Behind the Scenes
Seek to seek.
Okla Elliot: What should young writers today study or do in order to improve their craft?
Christopher Higgs: Become intellectually polyamorous, cultivate an insatiable curiosity for knowledge and experience in as many different guises as you possibly can, question everything, always challenge, learn that failure and rejection are positive things, subscribe to at least three non-literary magazines in three completely different fields (for me, right now, it’s National Geographic, Juxtapose, and Wine Enthusiast – last year it was Seed, Esquire, and Art in America), forget politics: it has nothing to do with you and any time or energy you invest in it is wasted time and energy you could be using productively to learn and experience and create, do not choose sides, do not agree or disagree, embrace contradiction, watch cinema from as many different countries and time periods as you possibly can, seek out unclassifiable music, spend time in unfamiliar locations, expose yourself to new activities, go to the opera, go to the ballet, go to the planetarium, travel a lot, observe as much as you can, pay attention to the way people talk and the way people listen, eat strange food, watch at least one sporting event but instead of thinking about it as entertainment think about it as narrative, ABR = Always Be Researching, carry a notebook and pen at all times, remember it is more important to ask questions than give or receive answers, seek to open up and never close down, seek to seek, do not seek to find, fall in love with language, think obsessively about language, about words, about sentences, about paragraphs, about the sound of words, the weight of words, the shape of words, the look of words, the feel of words, the placement of words, and most importantly be your biggest advocate, think of yourself as a genius, think of yourself as an artist, think of yourself as a creator, do not despair, do not listen to criticism, do not believe naysayers, they are wrong, you are right, they are death and you are life, they destroy and you create, the world needs what you have to say.
i liked that
although, many of those thing require money
i liked that
although, many of those thing require money
That’s great advice. I think it should be added, though, that none of this should be done as if they were chores, or obligations. There’s a fundamental way of “thinking”—more like existing—that underlies all of this, and Mr. Higgs hinted at it with “cultivate a insatiable curiosity.” For me it boils down to learning compassionate attention, and learning to give this compassionate attention freely and intensely. Anything we observe with loving attention grows and blossoms in our minds; it becomes a part of the vast mesh of disparate things we spontaneously connect and relate during creation.
And of course loving attention should not be scattershot. Lists like this once made me worry that the writer ought to cram his day with a bazillion different fascinating activities. It is more important to do one thing with all of you present, alive. In Richardson’s bio of Emerson he calls this ‘hypertheism,’ the religious impulse—and the kind of whole-body attention that goes with it—as applied to each individual moment of the day.
Basically a writer must trust himself enough to surrender himself, or something kooky like that.
I would also add: be healthy, exercise, eat well, get sleep. Use imaginative attention to get you into your creative zone, not drugs. Have a select few poems that you make a part of your life each and every day, preferably in the mornings. Further, pay attention to that which inspires you, and make these things a big part of your life. Read both classics and contemp., though weighed more toward classics; read with loving care, though never excruciating care, because you won’t sustain it. Chant poems aloud until you memorize them. Learn to locate the throbbing mystical pulse present in every moment.
Maybe we can use this thread to share what inspires us. . . .
That’s great advice. I think it should be added, though, that none of this should be done as if they were chores, or obligations. There’s a fundamental way of “thinking”—more like existing—that underlies all of this, and Mr. Higgs hinted at it with “cultivate a insatiable curiosity.” For me it boils down to learning compassionate attention, and learning to give this compassionate attention freely and intensely. Anything we observe with loving attention grows and blossoms in our minds; it becomes a part of the vast mesh of disparate things we spontaneously connect and relate during creation.
And of course loving attention should not be scattershot. Lists like this once made me worry that the writer ought to cram his day with a bazillion different fascinating activities. It is more important to do one thing with all of you present, alive. In Richardson’s bio of Emerson he calls this ‘hypertheism,’ the religious impulse—and the kind of whole-body attention that goes with it—as applied to each individual moment of the day.
Basically a writer must trust himself enough to surrender himself, or something kooky like that.
I would also add: be healthy, exercise, eat well, get sleep. Use imaginative attention to get you into your creative zone, not drugs. Have a select few poems that you make a part of your life each and every day, preferably in the mornings. Further, pay attention to that which inspires you, and make these things a big part of your life. Read both classics and contemp., though weighed more toward classics; read with loving care, though never excruciating care, because you won’t sustain it. Chant poems aloud until you memorize them. Learn to locate the throbbing mystical pulse present in every moment.
Maybe we can use this thread to share what inspires us. . . .
Also: visit a therapist, if only to check up on things. Attend some form of group therapy, or some sort of Anonymous recovery group for something that troubles you—even if only a little.
I’m totally serious about that. My experiences with medical treatment for my depression have convinced me that the best thing any writer can do is probably attending group therapy. And do not attend in ABR mode. Attend as a human, and eventually share. Even if it doesn’t help you as a person (unlikely), it will help you as a writer.
Also: visit a therapist, if only to check up on things. Attend some form of group therapy, or some sort of Anonymous recovery group for something that troubles you—even if only a little.
I’m totally serious about that. My experiences with medical treatment for my depression have convinced me that the best thing any writer can do is probably attending group therapy. And do not attend in ABR mode. Attend as a human, and eventually share. Even if it doesn’t help you as a person (unlikely), it will help you as a writer.
Story:
A Zen master advises his student: ‘When drinking coffee, just drink coffee.’
The next morning, the student finds the master drinking coffee and reading the paper. Surprised, he inquires. The roshi says: ‘When drinking coffee and reading the paper, just drink coffee and read the paper.’
Story:
A Zen master advises his student: ‘When drinking coffee, just drink coffee.’
The next morning, the student finds the master drinking coffee and reading the paper. Surprised, he inquires. The roshi says: ‘When drinking coffee and reading the paper, just drink coffee and read the paper.’
And don’t mistake me for some kind of cynical pragmatist. Group therapy—listening to people ramble pointlessly and uninhibitedly, seeing them weep, you yourself weeping with them—alters your soul in ways even the best art can’t. Expose yourself.
And don’t mistake me for some kind of cynical pragmatist. Group therapy—listening to people ramble pointlessly and uninhibitedly, seeing them weep, you yourself weeping with them—alters your soul in ways even the best art can’t. Expose yourself.
Promise I’m done after this: I’m convinced that our various recovery programs is where our national Soul lies, right now. No where else do we talk about genuinely loving yourself—nurturing yourself, learns how to develop true Inner Strength—with the kind of straight-face seriousness we do there. Not that I’ve seen, anyway.
Promise I’m done after this: I’m convinced that our various recovery programs is where our national Soul lies, right now. No where else do we talk about genuinely loving yourself—nurturing yourself, learns how to develop true Inner Strength—with the kind of straight-face seriousness we do there. Not that I’ve seen, anyway.
Hah! I love it.
Another Eastern kind of proverb thing that I love:
For 40 years I’ve been selling water by the bank of a river!
Ho! Ho!
My labors have been wholly without merit.
Hah! I love it.
Another Eastern kind of proverb thing that I love:
For 40 years I’ve been selling water by the bank of a river!
Ho! Ho!
My labors have been wholly without merit.
would like to see more proverbs (and just generally everything) interspersed with “Ho! Ho!”
would like to see more proverbs (and just generally everything) interspersed with “Ho! Ho!”
xmas is only supposed to come once a year. ho ho?
Ho! Ho!
Ho! Ho!
Support groups always surprise me. The strangest types of people show up and pour their hearts out. These are people who you would never smile at in the street, but they’re like little puppy dogs when they start to talk about the pain that they feel.
It’s weird. Something about the atmosphere makes people feel comfortable with opening up like that.
Support groups always surprise me. The strangest types of people show up and pour their hearts out. These are people who you would never smile at in the street, but they’re like little puppy dogs when they start to talk about the pain that they feel.
It’s weird. Something about the atmosphere makes people feel comfortable with opening up like that.
work. does a body good. but this here one answer from mr. higgs is one of the most positive things i’ve read on this site. and i likes it. though i take umbrage with this one clause: “do not listen to criticism.” really? i think something more along the lines of “thrive on criticism, but learn to understand where it comes from” would be more appropriate. but maybe i’m thick-skinned.
“do not agree or disagree”
So, your advice is to have no emotion?
“do not agree or disagree”
So, your advice is to have no emotion?
I believe the point is to embrace what *is* — without judgment — seek to understand all sides, see inter/connections everywhere you look, accept “things as it is.” (shunryu suzuki)
I believe the point is to embrace what *is* — without judgment — seek to understand all sides, see inter/connections everywhere you look, accept “things as it is.” (shunryu suzuki)
“is” is up to interpretation, correct? The last thing I want to do as an artist is to accept things as it is. In fact, I want to write about you accepting things as it is. That sounds hilarious. “embrace what *is* — without judgment — seek to understand all sides, see inter/connections everywhere you look, accept “things as it is.” (shunryu suzuki)” Man, you’re just loading the gun for a good satirist. It’s emotion that makes me want to take this communal idea of what “is” and dissect it and pick out all the funny parts to be snickered at while you guys commune with Mr. Rogers’s indefatigable spirit. Well, maybe it’s just me, I don’t know, but I think Mr. Rogers is the one to blame for these crackpot ideas. I’m pretty sure that Mr. R mentally “touched me there” when I was growing up, so I have serious issues with being “interconnected” with anyone or anything.
“is” is up to interpretation, correct? The last thing I want to do as an artist is to accept things as it is. In fact, I want to write about you accepting things as it is. That sounds hilarious. “embrace what *is* — without judgment — seek to understand all sides, see inter/connections everywhere you look, accept “things as it is.” (shunryu suzuki)” Man, you’re just loading the gun for a good satirist. It’s emotion that makes me want to take this communal idea of what “is” and dissect it and pick out all the funny parts to be snickered at while you guys commune with Mr. Rogers’s indefatigable spirit. Well, maybe it’s just me, I don’t know, but I think Mr. Rogers is the one to blame for these crackpot ideas. I’m pretty sure that Mr. R mentally “touched me there” when I was growing up, so I have serious issues with being “interconnected” with anyone or anything.
I don’t get the lack of politics thing. Seems a little ignorant to embrace everything but. Language is informed by power structures so i don’t see how investing some thought into politics would be a waste of time even at a solely artistic level. umm yeah.
I don’t get the lack of politics thing. Seems a little ignorant to embrace everything but. Language is informed by power structures so i don’t see how investing some thought into politics would be a waste of time even at a solely artistic level. umm yeah.
Has anyone else downloaded the audio book version of “Marvin K. Mooney”? Definitely one of the most ambitious things I’ve ever purchased. “Ambitious” is as far as I am willing to describe it, because I haven’t completed the whole thing and I know I’ll have a lot to say about it when I’m through.
