This Voice is Borrowed

This voice is borrowed.  The first murmur of the voice was whispered to me through Douglas Coupland’s book, Life After God.  The stories were short, the descriptions sweet, and there were even pictures - naturally I was seduced, and found something meaningful where I had initially sought idle distraction.  It was to be my introduction to the Melancholic.  With each story he told I felt involved more than I had with any book, his characters were wrestling with feelings I harbored beneath the surface of my awareness.  Glibly fashioned in shape of a pocket bible, it became, in its own way, a path to personal revelation.  I didn’t know what to do with this awareness, but it percolated irrespective of my ability to contain it.  In the end, the fictional Coupland confesses he needs God and, in that stroke, subverts even the magnanimous identity owed the Melancholic of being the resister of all social mores.  I never thought about God much before reading that book, and in years to come I would read from many soon-to-be heroes of mine, Wittgenstein, Dostoevsky, Dylan, this same resignation to the Almighty.  This voice gives into that hesitation, to fall neither toward nor away entirely.   

Probably too early in my development as a human being let alone as any kind of writing conduit, I fell upon Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground.  Maybe it was the right time precisely to let it fully bloom in my skull.  It certainly left an impression.  I was the corrosive rationalist then and bruised metaphysically by all that comes from such over-emphasis.  The Underground Man was me, and his faults were mine, and therefore his lessons were mine.  But it took awhile for that to settle in, I was twenty and I knew everything.  I think at first I admired him, and my writing took a turn for the philosophically perverse.  My first year in University, a TA chided me for being the resident rationalist, always ready to uproot a position.  Not able to cope with other people, nor myself.  Still the book held up more than a mirror to me, it got under the skin, particularly in the final chapter, On the Occasion of Wet Snow, it showed me how I must appear to be in the world, without hope of guile to conceal myself.  A nervous tic of a man unable to hold the most basic conversation due to the paralysis of my mind and the raw fibers of feeling it pinched.  I fisted out poetry that marveled over decadent words without the hindsight of knowing what decadence was.  The voice gave into reason and wrote mostly to know, to know and know and know and know and know and know.  My heart felt the con that Dostoevsky showed me but I couldn’t find a way to stop being that man.   

I remember the first time I read Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, and, specifically, Song of Myself.  I was in my parent’s basement, my body weary from long hours working in a factory, still knotted in the chest, and reading it was like feeling every part of me just let go, soften and rejoice - a Whitmanesque word but damn it, rejoice it was!  All at once in the way that only literature can entrap you with, I felt true joy, true happiness, I wanted to live like that poem said to live, I wanted to stop moping and give into the creative spark that I believe lies in all mankind.  The voice found the will to write outside of knowing if only to pleasure in the sound of its own voice.  The choice line: “Dazzling and tremendous how quick the sun-rise would kill me, If I could not now and always send sun-rise out of me”.   

I returned to Dostoevsky to understand what it is to be human, to understand right from wrong in an existential sense.  Also it fueled my voice, his passion for rigmarole, allowing meaning to find its way in the loose bowels of one’s train of thought, and one tier higher, as characters interceding in each other’s lives without a cosmic message from the almighty writer, to let the meaning be in the telling not the prescription of thought.  My first blog entries spilled this way. 

With Dave Eggers’ A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, the rigmarole became autobiography, a sincerity that bashes its skull against irony to let something true bleed out.  In this book in particular there is a noticeable lack of what usually is constituted as ‘sophistication’, he is writing against the grain of the literary.  His sentences run on, but also do what I do, keep replaying the beginning of a sentence to carry the thought beyond the mandates of an idea, but just to see where you can take it - the thought process fossilized, you can look at it from all sides.  Not to say there is no craft to what he does, there is, but he is not afraid to indulge and reveal himself.  The craft does not edit that out but celebrates it.  He is post-post-modern, for where at first there was the polished conceit, then the polished ironic conceit, both playing to a sophisticated audience, Eggers comes along and challenges the very importance of labels one way or the other by making something uncomfortably in-between, jamming their significance, until the only significance is his unvarnished voice.  I feel like I know Eggers from this book, not because he talks about events in his life, but by the way he talks about them.  Perhaps more than any of the other sources of inspiration, I find my voice in Eggers,  in this courage to write oneself out.           

