Random
KILL KILL KILL
hi it's me
I had an interesting morning. Early this morning I sat down at my computer to write and realized that my computer had eaten, or I had deleted, ten pages that I wrote yesterday.
Ten pages is a lot. I tried various data recovery efforts. The bkups that I had emailed to myself while writing were all incomplete: They only contained the first half of the first page. Something must have been corrupted. For about an hour I couldn’t really do anything except visualize skulls exploding. Then I punched things for a little while, then I bellowed for a bit. The neighbors probably thought it was Manson Family redux over here. Then I practiced a bit of self-hypnosis or at least tried to, and then I sat down and took some Adderall and started rewriting the entire fucking ten pages. I’m five pages in right now.
This isn’t as bad as the boyfriend of someone I know, who was writing a novel for about a year when his apartment got broken into and his laptop stolen. He hadn’t backed the thing up anywhere–incredibly…stupidly. But still I am intensely sympathetic.
Anyway, the period of rage is over now, and I am just rewriting, and making sure the backups are complete (and using a flash drive). I’m just taking a little break. Ever lost anything huge? Did you rewrite?
Tags: data loss, fuck the modern age
dude, while i was staying that weekend in your apartment in 2007, i lost five or six pages of a short story i was working on.
you don’t need to backup: you need to get an exorcist!
dude, while i was staying that weekend in your apartment in 2007, i lost five or six pages of a short story i was working on.
you don’t need to backup: you need to get an exorcist!
jesus christ.
jesus christ.
funny, i tried to get blake to completely delete one of his manuscripts and i still stand behind that idea.
i think you should too.
but from a computer standpoint, i may be able to assist, depending on the operating system platform.
funny, i tried to get blake to completely delete one of his manuscripts and i still stand behind that idea.
i think you should too.
but from a computer standpoint, i may be able to assist, depending on the operating system platform.
http://www.getdropbox.com; it updates constantly so you are always backed up.
http://www.getdropbox.com; it updates constantly so you are always backed up.
thanks. Carbonite is another one I’ve been meaning to use/try. Guess it’s time.
thanks. Carbonite is another one I’ve been meaning to use/try. Guess it’s time.
Interesting. Can you elaborate on the completely delete idea? Are you referring to specific manuscripts, as in you think there are things we’ve written that really suck, or is this a general kill your darlings argument of some kind?
Interesting. Can you elaborate on the completely delete idea? Are you referring to specific manuscripts, as in you think there are things we’ve written that really suck, or is this a general kill your darlings argument of some kind?
well i proposed it to blake as an exercise in ego awareness.
no, not your shitty work, but, your best work, finish it, read it, go over the MS in your mind until it is perfect, then remove it from this world.
permanently.
well i proposed it to blake as an exercise in ego awareness.
no, not your shitty work, but, your best work, finish it, read it, go over the MS in your mind until it is perfect, then remove it from this world.
permanently.
That’s a pretty stupid idea
That’s a pretty stupid idea
i want to do this
i want to do this
I’ve found Dropbox to be an invaluable tool. It keeps all my work synced on three computers. My life has gotten so much simpler.
In all seriousness, how is taking a manuscript and deleting it an exercise in ego awareness. To me, it seems like the height of egotism to delete a great manuscript. And also, insanity.
Had a nearly-full 1.5 TB hard drive crash last October. Most of it wasn’t a big deal — just movies I’d rented and ripped — but a decent amount (~150 GB) of the data were photographs (obviously not replaceable/rewritable). As a photographer, that is no good. Had everything except the images from August 2008 – December 2008 backed up.
Had a nearly-full 1.5 TB hard drive crash last October. Most of it wasn’t a big deal — just movies I’d rented and ripped — but a decent amount (~150 GB) of the data were photographs (obviously not replaceable/rewritable). As a photographer, that is no good. Had everything except the images from August 2008 – December 2008 backed up.
You should apply this exercise to yr comments.
You should apply this exercise to yr comments.
i dont know if it has anything to do with ego. in a sense its ego pushed to its logical extreme, but im interested in experiencing that extreme. but i dont think of it w/r/t ego. its just kind of beautiful to me. its writing for yourself as audience in its most absolute sense. its a gift yourself. its selfish. its private.
i dont know if it has anything to do with ego. in a sense its ego pushed to its logical extreme, but im interested in experiencing that extreme. but i dont think of it w/r/t ego. its just kind of beautiful to me. its writing for yourself as audience in its most absolute sense. its a gift yourself. its selfish. its private.