Has anyone else downloaded the audio book version of “Marvin K. Mooney”? Definitely one of the most ambitious things I’ve ever purchased. “Ambitious” is as far as I am willing to describe it, because I haven’t completed the whole thing and I know I’ll have a lot to say about it when I’m through.
Politics has nothing to do with you? Aye, right. What a load of bollocks. Politics is manifestly ‘to do with you’, given that, unless you cut yourself off from society, it goes a long way to dictating how your society works. To a considerable degree, politics is the rules of the game.
Creation is excellent, definitely. Without it, what’d be the point? At the same time, though, what’s the point of learning and experiencing if you never put it to use in attempting to make the world better?
I agree with a lot of this, especially the “seek to seek” bit you highlighted in the title. It’s marred, however, by the current running throughout of egoism and self-centredness.
Nobody should ever be walking around in the world thinking that the world needs what they have to say.
I am life and they are death! Doubters are haters!
Do you question me, sir?
Do you not know that I Create and you Destroy?
I am a metaphor for American/Western foreign policy.
Politics has nothing to do with you? Aye, right. What a load of bollocks. Politics is manifestly ‘to do with you’, given that, unless you cut yourself off from society, it goes a long way to dictating how your society works. To a considerable degree, politics is the rules of the game.
Creation is excellent, definitely. Without it, what’d be the point? At the same time, though, what’s the point of learning and experiencing if you never put it to use in attempting to make the world better?
I agree with a lot of this, especially the “seek to seek” bit you highlighted in the title. It’s marred, however, by the current running throughout of egoism and self-centredness.
Nobody should ever be walking around in the world thinking that the world needs what they have to say.
I am life and they are death! Doubters are haters!
Do you question me, sir?
Do you not know that I Create and you Destroy?
I am a metaphor for American/Western foreign policy.
I mean, sure, open-mindedness is key, but that means being willing to change your stance in light of sufficiently convincing evidence, not having no stance whatsoever.
Again, this is egotism. This approach can only appear commendable when considered solely in terms of the benefits to the individual employing it.
I mean, sure, open-mindedness is key, but that means being willing to change your stance in light of sufficiently convincing evidence, not having no stance whatsoever.
Again, this is egotism. This approach can only appear commendable when considered solely in terms of the benefits to the individual employing it.
To reiterate before this is misconstrued: I agree with everything he said apart from the stuff about not taking sides, disregarding others, and basically only putting it all to use in your own interest.
To reiterate before this is misconstrued: I agree with everything he said apart from the stuff about not taking sides, disregarding others, and basically only putting it all to use in your own interest.
yeah, i kinda agree with Donald…for a bit I thought that the reply was being written ‘in character’ ( i haven’t read the book but im pretty interested to just from what ive heard about it from different sources) because it gets so intoxicated and high falutin. The fact is you can’t deny a political dimension even to the list of things being advocated in the excerpt.
I actually find the position articulated in this interview…if i’ve read it correctly… to be kinda gross. Does that make me death? Cool.
I’d be interested in reading, I dunno, a defence of this wilfully apolitical standpoint because I just can’t see it at all…..this romantic image of the writer as somehow being exempt from their culture’s premises and conclusions, floating airily around, manifesting at all the best and most alive moments and then fucking off anytime they’re asked to account for themselves or their actions.
God knows I’m not arguing for capital ‘P’ capital ‘L’ Political literature but the fact is politics is an aspect of the act of writing. It is something I think we’d do best to consider, that thinking about it could, in fact, only make the writing better because something more would be revealed. I dunno. I’m not at my most articulate so i should stop.
yeah, i kinda agree with Donald…for a bit I thought that the reply was being written ‘in character’ ( i haven’t read the book but im pretty interested to just from what ive heard about it from different sources) because it gets so intoxicated and high falutin. The fact is you can’t deny a political dimension even to the list of things being advocated in the excerpt.
I actually find the position articulated in this interview…if i’ve read it correctly… to be kinda gross. Does that make me death? Cool.
I’d be interested in reading, I dunno, a defence of this wilfully apolitical standpoint because I just can’t see it at all…..this romantic image of the writer as somehow being exempt from their culture’s premises and conclusions, floating airily around, manifesting at all the best and most alive moments and then fucking off anytime they’re asked to account for themselves or their actions.
God knows I’m not arguing for capital ‘P’ capital ‘L’ Political literature but the fact is politics is an aspect of the act of writing. It is something I think we’d do best to consider, that thinking about it could, in fact, only make the writing better because something more would be revealed. I dunno. I’m not at my most articulate so i should stop.
I See… what exactly do you mean by ‘crackpot ideas’?
“but the fact is politics is an aspect of the act of writing”
This is only true in a very shallow and superficial sense, and it is largely given a disproportionate amount of weight/focus. It’s akin to saying “well, politics is an aspect of making love.” Anyone involved in a long-term romantic intimacy knows that this accounts for maybe 0.0001% of what’s going on. Writing is the same way.
“but the fact is politics is an aspect of the act of writing”
This is only true in a very shallow and superficial sense, and it is largely given a disproportionate amount of weight/focus. It’s akin to saying “well, politics is an aspect of making love.” Anyone involved in a long-term romantic intimacy knows that this accounts for maybe 0.0001% of what’s going on. Writing is the same way.
“Nobody should ever be walking around in the world thinking that the world needs what they have to say.”
You have maybe completely missed the point.
I’m not sure I really want to talk to anyone who doesn’t think the world needs what they have to say: they’re likely to therefore say things the world truly didn’t need, after all. A belief in your own irrelevance guarantees it.
[Furthermore, I don’t know if there’s a person in the world whom I at least would not want to hear what they ‘have to say,’ so long as what they’re saying is truly theirs, and not the recycling of some BS pop platitudes, etc.]
” To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense”—Emerson
“Nobody should ever be walking around in the world thinking that the world needs what they have to say.”
You have maybe completely missed the point.
I’m not sure I really want to talk to anyone who doesn’t think the world needs what they have to say: they’re likely to therefore say things the world truly didn’t need, after all. A belief in your own irrelevance guarantees it.
[Furthermore, I don’t know if there’s a person in the world whom I at least would not want to hear what they ‘have to say,’ so long as what they’re saying is truly theirs, and not the recycling of some BS pop platitudes, etc.]
” To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense”—Emerson
Yeah, that’s the one I’d probably quibble w/ too. I didn’t read it literally though. More like “Do not obsess over criticism.”
And I love how saying “politics has nothing to do with you” is equivalent to heresy these days.
But really, this may be the best post I’ve read at HTMLGIANT. “pay attention to the way people talk”—yes!!
Yeah, that’s the one I’d probably quibble w/ too. I didn’t read it literally though. More like “Do not obsess over criticism.”
And I love how saying “politics has nothing to do with you” is equivalent to heresy these days.
But really, this may be the best post I’ve read at HTMLGIANT. “pay attention to the way people talk”—yes!!
Learning to suspend judgement is no crackpot idea. It’s practical as all hell. The suspense of judgement—because what exactly is the world going to lose if for this one tiny moment you choose not to exert your all-important “critical faculties”?—allows you to view your own life through the lens of imaginative detachment, which allows you to better perceive those things which you can control, and those which you can’t. This means better more effective action on your part—you really contribute to those things you can—and less anxiety and antsiness overall. It’s a huge part of serenity.
Action deriving from even the most strongly held convictions should still be perceived with at least a modicum of imaginative detachment. If you cannot mentally ‘see’ yourself acting as you’re acting, then you’re doing it wrong.
Learning to suspend judgement is no crackpot idea. It’s practical as all hell. The suspense of judgement—because what exactly is the world going to lose if for this one tiny moment you choose not to exert your all-important “critical faculties”?—allows you to view your own life through the lens of imaginative detachment, which allows you to better perceive those things which you can control, and those which you can’t. This means better more effective action on your part—you really contribute to those things you can—and less anxiety and antsiness overall. It’s a huge part of serenity.
Action deriving from even the most strongly held convictions should still be perceived with at least a modicum of imaginative detachment. If you cannot mentally ‘see’ yourself acting as you’re acting, then you’re doing it wrong.
agreed (despite my frequent actions to the contrary).
“believing surrender is the thing”
agreed (despite my frequent actions to the contrary).
“believing surrender is the thing”
stephen,
we need to grab coffee sometime, if by luck we are ever in the same area. i think you’re a cool dude.
stephen,
we need to grab coffee sometime, if by luck we are ever in the same area. i think you’re a cool dude.
“forget politics: it has nothing to do with you and any time or energy you invest in it is wasted time and energy you could be using productively to learn and experience and create,”
Are you kidding me? You live in the world. Just because you’re an artist doesn’t mean you don’t live in the world. Think you’re above politics? Then enjoy a polluted, global-warmingingy, war-mongery, nuclear-armed world where the rich and the corporations have everything, the poor nothing, bigotry and hatred rule, and education and art is ridiculed and devalued and refunded for being an “elitist” pursuit. Enjoy trying to sell your art at Walmart, and being censored and marked down and mocked.
Maybe I missed something here, and this is supposed to be funny. I hope so. As someone who’s spent many years of my life trying to make a difference, this kind of posturing makes me physically sick. No one can afford not to care about politics. To say so is absolutely ignorant. Leaving aside the question of selfishness–how can you look around and see the world and not want to leave it better than you found it–but your own life is improved by your participation in the world. You don’t have to be a political writer, but neither should you ignore politics. To withdraw and be insular and self-focused not only makes one a bad citizen–it makes one a boring artist. Christopher’s so smart I don’t believe he really believes what he says here.
“forget politics: it has nothing to do with you and any time or energy you invest in it is wasted time and energy you could be using productively to learn and experience and create,”
Are you kidding me? You live in the world. Just because you’re an artist doesn’t mean you don’t live in the world. Think you’re above politics? Then enjoy a polluted, global-warmingingy, war-mongery, nuclear-armed world where the rich and the corporations have everything, the poor nothing, bigotry and hatred rule, and education and art is ridiculed and devalued and refunded for being an “elitist” pursuit. Enjoy trying to sell your art at Walmart, and being censored and marked down and mocked.
Maybe I missed something here, and this is supposed to be funny. I hope so. As someone who’s spent many years of my life trying to make a difference, this kind of posturing makes me physically sick. No one can afford not to care about politics. To say so is absolutely ignorant. Leaving aside the question of selfishness–how can you look around and see the world and not want to leave it better than you found it–but your own life is improved by your participation in the world. You don’t have to be a political writer, but neither should you ignore politics. To withdraw and be insular and self-focused not only makes one a bad citizen–it makes one a boring artist. Christopher’s so smart I don’t believe he really believes what he says here.
I read the line “forget politics: it has nothing to do with you” and felt outrage. Then I opened the comments and it seems like people are already pissed. I feel better.
I read the line “forget politics: it has nothing to do with you” and felt outrage. Then I opened the comments and it seems like people are already pissed. I feel better.
