Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

The reasons why subgenerations like Jones or Y make sense, Marc, is because there has to be a transitional period from one archetypcal generation into another. Most people born from 1957 or so to 1965 or so don't and can't identify fully with either Boomers or Xers, so there has to be something in between to cover the hybrids. Generation Y serves the same purpose--a subgeneration that overlays (not replaces) the end of X and the beginning of Millennials. Most people born between 1978 or 79 and 1982 or 1983 are neither fully Millennials or fully Xer. Like Jonesers, they are hybrids.

So there is no way that taking into account transition zones or hybrid generations (which are not the actual archetypal generations) would mess up S&H four-cylce theory, only clarify it. If you poopoo the whole idea of transition zones, then you also believe that a person born at 11:30 PM on December 31, 1960 is automatically a Prophet and a person born a half hour later is automatically a Nomad.. Now *that* is really silly.

that makes sense... is there any reason you made the X/Mill transition zone merely half the size of the Boom/X one tho? (i think 1977 - 1985 would be more analogous to 1957-1965 than 1978/9 - 1982/3)

but I would just like to see what Anthony and Will have to say about all this...

No reason, and you are correct. I should have expanded Y to include 1977 and go up to at least 1984 or 85.

There is no necessity that these cusps be of equal length. The generations themselves are not all of equal length. For example, I think one has to conclude that the Lost/GI cusp spanned 1901-1911 or something very close to it (and obviously I reject a clear 1901 start for GIs...more like 1906 when GI archetypes began to outnumber Lost ones among the births, and also midway through the cusp. This also roughly corresponds to Anthony's Interbellum Generation which of course is intended as another bridge or cusp generation. But this cusp is roughly ten years long. I believe you find an unquestionably shorter cusp between most or all of the other generations. For example, the Silent/Boomer cusp might span 1940-1946. The Boom/X cusp might span 1958-1964 or something close to it. Regardless, these cusps are a lot shorter than that Lost/GI one. So who knows how the X/Millennial cusp might finally turn out? It may even be along the lines of 1978-1983 as you suggested. There is no necessity that all cusps be of equal length any more than all generations need be of equal length.

You make a valid point; I was merely objecting to the notion that the length of the current Nomad/Hero cusp is only about HALF of the current Prophet/Nomad cusp, when, for example, the LONGEST cusp of all the examined cusps is an 11-year Nomad/Hero cusp... I agree that we can't tell much about how the 1985 cohorts will currently end up (altho we might still be able to analyze the 77s at the moment); anyway by making my Boom/X cusp the HS classes of 1976 - 1982 (not counting grade skips/repeats after about age 10) and the X/Mill cusp the HS classes of 1995 - 2003 I do not even make those cusps the same length! :-)

only time will tell tho... i'm pretty sure that this cusp zone will end up more than 5 years long and less than 15 tho ;-)

I like the way the quotes nest themselves inside each other, the effect is really cool when the original post has been quoted a number of times, as this post here shows.

I guess you could keep doing this into infinity. Don't worry, I won't.

hey--that's funny about Anthony and Will--I noticed also that they have a very similar vibe, those guys definitely have an ax to grind about the hippie types of the 60s--I agree with just about everything you said about them, Number 2 and Anne T.

I don't agree tho about Generation Jones being just a cusp or transition generation--I see it as a full-fledged generation. Maybe I mean that as cultural generation instead of historical generation? I'm not sure if we are all using the word generation in the same way and I'm not sure how this dovetails with S & H, but I do know that Jonesers are as different from Boomers as they are from Xers, and have a personality that is not just a hybrid but is something unique to itself. The way I'm using the word generation inviolves cohorts approximately 11 to 16 years long. I don't buy the idea of generations being 18 to 24 years long anymore--these days that have to be shorter given how quickly culture and change happens--we just don't share as much with people that are born eg 20 years before or after us.

Maybe there is a way to consider things like Generation Jones without contradicting S&H. Can we divide each generation into perhaps four fragments (or more)? We commonly divide generations into first wave and last wave, but these fragments do not reconcile with Generation Jones, for example. Let's set aside the old "first wave/last wave" routine and try to isolate distinct fragments within each generation, based upon experience and feeling of unity. If this works, then two to four fragments spanning late Boom and early X can be combined to represent anybody's version of Generation Jones without contradicting S&H.

