Yeah, you heard me. “Edge you!” You guys know what I’m tellin’ ya here. For all the bullshit commentary left in sacks at the bottom of my last post I ask: “what the hell did you think you were reading? Didja not see any of the beauty? Did you not catch anything in those myopic sieves of yours? And you! The Right Rev. RCoyne! Man, don’t do me like that.”
[Yo! Lunchbox! Have we weened the audience yet? “no, I did not just call them wienies. lift your head a little bit more. yeah, chin horizontal like“.]
Writing is an art and like any art is open to interpretation. Having said that, art requires imagination. It requires stepping outside the pre-printed boundary lines and walking blindly into something that could be. Yes, I am getting all clarklike, but “edge you”, that’s your problem. Should I try and s-p-e-l-l it out? You know, about how something small can be huge, significant but not significant…be a thing that only imagination can show us.
To be honest, I put the Guru video in the last post strictly because I have always loved that song and was thinking of it that day. No heavy duty significance – just a cool song. There’s an easy going beauty about it- “seamless”. The bass “riff” is consistent, solid, pervasive and totally completes the song. Nothing flashy. In writing the last paragraph of that post I was able to say what I was struggling to express. A simple concept holding a beauty all its own.
” All the while we struggle with challenging what is, we begin to build a foundation upon which to lay a life riff so seamless, so perfect it goes completely unnoticed as anything but part of what has always been.”
Lighten up people. Lighten up…..
A simple thank-you would have sufficed…
Pre-printed boundaries? What are those? The lines on the page you are coloring, or the page itself?
“Twisting, turning, through the never…” Makes sense to me.
So anyway, it was suggested I have a conversation with you about footwear. 😉
“In the dark, see past our eyes…”
Thank you for stopping by Molly M.! It’s quite refreshing and encouraging when I hear from someone who can see a little farther.
Hope you will drop in again.
Ah, yes…. one clark to another:) Over the years I have garnered compliments and guffaws for my, shall we say, unique taste in footwear. Nothing outrageous (in my opinion), nothing ugly. Yes, included was a pair of “snakeskin” leather, pointy toed granny boots, a very comfortable pair of brown shoes with shoelaces and buckles lovingly referred to as my “bowling” shoes, a pair of suede “Al Jolson” shoes and I would be remiss if I did not mention the Doc Martens. Ah, a clark (of a certain age) without docs is incomplete.**
Let’s see, you have to have at least 2 pairs of boots one pair of which is red. (Hopefully, the cowboy ones.) But It is not that I know specifically what you have in the way of shoes as much as I know the “types” of shoes/boots that you have. Another one of those knowing things. It’s a well documented fact that female clarks can be identified solely by their footwear. Hairstyles and accessories are also uniquely worn. Sometimes subtle sometimes not. All is worn in a distinctive fashion.
**For the benefit of one clarkscottroger, I am reconsidering writing a post about the fall line of flats.:)
Haha! I use to own red cowboy boots, but they wore out. I replaced them with some made of shark-skin and kangaroo, because they would last. I have a pair of combat-boots, that I have owned for years, and my snow boots are made of Italian leather.
For everyday shoes, I have a pair of black mules and a pair of brown leather mary-janes flats. For dress, I have (besides the snow boots) two pairs of heels–one black and one brown. Both high quality. And next, I want these: http://www.sinistersoles.com/TEMPT-10-Multi-Strap-Platform-Pumps-p/s-bordello-tempt-10-shoes-w.htm
If a clark, with docs is incomplete, you will like this site.
Now to the hairstyles, I’m going to have to do more observing. 🙂
A “sista” is a “sista” 🙂 The shark-skin sounds most cool. I never doubted the combats were in your closet.
I agree. One should never skimp on quality. Hm…wasn’t sure at first…the white and black ones are the proper choice. Dig the “spectator detail”. ‘Cuz it’s all in the detail… thanks for the link.
As I mentioned, I really was going to do a post in which I displayed the coolest leather oxfords on the planet. Dolce & Gabana have a “sequin-embelished pair that are to die for!