This voice is familiar now, I don’t need to coddle it or regiment it, there are enough wheels turning of their own revolutions to get me through the second part of my life. It was not as straight a line as this post may lead one to believe, nor was there a teleological knowing at any point along the path, but for a myth, this will do.

The Russian Novel

Eighty pages from the end of The Idiot, and I need to say something about the Russian novel, or rather, the Russian novel as idea, for what can I honestly say about the Russian novel - I am not Russian, know not a word of the language, and have only questionable translations of Dostoevsky to rely on.  Still with something akin to childish naivety I wish to tell you about this idea.

The Russian novel is how the world should be.  I refuse to believe it is contrived, rather it is  this  world that is contrived.  In the Russian novel there is primitive emotion, primitive in a good way: there are people speaking forthright, interfering with the social etiquette of the times.  Perhaps it is the poor translation but characters are often agitated by the slightest of news into cries and peels of laughter, there is something indelibly human about it. And the characters wander about in a pastoral poetic way from one heated conversation to the next, chugging hot air like locomotives until each conversation reaches its fevered pitch - chugging hot air because I imagine steam emanating from their mouths as they wrestle with their philosophies, a hot bonfire of words dissipating in the frigid winter backdrop of Mother Russia. And there’s so much love and loathing. Characters confess and blush, and never in an artificial way: there are no clean crisp confessions, but meandering rigmaroles, like real people make, without rhetoric, rhyme, and hardly with a solid point, hardly with a point at all, but to make noise and release something from inside.  These are my people! And how they love, their love is incommensurable to our ventriloquism.  They love through souls, and only in the Russian novel does the soul make sense.

But I call these emotions primitive and sacred in harsh contrast to the pageantry of the modern Rococo we endure, with its muddied palette of emotions that can express nothing without parenthesis.  Modern society is a caricature of the Russian novel society, made on a whim and out of control with sequestered disgust and genuflect kindness. All human expression has been modified, homogenized and packaged for us, and I feel far less a person than a personage, some device to keep property moving.

I see the Russian novel in everyone I love, because they are not caricatures, and we exist as fictions to a world that has become an estranged idea. And so what I consider human is inversely considered by this world to be fiction, and like Dostoevsky’s Prince, I exist as an idiot in these pages.  I feel my idiocy with every new year endured, in every social gathering, every group meeting, every monetary transaction.  I understand the Tolkeinites, the Trekkies, people who invent new languages and stay indoors.

I have lived thirty-six years and in all my time on this planet the closest I have ever felt to another human being was through a bit of fictional prose in a Russian novel.  I declare this in defiance of the obvious indictment that I am neglecting to mention the romantic love of my life.   I have not neglected it, nor am I making a facetious point of this.  As an individual I feel a greater kinship to myself than to anyone, because I have endured the longest time with myself, the bond is deeper, there is a certain righteousness in narcissism.  I do not see myself in Lina in any specific way, and so do not love her because of her reflection of myself, but love her as an antithesis to me, which is, as most will understand, that which I long to be, for what else could one want but to be something else.  Lina is this desirable other-world that I thoroughly love being a part of.  To speak of a like-minded communion down to the marrow of my soul that understands the nuance of my life there is simply no comparison: I was born on the wrong continent, at the wrong time, in the wrong medium. 

Announcing my new book, Melancholics Anonymous

I wrote a book, it’s worldly famous. It’s called Melancholics Anonymous. Below you will see my son reading it (Hayden calls it a “taut, tour de force ” – at least I think that is what he said)

imageimage

image

Those of you following me will have seen much of the rough drafts that are herein polished and properly realized.  There are pictures, poems, rants, prose all about and for melancholics.  Not the romanticized genius nor ostracized lunatic of popular lore but a type far more common yet underrepresented.  The character that, as if stirred from some biological revolt, flees the maddening crowds, compelled by what Max Pensky calls a “resigned interiority, brooding over the very conditions of the impossibility of action themselves.” I wrote this as a call out to the Bukowskis, the Pessoas, the underground men, and too, the Plaths, the Sextons, the adaptless women, in hopes to draw them out and, in the confines of a book, briefly forge a loneliness together.