Let me take a look at the various Generation Jones and Buster spans and see what they imply. If I am not mistaken, one version of Generation Jones spans the years 1954 to 1968. I believe Anthony's Busters span 1958 to 1968 (and if I get any of these wrong, somebody correct me). Other versions span 1958 to 1964, if I am not mistaken. If I have this right, then we have four pivotal (or shift) years within the whole span in question: 1954, 1958, 1961, and 1964.

Theoretically, people born between 1954 and 1958 would naturally identify with each other and see a (small?) difference between themselves and people born in either 1953 or 1959. People born between 1958 and 1961 would naturally identify with each other and see a (small?) difference between themselves and people born in either 1957 or 1962. (Note that I am linking generations through a common year, 1958 in this case, so as to allow people in a pivotal year to go either way, rather than bind them artificially and unrealistically based upon birth before or after New Year's.) People born between 1961 and 1964 ought to identify with each other and see a (small?) difference between themselves and people born in either 1960 or 1965. People born between 1964 and 1968 ought to identify with each other and see a (small?) difference between themselves and people born in either 1963 or 1969.

If there is anything to the various Generation Jones theories, then people ought to agree as to the validity of these pivotal years which turn up in the various theories. A given Jones or Buster theory would incorporate any number of the four fragments from late Boom and early X shown above. Then again, if people cannot agree on the pivotal years or mini-spans, then this discussion really goes nowhere.

I cannot gauge any of the pivotal years from the 1950s because it is really beyond my experience. The only thing I noted in my own experience is that there was a difference between the high school classes of '81 and '82. I saw the last gasp of Awakening attitude/outlook, in dress and/or in politics, exhibited by a small minority in the class of '81. The class of '82 seemed to display an umistakable "conservative" shift with the final obliteration of any vestigial remnants of the Awakening. The class of '81 was composed of '62 and '63 cohorts. The class of '82 was composed of '63 and '64 cohorts. By my reckoning, 1963 would appear to be a pivotal year where some cohorts related to those who came immediately before and others with those who came immediately after. But if 1964 is a more commonly stated boundary year, then I suppose it is close enough.

People of different ages from the late Boom and early X ought to provide the boundaries they perceived in their own experience. Will similarly aged cohorts agree that there was a (small?) shift around 1954? Will similarly aged cohorts agree that there was a (small?) shift around 1957 or 1958? Will similarly aged cohorts agree that there was a (small?) shift around 1960 or 1961? Will similarly aged cohorts agree that there was a (small?) shift around 1963 or 1964? Will similarly aged cohorts agree that there was a (small?) shift around 1968? If there is unanimity about these pivotal years, then there ought to be something to this. On the other hand, if people are all over the map, then this is really pointless.

If there is anything to this, then we ought to get fragments or mini-spans as follows:


1954(?) to (1957 or 1958)

(1957 or 1958) to (1960 or 1961)

(1960 or 1961) to (1963 or 1964)

(1963 or 1964) to 1968(?)


And if there is anything to this, we can continue before and after. For example, Justin '79 indicates that he relates closely to those born between 1976 and 1980 or 1981. If there is agreement among his similarly aged cohorts, then that is a definite fragment or mini-span right there. To finish out the Generation X picture, do all born between roughly 1968 and roughly 1976 relate closely to each other? Or do the relevant cohorts perceive yet another shift somewhere in the middle of that span?

If there is anything to this, then people can link definite fragments, spans, or waves within generations, consecutively, and create Generation Jones or Baby Busters or whatever else with reason. If one version incorporates a mini-span (or -spans) which another does not, then obviously different things are being focused upon with the different versions. But let us see if there are indeed pivotal shift years upon which everybody agrees. Please describe the boundaries you perceived in your own experience.

I identify best with 1986-1990, but I don't know if someone from 1990 would identify with 1986 and vice-versa, but I, as an '87 cohort, identify with the range.

Looks like the Stoner may actually be onto something... I don't really know about the Boom/X splits all too well (not being close to that border) but on the X/Mill side of things you can start with Justin's wave
(Class of 94 - Class of 98) followed by mine (Class of 99 - Class of 03) and then Alex's (Class of 04 - Class of 08) even tho boundaries might shift by a year or so from place to place...

