| | | |
Another week ends with the appearance of my newsletter. This one feels a little different to me, because I was on vacation this week, and wrote it a little differently. Contained this week is, Spotlight on Books, Lessons of Life, and Musings.
Lessons Of Life
So far in life I have learned at least one BIG lesson. By BIG lesson I mean the giant truths that we are here to learn. The kind that pervade your whole life, that help you direct your actions. I may know others, but not as consciously as this one.
I first remember encountering this lesson as a Zen teaching of some sort, but now I see it all through the teachings of every great human, and throughout life. The Zen teaching, to paraphrase poorly, said that when you are working you shouldn't care about the results of your work. When applying yourself to any task, pay no attention to how it will come out. I want you to ponder on that idea before you go on....
What this means to me is not an abandonment of craftmanship. To me it means that you should care about your work only as you're doing it. Because once it passes beyond that point you are no longer in charge of it, the world takes over. In other words, let go of any hopes and dreams you have about what will happen after you finish your work, keep your sights on the things on that you can control. Whatever happens after you stop working is not your doing, good or bad.
Some examples might help. If you are making a pottery bowl, you should try to make it the best you can, you should put your whole mind and soul into making that pot. But then you must be able to separate from it. You can't expect it to be the best bowl anyone's seen, don't hope it will make a lot of money in the market, don't hope your girlfriend will like it. None of that has anything to do with you. Don't worry if someone drops it or uses it for kitty litter. That isn't you either. The only thing that is you is the love, care, attention and work that you put into it as you work. You must live in the present, and in your work. Everything else is the world's.
I thought of this last week while my niece and nephew were visiting. I didn't feel like playing Pig Mania, so I got out some coloring stuff to distract them with when they got home. I had an X-Men color-by-numbers thing that I had started which is cool because it really looks like the cover of the comic book. April took my coloring diversion, but thought that I meant she should help me color, rather than doing her own coloring! I had already started doing it in colored pencils, and she joined right in, picking out the "hot" colored ones. I might mention here that my niece is 6 or 7, and not exactly the Rembrandt of coloring; whereas I was aspiring to show that I was in fact Rembrandt. She took to filling in the spaces with a few passes of the pencil, then moving on. Meanwhile I carefully colored each nook and cranny. I told myself that this was a very Zen experience, that I could learn from. I had to divorce myself from the results of my coloring. I continued to color as she scribbled Laser Lemon and Wild Watermelon on the drawing. Despite the fact that the coloring was going to look crappy, I gave it the same attention as before. Now, that is Zen. Although when she suggested we go play Pig Mania, I agreed.
Writing is very much a Zen world. You have to write for the simple sake of emptying your brain on paper. You can't wonder what others will think of it, or whether it will be published, or become famous. Those things must mean nothing to you, because they are nothing to do with you. Writing is communicating, but you must do it even though no one gets it. You must work and work to make it clear to others what you are saying, but you must ignore the fact that people don't understand. If you pander to your perceived audience, that will be the death of your writing. We are human, so we can only hope that somewhere, someday, people will understand. But it doesn't matter, it only matters that you wrote your mind and did it well. It seems crazy, but I can guarantee you that it's true. It's the one Truth that I've learned.
Spotlight On Books.....
This Sunday night before my vacation week I decided that I should find a fat novel to curl up and read. I looked around my room for one I'd been waiting to read, when my mind hooked on to the one book that's always perfect for a winter vacation. A Stephen King book. There's nothing that will get you through hours crammed in an armchair like a mighty Stephen King tome.
I've noticed that a lot of people groan and complain when someone mentions Stephen King, the way that I might groan about Danielle Steele or someone. Even those who don't groan still have a strange impression of his writing. Well, not really strange seeing as it follows the way he is popularized in the press. But still incorrect.
For one thing, I would not categorize King as a horror writer. At least, not any more. His last few novels were not in any way horrors, but actually dealt with women's psyches. And long before that he transcended the limitations of the horror genre through his writing. Clive Barker I see as a master of the horror genre; Stephen King I see as a master of writing.
Yes, most of Stephen King's books deal with creatures or the supernatural. Some have rather disturbing scenes, and some people are scared by them. But Moby Dick ain't just a fishing story. King's work deals with much bigger issues than spooky stuff. King digs into the question of what do people do when their world goes haywire. What do people do when they encounter evil, or madness. There are a million other themes that run through King's work as well, as in any good writer, most notably childhood. Anyone who has seen the movie Stand By Me knows that King has a grasp on the child's world. And anyone who has seen The Shawshank Redemption or Dolores Claiborne knows that King writes about wider issues than horror.