Ryan,
An intimate relationship doesn’t feel political, writing doesn’t feel political but the political can be another angle or lens through which to analyse or approach the thing even if it isn’t the thing itself. Social relationships are informed by politics even as they attempt to transcend them, even if that’s not what you’re thinking about when you’re within them. That’s the point, you have to take the fucking ruin of it all, the context given to us and try to go beyond it. Even if your work isn’t informed by political thought you are going to have been influenced by the power structures around you and I think it is important to be aware of or try to be aware of that influence (good and bad) even if your aim isn’t to directly foster a political reaction.
Kathy Acker mixed the personal and the political, fucking and language. William Burroughs did the same.
A disproportionate weight? Where? Tell me where you’ve seen the stress fall in most literature… in political commitment?
I think you’ve misread what I intended and maybe that’s my fault. What i take issue with is the ‘it has nothing to do with you’ part of the interview. It does, how could it not?
Exactly, Tom. I agree that you should learn everything about everything and embrace knowledge–but why in earth would politics be excluded from that list? Sure, our current political system is full of rot, but why not learn about it and try to change it? Why disdain as somehow beneath consideration? There’s a long list of artists who thought politics had nothing to do with them; in Vichy France, in Mao’s China, in Stalinist Russia, etc, etc. And so politics came for them. Fascist and extremist governments always come for the artists–which is one good reason to care about politics.
Ryan,
An intimate relationship doesn’t feel political, writing doesn’t feel political but the political can be another angle or lens through which to analyse or approach the thing even if it isn’t the thing itself. Social relationships are informed by politics even as they attempt to transcend them, even if that’s not what you’re thinking about when you’re within them. That’s the point, you have to take the fucking ruin of it all, the context given to us and try to go beyond it. Even if your work isn’t informed by political thought you are going to have been influenced by the power structures around you and I think it is important to be aware of or try to be aware of that influence (good and bad) even if your aim isn’t to directly foster a political reaction.
Kathy Acker mixed the personal and the political, fucking and language. William Burroughs did the same.
A disproportionate weight? Where? Tell me where you’ve seen the stress fall in most literature… in political commitment?
I think you’ve misread what I intended and maybe that’s my fault. What i take issue with is the ‘it has nothing to do with you’ part of the interview. It does, how could it not?
Exactly, Tom. I agree that you should learn everything about everything and embrace knowledge–but why in earth would politics be excluded from that list? Sure, our current political system is full of rot, but why not learn about it and try to change it? Why disdain as somehow beneath consideration? There’s a long list of artists who thought politics had nothing to do with them; in Vichy France, in Mao’s China, in Stalinist Russia, etc, etc. And so politics came for them. Fascist and extremist governments always come for the artists–which is one good reason to care about politics.
YES. The audio book is AMAZING. I disagree with Higg’s dismissal of politics, but can’t deny that he’s doing some wicked provocative shit. There’s no one else like him right now, saying the stuff he’s saying, doing the stuff he’s doing. There’s this part in the audio book where he takes the microphone to a circus or a carnival or something and keeps reading, and then another part where a robot reads a few pages. It’s crazy ambitious.
YES. The audio book is AMAZING. I disagree with Higg’s dismissal of politics, but can’t deny that he’s doing some wicked provocative shit. There’s no one else like him right now, saying the stuff he’s saying, doing the stuff he’s doing. There’s this part in the audio book where he takes the microphone to a circus or a carnival or something and keeps reading, and then another part where a robot reads a few pages. It’s crazy ambitious.
Thank you for the thoughtful response, Tom.
I meant that a disproportionate weight had been given to materialist politicized analysis of works of writing within our criticism. I’m not sure that truly great works of literature themselves can be politically committed in any real way. . . . They are committed to a dimension of ourselves that inevitably foregrounds politics. It’s important not to dismiss this dimension, I think.
And in my opinion there is a great difference between “politics has nothing to do with you” and “politics is not important / does not matter.” Throughout Higgs’ entire comment I assume that the ‘you’ he mentions is specifically w/in the context the writer-as-writer, writer-as-imaginative-being—and w/in that everything he says is true, I think. The writer-as-social-agent cannot afford to dismiss politics, though, and I doubt that’s what Higgs is arguing for. It’s a matter of emphasis. Today we are too quick to identify all of ourselves with the part of us that is a social/political agent—hence all the frankly hilarious outrage displayed by Amber and (especially) Mr. Cicero. . . in fact Mr. Cicero’s comment may be the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Keep on massaging that oh-so-holy outrage, buddy; make sure you stay sufficiently indignant. . .
Thank you for the thoughtful response, Tom.
I meant that a disproportionate weight had been given to materialist politicized analysis of works of writing within our criticism. I’m not sure that truly great works of literature themselves can be politically committed in any real way. . . . They are committed to a dimension of ourselves that inevitably foregrounds politics. It’s important not to dismiss this dimension, I think.
And in my opinion there is a great difference between “politics has nothing to do with you” and “politics is not important / does not matter.” Throughout Higgs’ entire comment I assume that the ‘you’ he mentions is specifically w/in the context the writer-as-writer, writer-as-imaginative-being—and w/in that everything he says is true, I think. The writer-as-social-agent cannot afford to dismiss politics, though, and I doubt that’s what Higgs is arguing for. It’s a matter of emphasis. Today we are too quick to identify all of ourselves with the part of us that is a social/political agent—hence all the frankly hilarious outrage displayed by Amber and (especially) Mr. Cicero. . . in fact Mr. Cicero’s comment may be the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Keep on massaging that oh-so-holy outrage, buddy; make sure you stay sufficiently indignant. . .
“a bad citizen”
“a bad citizen”
hey ken baumen you left off the last part of that paragraph:
“Grow a beard. Wear tight pants. Talk about other yourself and writers obsessively and non-stop all day and all night. Go to lots of parties, parties are improtent.”
hey ken baumen you left off the last part of that paragraph:
“Grow a beard. Wear tight pants. Talk about other yourself and writers obsessively and non-stop all day and all night. Go to lots of parties, parties are improtent.”
fuck yes
fuck yes
brodate
Well, if you can’t “suspend judgment” when replying to this comment how then are you going to “suspend judgment” in your art? Your lack of suspension on this comment is what made it interesting. You immediately took one side of the argument and effectively propelled the discussion forward. You did your job. Had you suspended your judgment what the fuck would we be talking about? The alternative is way too stale. And it would be just as stale in a work of fiction. I do get what you’re trying to say, but I think how we feel about things is the one truly unique aspect of our creativity. You may hate people with fat thighs. I may hate people with fat thighs, but I hate people with fat thighs because when I was a kid my grandfather stood me up at thanksgiving dinner and said, “look at his fat thighs. We should’ve cooked those for dinner.” If fat thighs come up in my stories you can bet that it’s coming from an experience that is unique to my self-hate. Why would I want to imaginatively detach myself from that experience? My riff on some old ladies fat thighs isn’t going to be nearly as funny, because the joke comes from the pain. Comedy hurts. Sometimes great fiction hurts. I can’t be imaginatively detached from all that. I’ll have time for serenity when I’m dead.
brodate
Well, if you can’t “suspend judgment” when replying to this comment how then are you going to “suspend judgment” in your art? Your lack of suspension on this comment is what made it interesting. You immediately took one side of the argument and effectively propelled the discussion forward. You did your job. Had you suspended your judgment what the fuck would we be talking about? The alternative is way too stale. And it would be just as stale in a work of fiction. I do get what you’re trying to say, but I think how we feel about things is the one truly unique aspect of our creativity. You may hate people with fat thighs. I may hate people with fat thighs, but I hate people with fat thighs because when I was a kid my grandfather stood me up at thanksgiving dinner and said, “look at his fat thighs. We should’ve cooked those for dinner.” If fat thighs come up in my stories you can bet that it’s coming from an experience that is unique to my self-hate. Why would I want to imaginatively detach myself from that experience? My riff on some old ladies fat thighs isn’t going to be nearly as funny, because the joke comes from the pain. Comedy hurts. Sometimes great fiction hurts. I can’t be imaginatively detached from all that. I’ll have time for serenity when I’m dead.
i don’t need what 99% of the world has to say. i do want some of it.
i don’t need what 99% of the world has to say. i do want some of it.
Dennis Cooper in conversation with Robert Gluck: ‘As soon as you get power, disperse it. For me, that simple idea reverberates out through instinct into a way of thinking about everything. I think my novels are entirely informed by anarchism on the levels of form, style, approach, and philosophy’
I think this quote from Dennis Cooper demonstrates how your own politics can and do in a very real way filter down into how you approach even making work so that the work itself, formally and imaginatively, becomes an example of your political beliefs without having to be in anyway didactic.
I think ‘great’ ,although that term is problematic, literature has often aimed to free itself from the political sphere in order to become transcendent.
However, the context…the starting point is…oops lost where i was going…
I mean, Joyce was political as fuck and that’s all over his work and necessary to it because it informed and coloured and stained the concepts he was interested in at that time. The difference the historical political contexts of each ‘great’ work provide may not be dominant to those works more universal aims or desires but they no doubt filter or angle that light differently than they would have been without it.
Does that sentence even make sense? Anyway
I think amber and Noah’s reaction is completely understandable, also i don’t think either of them were being histrionic or acting ‘hilariously’ outraged. The statement is designed to be provocative. In the comments section of the full linked interview the interviewer says that the answers were sent back with a note saying that there was gonna be some stuff in it the interviewer wouldnt like.
I understand the differentiation you make (and agree with you) between writer as imaginative being and writer as social agent. Thinking against that thought’s grain can lead to censorship and persecution if you flip it around at writers who deal with transgressive content. That hadn’t occurred to me when i read the quote from Higss and your argument was persuasive but something was still getting at me. And it’s when
Higgs writes
‘ do not choose sides, do not agree or disagree’
I feel that even with the distinction in place that statement makes me uncomfortable. This is an interview not fiction. There might not be a massive difference but there’s enough of one to make me think it’s a little irresponsible. I don’t know, maybe im being too puritanical myself.
Also, I wanna make it clear im not bashing Higgs completely, I wanna read his book. I don’t mean anything as a personal attack.
Dennis Cooper in conversation with Robert Gluck: ‘As soon as you get power, disperse it. For me, that simple idea reverberates out through instinct into a way of thinking about everything. I think my novels are entirely informed by anarchism on the levels of form, style, approach, and philosophy’
I think this quote from Dennis Cooper demonstrates how your own politics can and do in a very real way filter down into how you approach even making work so that the work itself, formally and imaginatively, becomes an example of your political beliefs without having to be in anyway didactic.
I think ‘great’ ,although that term is problematic, literature has often aimed to free itself from the political sphere in order to become transcendent.