I like this idea, Jereme. It reminds me of that ‘Erased de Kooning Drawing’ thing. I guess that story is that de Koooning was king shit at the time and Rauschenberg was pretty much unknown. Rauschenberg approached de Kooning and pitched the idea of erasing one of this paintings/drawings. De Kooning agreed and gave him one of his best paintings/drawings so that he would miss it when it was gone. This ‘deleting a manuscript’ idea wouldn’t work unless it was something good, something the writer would miss.
I disagree that this would be an egotistical act. I dunno. It’s like a zen thing. Your manuscript is going to turn to dust and be forgotten eventually. You are just accepting this fact by manifesting it yourself. You are choosing to not fool yourself, to not delude yourself into thinking that you’ve made an ‘immortal work’ that is a ‘gift to the world.’ It’s like suicide is the ‘ultimate existential act’ or some shit.
I like this idea, Jereme. It reminds me of that ‘Erased de Kooning Drawing’ thing. I guess that story is that de Koooning was king shit at the time and Rauschenberg was pretty much unknown. Rauschenberg approached de Kooning and pitched the idea of erasing one of this paintings/drawings. De Kooning agreed and gave him one of his best paintings/drawings so that he would miss it when it was gone. This ‘deleting a manuscript’ idea wouldn’t work unless it was something good, something the writer would miss.
I disagree that this would be an egotistical act. I dunno. It’s like a zen thing. Your manuscript is going to turn to dust and be forgotten eventually. You are just accepting this fact by manifesting it yourself. You are choosing to not fool yourself, to not delude yourself into thinking that you’ve made an ‘immortal work’ that is a ‘gift to the world.’ It’s like suicide is the ‘ultimate existential act’ or some shit.
JEREME IT’S LIKE A PESSOA/BORGES/YURY OLESHA CONCEPTION OF LITERATURE, I GET YOU MAN, IT’S BEAUTIFUL. IT’S OKAY JUST LIVING AS AN ARTIST AND TEACHING YOURSELF TO PLAY.
JEREME IT’S LIKE A PESSOA/BORGES/YURY OLESHA CONCEPTION OF LITERATURE, I GET YOU MAN, IT’S BEAUTIFUL. IT’S OKAY JUST LIVING AS AN ARTIST AND TEACHING YOURSELF TO PLAY.
Didn’t Simone burn her first two novels? Publish the third.
I’d like to delete everything and start over.
Or not?
Didn’t Simone burn her first two novels? Publish the third.
I’d like to delete everything and start over.
Or not?
zip, i can’t believe you just dropped an olesha reference. nice.
zip, i can’t believe you just dropped an olesha reference. nice.
I bet the ghost of a failed NY writer who hanged himself in despair haunts your apartment, Nick.
I need to be less lazy backing stuff up. Especially since I once lost one half of a dissertation paper I wrote which amounted to about 30 written pages, single-spaced. Trying to reassemble analytical writing is a fucking nightmare when so much hinges on a very precise mode of explanation. But still I don’t back things up diligently. I think it’s kind of like a pathological outcrop of the need to trust my computer. How can I have a working relationship with this thing if I need to double check it at every turn etc.? You totally feel betrayed to when you lose work right? Like how the fuck could you do this? And the PC just placidly stares.
I bet the ghost of a failed NY writer who hanged himself in despair haunts your apartment, Nick.
I need to be less lazy backing stuff up. Especially since I once lost one half of a dissertation paper I wrote which amounted to about 30 written pages, single-spaced. Trying to reassemble analytical writing is a fucking nightmare when so much hinges on a very precise mode of explanation. But still I don’t back things up diligently. I think it’s kind of like a pathological outcrop of the need to trust my computer. How can I have a working relationship with this thing if I need to double check it at every turn etc.? You totally feel betrayed to when you lose work right? Like how the fuck could you do this? And the PC just placidly stares.
Am I the boyfriend of your friend? That happened to me in Boston in 1999. And it’s how I learned to obsessively backup.