Yes, hairstyles are also an “indicator” of we like people. It is not that they are always outrageous or daring (I have done almost everything and anything to mine over the years), it can be as simple as the use of clips pulling bangs back in a slightly “different” way for example. clarklike females employ a unique and artistic flair (naturally) to their appearance that many people, mostly rogers, think looks “odd”, “weird”…you know, you’ve heard it before. (the Wakefield Doctrine likes to utilize the example of Diane Keaton, and in particular her character Annie Hall, as an example of a female clark) Keep me posted on your observations!
In the words of fellow clarklike female Gwen Stefani, “I’m just a girl…..”
(as Albert Brooks once said,) ‘It is not just my opinion, it is a medical fact…that clarklike females will have noticeably odd footwear and will do something strange to they heads. Current (clarklike female) exemplar is Flo, from the Progressive Insurance commercials. While you have to watch for it, she is wearing black and white hightops, but it is mostly about the head. You just gotta look.
I look forward to the day when we have enough DownSprings to be able to spare the (intellectual) resources for a proper examin ’em of the female clarks and the choice of clothing vis a vis gender differences.
But, alas for now we must focus on the big pitcha finding those out there who can take the Doctrine to others…while this medium pretends to allow us to speak to the werld, the simply fact of the matter is that it will take one person talking to her friend and, at some point will say,…”jeez, he is such a roger!” or ” hey, no need to get all scottian, after this is a church picnic”
Okay… So I looked up all the hair examples give, and though not all styles I would choose, I don’t see anything truly strange about them. I mean, honestly, I expected things like beehives and dreadlocks or mohawks and die from what was said… Or maybe I see so many different things around here, that ‘normal’ has lost all meaning.
Sorry. Not trying to be difficult, just want to know what is being observed.
No need for apologies Molly. It is a challenge to express/explain the ability to spot clarklike females soley via their hair. For me it’s “osmotic” – I can just tell. Which of course helps you not. Your question raises/makes a good point – there are so many people with “different” hairstyles that having a “different” one does not necessarily make you a clark. Perhaps I can better explain it this way: a clarklike female will change her hair style/ hair length and or color with a frequency much greater than either a scottian female or a rogerian female. That is an indicator. We like to change it up. We like variety because we often get bored easily with the same look after awhile. Unlike rogerian woman who, among the 3, can keep the hair on their heads the same for decades!
For we like people (clarks) it is linked to personal expression. There is something within us that finds it particularly self satisfying to be able to express ourselves through our appearance. And keep in mind we do not go out of our way to look weird or different of unique or eccentric (to us we are not), we are merely dressing according to our own inner fashion muse. It can be “combat boots” worn with a mid length skirt slit up the side to reveal lace leggings (one of my all time favorites of years gone by) or deciding that today would be a good day for a modified mohawk (yeah, did that too).
I will think further on how better to “show” you what I mean. Oftentimes it is a combination of things about the person that your brain says “ah-ha, now she’s a clark!” Somtimes it is the hair that finally confirms it. If you look at both a woman’s footwear and her hair you have 2 very strong potential indicators of whether she is a clarklike female.
Now aren’t you having fun? LOL
Actually, I hope you are because it really is useful all this Wakefield Doctrine stuff. I took it for granted for so many years until recently. Now it’s pretty cool to be able to know a lot more about someone you don’t know well (as well as friends and family) just by knowing how they “view the world” . If you have patience (which of course you do being a clark) then I think you can slog through it.:)
Man, I hope I haven’t babbled here! You truly have forced me to think more about the “hair identifier”!!
A quick postscript Molly……in a recent conversation with the Progenitor clark he made a succinct statement regarding clarklike females and their hair. He said it’s not so much about the hair as it is about the head. His words: for female clarks their “head is like jewlery“.
In a way, clarks have an advantage and a disadvantage when it comes to the Wakefield Doctrine in general and (recognising) the three types in particular.
The advantage is we can imagine things even when all evidence is to the contrary, ( I say that there are times when I am invisible to people, on a particular day, I mean that I am invisible, even though I will show up in a photograph), a clark knows what that means without explanation.
A scott and a roger do not.
The disadvantage is our (clarklike) desire for explanations. We like explanations, we like definitions in and of themselves. So there are times we see only the trees and none of the forest.
