My homeopath said, “you have always protected her and defended her. And you still are.”
This had me wondering. To defend someone who has done you wrong is a rational act. It’s a cerebral reaction to an emotional hurt. It’s needing to tell yourself over and over again that – “no, that person didn’t actually really intend to harm me.” It’s a protectionism. Because to be the target of malicious intent is one of the most oppressing situations you can find yourself in. In fact, defending someone’s actions even implies taking the moral highground. What you’re actually saying is, “it’s okay, you may hurt me. You really can’t help yourself. I know this even if you don’t know it yourself.”
Note, by the way, how our entire justice system is crafted to fit this mechanism. But it’s twisted, really. And I’m now wondering: as a writer, must one defend a character’s wrongdoing? Or is the writer to react to that character from an emotional place, ie, throw a few rotten eggs at him and publically humiliate him?
You might want to explore the notion that sometimes people act to protect themselves, not with the intention to hurt someone else.
In the August issue of Bon Appétit, the magazine unveils a new technique from its test kitchen: the Top Crust Pie. Billed as an “easier, prettier top crust,” the technique is designed to save the cook the time of rolling out and placing a bottom pie crust.