However, the context…the starting point is…oops lost where i was going…
I mean, Joyce was political as fuck and that’s all over his work and necessary to it because it informed and coloured and stained the concepts he was interested in at that time. The difference the historical political contexts of each ‘great’ work provide may not be dominant to those works more universal aims or desires but they no doubt filter or angle that light differently than they would have been without it.
Does that sentence even make sense? Anyway
I think amber and Noah’s reaction is completely understandable, also i don’t think either of them were being histrionic or acting ‘hilariously’ outraged. The statement is designed to be provocative. In the comments section of the full linked interview the interviewer says that the answers were sent back with a note saying that there was gonna be some stuff in it the interviewer wouldnt like.
I understand the differentiation you make (and agree with you) between writer as imaginative being and writer as social agent. Thinking against that thought’s grain can lead to censorship and persecution if you flip it around at writers who deal with transgressive content. That hadn’t occurred to me when i read the quote from Higss and your argument was persuasive but something was still getting at me. And it’s when
Higgs writes
‘ do not choose sides, do not agree or disagree’
I feel that even with the distinction in place that statement makes me uncomfortable. This is an interview not fiction. There might not be a massive difference but there’s enough of one to make me think it’s a little irresponsible. I don’t know, maybe im being too puritanical myself.
Also, I wanna make it clear im not bashing Higgs completely, I wanna read his book. I don’t mean anything as a personal attack.
is that supposed to mean something, putting “a bad citizen” in quotes?
amber is right on.
is that supposed to mean something, putting “a bad citizen” in quotes?
amber is right on.
One of the more interesting weeks I’ve had lately was this fling I had with a rookie AA member and she’d come to my house every night and tell me the stories of the AA meeting she had attended that day.
Yeah. Sounded quite nice.
One of the more interesting weeks I’ve had lately was this fling I had with a rookie AA member and she’d come to my house every night and tell me the stories of the AA meeting she had attended that day.
Yeah. Sounded quite nice.
I think you have a warped idea of what it means to suspend judgement. After all, we’re only suspending -judgement-, not our heart, or our mind. Just right now I can’t effectively explain the difference there, but if I think of a good analogy or something I’ll get back. . . .
Imaginative detachment does not equal the absence of feeling. Rather, it makes you better acquainted with your feelings, and makes it such that (kind of paradoxically) you experience more intensely w/o them letting them start steering the ship.
I submit that your riff on fat thighs won’t be very funny unless you can somehow imaginatively detach from that prior fat-thighs experience. The fuzzy overlay of time may have already done that for you, though.
I think you have a warped idea of what it means to suspend judgement. After all, we’re only suspending -judgement-, not our heart, or our mind. Just right now I can’t effectively explain the difference there, but if I think of a good analogy or something I’ll get back. . . .
Imaginative detachment does not equal the absence of feeling. Rather, it makes you better acquainted with your feelings, and makes it such that (kind of paradoxically) you experience more intensely w/o them letting them start steering the ship.
I submit that your riff on fat thighs won’t be very funny unless you can somehow imaginatively detach from that prior fat-thighs experience. The fuzzy overlay of time may have already done that for you, though.
OK.
OK.
Tom,
That truly was a persuasive response. . . I’m gonna need to let it digest and settle a bit before I respond. I’ll post back in here around dinnertime this evening.
Tom,
That truly was a persuasive response. . . I’m gonna need to let it digest and settle a bit before I respond. I’ll post back in here around dinnertime this evening.
“a boring artist”
“a boring artist”
I just realised I hadn’t properly read a lot of the comments at the beginning of the thread. I like them. I don’t actually think we’re at opposite ends of the spectrum thoughts wise, just in our reading of the interview.
Anyway….i should do some work.
I just realised I hadn’t properly read a lot of the comments at the beginning of the thread. I like them. I don’t actually think we’re at opposite ends of the spectrum thoughts wise, just in our reading of the interview.
Anyway….i should do some work.
POLITICS CAN BE USEFUL TOO DON’T DISREGARD THE POLITICAL MECHANISM, THOUGH YEAH DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME OBSESSING OVER IT EITHER
THIS WAS A GOOD POST
IT’S GOOD TO BE ALWAYS EXPLORING
POLITICS CAN BE USEFUL TOO DON’T DISREGARD THE POLITICAL MECHANISM, THOUGH YEAH DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME OBSESSING OVER IT EITHER
THIS WAS A GOOD POST
IT’S GOOD TO BE ALWAYS EXPLORING
hey man, you can satirize anything you want. but I’m talking about the fundamental differences between eastern (black and white) v. western (black or white) ways of exploring and understanding how the world works. if that’s not an author’s job, then, well… I don’t know what *is.* here’s someone who gets these concepts and still has fun with them (while conveying genuine understanding): http://www.sexgodrocknroll.com/
hey man, you can satirize anything you want. but I’m talking about the fundamental differences between eastern (black and white) v. western (black or white) ways of exploring and understanding how the world works. if that’s not an author’s job, then, well… I don’t know what *is.* here’s someone who gets these concepts and still has fun with them (while conveying genuine understanding): http://www.sexgodrocknroll.com/
yeah, I kind of went off on how misguided this no-politics idea is on the original blog site. but it seems my comment has not (yet?) been approved. hmmm… does this mean I should keep my comments on htmlg alone?
yeah, I kind of went off on how misguided this no-politics idea is on the original blog site. but it seems my comment has not (yet?) been approved. hmmm… does this mean I should keep my comments on htmlg alone?
I’ve been so wanting to hear this, but I don’t want to get it until I have the time to take it in. Maybe in the summer.
I’ve been so wanting to hear this, but I don’t want to get it until I have the time to take it in. Maybe in the summer.
yes… no… yes and no.
yes… no… yes and no.
i vote, i volunteer, and when i can i contribute to charity. but i have a hard time believing any of this has an impact on global warming, genocide, or war. politics just lead you down a bitter road. for the practical impact my actions have, i wish i could forget politics. reminds me of the old bob dylan quote.
“There’s no black and white, left and right to me anymore; there’s only up and down and down is very close to the ground. And I’m trying to go up without thinking about anything trivial such as politics. They has got nothing to do with it.”
i vote, i volunteer, and when i can i contribute to charity. but i have a hard time believing any of this has an impact on global warming, genocide, or war. politics just lead you down a bitter road. for the practical impact my actions have, i wish i could forget politics. reminds me of the old bob dylan quote.
“There’s no black and white, left and right to me anymore; there’s only up and down and down is very close to the ground. And I’m trying to go up without thinking about anything trivial such as politics. They has got nothing to do with it.”
Ryan–
I was outraged at the idea that “politics has nothing to do with you.” I said nothing about politicized writing–in fact, I specifically said you DON’T have to be a political writer.In fact, I actually have major issues with political writing as a purely pragmatic enterprise, ie: writing as the means to a specific end.
But the idea that politics is some icky, foreign body that the pure writer need have nothing to do with–while he reads his Wine Enthusiast magazine–give me a break. I like Christopher’s work a lot and think he’s a pretty brilliant guy–and so I wanted to call attention to a statement that I a) didn’t think was worthy of him and b)don’t think he can honestly believe, based on his writing and what’s he’s said here in the past.
There was no need to be insulting to me or to Noah. What was so hilarious about what I said? Many, many of the writers that people admire on this site are very politically active. Some aren’t. The choice is up to you, of course–but I firmly believe that the world is bloody and the world IS outrageous, and the power structures in place to deal with that–like it or not–happen to be political. You can laugh at the outrage all you want, but look what happened when enough people became outraged at Bush. We got Obama–and now we have health care. We’re ridding the world of nuclear weapons. We’re finally condemning torture and trying to tackle global warming. Things aren’t perfect and there are a lot of problems with Obama, with politicians, with the whole existing power structure–but to simply tune it out or say it has nothing to do with you? You’re forfeiting your future when you do that. And my future. And while maybe you don’t give a shit, I think that’s outrageous. And I’m entitled to my opinion, hilarious as you may find it.
Ryan–
I was outraged at the idea that “politics has nothing to do with you.” I said nothing about politicized writing–in fact, I specifically said you DON’T have to be a political writer.In fact, I actually have major issues with political writing as a purely pragmatic enterprise, ie: writing as the means to a specific end.
But the idea that politics is some icky, foreign body that the pure writer need have nothing to do with–while he reads his Wine Enthusiast magazine–give me a break. I like Christopher’s work a lot and think he’s a pretty brilliant guy–and so I wanted to call attention to a statement that I a) didn’t think was worthy of him and b)don’t think he can honestly believe, based on his writing and what’s he’s said here in the past.
There was no need to be insulting to me or to Noah. What was so hilarious about what I said? Many, many of the writers that people admire on this site are very politically active. Some aren’t. The choice is up to you, of course–but I firmly believe that the world is bloody and the world IS outrageous, and the power structures in place to deal with that–like it or not–happen to be political. You can laugh at the outrage all you want, but look what happened when enough people became outraged at Bush. We got Obama–and now we have health care. We’re ridding the world of nuclear weapons. We’re finally condemning torture and trying to tackle global warming. Things aren’t perfect and there are a lot of problems with Obama, with politicians, with the whole existing power structure–but to simply tune it out or say it has nothing to do with you? You’re forfeiting your future when you do that. And my future. And while maybe you don’t give a shit, I think that’s outrageous. And I’m entitled to my opinion, hilarious as you may find it.
The truth about Higgs’s post is that it’s completely conformist in this sense: He’s telling his audience exactly what it wants to hear, what it has to agree with. (I even agree with most of what he says.) His audience– his academy indoctrination shared by this audience– has determined the content of his message. Not very daring, then, in that respect. In fact, it’s not at all daring. He confirms you in your beliefs– “look how wonderful, open-minded, and unjudgemental we are.” A high-toned version of “I’m okay, you’re okay.”
There is one remark of his where he’s kidding himself. That’s where he says, “Question everything.”
Really?
But when it applies to literature, the literary machine, and the literary intelligentsia, Higgs, and this audience, questions NOTHING. He’s in the institution– has his MFA etc. He’s been in the institution his entire life, and so is a creature of it. His standards, aesthetic, political, theological, and other, are the same as everyone else’s standards.
(I notice this site has a banner from the Murdoch-owned Harper-Perennial running across the top of it– it doesn’t seem as if anyone is questioning very hard megaconglomerate dominance of the art!)
A collection of toys within a shoebox vociferously declaiming, yet never realizing they’re in a shoebox, or looking outside the box, or trying to climb out of it.
Just my two cents worth.
The truth about Higgs’s post is that it’s completely conformist in this sense: He’s telling his audience exactly what it wants to hear, what it has to agree with. (I even agree with most of what he says.) His audience– his academy indoctrination shared by this audience– has determined the content of his message. Not very daring, then, in that respect. In fact, it’s not at all daring. He confirms you in your beliefs– “look how wonderful, open-minded, and unjudgemental we are.” A high-toned version of “I’m okay, you’re okay.”