Am I the boyfriend of your friend? That happened to me in Boston in 1999. And it’s how I learned to obsessively backup.
MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED ALEXEI TOLSTOY FOR YOU THEN TOO, HUH? :o)
MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED ALEXEI TOLSTOY FOR YOU THEN TOO, HUH? :o)
I think I understand your point, but I’ve never quite gotten why so many people think that all writers are unrepentant egomaniacs that need to be forcibly taught humility. I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot lately…for many writers and artists, I believe the act of creating, in whatever way they do, is tantamount to their personhood. I would say that most people perceive personhood in the light of outside sources (i.e. their interests and goals). Perceiving it via an inside source (i.e. an interest that one makes for oneself) may give a person the appearance of being self-centered, but I have to think it actually makes them far more vulnerable than average.
Looking at it that way, someone who would pour their heart into a manuscript only to destroy it in the name of shrinking their own ego has misunderstood the difference between having a healthy self-confidence and thinking oneself is infallible.
I think I understand your point, but I’ve never quite gotten why so many people think that all writers are unrepentant egomaniacs that need to be forcibly taught humility. I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot lately…for many writers and artists, I believe the act of creating, in whatever way they do, is tantamount to their personhood. I would say that most people perceive personhood in the light of outside sources (i.e. their interests and goals). Perceiving it via an inside source (i.e. an interest that one makes for oneself) may give a person the appearance of being self-centered, but I have to think it actually makes them far more vulnerable than average.
Looking at it that way, someone who would pour their heart into a manuscript only to destroy it in the name of shrinking their own ego has misunderstood the difference between having a healthy self-confidence and thinking oneself is infallible.
some people put too much value in things that are ultimately meaningless to do this. it’s sad.
some people put too much value in things that are ultimately meaningless to do this. it’s sad.
probably has something for me to do with what gena eludes, it exploits the meaninglessness of writing.
probably has something for me to do with what gena eludes, it exploits the meaninglessness of writing.
or not the meaninglessness of writing, but of attaching ownership to it.
or not the meaninglessness of writing, but of attaching ownership to it.
think i’ll go for a walk now
think i’ll go for a walk now
it’s hard to accept that everything (especially the things that you create) is meaningless.
but everything will still be okay. whether you accept it or deny it, it’s only important in your mind anyway. however, the inability to allow yourself to destroy something you have created shows that you aren’t secure with what you have created. you aren’t okay with having something exist only in your mind. you have to show it to others, get approval or attention. which is where feeding your ego (or your insecurity, etc.) comes in. but that’s not necessarily always the case.
it’s hard to accept that everything (especially the things that you create) is meaningless.
but everything will still be okay. whether you accept it or deny it, it’s only important in your mind anyway. however, the inability to allow yourself to destroy something you have created shows that you aren’t secure with what you have created. you aren’t okay with having something exist only in your mind. you have to show it to others, get approval or attention. which is where feeding your ego (or your insecurity, etc.) comes in. but that’s not necessarily always the case.
i think i’m going to start an independent/small press book store and then burn it down.
i think i’m going to start an independent/small press book store and then burn it down.
mark,
thank you for the validation.
roxane,
why do you think it an insane act?
wilson,
we both live in la. let me know if you want to get a coffee and further discuss your desire to tyrannize dissimilar thought.
darby & g,
you get it.
zzzip,
pessoa was the bitch’s bastard.
dash,
yes, but you are thinking about it in the slight reverse.
destroying it is a lesson in understanding the ego, not abolishing or promoting it.
it all depends on how a person internalizes their writing, what it “means” to them.
the value is in the act, not understanding the act.
Jon,
you make too many assumptions about things. i did not say anything about writers or poets.
i said blake.
a person.
singular.
you also assumed the end result was a destruction of ego.
there is only awareness, then control.
no destruction.
mark,
thank you for the validation.
roxane,
why do you think it an insane act?
wilson,
we both live in la. let me know if you want to get a coffee and further discuss your desire to tyrannize dissimilar thought.
darby & g,
you get it.
zzzip,
pessoa was the bitch’s bastard.
dash,
yes, but you are thinking about it in the slight reverse.
destroying it is a lesson in understanding the ego, not abolishing or promoting it.
it all depends on how a person internalizes their writing, what it “means” to them.
the value is in the act, not understanding the act.