A long way of saying that you know that there are such things as clarks and scotts and rogers, what you will do with the information is a process not yet complete (within yourself). You know that at this point it is a fun kind of game with some people on the internet (which in and of itself is enough…except you are a clark so, not so much) and it (the Wakefield Doctrine) can do any number of things for you as well…the main thing is…it doesn’t really matter. We all are in this for the fun…(the world fame will follow later, but that is for another Post.
I will say I appreciate even the brief interactions (from you on this thing of ours) as I mentioned somewhere (can’t keep track of where I say things, never mind what I say, lol) that as new people come join us we will have an expanding benefit of others seeing things through the lens of the Doctrine, and just as your first question (“what makes this a story for clarks”), it will spur us on to develop what we do and the fun we have.
So thanks for being around.
Thank you both so much for the added explanations! “Their head is like jewelry,” makes sense. Though, now I have more questions. 🙂
1. Are clark males as eccentric as the females?
Last night I was grocery shopping and two men really stood out from the crowd.
-One wore a white cowboy hat of a unique shape. His white full beard came past his armpits. His red shirt and white jeans were immaculate, though he looked like he had been working. On his feet were moccasins.
-The second wore a cowboy had of the same unique shape, but it was black. His white beard and mustache were neatly trimmed into a long T. His dark hair was pulled back into a pony tail that hung nearly to his waist. He also wore a neat red shirt, pressed blue jeans and packer boots.
2. Clark, you said, “The advantage is we [clarks] can imagine things even when all evidence is to the contrary…”
Is this the eternal optimist? The ability to believe the best about people, even when they are being jerks? Is this really an advantage or are we just delusional?
Or is this the inventive ability, that allows one to come up with things outside of the known and make them work? The ‘doing the impossible’ simply because it never occurred to the individual that it couldn’t be done?
Of course you do. Think about what you first said (“Their head is like jewelry”) “makes sense“. Why do you think it makes sense to you? When you answer yourself the answer is: “because it just does”.
Funny you should inquire about clarks of the male sex as I was asking some of those same type questions with Clark the other day.
Let me skip to No. 2 in your comment. I am thinking you already know the answer(s) but simply need/want confirmation… a type of “real world” validation of things you instinctively know. (Clue: it’s not about optimism.) Here’s what I would like to do – I would love to have both you and Clark “sit down”, with me as guest moderator, for a Post at GirlieOnTheEdge to discuss aspects of the Wakefield as it pertains to we like people (of both sexes). I don’t know that there has ever been this much discussion about clarks with more than 2 clarks at the same time!
Will send a formal invite.
In the meantime, anything you wish to contribute mr. clarkscottroger?
Actually, the reason it makes sense (and this may be over thinking things, but…) is that all the examples given looked complete, despite the lack of jewelry/accessories they wore.
There are some women who can pile on the jewelry
and makeup without looking out of place. And there
is the Channel rule — always remove one accessory
before leaving home, that I have never been able
to follow, because it would usually involve
removing a major piece of the outfit
(and going barefoot is not allowed most places).
The Patroness of clarklike females.
In reply I will use an ‘observation’ that when it is directed at me (way, way too often) makes my head swell up and my face fall*
“…don’t over-think it”
Molly, you know your kind. I could run a list of characteristics (thereby depriving me of content for a future Post), so I will not, except to say, ‘even the accepted difficulty in distinguishing between strong rogers and scotts’ is a hurdle that as you figure out how to figure them out is teaching you about the difference.
You know how we say, ‘hey we won’t tell you which (of three types) you are, it’s up to you to decide’? you know why we say that?
Because you are the type you are and no matter how you think about, or even how much you think you need to learn and understand the Doctrine. The damn beauty of the Doctrine is that it is not about individuals, it is about three ways to experience the world. It is not about likes and dislikes, it is not about wants and desires, it is not even fuckin about ‘having a different opinion on the matter’.
There are people who (according to our little personality theory) are experiencing the world as a clark or as a scott or (even!) as a roger. The fact that we know this is the important thing! It does not change the other person, it is not a reason for the person we are observing to think any differently…if they are a clark or a scott or a roger, then thats what they will be!
What we offer here, is awareness…the awareness of a quality of reality that for whatever reason is turning out to be helpful and kinda fun.
…go figure! ….clark