There is one remark of his where he’s kidding himself. That’s where he says, “Question everything.”
Really?
But when it applies to literature, the literary machine, and the literary intelligentsia, Higgs, and this audience, questions NOTHING. He’s in the institution– has his MFA etc. He’s been in the institution his entire life, and so is a creature of it. His standards, aesthetic, political, theological, and other, are the same as everyone else’s standards.
(I notice this site has a banner from the Murdoch-owned Harper-Perennial running across the top of it– it doesn’t seem as if anyone is questioning very hard megaconglomerate dominance of the art!)
A collection of toys within a shoebox vociferously declaiming, yet never realizing they’re in a shoebox, or looking outside the box, or trying to climb out of it.
Just my two cents worth.
two cents? that estimate’s a bit high i think.
two cents? that estimate’s a bit high i think.
I think everyone missed the most important part, “embrace contradiction”.
I think everyone missed the most important part, “embrace contradiction”.
this is pretty much my issue with every christopher higgs post like this ever, and it never actually gets a full response. for the record, i agree with pretty much everything else that’s quoted here, but the ‘forget politics’ seems to almost contradict embracing everything else. everything is politics, and ignoring that is just, in my opinion, completely counter-productive and super bourgeois.
this is pretty much my issue with every christopher higgs post like this ever, and it never actually gets a full response. for the record, i agree with pretty much everything else that’s quoted here, but the ‘forget politics’ seems to almost contradict embracing everything else. everything is politics, and ignoring that is just, in my opinion, completely counter-productive and super bourgeois.
Super Bourgeois, my new favorite superhero.
Super Bourgeois, my new favorite superhero.
yes
yes
2 points in response:
Also, Higgs has very clearly taken sides before. After Roxane’s “rant” on traditional narrative Higgs went on to write what was clearly an opposition to the post, positing himself in the locus of experimentalism over tradition. That is taking a side. Also, I’ve never been able to view experimentalism as anything other than a political act, and I’ve brought this up a million times: the experimentalist is intentionally writing in opposition to traditional modes of literature. the traditional mode of literature has a political weight, considering how important words and narratives are in our culture/society (even with lyotard’s declaration that the grand narrative is over with the end of modernity, there are still, i feel, tiny narratives that are affecting life in a similar way). to be experimental IS to be political. to forget politics is to forget any non-dominant mode of writing.
ps – that dennis quote is one of my favorites. i think about it constantly. just the simple idea of “when you have power, disperse it” is so applicable on so many levels….
2 points in response:
Also, Higgs has very clearly taken sides before. After Roxane’s “rant” on traditional narrative Higgs went on to write what was clearly an opposition to the post, positing himself in the locus of experimentalism over tradition. That is taking a side. Also, I’ve never been able to view experimentalism as anything other than a political act, and I’ve brought this up a million times: the experimentalist is intentionally writing in opposition to traditional modes of literature. the traditional mode of literature has a political weight, considering how important words and narratives are in our culture/society (even with lyotard’s declaration that the grand narrative is over with the end of modernity, there are still, i feel, tiny narratives that are affecting life in a similar way). to be experimental IS to be political. to forget politics is to forget any non-dominant mode of writing.
ps – that dennis quote is one of my favorites. i think about it constantly. just the simple idea of “when you have power, disperse it” is so applicable on so many levels….
“Oh.” Okay. I forgot, we should take nothing seriously, not engage in discussing anything that we deem suspect, because oh my god to be truly contemporary we have to recognize that EVERYTHING is ridiculous and to take anything serious at all is OBVIOUSLY just a waste of time! I mean, of course the most important part of this entire interview is to ’embrace contradiction!’
“Oh.” Okay. I forgot, we should take nothing seriously, not engage in discussing anything that we deem suspect, because oh my god to be truly contemporary we have to recognize that EVERYTHING is ridiculous and to take anything serious at all is OBVIOUSLY just a waste of time! I mean, of course the most important part of this entire interview is to ’embrace contradiction!’
Molum Haggis: My new favorite troll
Molum Haggis: My new favorite troll
I’m just glad reversy me is contradictory, so as to embrace him :) <3
I’m just glad reversy me is contradictory, so as to embrace him :) <3
Amber,
the politicized thing was referring to the discussion I had going w/ Tom.
“But the idea that politics is some icky, foreign body that the pure writer need have nothing to do with”—I don’t think anyone here has yet said this. Chris’s post above is pretty clearly written in the vein of “these are the things you must do to foster your inner creative self,” and if you’re reading it at all charitably it’s pretty clear that what he’s suggested does not exclude actual physical political imagination. Like I said above, I think it was a bunch of cues regarding how to begin exerting a certain kind of compassionate attention. And, given the state of our political discourse, I think temporarily “forgetting politics” may indeed be a great way of learning that attention (though it would vary w/ each individual).
And please, lay off the “maybe you don’t give a shit” stuff. Obama was the first president I’ve been old enough to vote for, and it felt damned good to see him lower the boot on the Bush/McCain shitstorm. What I’m talking about has more to do with why we ended up with Bush as our nationally elected president (for two terms!) in the first place.
I will admit that I was being mean with the ‘hilarious’ stuff. I did it in order to gently provoke, though, so I’m not sure I’ll apologize. What I was referring to is how you and Cicero nearly leap out of your pants when Higgs dares to suggest that there might be something other than the exterior life of social/political agency that is of considerable value. What Higgs is speaking to is the interior life of intense imagination, which generally is denigrated (or silently neglected) by most intellectual-types these days in favor of whatever fashionable theory of social activism. He’s speaking about character, ethos. Character—the energy you exude—is always the primary mode of influence and even activism—it -must- be discussed.
Amber,
the politicized thing was referring to the discussion I had going w/ Tom.
“But the idea that politics is some icky, foreign body that the pure writer need have nothing to do with”—I don’t think anyone here has yet said this. Chris’s post above is pretty clearly written in the vein of “these are the things you must do to foster your inner creative self,” and if you’re reading it at all charitably it’s pretty clear that what he’s suggested does not exclude actual physical political imagination. Like I said above, I think it was a bunch of cues regarding how to begin exerting a certain kind of compassionate attention. And, given the state of our political discourse, I think temporarily “forgetting politics” may indeed be a great way of learning that attention (though it would vary w/ each individual).
And please, lay off the “maybe you don’t give a shit” stuff. Obama was the first president I’ve been old enough to vote for, and it felt damned good to see him lower the boot on the Bush/McCain shitstorm. What I’m talking about has more to do with why we ended up with Bush as our nationally elected president (for two terms!) in the first place.
I will admit that I was being mean with the ‘hilarious’ stuff. I did it in order to gently provoke, though, so I’m not sure I’ll apologize. What I was referring to is how you and Cicero nearly leap out of your pants when Higgs dares to suggest that there might be something other than the exterior life of social/political agency that is of considerable value. What Higgs is speaking to is the interior life of intense imagination, which generally is denigrated (or silently neglected) by most intellectual-types these days in favor of whatever fashionable theory of social activism. He’s speaking about character, ethos. Character—the energy you exude—is always the primary mode of influence and even activism—it -must- be discussed.
” everything is politics”
Bullshit.
I was a little put off by the “forget politics” statement at first, too. But I liked the general idea of the piece and decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I like to think that he means “forget ideas like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘democrat’ or ‘republican’.” They are abstract ideas that really don’t have anything to do with you. Labeling yourself as one thing automatically cuts you off from another perspective. It closes you down. A lot of the things he mentions can be/are political acts. Traveling can be a political act. But don’t do it because it is a “liberal” thing to do. Do it because you want to experience something new. I don’t think forgetting politics automatically means that you can no longer engage in protest, or write to your congressman. It just means you have to remain a person when you do those things.
Of course, I could be totally wrong.
” everything is politics”
Bullshit.
I was a little put off by the “forget politics” statement at first, too. But I liked the general idea of the piece and decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I like to think that he means “forget ideas like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘democrat’ or ‘republican’.” They are abstract ideas that really don’t have anything to do with you. Labeling yourself as one thing automatically cuts you off from another perspective. It closes you down. A lot of the things he mentions can be/are political acts. Traveling can be a political act. But don’t do it because it is a “liberal” thing to do. Do it because you want to experience something new. I don’t think forgetting politics automatically means that you can no longer engage in protest, or write to your congressman. It just means you have to remain a person when you do those things.
Of course, I could be totally wrong.
i came here to get my hands nerdy but i ended up with my finger in my butt
i came here to get my hands nerdy but i ended up with my finger in my butt
Dear god, I mean ‘actual physical political participation’ I’m sorry, words get mixed up in my head.
Also, I think the hypothetical “pure writer” would simply be a pure writer. Whether or not she is politically engaged is another question. Many writers I admire are, but others weren’t. Hart Crane—if I’m remembering this correctly, sometimes I get the facts of bios mixed—had almost no political interest.
Dear god, I mean ‘actual physical political participation’ I’m sorry, words get mixed up in my head.
Also, I think the hypothetical “pure writer” would simply be a pure writer. Whether or not she is politically engaged is another question. Many writers I admire are, but others weren’t. Hart Crane—if I’m remembering this correctly, sometimes I get the facts of bios mixed—had almost no political interest.
So I suppose you are outside of the institution, then?
The idea that one’s aesthetic standards are determined by whatever ‘institution’ a person is pigeonholed within is a fantasy. Cobbling together disparate facts about Higgs’ life and assuming you know the exact nature of his standards—of the way his imagination works—is utter bullshit. Your lazy social theorizing has washed away anything that may be particular to only Higgs. A person is not a mannequin.
So I suppose you are outside of the institution, then?
The idea that one’s aesthetic standards are determined by whatever ‘institution’ a person is pigeonholed within is a fantasy. Cobbling together disparate facts about Higgs’ life and assuming you know the exact nature of his standards—of the way his imagination works—is utter bullshit. Your lazy social theorizing has washed away anything that may be particular to only Higgs. A person is not a mannequin.
There’s a kind of obscure Richard Yates novel that was out of print for a long time (Young Hearts Crying, although I think it might be in vogue again after the film adaptation of Revolutionary Road), where the RY stand-in is getting drunk at this party talking about bad writers. His friend tells him about a guy at the party who writes really terrible Communist short stories about factory workers. He quotes one of his opening lines, and it’s always stuck with me. “Jim threw down his hammer and said, ‘Fuck this.'”
The Yates character and the friend ridicule this line and the Communist writer, and although I wouldn’t necessarily agree (it is kind of a bad line), I do understand the lesson. Like with anything, letting too much politics seep into your literary fiction can be a problem. It’s all about balance. Books without any semblance of politics, without any of what Raymond Carver called “news of the world” can be just as dull and lifeless. That’s an important thing to keep in mind as we write.