Stephen King's writing has always been about people, not monsters. Most horror stories create a monster, and then feature a 2-dimensional cast to chase after it. But Stephen King creates true literary, 3-dimensional characters. The kind you would expect in any great novel. And then he explores the theme of how these people would react if they encountered true horror or evil. He does not follow the tenets of the horror world. He never creates a fantasy world, where monsters roam. He always works with our world, and his characters discover that there are things in this world they never imagined. His heroes don't save the day and win the girl. They win through sacrifice and hurt; they have to sacrifice the girl, or the girl IS the horror, or often they don't win at all. His stories often end with the monster still alive, but not to provide a cheesy sequel. It's because King doesn't let us off easy with a moral about banishing evil; his evil almost always lives on. The monster is part of the setting in his stories. The true story is did the character survive, and what did they have to do to survive.
King's best contribution to literature and horror is the idea that no matter what gruesome fiends live out there, the worst evil lives in people. The worst villains in his stories are people. People driven mad by monsters maybe, but the monster can only touch the person through the part of all of us that wishes to do evil.
I don't expect many people to change their mind about Stephen King, but I'm happy knowing that there's at least one person out there who feels as I do. He wrote a book called Stephen King: Man And Artist, wherein he treats King as a major literary figure of the 20th century, which is where I would also place him. He discusses some of King's major themes, and how he goes about writing. I'm happy to know that there's two of us who are in on this legend in our midst.
(Side Note):
I don't usually get scared by Stephen King stories. I obviously like them, but I don't find them scary. But there is one that really freaked me out. It's one of his short stories, and it's really just a fluff piece. It's about a guy who's home alone in his apartment, and finds a finger poking out of the drain in his bathroom sink. It goes on and on, but that image really freaked me out. It's fluff, but it illustrates an effect of King's writing. What freaked me out was trying to figure out what I would do if the same thing happened to me. This wasn't an extraordinary guy, he was just some banker or something. And King is so good at characterization that you understand this guy's life, you feel for him, because he's real. And then the guy encounters this finger, his world just goes topsy-turvy. How does he react? How would I react? It stretches the border of your imagination.
Musings
In the analysis of my talents and weaknesses I've come to the conclusion that in this world there are fast-brains and slow-brains. There are people who have both, and those who are neutral I suppose. But these are two qualities of the brain that I am sure exist.
Fast-brained people are those who can process quickly, and react in a thought-out manner to instantaneous stimuli. Slow-brained people are those who can perform time-consuming brain functions: analysis, planning and visualizing. The two qualities aren't mutually exclusive, but they represent two different types of thinking.
What led me to this system is my lack of ability in some sports, or to play an instrument. I finally decided that my major setback is the fact that I can't think fast enough. I can't be a great football player because things happen to instantaneously in a game, and you have to either have the instincts, or be able to decide what to do as it happens. I have no idea what's happening as a play develops, things just go by in a blur. Same with playing an instrument. Obviously I could just train my fingers until they had memorized how to play a song on the guitar. But I couldn't really play it, I wouldn't know what I was doing. I couldn't do anything differently than the way I memorized it. I have a better chance with an instrument because I could play it slow. But in football or basketball I just find myself reacting wildly. Those who are good at sports often say that they feel as if everyone else is moving in slow motion. They are able to see more and react quicker than normal people. Therefore they get to decide how to move, while I hurl myself randomly at them. A musician improvising can think quick enough to decide what to play while doing it. These are all talents of the brain that I don't have in any degree.
Although I don't have much of a fast-brain, I feel I have a strong slow-brain. In other words I'm good at things that require the strength of your brain: problems that need to be analyzed, concepts that need to be understood, ideas being created. These things take place in real-time, and require concentration, logic and intuition. It's a different set of talents than fast-brains.
What's this all mean? I don't know. But I used a lot of time and slow-brains figuring it out, so I figure I better share it.
(Side Note):
Speaking of musicians, and memorizing finger actions and all that. We were discussing Neil Young's guitar playing ability on the mailing list a while ago. Basically we were comparing him with those virtuouso guitar players that can play a hundred and twenty notes a second. Someone brought up a very good idea. He said that he believed that Neil played slow for a reason. It's possible to train until you can play the guitar at an amazingly high speed, by doing it constantly and training your nerve pathways. It becomes instinct. But this guy feels that Neil tries to avoid instinct. He plays slow enough so that he is still playing consciously, so that he knows what he is doing. There can't be much feeling in music that you are playing with your spinal cord, it's your mind that imparts meaning. Neil plays slow enough so that he can play with feeling, so that he can change the way he does it. When you get to a certain speed, you've given up control of your guitar to your spinal cord, and away from your heart.
The End