(a 77-85 cusp gen would begin with the second year of Justin's wave and end with the last year of mine; I doubt that this is identical to the Boom/X split because none of the 58ers on this board feel a generational connection to the 57ers)

but possible guesses for boom/x cusp splits: 1957|8, 1960|1, early|late 1964?

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

I identify best with 1986-1990, but I don't know if someone from 1990 would identify with 1986 and vice-versa, but I, as an '87 cohort, identify with the range.

Good job, Alex. William perceives a shift around 1986 as well, does he not? Or does he use 1987?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

I identify best with 1986-1990, but I don't know if someone from 1990 would identify with 1986 and vice-versa, but I, as an '87 cohort, identify with the range.

Good job, Alex. William perceives a shift around 1986 as well, does he not? Or does he use 1987?

i used to use 86|87 as the cutoff... after all, birth rates go down one last time in 1986 before skyrocketing up towards the four million level, an 86 cohort would be a "teen of the nineties" by turning 13 sometime in 1999, and an 86 cohort (unlike an 87 cohort) would likely remember at least one thing from the 80s - and it was hard to see my brother, born in 86, as being in a different wave

but looking at things more closely it seems like my brother's Class of 2004 is the start of something different - he has a few nomadic traits left over but he is MUCH more facile with technology (MP3s, napster, etc) than I am and his friends/hockey teammates are just so millie... one time one of them was assigned to a hotel room by himself (the rest of the team was in the same hotel) and he didn't know what the minibar was so he invited the team and they helped themselves to some snacks but - get this - NOT the alcoholic beverages (they were 15 at the time)!!!; this sounds a lot like Alex's not wanting to drink alcohol while he's a teen...

actually i have discussed this at length with Alex; the conclusion we reached was that in districts where elementary schools went up to 4th grade, his wave started with the class of 05, if they went up to 5th it was the class of 04, and if they went up to 6th it was the class of 03 (in all three cases it was the 1st class to have the internet in ES)

Originally Posted by Number Two

(Class of 94 - Class of 98) followed by mine (Class of 99 - Class of 03) and then Alex's (Class of 04 - Class of 08) even tho boundaries might shift by a year or so from place to place...

(a 77-85 cusp gen would begin with the second year of Justin's wave and end with the last year of mine; I doubt that this is identical to the Boom/X split because none of the 58ers on this board feel a generational connection to the 57ers)

Are you using '77 births for your class of '94? I would think that the class of '94 was generally made up of late '75 and early '76 cohorts. If so, then this pretty closely matches what Justin offered.

Class of '98, in most instances, would be '79 and '80 cohorts. This was Justin's class. I cannot remember if he used '80 or '81 as the shift year. I think '80.

Class of '99 would be '80 and '81 cohorts (most often). You are starting the next fragment with this one and I am guessing that this agrees with Justin's claim.

Class of '03 would be '84 and '85 cohorts. Class of '04 would be '85 and '86 cohorts. It looks like you are identifying 1985 as a pivotal year. Alex gave 1986 but this is close. If he had the class of '04 in mind, then you are in complete agreement.

Class of '08 would be '89 and '90 cohorts. Alex gave 1990. Close, but I would think that it is difficult to sort these young kids accurately until they are a little older.


I think you and Justin agree that 1980 was a pivotal year, but you and Alex would have to sort out 1985 and 1986. We need Justin to clarify that he had the Class of '94 in mind when he provided 1976.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Alex gave 1986 but this is close. If he had the class of '04 in mind, then you are in complete agreement.

Class of '08 would be '89 and '90 cohorts. Alex gave 1990. Close, but I would think that it is difficult to sort these young kids accurately until they are a little older.

I did mean the class of '04 for 1986. I was using 1990 for the class of 2008, because my cousin is in that class and she seems sort of like people in my wave, but also sort of like her brother in the class of 2010, so I think that is a division as well. They both go to a district with elementary ending in 4th grade (my old school). Remember that the class of '08 is in 7th grade already next year, and the last time I talked to my cousin she talked about all the things she was signing up for, too.

Fascinating, all this theorizing about generational boundaries. But it all really boils down to opinions. We can number crunch all we want, but after a while even that gets dull. It's easy to forget we are people, not a "type" determined by some birthyear.

I have a real life I need to spend more time tending to, and I spend far too much time here. You're all great people and I love this site, but it's not going to put money in the bank or food on the table. I have to get focused.