There’s a kind of obscure Richard Yates novel that was out of print for a long time (Young Hearts Crying, although I think it might be in vogue again after the film adaptation of Revolutionary Road), where the RY stand-in is getting drunk at this party talking about bad writers. His friend tells him about a guy at the party who writes really terrible Communist short stories about factory workers. He quotes one of his opening lines, and it’s always stuck with me. “Jim threw down his hammer and said, ‘Fuck this.'”
The Yates character and the friend ridicule this line and the Communist writer, and although I wouldn’t necessarily agree (it is kind of a bad line), I do understand the lesson. Like with anything, letting too much politics seep into your literary fiction can be a problem. It’s all about balance. Books without any semblance of politics, without any of what Raymond Carver called “news of the world” can be just as dull and lifeless. That’s an important thing to keep in mind as we write.
Hm, ok, fair point. That needs a caveat: nobody should ever think that the world needs what they have to say when they also believe that anybody who criticises them is wrong. It’s also inadvisable if that need is assumed or taken as a given. If you arrive at the conclusion that you have something to say that the world, or your country, or even just one other person needs to hear what you have to say, that’s perfectly acceptable, so long as you got there by way of reasoned consideration.
Would you not say it’s a lot healthier to begin with the assumption that what you have to say *might not* be worthwhile, so that you at least have to work towards a realistic perception (as realistic as is ever possible) of the value of your words?
Again, my main issue here is the overtone of egotism and solipsism. It’s perfectly fine to say things you suspect nobody ‘needs’.
Hm, ok, fair point. That needs a caveat: nobody should ever think that the world needs what they have to say when they also believe that anybody who criticises them is wrong. It’s also inadvisable if that need is assumed or taken as a given. If you arrive at the conclusion that you have something to say that the world, or your country, or even just one other person needs to hear what you have to say, that’s perfectly acceptable, so long as you got there by way of reasoned consideration.
Would you not say it’s a lot healthier to begin with the assumption that what you have to say *might not* be worthwhile, so that you at least have to work towards a realistic perception (as realistic as is ever possible) of the value of your words?
Again, my main issue here is the overtone of egotism and solipsism. It’s perfectly fine to say things you suspect nobody ‘needs’.
??? The “disparate facts” about Higgs’ life are his own. They were cobbled together by himself.
What is particular to mr. Higgs? That he wears a blue tie not a red one?
OF COURSE one’s standards are determined by the institution he makes his way within.
A Roman Catholic priest believes in the major doctines of the faith. A member of the U.S. military meets certain standards, and adopts the institutions core philosophy, in order to be a member of the military.
Do you believe the academy is different? Universities are as hierarchical and conformist as the Church or the military.
Higgs’ imagination works within the parameters of his premises.
Certainly, one thing I’ve learned over the past ten years of extensive encounters with the literary intelligentsia is how utterly conformist everyone is; how terrified of new ideas, and of making waves.
Read history and you’ll see that most writers of any day instinctively conform to the dominant system, doing what’s required to make their way. The expediency of their ideas isn’t conscious.
The apparatchiks of the Soviet Union truly believed a Solzhenitsyn was crazy for attacking the all-powerful system which sustained them.
Systems have a way of producing mediocrity, whether the unthinking social realism of the Soviets, or the unthinking solipsism of our own place and time. This is what troubles me most about the literary system of now.
No system, you say?
Then why do you wave those certificates around so? Indeed, why did you go to such great expense to obtain them, if they’re meaningless?
(Writers exist outside the literary system. A few exist outside any institution, though this is becoming increasingly difficult. I know a few like this. They’re the Villons of today, unseen.)
??? The “disparate facts” about Higgs’ life are his own. They were cobbled together by himself.
What is particular to mr. Higgs? That he wears a blue tie not a red one?
OF COURSE one’s standards are determined by the institution he makes his way within.
A Roman Catholic priest believes in the major doctines of the faith. A member of the U.S. military meets certain standards, and adopts the institutions core philosophy, in order to be a member of the military.
Do you believe the academy is different? Universities are as hierarchical and conformist as the Church or the military.
Higgs’ imagination works within the parameters of his premises.
Certainly, one thing I’ve learned over the past ten years of extensive encounters with the literary intelligentsia is how utterly conformist everyone is; how terrified of new ideas, and of making waves.
Read history and you’ll see that most writers of any day instinctively conform to the dominant system, doing what’s required to make their way. The expediency of their ideas isn’t conscious.
The apparatchiks of the Soviet Union truly believed a Solzhenitsyn was crazy for attacking the all-powerful system which sustained them.
Systems have a way of producing mediocrity, whether the unthinking social realism of the Soviets, or the unthinking solipsism of our own place and time. This is what troubles me most about the literary system of now.
No system, you say?
Then why do you wave those certificates around so? Indeed, why did you go to such great expense to obtain them, if they’re meaningless?
(Writers exist outside the literary system. A few exist outside any institution, though this is becoming increasingly difficult. I know a few like this. They’re the Villons of today, unseen.)
p.s. I should add, if this isn’t a site for system writers, why all the to-do about the AWP conference? What exactly is that about?
-a literary outlaw
p.s. I should add, if this isn’t a site for system writers, why all the to-do about the AWP conference? What exactly is that about?
-a literary outlaw
define “politics” in your usage
define “politics” in your usage
and by that i mean define “politics” in a way where everything is not politics
and by that i mean define “politics” in a way where everything is not politics
King Wenclas I think I like you.
oh hey dude, can i like totally have an invite to that blog where you assess htmlgiant? actually, nevermind, i don’t give a shit
King Wenclas I think I like you.
oh hey dude, can i like totally have an invite to that blog where you assess htmlgiant? actually, nevermind, i don’t give a shit
“Jim threw down his hammer and said, ‘Fuck this.'”
Sometimes something is so bad it’s good. I think that line is funny.
“Jim threw down his hammer and said, ‘Fuck this.'”
Sometimes something is so bad it’s good. I think that line is funny.
“Like with anything, letting too much politics seep into your literary fiction can be a problem. It’s all about balance.”
I had a very similar thought while watching Godard’s Tout va Bien, and by “watching” I mean “turning it off twenty minutes in.”
well, i mean, i like htmlgiant, i think it is a blog that is needed, i think it is funny and i genuinely enjoy reading it, but our sovereign troll here kind of has a point: Higgs is indeed working as an artist ‘within’ the system of academia. Whether or not that is to a detriment is debatable, but he is certainly not an outlaw writer. most of the people who post on this blog have an mfa & teach in an mfa program, have an mfa & teach outside of an mfa program, have an mfa, or are working towards having an mfa. to survive in an academic program, from what i’ve seen of others (i am no longer in an academic program) you do have to make certain sacrifices at certain times. sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad, sometimes this is irrelevant to your praxis. but consider, in relation to the other issue at hand here, the utter opposition to “the political” in tangent with this: if you are in an academic program and working towards a thesis, you are somewhat hampered in your complete obsession. “higgs” (as in the-higgs-in-this-interview-that-might-not-slash-doesn’t-exist-outside-this-interview) obviously has no problem obsessively devouring, but if he had literally nothing to worry about academically, who’s to say that wouldn’t open up even more time for devouring, which would eventually lead to an engagement with many texts on a level beyond that of their aesthetics? what if a little time-cushion would allow an engagement with the political acker and the political guyotat that strengthens the aesthetic insistence that their prose carries? this is all complete speculation, and i don’t claim that it is otherwise, but obviously if you are completely autonomous there is nothing holding you back. it’s unrealistic to expect a writer to exist completely autonomous of ANY system (whether it by institutional, structural, aesthetic, or community based), but there’s no reason to insist that that idea is “retarded”… as somebody who loves completely ‘new’ texts, that sounds pretty utopian. and if you don’t believe in politics you can’t believe in utopias and idealism is thrown out the drain and everything is on the surface and life becomes useless, which, maybe it is, but it’s much more fun to live when there’s a reason to.
well, i mean, i like htmlgiant, i think it is a blog that is needed, i think it is funny and i genuinely enjoy reading it, but our sovereign troll here kind of has a point: Higgs is indeed working as an artist ‘within’ the system of academia. Whether or not that is to a detriment is debatable, but he is certainly not an outlaw writer. most of the people who post on this blog have an mfa & teach in an mfa program, have an mfa & teach outside of an mfa program, have an mfa, or are working towards having an mfa. to survive in an academic program, from what i’ve seen of others (i am no longer in an academic program) you do have to make certain sacrifices at certain times. sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad, sometimes this is irrelevant to your praxis. but consider, in relation to the other issue at hand here, the utter opposition to “the political” in tangent with this: if you are in an academic program and working towards a thesis, you are somewhat hampered in your complete obsession. “higgs” (as in the-higgs-in-this-interview-that-might-not-slash-doesn’t-exist-outside-this-interview) obviously has no problem obsessively devouring, but if he had literally nothing to worry about academically, who’s to say that wouldn’t open up even more time for devouring, which would eventually lead to an engagement with many texts on a level beyond that of their aesthetics? what if a little time-cushion would allow an engagement with the political acker and the political guyotat that strengthens the aesthetic insistence that their prose carries? this is all complete speculation, and i don’t claim that it is otherwise, but obviously if you are completely autonomous there is nothing holding you back. it’s unrealistic to expect a writer to exist completely autonomous of ANY system (whether it by institutional, structural, aesthetic, or community based), but there’s no reason to insist that that idea is “retarded”… as somebody who loves completely ‘new’ texts, that sounds pretty utopian. and if you don’t believe in politics you can’t believe in utopias and idealism is thrown out the drain and everything is on the surface and life becomes useless, which, maybe it is, but it’s much more fun to live when there’s a reason to.
i would argue that there is just as proportionate amount of anti-political “intellectual-types” as those that practice “whatever fashionable theory of social activism,” if not far more. prove me wrong.
i would argue that there is just as proportionate amount of anti-political “intellectual-types” as those that practice “whatever fashionable theory of social activism,” if not far more. prove me wrong.
Why? Why are we making declarations regarding literary fiction? Why can’t one just write? What is the point of limiting something to a genre, and then making rules about what can or cannot go into it. “Too much” politix in a story for you might be “not nearly enough” for someone else. What is the point of arguing for the abolition or the marginalization of something as entirely broad and part of society as politics? It just strikes me as completely ridiculously.
Why? Why are we making declarations regarding literary fiction? Why can’t one just write? What is the point of limiting something to a genre, and then making rules about what can or cannot go into it. “Too much” politix in a story for you might be “not nearly enough” for someone else. What is the point of arguing for the abolition or the marginalization of something as entirely broad and part of society as politics? It just strikes me as completely ridiculously.
“What is particular to mr. Higgs? That he wears a blue tie not a red one?
OF COURSE one’s standards are determined by the institution he makes his way within.”
Would you say that of your best friend?—”What’s particular to him?”
