Thank you very much. I read “Striptease,” which I thought was very funny. I also read “Lucky You.”
Ironically, Carl Hiaasen’s brother Rob was a writer in Maryland who died in a mass shooting at his newspaper job.
So I read the book (Field Notes of an Autistic Paramedic by Kevin Levites), on my computer at home and otherwise on my phone whenever I’ve had a few minutes to spare. It’s a collection of anecdotes describing a range of situations and inter-human interactions as the author have experienced them, and how his autism affects his ability or inability to put himself in control of the situation, both in a good way, a bad way, and in amusing ways. There are some examples where the autism has helped him, other situations where it has not. The situations described range from everyday encounters via the fights he’s had against ignorance and prejudice and to how some people are accepting him and liking him for who he is. Some of the situations highlight bigotry and double standards that actors in the ER field employ when approaching people that need medical help, while others are downright bizarre (especially one in particular where the plot could fit well in a Carl Hiaasen book of slapstick humour). In short, the book is a short crash course of insight into the ignorance, resistance, misunderstanding, bigotry, and outright hostility that an autistic person meets while just trying to fit in and do a good job.
For me the book provides some valuable insight, both in genereral, and in the form of indirect advise on how to better meet a person I have to relate to that is undiagnosed, but where there is a good chance that this person is somewhere on the spectrum.
As far as I understand it, it’s a self-published book. As such, a minor gripe is that it could have benefited from a better a copy-editing process, especially typographically, but also in a small handful of paragraphs where the attention jumps back and forth, making them somewhat difficult to follow. But that is only a minor point for me.
Conclusion: I will recommend this book to all those who are interested.
5 Likes
Thank you very, very much.
1 Like
I read Kevin Levites’ book Field Notes of an Autistic Paramedic today and thoroughly enjoyed it. Humorous, poignant, sad, disturbing, all accurate descriptions. I found it to be a great example of perseverance in the face of stupidity and insensitivity, with some spontaneous hilarity thrown in for good measure.
I recommend to any and all who care to understand the importance of perspective.
5 Likes
Thank you very, very much. It was my first book, although I’ve had a lot of my science fiction, horror, a murder mystery, and some essays published in several magazines.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read it and commenting on it at length.
2 Likes
I feel a bit like a Luddite since I seem to be the only one who got a hard copy. I hadn’t considered getting the Kindle Unlimited since I have access to the local libraries ebooks and I’m up to my eyeballs in ebooks to read. An abundance of riches 
. Your book has arrived and I really enjoyed it. It was much more of an emotional roller coaster than I was expecting, and sometimes out of my comfort zone. I consider that a good thing since it definitely kept my interest and I feel I learned somethings. Are you still writing? Your name searched on ebay turns up some “Analog Science Fiction and Fact” magazines, is that where your Scifi strories are published? I used to be quite a Scifi fan with Arthur C. Clarke one of my favorites.
1 Like
Thank you very much. I’ve had short stories and letters in Analog, an essay in The Autism Files in the U.K., a murder mystery in Noir Nation, two horror short stories in Blood Moon Rising, an essay in Skeptic Magazine, several letters and an essay in Skeptical Inquirer, and a few other pieces.
I was always a fan of Clarke, and I’ve also read much of Asimov’s work, Heinlein, Frank Herbert, James Gunn, Larry Niven, Ursula K. LeGuinn, and (I am profoundly shamed to admit) Marion Zimmer Bradley . . . among several others.
Thank you again for reading my book.
Ah, some of my favorites. Marion Zimmer Bradley is a guilty pleasure. She was the first author I thought to look up on the internet back in 1999. The reason it sticks in my mind is because it turned out to be the day she died. Not only that, as you likely know, she has some dark scandals that I first learned of then. If I was the superstitious type. . .
1 Like
Yes, Bradley is a guilty pleasure.
She started sexually molesting her own daughter when she was 3 years old, and the abuse continued until she was around 13.