Now most importantly: how to buy a copy or six…
It is published through Blurb so click the link: http://www.blurb.ca/b/3981803-melancholics-anonymous 

You can purchase e-book versions for $4.99 and softcovers for a little more, and while the option for hardcover is listed, I don’t think it is necessary. I mean they look swell and all but, let’s be honest, this is no Tolstoy epic. Melancholics Anonymous is a kind of lean pamphlet manifesto (albeit a plump pamphlet at 92 pages!). Best to own it light and keep it handy in your back pocket for constant access. Finally, audio-books wherein I narrate the great adventure are extra and far too costly for the likes of you.

All proceeds go to the philanthropist fund, Leave No Blu-Ray Behind.

If you reblog and tag as melancholic or melancholy I would appreciate it.

Onto the new year and the new language.

Thanks to everyone for all the support, you have no idea what it means.  It is a cruel world out there.

P.S. I’d rather be read than make money, if you are on the fence, curious but not sure you want to pay, just private message me, I am more than happy to send a free one to you (what can I say I am a lousy capitalist). Follow the link you can preview some of the book if you need more coaxing.

Melancholics Anonymous


come ye Pessoas

ye Bukowskis

ye underground men

come ye Plaths

ye Sextons

ye adaptless women

come let us be lonely together

carrying forth the light of yon dog-eared past

or nearby lit fluorescent in a shop 

with hope to gleam back through somebody

whilst sat asylum’d by separate fires

sexless, entire, the universe reset

so that we may briefly enter it

This Voice is Borrowed

This voice is borrowed.  The first murmur of the voice was whispered to me through Douglas Coupland’s book, Life After God.  The stories were short, the descriptions sweet, and there were even pictures - naturally I was seduced, and found something meaningful where I had initially sought idle distraction.  It was to be my introduction to the Melancholic.  With each story he told I felt involved more than I had with any book, his characters were wrestling with feelings I harbored beneath the surface of my awareness.  Glibly fashioned in shape of a pocket bible, it became, in its own way, a path to personal revelation.  I didn’t know what to do with this awareness, but it percolated irrespective of my ability to contain it.  In the end, the fictional Coupland confesses he needs God and, in that stroke, subverts even the magnanimous identity owed the Melancholic of being the resister of all social mores.  I never thought about God much before reading that book, and in years to come I would read from many soon-to-be heroes of mine, Wittgenstein, Dostoevsky, Dylan, this same resignation to the Almighty.  This voice gives into that hesitation, to fall neither toward nor away entirely.  

Probably too early in my development as a human being let alone as any kind of writing conduit, I fell upon Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground.  Maybe it was the right time precisely to let it fully bloom in my skull.  It certainly left an impression.  I was the corrosive rationalist then and bruised metaphysically by all that comes from such over-emphasis.  The Underground Man, as I have said before, is/was me, and his faults were mine, and therefore his lessons were mine.  But it took awhile for that to settle in, I was twenty and I knew everything.  I think at first I admired him, and my writing took a turn for the philosophically perverse.  My first year in University, a t.a. chided me for being the resident rationalist, always ready to uproot a position.  Not able to cope with other people, nor myself.  Still the book held up more than a mirror to me, it got under the skin, particularly in the final chapter, On the Occasion of Wet Snow, it showed me how I must appear to be in the world, without hope of guile to conceal myself.  A nervous tic of a man unable to hold the most basic conversation due to the paralysis of my mind and the raw fibers of feeling it pinched.  I fisted out poetry that marveled over words, decadently without the hindsight of knowing what decadence was.  The voice gave into reason and wrote mostly to know, to know and know and know and know and know and know.  My heart felt the con that Dostoevsky showed me but I couldn’t find a way to stop being that man.  

I remember the first time I read Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, and, specifically, Song of Myself.  I was in my parent’s basement, my body weary from long hours working in a factory, still knotted in the chest, and reading it was like feeling every part of me just let go, soften and rejoice - a Whitmanesque word but damn it, rejoice it was!  All at once in the way that only literature can entrap you with, I felt true joy, true happiness, I wanted to live like that poem said to live, I wanted to stop moping and give into the creative spark that I believe lies in all mankind.  The voice found the will to write outside of knowing if only to pleasure in the sound of its own voice.  The choice line: “Dazzling and tremendous how quick the sun-rise would kill me, If I could not now and always send sun-rise out of me”.   