I am not going to stop coming here, but I need to cut down on my time spent here, so I need to post less for a while. I have to get busy with my life instead of just talking about it all the time.

Carry on.

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Alex gave 1986 but this is close. If he had the class of '04 in mind, then you are in complete agreement.

Class of '08 would be '89 and '90 cohorts. Alex gave 1990. Close, but I would think that it is difficult to sort these young kids accurately until they are a little older.

I did mean the class of '04 for 1986. I was using 1990 for the class of 2008, because my cousin is in that class and she seems sort of like people in my wave, but also sort of like her brother in the class of 2010, so I think that is a division as well. They both go to a district with elementary ending in 4th grade (my old school). Remember that the class of '08 is in 7th grade already next year, and the last time I talked to my cousin she talked about all the things she was signing up for, too.

Does anyone have an vague idea what the average cutoff point for classes is? In NY and Florida, where I went to school, it's alsways been Dec. 31/Jan. 1, so everyone in a class (unless they skipped a grade or were held back) were born in the same year. But I guess it's different in a lot of other areas.

I think that there is no division after 1982 until 1992, the last year of my Generation "Y". Kids born in 1992 probably (although there are obviously many exceptions) remember a time when they did not have internet access (although most pundits claim that I had AOL in my crib). Thus the start of my subgen, until 1999 when Generation "Z" begins with those who don't remember "9-11".

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Fascinating, all this theorizing about generational boundaries. But it all really boils down to opinions. We can number crunch all we want, but after a while even that gets dull. It's easy to forget we are people, not a "type" determined by some birthyear.

I have a real life I need to spend more time tending to, and I spend far too much time here. You're all great people and I love this site, but it's not going to put money in the bank or food on the table. I have to get focused.

I am not going to stop coming here, but I need to cut down on my time spent here, so I need to post less for a while. I have to get busy with my life instead of just talking about it all the time.

Carry on.

Get real ;-); we all know you'll be back with a vengeance within a few days; and how do i know this, you may ask?

if late 3T (or early 4T) life was even HALF as enjoyable, fulfilling, and satisfying as it's cracked up to be... why would any of us "psycho amateur historians" make even 50 posts to this board?

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Fascinating, all this theorizing about generational boundaries. But it all really boils down to opinions. We can number crunch all we want, but after a while even that gets dull. It's easy to forget we are people, not a "type" determined by some birthyear.

I have a real life I need to spend more time tending to, and I spend far too much time here. You're all great people and I love this site, but it's not going to put money in the bank or food on the table. I have to get focused.

I am not going to stop coming here, but I need to cut down on my time spent here, so I need to post less for a while. I have to get busy with my life instead of just talking about it all the time.

Carry on.

Get real ;-); we all know you'll be back with a vengeance within a few days; and how do i know this, you may ask?

if late 3T (or early 4T) life was even HALF as enjoyable, fulfilling, and satisfying as it's cracked up to be... why would any of us "psycho amateur historians" make even 50 posts to this board?

William, shame on you! I think you are getting me confused with Justin '79. I never said I was leaving, just cutting back on my time here. You know how addictive this site is!

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Fascinating, all this theorizing about generational boundaries. But it all really boils down to opinions. We can number crunch all we want, but after a while even that gets dull. It's easy to forget we are people, not a "type" determined by some birthyear.

I have a real life I need to spend more time tending to, and I spend far too much time here. You're all great people and I love this site, but it's not going to put money in the bank or food on the table. I have to get focused.

I am not going to stop coming here, but I need to cut down on my time spent here, so I need to post less for a while. I have to get busy with my life instead of just talking about it all the time.

Carry on.

Get real ;-); we all know you'll be back with a vengeance within a few days; and how do i know this, you may ask?

if late 3T (or early 4T) life was even HALF as enjoyable, fulfilling, and satisfying as it's cracked up to be... why would any of us "psycho amateur historians" make even 50 posts to this board?

William, shame on you! I think you are getting me confused with Justin '79. I never said I was leaving, just cutting back on my time here. You know how addictive this site is!

you always say you'll cut back on your time here; Justin always says he'll leave, but neither actually do after more than a few days (altho Justin DID cut back dramatically lately, so maybe you might end up doing the same...); but I DEFINITELY agree with you about the addictiveness of this site

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Fascinating, all this theorizing about generational boundaries. But it all really boils down to opinions. We can number crunch all we want, but after a while even that gets dull. It's easy to forget we are people, not a "type" determined by some birthyear.