Bradley’s husband (Walter Breen) molested hundreds of little boys, and Bradley helped him get access to them.
This scandal was a little personal with me, as I often submitted my early work to her magazine, and while she never bought any of my work, her advice on writing was spot-on, and helped me get published.
Her letters were insightful and very helpful . . . and these letters were some of my most treasured keepsakes. I had them framed and hanging on the wall near my desk where I do my writing.
When I found out that she was a sick paedophile, I threw up until I had the dry heaves . . . and I burned her letters in the backyard barbeque. I also had nightmares for weeks afterward, as I am an ex-paramedic with a lot of experience treating the victims of child molestors.
It still makes me very ill when I think of my earlier sales coming from an association with a sick, nasty, disgusting paedophile.
2 Likes
Oh wow, I’m sorry to hear that. It’s my understanding that many writers considered her a mentor and it was quite a shock to the community.
1 Like
Hi Kevin,
I took the time to read your book, twice…a) because it is very readable, b) because I was interested in your take on the experiences, bearing in mind your comments in these forums.
It is obvious that you, as a writer, have a unique style. Influenced, no doubt, by your autism, it is direct, frank, and lacks the twee, ‘wholesome’ saccharine humor that so often accompanies such memoirs. Think of “Call the midwife” or that Yorkshire vet series. You are much more gritty and real. I appreciated that.
The religious underpinning of the conflicts was very apparent, if real, and not an ascribed theme of your journey then the U.S.A is in even bigger trouble than I could have thought.
I did think that maybe, like so many autistic creatives you had reached the conclusion and were busy making the facts fit your insular narrative. On my second read through I discounted that, having looked up some other sources about the healthcare ethos in the U.S.A.
I hope the writing was a cathartic experience and rid you of the worst of your demons. You deserve that at least.
Well done Kevin, if you write a sequel I shall buy.
3 Likes
Thank you very much for reading my book. It was a cathartic experience and–if not ridding me of my demons–at least help me put them in a cage.
Confronting these demons via my book was certainly helpful in addressing my alcoholism, flashbacks, and my post-traumatic stress disorder.
Another point is that I will be finished (if all goes well) with nursing school by Friday, and a lot of the religious issues described in the book don’t exist anymore, as the Internet “cancel culture” has actually fixed a lot of things, and has made institutions more focused on public relations. A lot of the garbage still exists, but there seems to be much less of it.
In any case, thank you again.
3 Likes
Considering that I’m a european in Europe, the following is speculation on my side. That disclaimer aside, I doubt that the issues don’t exist anymore among the rabidly religious. Rather, I suspect they have merely been subdued, for the time being. Just like some subdued racism seemed to make a “comeback” during the precidency of the orange guy. It wasn’t gone, it was just hiding in the sewers, waiting for an opportunity to resurface. You said it yourself:
A lot of the garbage still exists, but there seems to be much less of it.
I guess the key word here is “seems”. It seemed like the right to abortion was safe in the US, but in the turmoil created by the Orange, the forced birthers found the time was right, and rose again.
But of course, subdued religious hypocrisy in the medical field is arguably better than open religious hypocrisy.
2 Likes
I utterly love your choice of words, and I agree with you.
And yes, the religious hypocrisy interferes with patient care. I’ve been excoriated because I treat the partner of a gay or lesbian patient like a spouse, under the theory that a paramedic should be nonjudgmental . . . and I’m often told that I “lack common sense.”
As an example, see news story below:
In summary, a lesbian couple was together for 18 years, and they had several children. During a family vacation to Florida, Lisa Pond (one of the partners) had an artery burst deep in her brain, and ended up on life support at Jackson Memorial Hospital (where I often delivered patients, and did clinical hours for school).
The hospital would not let the lesbian partner visit because “Florida is an anti-gay state,” and it’s against policy. This is despite the partner furnishing paperwork for a durable power of attorney.
So, this woman died alone without a final visit from her partner and/or her children because Florida is an anti-gay state.