Jon,
you make too many assumptions about things. i did not say anything about writers or poets.
i said blake.
a person.
singular.
you also assumed the end result was a destruction of ego.
there is only awareness, then control.
no destruction.
Jereme, it just feels crazy to me to build something only to tear it down. That’s not something I would have any interest in doing. It’s not that I think my writing is so important that it cannot be destroyed but I like my writing and I would never want to just delete a manuscript. Maybe its how I value my time. If I spend my time on something only to undo all my efforts, I feel like I would be disrespecting myself. Regardless, it would never cross my mind to destroy a manuscript or a student’s homework or any other fruit of my labor.
JEREME, I MAY BE IGNORANT: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “BITCH’S BASTARD”???
JEREME, I MAY BE IGNORANT: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “BITCH’S BASTARD”???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandpainting#Tibetan_sandpainting
which is not to say i’d advocate it as an author, although i can appreciate it as a tool if the goal of writing is not one of expression or communion but of attaining selflessness (which perhaps jereme is alluding to). nor would i agree with gena’s presumption of meaninglessness, which is one conclusion of many that can be drawn from the impermanence and non-teleological architecture of the *known* universe. there is liberation in loss, to be sure, which is a potent and often avoided life-lesson. if there is a deep desire to peel a callous off of the ego-membrane, then jereme offers a valid option; if the ego-membrane is currently a good fit, then effuse like a magnetic fountain of motherfucking stardust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandpainting#Tibetan_sandpainting
which is not to say i’d advocate it as an author, although i can appreciate it as a tool if the goal of writing is not one of expression or communion but of attaining selflessness (which perhaps jereme is alluding to). nor would i agree with gena’s presumption of meaninglessness, which is one conclusion of many that can be drawn from the impermanence and non-teleological architecture of the *known* universe. there is liberation in loss, to be sure, which is a potent and often avoided life-lesson. if there is a deep desire to peel a callous off of the ego-membrane, then jereme offers a valid option; if the ego-membrane is currently a good fit, then effuse like a magnetic fountain of motherfucking stardust.
BUT ROXANNE SOMETHING ALSO HAPPENED TO YOU WHEN YOU WERE CREATING THAT MANUSCRIPT: THE PROCESS/PLAYING IS ALSO A HUGE PART OF WRITING THAT SHOULDN’T BE IGNORED, ZZZIPP BELIEVES IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FINAL PRODUCT (BUT ZZZIPP STILL BELIEVES IN THE FINAL PRODUCT). WHAT YOU CAN’T DESTROY IS THE PERSON WHO CREATED THE DESTROYED MANUSCRIPT.
BUT ROXANNE SOMETHING ALSO HAPPENED TO YOU WHEN YOU WERE CREATING THAT MANUSCRIPT: THE PROCESS/PLAYING IS ALSO A HUGE PART OF WRITING THAT SHOULDN’T BE IGNORED, ZZZIPP BELIEVES IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FINAL PRODUCT (BUT ZZZIPP STILL BELIEVES IN THE FINAL PRODUCT). WHAT YOU CAN’T DESTROY IS THE PERSON WHO CREATED THE DESTROYED MANUSCRIPT.
Fair enough, I suppose I did assume some things: that the goal was to diminish ego, that your example regarding this Blake person was indicative of some larger philosophy. After reading darby and gena’s comments, I think I get your point…I’m just having a hard time imagining any person, Blake or otherwise, for whom this process would be constructive. What result did you intend this “awareness and control” to lead to for Blake? To me, the whole idea seems nihilistic, and perhaps even a little arrogant…after all, by judging his work as ultimately meaningless and then removing it from the world without giving anyone else a chance to judge it, Blake would be assuming that he’s his own best judge. I think that letting your work exist for others to judge makes you more aware of your own ego than anything you can do on your own.
Fair enough, I suppose I did assume some things: that the goal was to diminish ego, that your example regarding this Blake person was indicative of some larger philosophy. After reading darby and gena’s comments, I think I get your point…I’m just having a hard time imagining any person, Blake or otherwise, for whom this process would be constructive. What result did you intend this “awareness and control” to lead to for Blake? To me, the whole idea seems nihilistic, and perhaps even a little arrogant…after all, by judging his work as ultimately meaningless and then removing it from the world without giving anyone else a chance to judge it, Blake would be assuming that he’s his own best judge. I think that letting your work exist for others to judge makes you more aware of your own ego than anything you can do on your own.