I have a real life I need to spend more time tending to, and I spend far too much time here. You're all great people and I love this site, but it's not going to put money in the bank or food on the table. I have to get focused.

I am not going to stop coming here, but I need to cut down on my time spent here, so I need to post less for a while. I have to get busy with my life instead of just talking about it all the time.

Carry on.

Get real ;-); we all know you'll be back with a vengeance within a few days; and how do i know this, you may ask?

if late 3T (or early 4T) life was even HALF as enjoyable, fulfilling, and satisfying as it's cracked up to be... why would any of us "psycho amateur historians" make even 50 posts to this board?

William, shame on you! I think you are getting me confused with Justin '79. I never said I was leaving, just cutting back on my time here. You know how addictive this site is!

you always say you'll cut back on your time here; Justin always says he'll leave, but neither actually do after more than a few days (altho Justin DID cut back dramatically lately, so maybe you might end up doing the same...); but I DEFINITELY agree with you about the addictiveness of this site

Actually, I am writing a time travel story about an Xer who suddenly finds himself living in the Awakening and having to adjust to having Boomers as peers and a 2T world. (is this an Xer version of hell or what?)
I've been promising myself to work on this for months, and am finally getting around to actually doing it. I think it's a good story, and I'm having a blast writing it, as you can imagine. This site is a great education. I would like to write a whole series of stories, or even a novel, with a generational theme or themes.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

To finish out the Generation X picture, do all born between roughly 1968 and roughly 1976 relate closely to each other? Or do the relevant cohorts perceive yet another shift somewhere in the middle of that span?

.

I do dislike this topic. I think the generations will work themselves out as time moves on. But, I just can't help myself...

All this is personal opinion. It's based on nothing but personal experience.

I feel that the gap starts with the 1978 group. They were much more perky, and gung-ho about things. Did everything together. Kinda loud too.

Going the other way, I notice that around 1960-1962 relating becomes more difficult. The 1964-1965 group is very comfortable to me. Make of that what you will.

Originally Posted by "Stonewall Patton

People of different ages from the late Boom and early X ought to provide the boundaries they perceived in their own experience.

Okay. But I'm going to use graduation years rather than birth years, seeing as how my experience was all warped by skipping a grade and moving up to the class of 1978.

Disclaimer: this analysis is based on my memories of attending a moderately large urban high school in the Midwest. I should also add that high school was only three years back in those days.

The class of 1976 was very Boomer. A lot of prophet-type characters; the editor of the school paper carried on a continuous political debate with another guy right in the pages of the paper. The class was very conscious of being the "bicentennial" class (big patriotic theme for the yearbook, for instance).

The class of 1977 seemed to be a recessive class. Still Boomer, but changing its tone a little. Didn't have the "spirit of '76" going for it.

My 1978 class (full of late 1959 and early 1960 cohorts) was probably the last full-blown Boomer class. Very successful in the classroom as well as in athletics, musical competitions, etc.

1979 was a slight step down from '78.

1980 saw some real Xer/slacker types starting to take hold.

Conclusion: Although in some ways I admired the older classes, they seemed to be different kinds of creatures. I was pretty proud of my own class (okay, I'm biased :-)), and I found myself feeling like a mentor to those behind me. So I guess I identified more with anyone born in 1960 to about 1963. Then we got into my brother's cohort ('64) which was much more core Xer.

this is a test post.
Sorry about the interruption

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Fascinating, all this theorizing about generational boundaries. But it all really boils down to opinions. We can number crunch all we want, but after a while even that gets dull. It's easy to forget we are people, not a "type" determined by some birthyear.

I have a real life I need to spend more time tending to, and I spend far too much time here. You're all great people and I love this site, but it's not going to put money in the bank or food on the table. I have to get focused.

I am not going to stop coming here, but I need to cut down on my time spent here, so I need to post less for a while. I have to get busy with my life instead of just talking about it all the time.

Carry on.

Get real ;-); we all know you'll be back with a vengeance within a few days; and how do i know this, you may ask?

if late 3T (or early 4T) life was even HALF as enjoyable, fulfilling, and satisfying as it's cracked up to be... why would any of us "psycho amateur historians" make even 50 posts to this board?

