| | | |
"Well, I've got bones beneath my skin, mister.
There's a skeleton in every man's house.
Beneath the dust and love and sweat on everybody
There's a dead man trying to get out."
-Counting Crows
Last issue was a newsletter of quotes. Which was a lot of fun to write, actually. Because I discovered something. All those people can say things better than I can. It was exciting to copy down those quotes because I felt I was finally getting across things I'm always trying to say. I guess it should be disheartening because I wish I could say things so well. But instead, I feel elated that there's someone who can say them. What would I do without these people?
It looks like I'm going to get to Volume 20 of the newsletter. That's a good number. Five months of writing, maybe somewhere around 100 pages. The next week, when Volume 21 should be coming out, it'll be June 14th, the date of my wedding. The next week we're on our honeymoon, the week after that: who knows? I don't know when I'll start the newsletter up again. I hope that I'm not away from the Internet for too long. And I hope that I keep writing even when the deadline's gone. But I've found that the key to a low-stress life is not making demands of life. So I'll see what happens and go with it.
Despite the fact that writing is a solitary experience, and despite the fact that I write for my own well-being, I find that I still write for an audience. Even when I write in my journal, I'm writing to the older me that will read it someday. I'm thinking about other people reading what I'm writing. And my challenge is to get them to understand what I'm saying. To give them the best glimpse into my idea that I can. Sometimes I try to manipulate them, sometimes I'm just trying to be clear. But I'm definitely trying to transfer an idea or an experience to them. They are top on my mind.
Which to me is very interesting, because as a reader and an art patron I take a completely different approach. I think what is important is what the reader, viewer or listener takes from the work. No matter what the artist's intent was. When I read, or listen to a song, I'm interested in what it does to me, or what it means to me. Chances are, the artist had a completely different idea when they created the work. But once that art leaves the artist, it becomes something different. It is transformed by the mind of every participant. Sometimes it becomes something mundane, sometimes something beautiful. I assume that other writers feel the same as I do when they write: they have something they are trying to express. And they are probably just as frustrated as I am when it doesn't come across. But as a reader, I know that doesn't necessarily matter. The readers may be getting something out of your work anyway. That's why I write something the way I like it, and then move on. If I change my work to appease my readers, I could be creating a tragedy. You never know what great work you may have just destroyed, just because you're listening to the wrong readers.
One of my vanities is that I don't like to be equated with any stereotypes. I don't listen to the Dead or Phish too much, mostly because I don't want to be lumped in with all their fans. I don't like the idea of being judged before I even get the chance to present myself. I act the same towards a lot of things. There's so many things in this world to be interested in, why bother being a stereotype. It's not an endearing character trait of mine, but I've got better things to do than try to be endearing.
It drives me crazy when I see someone being stereotypical. There are some things in life that are passionate beliefs, and there are some that are just affectations. If it's not important to you, why not make the choice to be unique. Surprise somebody.
However, despite all that, the one stereotype that I'd be least bothered by is a hippie. I don't really feel that I'm one with our society's image of hippies. But I agree strongly with a lot of the beliefs that the people who were considered hippies espoused.
What's neat about the hippie life-style, is that a lot of the fads and trends they followed were actually good ideas. Long hair is more than a fashion statement, it's actually practical. You never have to bother to get it cut, and you don't have to worry about styling it. Wearing old second-hand clothes is logical for anyone who believes in conserving resources, recycling, and substance over style. Living meagerly and keeping your life free is an admirable accomplishment for anyone interested in living a full life.
I'm sure that most of the people identified as hippies were just going along with the scene, the same as kids my age go along with the neo-punk scene. Wearing the clothes, eating the food and talking the talk doesn't make you a hippie. It just makes you a follower. But I don't see much wrong with people recycling, living simply and being vegetarian, even if they do it just to look cool. It could be worse.
Despite what my academic superiors have tried to instill in me, I still have a bias for writing that is clear and simple. Many of the 'great' writers lauded by teachers and scholars apparently have other objectives than being clear. Sometimes I think they're writing in another language. And rather than that being an obstacle to their critical success, I sometimes think it's the reason for it. I think a lot of people like dense writing because it looks brainy and profound. However, I think there are greater accomplishments in writing than being obtuse.
A lot of these dense books are truly good. For example, in my high school Humanities class we read A Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man, by James Joyce. I thought it was a great book, and I had a fun time getting into it and discussing it. But Joyce must be one of the least-clear writers ever to put pen to paper. This is one of his simpler books, but it took quite a bit of effort to ferret out his meanings. I don't mean his deep meanings. I mean trying to figure out what the hell he's talking about. I've never been able to get into another of Joyce's books, because it's just too much work. And I refuse to feel guilty about that.
A dense book can be good. But in my mind, a great piece of writing is one that is simple, clear, yet still profound. This came up when I was talking with a friend of mine who just read Siddhartha in school, one of my favorite books. He was similarly struck by it. To me, it is a great book because it is deeply profound, but it doesn't feel the need to be obtuse or complicated. It speaks through simple words and a story. It's simply a story. It's the meaning of the words that carries its importance, not the size of the words or the complexity of the phrase. And it makes it so much more enjoyable for a story to be easy to read. The mind can concentrate on the joy of reading, and on the impact of the words. Rather than straining to understand.
Perhaps a story like Portrait Of An Artist As A Young Man could have been better if the artist had worked to make his words clear. It doesn't really matter, there are enough books in the world to leave room for every style. But in my writing, I'm going to strive for a type of clarity that lets my ideas shine rather than my words. Isaac Asimov compared writing styles to types of glass. Some writers' work is like stained glass: ornamental and beautiful to look at in itself, but obscuring the view. And other writers are like clear plate glass: when they are at their best you don't even know they're there, you only see their subject. And Asimov also pointed out that plate glass was a much later invention, because it is difficult to make glass so pure that it makes no obstruction.
"I always thought that it would make me smarter.
But it's only made me harder."
-R.E.M.
The End