[…] Someone’s got my back up. (Read the post first–it’s a story we can all relate to, written by the always-entertaining Nick Antosca–then scroll down to the comments to see what I’m referring to). […]
roxane, i am having a hard time following you. i think our minds differ greatly.
i guess i need to understand your intention and motivation for writing?
you said “tear it down”. i am really confused by this statement. i would argue that publishing the work is what lessens it.
but if you chose the path i am saying, over a piece of work, to immortalize it within your mind by destroying it at its perceived perfection,
not only will the object be beautiful in its inception, but, also, in its death.
now you get the burden of carrying it within your mind, where it will exist in perfection.
in the eternity of your mind.
i am not saying do this to all work. that is absurd. get published, by all means, get published if you so desire.
but try it with one piece of cherished writing. create it & destroy it.
there are many things to be learned from the act. i will not dictate what is right or wrong.
but i do think a person will feel a closeness within their being if they commit to my proposal.
an understanding, an awareness.
that’s all.
roxane, i am having a hard time following you. i think our minds differ greatly.
i guess i need to understand your intention and motivation for writing?
you said “tear it down”. i am really confused by this statement. i would argue that publishing the work is what lessens it.
but if you chose the path i am saying, over a piece of work, to immortalize it within your mind by destroying it at its perceived perfection,
not only will the object be beautiful in its inception, but, also, in its death.
now you get the burden of carrying it within your mind, where it will exist in perfection.
in the eternity of your mind.
i am not saying do this to all work. that is absurd. get published, by all means, get published if you so desire.
but try it with one piece of cherished writing. create it & destroy it.
there are many things to be learned from the act. i will not dictate what is right or wrong.
but i do think a person will feel a closeness within their being if they commit to my proposal.
an understanding, an awareness.
that’s all.
zzzzzip,
B A D M O T H E R FUCKER
zzzzzip,
B A D M O T H E R FUCKER
Jon,
I cannot really answer these questions. The act of writing is singular, the act of destroying will be singular, it will be a singular experience.
i am not going to influence your thought in either/or direction.
merely, it is a lesson in ego awareness.
perform the act, or, don’t.
i don’t care.
Jon,
I cannot really answer these questions. The act of writing is singular, the act of destroying will be singular, it will be a singular experience.
i am not going to influence your thought in either/or direction.
merely, it is a lesson in ego awareness.
perform the act, or, don’t.
i don’t care.
not completely/quite the same thing, but i like the antidote (where did i hear this? on this very blog?) of the writer who would write a story, print it out or whatever, and reread it(maybe a couple times?), then delete the document. then write it again, from memory, then reread that and delete it. i think the third or fifth or whatever draft was then the “final” version.
again, i think i maybe even read about that here at some point and so someone else can swoop in and tell me that i’ve remembered that all wrong. arg. but i like it anyway.
not completely/quite the same thing, but i like the antidote (where did i hear this? on this very blog?) of the writer who would write a story, print it out or whatever, and reread it(maybe a couple times?), then delete the document. then write it again, from memory, then reread that and delete it. i think the third or fifth or whatever draft was then the “final” version.
again, i think i maybe even read about that here at some point and so someone else can swoop in and tell me that i’ve remembered that all wrong. arg. but i like it anyway.
oh shit keith. i owe you a fucking email.
i forgot. i’m a douche.
STARDUST 4 LYFE.
oh shit keith. i owe you a fucking email.
i forgot. i’m a douche.
STARDUST 4 LYFE.
“a person will feel a closeness in their being”
huh. that speaks a whole other tone i was not aware of in that particular act, but had also been thinking about for years in different contexts, yet unable to make contact with that notion in the way you just did. an intimacy with the self. that’s been a deep-seated concern and contemplation of mine. the act of destruction you propose serves as a vault, bordering in a way on carrying around a secret, one that would still remain sealed even if you told it to someone because it has not to do with something that happened, but with the existence of a ‘thing’ that only exists in yourself (even though it no longer exists). i feel like i need to wipe the corner of my mouth because there is a pile of shit gathering there. but you’ve definitely touched on something, and that something is me. it feels good. i’m going to hold it for awhile if i can. i’ll give it back when it’s all gone.