I returned to Dostoevsky to understand what is to be human, to understand right from wrong in an existential sense.  Also it fueled my voice, his passion for rigmarole, allowing meaning to find its way in the loose bowels of one’s train of thought, and one tier higher, as characters interceding in each other’s lives without a cosmic message from the almighty writer, to let the meaning be in the telling not the prescription of thought.  My first blog entries spilled this way.

With Dave Eggers’ A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, the rigmarole became autobiography, a sincerity that bashes its skull against irony to let something true bleed out.  In this book in particular, there is a noticeable lack of what usually is constituted as ‘sophistication’ to his writing, he is writing against the grain of the literary.  His sentences run on, but also do what I do, keep replaying the beginning of a sentence to carry the thought beyond the mandates of an idea, but just to see where you can take it - the thought process fossilized, you can look at it from all sides.  Not to say there is no craft to what he does, there is, but he is not afraid to indulge and reveal himself.  The craft does not edit that out but celebrates it.  He is post-post-modern, for where at first there was the polished conceit, then the polished ironic conceit, both playing to a sophisticated audience, Eggers comes along and challenges the very importance of labels one way or the other by making something uncomfortably in-between, jamming their significance, until the only significance is his unvarnished voice.  I feel like I know Eggers from this book, not because he talks about events in his life, but by the way he talks about them.  Perhaps more than any of the other sources of inspiration, I find my voice in Eggers, in this courage to write oneself out.  

Finally, or finally as of this moment in time, the voice draws inspiration from this very medium, Tumblr.  There is something happening here that I find remarkable, an oasis from the world I think I have been looking for since I read Coupland’s book so long ago. I never had a community, the melancholic walks alone.  But much like reading Song of Myself I am eternally inspired by fragments of writing I find here, by people I follow or from sources of inspiration they want to share.  Also this notion of micro-blogging, of writing succinctly, something I have admired in literature (three of the four works I mentioned above are hovering around the 100 page range).  I still love the rigmarole and draw energy from it, but I am finding myself more and more trying to edit down to something precise, and even veering into poetry which I haven’t tried to do in over a decade.  By being here I am changing, and the next chapter will likely be quite different from what came before.  The wounds have healed, save the existential ones.  By virtue of just how much sun-rise is around me here, it seems inevitable my output would likewise increase.  

This voice is familiar now, I don’t need to coddle it or regiment it, there are enough wheels turning of their own revolutions to get me through the second half of my life, and then some. To begin is the hardest, but with momentum it all gets easier.  It was not as straight a line as this post may lead one to believe, nor was there a teleological knowing at any point along the path, but for a myth, this will do.

Now, by what path have you tumbled here?

The Russian Novel

[from the old blog, in lieu of something new, caught in the warm breeze of summer without a thing to say]

Eighty pages from the end of The Idiot, and I need to say something about the Russian novel, or rather, the Russian novel as idea, for what can I honestly say about the Russian novel - I am not Russian, know not a word of the language, and have only questionable translations of Dostoevsky to rely on.  Still with something akin to childish naivety I wish to tell you about this idea.

The Russian novel is how the world should be.  I refuse to believe it is contrived, rather it is this world that is contrived.  In the Russian novel there is primitive emotion, primitive in a good way: there are people speaking forthright, interfering with the social etiquette of the times.  Perhaps it is the poor translation but characters are often agitated by the slightest of news into cries and peels of laughter, there is something indelibly human about. And the characters wander about in a sort of pastoral poetic way from one heated conversation to the next, chugging hot air like locomotives until the conversation reaches its fevered pitch - chugging hot air because I see steam emanating from their mouths as they wrestle with their philosophies, a hot bonfire of words dissipating in the frigid winter backdrop of Mother Russia. And there is so much love and loathing. Characters confess and blush, and never in an artificial way: there is no clean crisp confessions, but meandering rigmaroles, like real people make, without rhetoric, rhyme, and hardly with a solid point, hardly with a point at all, but to make noise and release something from inside.  These are my people! And how they love, their love is incommensurable to our ventriloquism. they love through souls, and only in the Russian novel does the soul make sense.