William, shame on you! I think you are getting me confused with Justin '79. I never said I was leaving, just cutting back on my time here. You know how addictive this site is!

you always say you'll cut back on your time here; Justin always says he'll leave, but neither actually do after more than a few days (altho Justin DID cut back dramatically lately, so maybe you might end up doing the same...); but I DEFINITELY agree with you about the addictiveness of this site

Actually, I am writing a time travel story about an Xer who suddenly finds himself living in the Awakening and having to adjust to having Boomers as peers and a 2T world. (is this an Xer version of hell or what?)
I've been promising myself to work on this for months, and am finally getting around to actually doing it. I think it's a good story, and I'm having a blast writing it, as you can imagine. This site is a great education. I would like to write a whole series of stories, or even a novel, with a generational theme or themes.

sounds like a great idea for a story, but it seems (to me at least) like an Xer version of hell would be more like a 40-something Xer (in the future) moved into the Unraveling (in a year like 1992) with middle-aged Boomers as peers...

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

The class of 1976 was very Boomer. A lot of prophet-type characters; the editor of the school paper carried on a continuous political debate with another guy right in the pages of the paper.

So this would typically be '57 and '58 cohorts.

The class of 1977 seemed to be a recessive class. Still Boomer, but changing its tone a little.

It sounds like you might be identifying a shift here given the changing tone you reference. The Class of '77 would be '58 and '59 cohorts. It sounds like '57 cohorts were probably the last with the previous "tone" and early '58 cohorts lump with them by association through the Class of '77. Late '58 cohorts and early '59 chorts (Class of '77) began a new generational "fragment." So 1958 would be a pivotal year where some cohorts went with the earlier generational fragment and others with the later one. This would corroborate the repeated references to 1958 as a pivotal year in many different Jones/Buster schemes.

My 1978 class (full of late 1959 and early 1960 cohorts) was probably the last full-blown Boomer class. Very successful in the classroom as well as in athletics, musical competitions, etc.

1979 was a slight step down from '78.

Class of '79 ('60 and '61 cohorts) was still part of the fragment commencing with 1958, it sounds like.

1980 saw some real Xer/slacker types starting to take hold.

Do you mean that there was a distinct shift with the Class of 1980? If so, then 1961 would appear to be another pivotal year since some '61 cohorts went with those who came before and others went with those who went after.

Conclusion: Although in some ways I admired the older classes, they seemed to be different kinds of creatures. I was pretty proud of my own class (okay, I'm biased :-)), and I found myself feeling like a mentor to those behind me. So I guess I identified more with anyone born in 1960 to about 1963. Then we got into my brother's cohort ('64) which was much more core Xer.

Here you actually use 1960 rather than 1961. But you do reaffirm another shift between 1963 and 1964. So I think Kiff is providing the following fragments:

1958 - (1960 or 1961)

(1960 or 1961) - (1963 or 1964)

Is it possible that there was no real change about 1960 or 1961? In other words, might the generational fragment beginning about 1958 have continued through 1964 or 1964, unbroken, such that '62 and '63 cohorts still relate closely to '58 cohorts? S&H used 1961 as something of a compromise or average so it is possible that no real boundary falls in there. If no distinct shift occurred about 1960 or 1961 then those who claim that there is a short intergenerational span belonging to neither of the generations it borders may be vindicated.

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Number Two

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Fascinating, all this theorizing about generational boundaries. But it all really boils down to opinions. We can number crunch all we want, but after a while even that gets dull. It's easy to forget we are people, not a "type" determined by some birthyear.

I have a real life I need to spend more time tending to, and I spend far too much time here. You're all great people and I love this site, but it's not going to put money in the bank or food on the table. I have to get focused.

I am not going to stop coming here, but I need to cut down on my time spent here, so I need to post less for a while. I have to get busy with my life instead of just talking about it all the time.

Carry on.

Get real ;-); we all know you'll be back with a vengeance within a few days; and how do i know this, you may ask?

if late 3T (or early 4T) life was even HALF as enjoyable, fulfilling, and satisfying as it's cracked up to be... why would any of us "psycho amateur historians" make even 50 posts to this board?