I was beyond angry when I heard about it, as I’ve seen shit like this all the time.
On one occasion, I argue that–possibly–as many as 11 people died because of this garbage. I ran a 911 call on a man who had a horrible motorcycle accident with bad head injuries. He was on life support, and the hospital refused to allow the partner to visit, as this patient’s relatives prohibited it.
Well . . . it turns out that the partner had durable power of attorney, and he was so angry that he–in a form of misplaced retaliation combined with overwhelming grief–denied permission for the hospital to harvest his partner’s organs and tissues for transplant.
And this probably cost lots of lives, as 1 brain dead person on life support can save up to 11 or 12 people, and usually less than 10% of people who need transplants actually get them.
Things like this are what has made me so antagonistic toward organized religion despite having many Jewish beliefs.
Please see below:
The whole MAGA motto of Make America Great Again means they want to go back to a time when racism, homophobia, and misogyny were the rule and they are doing their best to see that it happens. Trump has emboldened them and they have been chipping away at the gains minorities, gays, and women have made over the years.
4 Likes
Interviewers have asked maga folks when was the U.S. great. The answers run the gamut from the 1700 through the 1950s. When asked about the treatment of marginalized groups during those times, they all say, “uh, ya, except that.” But I don’t think they are sincere. I think most of them actually want only white males to overtly be in complete power. It makes me so scared for my grandchildren.
5 Likes
They want to return to a fiction version of the past.
4 Likes
I think many people seem to see the past through rose-colored glasses . . . I often do.
I like the idea of the simplicity of the 1950s. No Internet, people were more social . . . but then we had racism, school prayer, paranoia toward Communism, and so forth.
We often only remember the “good parts.”
1 Like
Since I just read a thread and OP by a theist using some logical fallacies, it sees opportune to highlight them here:
It was the old atheists make claims and hold beliefs, thus atheism is a belief nonsense.
- Atheists are people, they hold beliefs, but none od them hold any belief in any deity or deities.
- Atheism is a word that describes anyone who doesn’t hold any belief in any deity or deities, and this of course would necessarily include atheists who hold a belief no deity exists.
- Trying to equate atheists with atheism is a false equivalence fallacy.
"A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called “comparing apples and oranges.”
Despite the fact this argument seems very much in vogue among religious apologists, it is a flawed and poorly reasoned irrational argument.
1 Like
Here’s a very obvious special pleading fallacy from Sherloc:
One assumes he has a good reason to imply a) there is any objective evidence (since he failed over many months to offer any, but also b) why would we need a special method for god claims? Obviously here again he failed to ever address this assumption that his beliefs unlike all others, are beyond understanding, one assumes he thinks he understands the evidence, yet again failed to explain his method, demonstrating only irrational argument and subjective bias.
Moreover he goes on to claim that the only group who don’t / can’t understand the evidence for a deity, are those who don’t believe in one, so another very obvious and hilarious No true Scotsman fallacy as well.
Here we see Sherlock again using a false equivalence, it is the same tired old canard, but in a nutshell, atheists make claims and hold beliefs, thus their lack of belief in any deity or deities is a belief. He the tries to expand that flawed and irrational claim into a “belief system”. Again the irrational and flawed reasoning equates atheism with atheists or what some atheisms say or claim. When @Old_man_shouts_at_cl points out that the definition is in any dictionary, he uses rhetoric by claiming there are many contradictory definitions, which is another false equivalence, as those do not reflect common usage, it is also very disingenuous as they are not contradictory, but just offer a less complete definition that unsurprisingly only defines atheism in the narrow way Sherlock wants to dishonestly label all atheists, the definition in common usage would include all atheists in any of the definitions he offered, a fact he never honestly addressed, and again quelle surprise.
Note the emboldened opening, so we are almost warned right out of the gate that what we are about to get is subjective rhetoric, he doesn’t disappoint, and again produces a false equivalence fallacy, this time between naturalism and atheism.
2 Likes