But I call these emotions primitive and sacred in harsh contrast to the pageantry of the modern Rococo we endure, with its muddied palette of emotions that can express nothing without parenthesis.  Modern society is a caricature of the Russian novel society, made on a whim and out of control with its sequestered disgust and genuflect kindness. All human expression has been modified, homogenized and packaged for us, and I feel far less a person than a personage, some device to keep property moving.

I see the Russian novel in everyone I love, because they are not caricatures, and we exist as fictions to a world that has become an estranged idea. And so what I consider human is inversely considered by this world to be fiction, and like Dostoevsky’s prince, I exist as an idiot in these pages.  I feel my idiocy with every new year endured, in every social gathering, every group meeting, every monetary transaction.  I understand the Tolkeinites, the Trekkies, people who invent new languages and stay indoors.

I have lived twenty-eight years and in all my time on this planet the closest I have ever felt to another human being was through a bit of fictional prose in a Russian novel.  I declare this in defiance of the obvious indictment that I am neglecting to mention the romantic love of my life.   I have not neglected it, nor am I making a facetious point of this.  As an individual I feel a greater kinship to myself than to anyone, because I have endured the longest time with myself, the bond is deeper, there is a certain righteousness in narcissism.  And I can honestly say that I do not see myself in L in any specific way, and so do not love her because of her reflection of myself, but love her as an antithesis to me, which is, as most will understand, that which I long to be, for what else could one want but to be something else.  Lina is this desirable other-world that I thoroughly enjoy being a part of.  To speak of a like-minded communion down to the marrow of my soul that understands the nuance of my life there simply is no comparison: I was born on the wrong continent, at the wrong time, in the wrong medium. 

Defining Moment

[a repost of something I wrote years ago]

I have been listening studiously to the Berkeley philosophy podcasts and one of the many gems I have discovered from its analysis of Dostoevsky’s ‘Brothers Karamazov’ is that many of the characters come predisposed with their own defining childhood memory that shapes the manner in which they relate to the world.  For example, Alyosha has the memory of his mother carrying him over to the crucifix while slanted sunlight shone through the window; Dmitry has the memory of the stranger buying him a bag of peanuts; for Father Zosima it is obviously his last conversation with his dying brother.  While it is typical of clinical psychology to seek out the negative influences of childhood memories and then interpret symptomatic adult behavior, Dostoevsky’s characterization in ‘The Brothers’ is notable for its tendency to emphasize the positive influence of such memories. 

So what would be my defining moment? I thought about this for a while, perhaps too long to be authentic.  My childhood is largely a blur to me; I equate memories now mostly with ideas, as a long genealogical chart of my philosophical views. My childhood is nothing but a treasure trove of sensations.  Should I be so down on base sensations? Have I become so jaded in my adult life?  So I thought about this deeper, quick flashes passed by, and I found them strange with respects to their lack of profundity, it was scraps of life: waiting on the bench during a little league baseball game, walking through swampy fields and reveling in the insect life, petty thefts, petty insults. 

Eventually I honed in on my defining moment, and in a way it surprised me.  It is something I have written about before, and maybe this very act has influenced me, but the more I think about the memory the more it takes on significance in my life.  It is the night all the kids in my hometown played manhunt, and I was selected as one of the hunted.  The sun was just going down and the town was eerily quiet except for the scramble of hiding children and the scavenging of the hunters.  My moment is hiding in front of the post office behind a shrub, staring at the shrub, the grass, the way those sorts of things look as the last rays of sunlight are dying.  It was not so much the shrub, but the sense of involvement in that moment, being a part of a larger game, a larger community, a larger purpose.  I look back and think there was no fear in that moment, no hardships, I felt the oceanic experience of the world in ways I am nostalgic for now.  This is my defining moment and I seem to relate to it inversely at present, as one at odds with this lost Eden.  All of my philosophies, my pursuits of the mind, they feel small in comparison with this lost gift of youth.  Not to say I am depressed in my present state, but I do feel the absence of something, and maybe that is the point, like Anne Sexton wrote:

Today is made of yesterday, each time I steal

towards rites I do not know, waiting for the lost

ingredient, as if salt or money or even lust

would keep us calm and prove us whole at last.

So, what is your defining moment?