And no, they’re not. We have a conscious choice in the matter. We can choose to try and develop our ability to think and reason and wisely choose—thus developing emotional/intellectual standards that may go against the grain of our institution’s—or we can choose not to, and passively accept whatever standards get imposed on us. Either way it’s a choice, and it’s a choice that every person makes differently, idiosyncratically. You are trying too hard to de-particularize the individual.
“What is particular to mr. Higgs? That he wears a blue tie not a red one?
OF COURSE one’s standards are determined by the institution he makes his way within.”
Would you say that of your best friend?—”What’s particular to him?”
And no, they’re not. We have a conscious choice in the matter. We can choose to try and develop our ability to think and reason and wisely choose—thus developing emotional/intellectual standards that may go against the grain of our institution’s—or we can choose not to, and passively accept whatever standards get imposed on us. Either way it’s a choice, and it’s a choice that every person makes differently, idiosyncratically. You are trying too hard to de-particularize the individual.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/politics
Explain, using any of those definitions, how politics encompasses everything.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/politics
Explain, using any of those definitions, how politics encompasses everything.
Among what group, mike? I was thinking of those who practice lit crit, a group of practitioners which I think is clearly dominated by the kind of criticism I mentioned.
Also, I never proposed that anyone be anti-political. I’m proposing a balanced perspective. However, balance is impossible if you honestly think that politics encompasses -everything.-
Among what group, mike? I was thinking of those who practice lit crit, a group of practitioners which I think is clearly dominated by the kind of criticism I mentioned.
Also, I never proposed that anyone be anti-political. I’m proposing a balanced perspective. However, balance is impossible if you honestly think that politics encompasses -everything.-
“5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society”
i don’t think “people” has to remain “people” in this situation, i think it is more “things” living (placed) in society. meaning is differential, language itself only exists within relationships, hence, language is inherently political.
“5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society”
i don’t think “people” has to remain “people” in this situation, i think it is more “things” living (placed) in society. meaning is differential, language itself only exists within relationships, hence, language is inherently political.
i thought the group we were talking about aws “intellectual-types” hence saying exactly what i said. i mean, of course lit crit is dominated by politics as politics is like 80% of literary criticism… if we’re isolating it like that i don’t see your point. that’s like saying there are more political politicians than apolitical politicians and then being upset when you discover you’re in the minority.
i thought the group we were talking about aws “intellectual-types” hence saying exactly what i said. i mean, of course lit crit is dominated by politics as politics is like 80% of literary criticism… if we’re isolating it like that i don’t see your point. that’s like saying there are more political politicians than apolitical politicians and then being upset when you discover you’re in the minority.
Yep, sexgodrocknroll. There is certainly a lot of good material there to satirize.
Yep, sexgodrocknroll. There is certainly a lot of good material there to satirize.
Ryan,
I very much enjoy being warped. I’m glad we see things differently. It makes everything more interesting.
Ryan,
I very much enjoy being warped. I’m glad we see things differently. It makes everything more interesting.
@ryan “politics has nothing to do with you” … politics is a pretty personal affair, but i tend to think if you don’t take at least a passingly informed interest in the way you’re being governed, then you kinda don’t deserve the better quality of life that comes with having a good government.
@ZZZZIPP “POLITICS CAN BE USEFUL” … DARN TOOTIN’.
zusya,
I never said that we should not take an informed interest in politics.
zusya,
I never said that we should not take an informed interest in politics.
That still seems to cover only the social sphere. (As in, the relationship between entities [thing or person] in society).
If you would amend “Everything is poltical” to “Everything social is political,” or “Politics encompasses all that is social, or all that belongs to the social world,” then I would have no quibbles. Privately I would still feel hesitant and tentative about the whole thing, but as far as I can see, no substantial dispute.
That still seems to cover only the social sphere. (As in, the relationship between entities [thing or person] in society).
If you would amend “Everything is poltical” to “Everything social is political,” or “Politics encompasses all that is social, or all that belongs to the social world,” then I would have no quibbles. Privately I would still feel hesitant and tentative about the whole thing, but as far as I can see, no substantial dispute.
Sorry mike, the right words weren’t coming to me, and ‘intellectual-types’ vomited on out. It’s very possible that I’m not completely sure about which group of people I speak of. . . . hmmmm. I hate it when the fuzzy associations that make sense in your mind fall apart on paper. (Or actually I guess I love it.)
Sorry mike, the right words weren’t coming to me, and ‘intellectual-types’ vomited on out. It’s very possible that I’m not completely sure about which group of people I speak of. . . . hmmmm. I hate it when the fuzzy associations that make sense in your mind fall apart on paper. (Or actually I guess I love it.)
not to belabor this, but what exactly are you considering that falls outside of the social sphere? art doesn’t exist in isolation, it exists wholly within the realm of the social sphere (if nobody sees it then it cannot enter a conversation where the perception of someone else is what is determining “everything.” while you can argue “if nobody sees a tree fall in a forest the tree still falls,” the fact is that tree falling is never going to enter our realm of discourse outside of speculation, and as far as i can tell we have not exactly resorted to vague philosophical speculation yet), people exist wholly within the social sphere, arguably everything except sleeping exists within the social sphere. heidegger’s “thing-in-itself” might insist that objects can be defined by qualities outside of any sort of relationship with said object (and this is where, I think the current realm of object-oriented-philosophy approaches ontology–don’t quote me on that, i’m not as up on it as i’d like to be) but that thing-in-itself cannot enter our discourse, our “everything” until we form a relationship with it, thus thrusting it into the social sphere.
not to belabor this, but what exactly are you considering that falls outside of the social sphere? art doesn’t exist in isolation, it exists wholly within the realm of the social sphere (if nobody sees it then it cannot enter a conversation where the perception of someone else is what is determining “everything.” while you can argue “if nobody sees a tree fall in a forest the tree still falls,” the fact is that tree falling is never going to enter our realm of discourse outside of speculation, and as far as i can tell we have not exactly resorted to vague philosophical speculation yet), people exist wholly within the social sphere, arguably everything except sleeping exists within the social sphere. heidegger’s “thing-in-itself” might insist that objects can be defined by qualities outside of any sort of relationship with said object (and this is where, I think the current realm of object-oriented-philosophy approaches ontology–don’t quote me on that, i’m not as up on it as i’d like to be) but that thing-in-itself cannot enter our discourse, our “everything” until we form a relationship with it, thus thrusting it into the social sphere.
completely ridiculous, mm. has anyone ever read marquez, kundera, richard powers? there’s some politics in some of their best work. and, i’ll argue, the politics contributes to their literary power.
completely ridiculous, mm. has anyone ever read marquez, kundera, richard powers? there’s some politics in some of their best work. and, i’ll argue, the politics contributes to their literary power.
ryan, i edited “i agree with you” out of my comment because it looked clunky. though re-reading what i wrote, it’s that “but” that made it seem like i disagree. damn.
Ah.
How are people doing that quotebox thing??
I have no intertube skills.
Ah.
How are people doing that quotebox thing??
I have no intertube skills.
For me, when you get lines like “Jim threw down his hammer and said, ‘Fuck this,’” it becomes a little too much. That’s just my personal taste, and like Mimi, on an ironic level, it’s pretty awesome like in the Yates. On a, sincere level, well, it’s just not for me.
However, I feel the same way concerning excess about many things in literary fiction. Like too many descriptions of setting, people, etc. But I can understand why certain readers are drawn to it. Have any of you read Against Forgetting by Carolyn Forche? It’s a great anthology with nothing but political poetry.
For me, when you get lines like “Jim threw down his hammer and said, ‘Fuck this,’” it becomes a little too much. That’s just my personal taste, and like Mimi, on an ironic level, it’s pretty awesome like in the Yates. On a, sincere level, well, it’s just not for me.
However, I feel the same way concerning excess about many things in literary fiction. Like too many descriptions of setting, people, etc. But I can understand why certain readers are drawn to it. Have any of you read Against Forgetting by Carolyn Forche? It’s a great anthology with nothing but political poetry.
Do you know The Autumn of the Patriarch (marquez)? That book is one of my very favorites, intensely moving. But there’s no way he could have written that without at some level “forgetting politics,” in the sense that he set aside his own personal interests and entered a cognitive space where he was at some fundamental detached from what he would normally considered his personal politics.
Maybe I’m reading into it—but then again maybe not, since Nick read it similarly—but I feel like Higgs is basically saying this: the writer-as-social-agent should not restrict the writer-as-writer. It’s two different playing fields, and one of them is much more a matter of private imagination. Everything Higgs listed above is simply ways of stoking one’s imagination. (For me the imagination feels very much like a fireplace-fire: you must toss the big honking logs in (regular sessions of writing and reading and meditation/brooding), but you also must carefully stoke it by attending to even the most banal chores and tasks with intense loving attention. You’ve got to stay ‘primed,’ both for creating meaningfully and living meaningfully.)
I mean, the question was w/in this context: “What must we do to improve our craft?” Thus the discussion is going to be of ways to make your interior imaginative self larger and more apparent to yourself. If the question were “How can I be a strong citizen?” then I suspect Higgs’s response would have been different.
But man, the Patriarch in that book—fucking hell, what a character. Make me want to go read it again, right now!
Do you know The Autumn of the Patriarch (marquez)? That book is one of my very favorites, intensely moving. But there’s no way he could have written that without at some level “forgetting politics,” in the sense that he set aside his own personal interests and entered a cognitive space where he was at some fundamental detached from what he would normally considered his personal politics.
Maybe I’m reading into it—but then again maybe not, since Nick read it similarly—but I feel like Higgs is basically saying this: the writer-as-social-agent should not restrict the writer-as-writer. It’s two different playing fields, and one of them is much more a matter of private imagination. Everything Higgs listed above is simply ways of stoking one’s imagination. (For me the imagination feels very much like a fireplace-fire: you must toss the big honking logs in (regular sessions of writing and reading and meditation/brooding), but you also must carefully stoke it by attending to even the most banal chores and tasks with intense loving attention. You’ve got to stay ‘primed,’ both for creating meaningfully and living meaningfully.)
I mean, the question was w/in this context: “What must we do to improve our craft?” Thus the discussion is going to be of ways to make your interior imaginative self larger and more apparent to yourself. If the question were “How can I be a strong citizen?” then I suspect Higgs’s response would have been different.
But man, the Patriarch in that book—fucking hell, what a character. Make me want to go read it again, right now!
Maybe I first saw this link on HTML GIANT; if so and I’m being redundant, then sorry. But I like these the way I like “Jim threw down….” (Yates must have been genius):
http://www.qwertyed.com/q_pages/q6_fun_pages/analogies.html
Also, it’s been a while since a cute/funny puppy/dog anything, so here’s another funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYz3Z-knf84
Barbara Lee speaks for me.
Peace, y’all.
