It's balanced. It gives that feeling of "Eureka!" That same feeling that many of us get when we experience a defining moment, like when we see someone who is so beautiful we start to melt. Things that are elegant are simple; they leave no doubt about their beauty. That's rigor.

Beautiful Theories...

Scientists' greatest pleasure comes from theories that derive the solution to some deep puzzle from a small set of simple principles in a surprising way. These explanations are called "beautiful" or "elegant". Historical examples are Kepler's explanation of complex planetary motions as simple ellipses, Bohr's explanation of the periodic table of the elements in terms of electron shells, and Watson and Crick's double helix. Einstein famously said that he did not need experimental confirmation of his general theory of relativity because it "was so beautiful it had to be true." ~ http://edge.org/

Simplicity is elegance a math teacher once told me. That premise is holding up. Each year, John Brockman, the manager of Edge.org puts forward an open-ended question to the world's greatest scholars and intellectuals and to those of us who are just nosy, who are used to responding to background noise. (I'm used to exercising while talk radio blares in the background.) This year, he asked, "What is your favorite deep, elegant or beautiful explanation?" The number one answer was Darwin's Theory of Evolution as much for its simplicity as for anything else. Eureka! Never before had so much been explained by so little. That's rigor, elegance, beauty!

Another Word: Pete Johnson

Now back to Roll 'em Pete by Big Joe Turner and Pete Johnson. I believe that Pete Johnson was a magician on that piano, or there are actually two piano players. Two piano players would account for why there is a back-beat in that song, the necessary requirement for a song to be classified as rock 'n roll. However, I will concede that Pete Johnson was a superb pianist in any case.

13 Turner, Big Joe - Roll 'Em Pete (12/30/1938)

A Little More Big Joe Turner

I can't find a date for Big Joe Turner's version. (I'll continue to look.) But I found a record store that sells very old records. I just might start a collection. Records and English coins. (I still need a King Stephen, by the way. Got a Robert the Bruce--not English, eh.) Would need a record player, too. In any case, the recordings are below. Enjoy!

16 Big Joe Turner - Night Time is the Right Time (60)

Now compare Big Joe Turner's original version with Ray Charles'. I think both did a wonderful job. However, I tend to lean toward the blues, so I favor Big Joe Turner's version since it's straight up Mississippi Delta blues.

26 Ray Charles - Night Time Is The Right Time

God's Omnipotence & Free Will

Now what am I going to do with this? Well, I'm going to stay the course on this issue. Keep my beliefs. I do believe that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, but I don't believe he is omniscient and omnipresent. I think some things just slip by him, and sometimes when he finally does intervene all he can do is hold our hands to help us to feel better. And that is also why we are free to choose how to behave. God is not always here to hold our hands.

That's what I wrote the other night. However, that does not make sense. This is why the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, et. al., struggled with the concept of an omni-God: Considering God omni-everything makes it difficult to account for the evil in the world. However, limiting God like I do anthropomorphizes God. How can God be omnipotent, but not omniscient? If God is all powerful then God has the power to allow Himself to know everything. The real question may not be whether God is all anything, but why God does not always elect to intervene? Why does He not elect to know? Why are we here?

Jewish Concepts and Elements III

God's Relationship to Humanity; God is personal

...is the belief of most Jewish sects. We have a relationship with God, which is reflected in learning the Torah and the higher truths that allow the intellect to connect with God and be immortalized and enjoyed in "Glory of the Presence" of God for all eternity. In the midrash (stories that fill in the gaps), God also cares about us in the same way that we care about God.

Moses Maimonides and many other medieval Jewish philosophers rejected the idea of a personal God. However, that reaction may have been a response to the pillar that God is not anthropomorphic; God has no image and, therefore, assigning human traits to God is heretical.

Jewish Concepts and Elements II

Broke my promise last night, because I was too tired to keep it. For the first time, in a very long time, I was too tired last night to write anything. So I neglected my promise to talk about a concept of Judaism each day for a few days.

Today: God is all-powerful.

God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent. The Tanakh: “Attribute to the Lord all glory and power” (Psalms 29). That is the belief of most Orthodox Jewish sects. However, most Jewish rabbinic texts also present God as omnibenevolent (being all good), too. However, this view has been criticized, especially in light of the Holocaust. Satan's upstaging of God in Milton's Paradise Lost seems to even be a true reflection of life. How could a benevolent God have allowed such horrors? And of course, I wonder about slavery as well. The question is: If God is so powerful and so good and all-knowing, then how do you account for such evil in this world?