William, shame on you! I think you are getting me confused with Justin '79. I never said I was leaving, just cutting back on my time here. You know how addictive this site is!

you always say you'll cut back on your time here; Justin always says he'll leave, but neither actually do after more than a few days (altho Justin DID cut back dramatically lately, so maybe you might end up doing the same...); but I DEFINITELY agree with you about the addictiveness of this site

Actually, I am writing a time travel story about an Xer who suddenly finds himself living in the Awakening and having to adjust to having Boomers as peers and a 2T world. (is this an Xer version of hell or what?)
I've been promising myself to work on this for months, and am finally getting around to actually doing it. I think it's a good story, and I'm having a blast writing it, as you can imagine. This site is a great education. I would like to write a whole series of stories, or even a novel, with a generational theme or themes.

sounds like a great idea for a story, but it seems (to me at least) like an Xer version of hell would be more like a 40-something Xer (in the future) moved into the Unraveling (in a year like 1992) with middle-aged Boomers as peers...

That's pretty much what already happened. The first Xers became 40somethings at the end of the 3T (which we may still even be in) and certainly have middle aged Boomers as peers. If you're referring to a late wave Xer, they won't be 40somethings until early in the next High (if we ever get to that point), but somehow that doesn't seem like it would make for a very interesting story.

It would be fun to transport a mid-late wave Xer into the next Awakening. You could do this with a Joneser or early wave Xer too, but they would be quite old, if not dead, by then (though I suppose it's entirely possible the human lifespan may be extended by then--which gets us into an another topic altogether, but I don't wish to write "hard" sci-fi).

The story I wrote takes place during the height of the disco era, 1979 to be exact. I chose this year because it was a pivotal year in mnay ways, and because I have such clear memories of it (though I had to do a little research to jog my memory of newsworthy events of the time). The protagonist is a 1979 cohort (the character, Josh, is NOT anyone on this board, or anyone I know) who wakes up into a 1979 world (there is a reason for this but I dare not give it away) But you can imagine the various weird timewarp situations he gets himself into, how difficult is is at first to be taken seriously by his new late-Boomer peers, how primitive the 1979 world seems compared with today, and at the same time, how 1979 was really the beginning of many things that exist today that had not existed before.

That sounds like a great story Susan. I'd buy it. Let me know when the paperback is out! :lol:

Originally Posted by justmom

That sounds like a great story Susan. I'd buy it. Let me know when the paperback is out! :lol:

well, right now it's about 30 typewritten pages, a long short story, or maybe a mini-novel. But it wouldn't be hard at all to turn this story into a novel. The basic plot would not have to change, but I could add more weird little time-warpy things and comparisions between now and then. That part is the most fun anyway. Trying to keep it somewhat short, I couldn't add all I would have liked to.

Thanks for your faith in me! It sure would be nice to see a nice fat royalty check from a publisher, though that is not the reason I write.

Originally Posted by Anne T.

I've noticed the obvious similarities between Anthony and Will as well. My take is that both are arguing their positions from a primarily personal emotional position rather than one grounded in general historical facts.

Wow. You guys tend to take this whole thing way too seriously. I mean you talk about giving evidence and I wonder how do you give evidence to a thing like a generation without using analagy, personal experience or hear say. Unless you survey each and every cohort alive and get responses from them, you don't have a statistical basis to evaluate generations. You guys extrapolate what you think so-and-so historical figure must have identified without knowing if you are correct because they are dead. You can come up with some guidelines by studying history but you can't say for certainity what generation George Washington was in.

As far as being emotional, I would remind you that we were raised by the Silent generation who most respected how we felt about things and so we tend to express ourselves emotionally. Whatever.

Will

Originally Posted by wrstrutts

Originally Posted by Anne T.

I've noticed the obvious similarities between Anthony and Will as well. My take is that both are arguing their positions from a primarily personal emotional position rather than one grounded in general historical facts.

Wow. You guys tend to take this whole thing way too seriously. I mean you talk about giving evidence and I wonder how do you give evidence to a thing like a generation without using analagy, personal experience or hear say. Unless you survey each and every cohort alive and get responses from them, you don't have a statistical basis to evaluate generations. You guys extrapolate what you think so-and-so historical figure must have identified without knowing if you are correct because they are dead. You can come up with some guidelines by studying history but you can't say for certainity what generation George Washington was in.

As far as being emotional, I would remind you that we were raised by the Silent generation who most respected how we felt about things and so we tend to express ourselves emotionally. Whatever.

Will

That's one of the reasons I love your generation so much.