Maybe I first saw this link on HTML GIANT; if so and I’m being redundant, then sorry. But I like these the way I like “Jim threw down….” (Yates must have been genius):
http://www.qwertyed.com/q_pages/q6_fun_pages/analogies.html
Also, it’s been a while since a cute/funny puppy/dog anything, so here’s another funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYz3Z-knf84
Barbara Lee speaks for me.
Peace, y’all.
@ryan tag = blockquote
[…] the comments on “Seek to seek” @ […]
working a minimum wage job isn’t gonna get me a bunch of magazine subscriptions, trips to europe, and tickets to the opera.
i know because i work a minimum wage job, zusya.
working a minimum wage job isn’t gonna get me a bunch of magazine subscriptions, trips to europe, and tickets to the opera.
i know because i work a minimum wage job, zusya.
“And I can’t say enough about tattoos. Tattoos are key…”
“And I can’t say enough about tattoos. Tattoos are key…”
private experience, spiritual experience, mystical experience. perhaps experience generally.
my dreams. my hallucinations.
All of these are not purely social experience. There is the relations between things, and there is what it is to be the thing itself. Art obviously doesn’t exist in isolation, but it’s also not wholly social. In fact, I personally think that the greatest things about it—the magical stuff, the reason literature has been something we’ve loved and cherished for so very long—lie outside (or inside?) of its social function.
private experience, spiritual experience, mystical experience. perhaps experience generally.
my dreams. my hallucinations.
All of these are not purely social experience. There is the relations between things, and there is what it is to be the thing itself. Art obviously doesn’t exist in isolation, but it’s also not wholly social. In fact, I personally think that the greatest things about it—the magical stuff, the reason literature has been something we’ve loved and cherished for so very long—lie outside (or inside?) of its social function.
Or prior to? Inevitably in the foreground of its social function?
Or prior to? Inevitably in the foreground of its social function?
touche. i’ll give you that. i’ll admit to being slightly hyperbolic to make a point– i don’t think it is honestly that black and white, but this kind of shit just really pisses me off. (and higgs has been utterly dismissive of politics in places besides this interview, so i think i’m more responding to a larger context than just this interview).
i am pretty obsessed x a million with both bataille and artaud and the thing is they are both wrapped up in INNER EXPERIENCE (the entirety of bataille’s somme atheologique is looking for that), but bataille, writing in the midst of two world wars, despite what looks like an occasional apolitical standpoint, is a very political being, and this social engagement is what leads to his quest for EXEPERIENCE. artaud is also writing the body, and he is writing out of REVOLT, he is revolting against society, against the body, against god. you can praise his language all you want, but if you ignore what he’s doing then you are completely NOT engaging with his work.
so while maybe inner/private/spiritual/mystical experience is outside the realm of what i am calling ‘politics’ sometimes, i wouldn’t say that it always is by any means.
touche. i’ll give you that. i’ll admit to being slightly hyperbolic to make a point– i don’t think it is honestly that black and white, but this kind of shit just really pisses me off. (and higgs has been utterly dismissive of politics in places besides this interview, so i think i’m more responding to a larger context than just this interview).
i am pretty obsessed x a million with both bataille and artaud and the thing is they are both wrapped up in INNER EXPERIENCE (the entirety of bataille’s somme atheologique is looking for that), but bataille, writing in the midst of two world wars, despite what looks like an occasional apolitical standpoint, is a very political being, and this social engagement is what leads to his quest for EXEPERIENCE. artaud is also writing the body, and he is writing out of REVOLT, he is revolting against society, against the body, against god. you can praise his language all you want, but if you ignore what he’s doing then you are completely NOT engaging with his work.
so while maybe inner/private/spiritual/mystical experience is outside the realm of what i am calling ‘politics’ sometimes, i wouldn’t say that it always is by any means.
No, totally, of course not. It’s relatable, communicable. We can talk about it, we know what we mean. Conversations are possible, and great—I mean, this is the realm of art, of human intimacy, of everything great.
But somehow those are all still vastly different than one person’s inevitable conversation w/ herself. I resist the “everything is politics” line so much because I believe that these conversations truly are inevitable, but if we lose balance and focus exclusively on the social conversations—easy to do—then we lose awareness of our self-conversations, and unless we’re blessed with an uber-healthy constitution, these conversation will become demeaning, nasty, and self-abasing. We will stop truly conversing w/ ourselves in the way we converse with someone we care deeply for—rather, we’ll scream, yell, demean, act passively aggressive.
In some sense this is all an overblown restatement of a typical Recovery phrase—”You can’t take care of others unless you’re also taking care of yourself.” It is maybe embarrassing how much of my “intellect thought” constitutes bland overstatements of my experience w/ recovery, but oh well.
I feel like I need to read these guys you mention. Recommended starting points?
No, totally, of course not. It’s relatable, communicable. We can talk about it, we know what we mean. Conversations are possible, and great—I mean, this is the realm of art, of human intimacy, of everything great.
But somehow those are all still vastly different than one person’s inevitable conversation w/ herself. I resist the “everything is politics” line so much because I believe that these conversations truly are inevitable, but if we lose balance and focus exclusively on the social conversations—easy to do—then we lose awareness of our self-conversations, and unless we’re blessed with an uber-healthy constitution, these conversation will become demeaning, nasty, and self-abasing. We will stop truly conversing w/ ourselves in the way we converse with someone we care deeply for—rather, we’ll scream, yell, demean, act passively aggressive.
In some sense this is all an overblown restatement of a typical Recovery phrase—”You can’t take care of others unless you’re also taking care of yourself.” It is maybe embarrassing how much of my “intellect thought” constitutes bland overstatements of my experience w/ recovery, but oh well.
I feel like I need to read these guys you mention. Recommended starting points?
this is just a thought-experiment, so don’t bite my head off…
if one really, truly, profoundly doesn’t care about, like, anything, and is just surrendered to the world, isn’t it true that for that person there are no politics, there is nothing political? now, please, if you feel liking humoring me, don’t just say the first thing in your head, which is something along the lines of “but, but, but not-caring is a political action.”
rigorous detachment is, maybe, something different than ‘apathy as a political action by someone who claims to not care about politics or claims to not be political.’
or maybe this line of thought is wrongheaded, or putting it this way is wrongheaded, because buddhist monks, which is who i’m thinking of, of course once quite famously set themselves on fire, and that was definitely a political action. so….[insert logical statement based on the preceding]…you know…
maybe what this is ‘about’ is people who like art and buddhism and such, don’t like thinking about politics sometimes. and since we have control over how we think about things [via “this is water”], we can choose to think of ourselves as ‘operating blissfully unconcerned with politics as they may or may not manifest themselves around and in us, even though maybe that is “bad” or something.’ or something. ha…
this is just a thought-experiment, so don’t bite my head off…
if one really, truly, profoundly doesn’t care about, like, anything, and is just surrendered to the world, isn’t it true that for that person there are no politics, there is nothing political? now, please, if you feel liking humoring me, don’t just say the first thing in your head, which is something along the lines of “but, but, but not-caring is a political action.”
rigorous detachment is, maybe, something different than ‘apathy as a political action by someone who claims to not care about politics or claims to not be political.’
or maybe this line of thought is wrongheaded, or putting it this way is wrongheaded, because buddhist monks, which is who i’m thinking of, of course once quite famously set themselves on fire, and that was definitely a political action. so….[insert logical statement based on the preceding]…you know…
maybe what this is ‘about’ is people who like art and buddhism and such, don’t like thinking about politics sometimes. and since we have control over how we think about things [via “this is water”], we can choose to think of ourselves as ‘operating blissfully unconcerned with politics as they may or may not manifest themselves around and in us, even though maybe that is “bad” or something.’ or something. ha…
also, just realized my description at the beginning ‘probably’ doesn’t even describe buddhist monks. eh… well…
also, just realized my description at the beginning ‘probably’ doesn’t even describe buddhist monks. eh… well…
to continue my merry, clumsy way down “logic road” [it’s the morning, people, or something], perhaps the only zen response to people palavering over politics is to accept their palavering and rest on/over/around/through/in it, lightly.
to continue my merry, clumsy way down “logic road” [it’s the morning, people, or something], perhaps the only zen response to people palavering over politics is to accept their palavering and rest on/over/around/through/in it, lightly.
Hey guys. I’m enjoying reading this comment thread conversation (in addition to the original post). Don’t know that I have much to add, but I think there exists on an individual level:
1) “inner” politics – what one believes in, the guidelines by which one would ideally live one’s life, and hope to see the rest of the world function or “be”
2) “outer” politics – how one actually lives and functions “in the world”, where attaining one’s ideal may be impossible and one “does his best” to stay true to his beliefs
3) an “inner life” outside of politics – the “private experience, spiritual experience, mystical experience” ryan mentions
Sometimes I enjoy contemplating “subversive anarchy” as a personal politics.
I do not in fact “live” it (well, maybe sometimes just a little) but I fancy myself being a “subversive anarchist in my head” to awesome subversive personal comic effect. That is “the private experience” and “a thought experiment” and grim silly fun.
What I just wrote probably makes absolutely no sense to anyone but me.
Hey guys. I’m enjoying reading this comment thread conversation (in addition to the original post). Don’t know that I have much to add, but I think there exists on an individual level:
1) “inner” politics – what one believes in, the guidelines by which one would ideally live one’s life, and hope to see the rest of the world function or “be”
2) “outer” politics – how one actually lives and functions “in the world”, where attaining one’s ideal may be impossible and one “does his best” to stay true to his beliefs
3) an “inner life” outside of politics – the “private experience, spiritual experience, mystical experience” ryan mentions
Sometimes I enjoy contemplating “subversive anarchy” as a personal politics.
I do not in fact “live” it (well, maybe sometimes just a little) but I fancy myself being a “subversive anarchist in my head” to awesome subversive personal comic effect. That is “the private experience” and “a thought experiment” and grim silly fun.
What I just wrote probably makes absolutely no sense to anyone but me.
Janey threw down her dildo, said “Fuck this!”
Janey threw down her dildo, said “Fuck this!”
hey thanks, ryan, that sounds nice. i live in chicago. where do you live?
hey thanks, ryan, that sounds nice. i live in chicago. where do you live?
there’s some ancient persian one or something where this guy comes to a river and he sees a man on the other side of the river, and the first guy tries to find some wood to use to help himself get across, and he can’t find any, he’s getting frustrated, and he asks the second man across the river: “How can I get to the other side of the river?” And the second man says, “But you are on the other side of the river.”
Heh…
there’s some ancient persian one or something where this guy comes to a river and he sees a man on the other side of the river, and the first guy tries to find some wood to use to help himself get across, and he can’t find any, he’s getting frustrated, and he asks the second man across the river: “How can I get to the other side of the river?” And the second man says, “But you are on the other side of the river.”
Heh…
that really sucks. i’ve been there. email me your address, i’ll mail you something.