“a person will feel a closeness in their being”
huh. that speaks a whole other tone i was not aware of in that particular act, but had also been thinking about for years in different contexts, yet unable to make contact with that notion in the way you just did. an intimacy with the self. that’s been a deep-seated concern and contemplation of mine. the act of destruction you propose serves as a vault, bordering in a way on carrying around a secret, one that would still remain sealed even if you told it to someone because it has not to do with something that happened, but with the existence of a ‘thing’ that only exists in yourself (even though it no longer exists). i feel like i need to wipe the corner of my mouth because there is a pile of shit gathering there. but you’ve definitely touched on something, and that something is me. it feels good. i’m going to hold it for awhile if i can. i’ll give it back when it’s all gone.
I remember when someone I’ll refer to as a “person” destroyed my laptop two summers ago.
I remember being at Best Buy when one of the “geeks” from Geek Squad explained that there was nothing he could do to save my hard-drive.
More specifically, there was nothing the “geeks” (stationed at some secret underground computer lab somewhere in the Mid-West) could do to save my hard-drive.
I lost so much stuff (sigh) and I barely backed any of it up . . . and I almost cried in a Best Buy.
I don’t have problems like this anymore.
I remember when someone I’ll refer to as a “person” destroyed my laptop two summers ago.
I remember being at Best Buy when one of the “geeks” from Geek Squad explained that there was nothing he could do to save my hard-drive.
More specifically, there was nothing the “geeks” (stationed at some secret underground computer lab somewhere in the Mid-West) could do to save my hard-drive.
I lost so much stuff (sigh) and I barely backed any of it up . . . and I almost cried in a Best Buy.
I don’t have problems like this anymore.
Jereme, I remember discussing this with you on Blake’s blog a while back when you first mentioned this idea. I agree with Roxane, mostly, but I think you forgot to mention that this was something Blake had actually alluded to doing (or wanting to do), and you meticulously expanded on the idea, right?
Dang, this was like a year ago, wasn’t it?
Jereme, I remember discussing this with you on Blake’s blog a while back when you first mentioned this idea. I agree with Roxane, mostly, but I think you forgot to mention that this was something Blake had actually alluded to doing (or wanting to do), and you meticulously expanded on the idea, right?
Dang, this was like a year ago, wasn’t it?
effusive magnetic motherfucking fountain of motherfucking stardust
fuck
where IS the ego membrane?
in order to fit, if it can fit
effusive magnetic motherfucking fountain of motherfucking stardust
fuck
where IS the ego membrane?
in order to fit, if it can fit
JEREME,
OK, B A D M O T H E R FUCKER, YES, THAT’S PERFECT
JEREME,
OK, B A D M O T H E R FUCKER, YES, THAT’S PERFECT
like that Iggy video Blake linked a few days ago: writing can be both Dionysian (the creation, what the creation/performance does to ego and experience) and Apollonian (publishing: leaving a monument for others). To focus on a purely Dionysian experience is exhilarating. You cannot really escape the Dionysian; it is inevitable. The Apollonian is optional.
like that Iggy video Blake linked a few days ago: writing can be both Dionysian (the creation, what the creation/performance does to ego and experience) and Apollonian (publishing: leaving a monument for others). To focus on a purely Dionysian experience is exhilarating. You cannot really escape the Dionysian; it is inevitable. The Apollonian is optional.
I like what Aaron says about printing, reading, deleting, rewriting from scratch. Back when I first started writing, I felt like every time I lost something the rewrite cut to the important stuff. But I think that was plot- and character-oriented writing. Now, I mean right now with current stuff, losing even two sentences would kill me.
I like what Aaron says about printing, reading, deleting, rewriting from scratch. Back when I first started writing, I felt like every time I lost something the rewrite cut to the important stuff. But I think that was plot- and character-oriented writing. Now, I mean right now with current stuff, losing even two sentences would kill me.
dearest mimi, together hand in hand we shall journey to the ego-membrane, and it shall reveal ourselves each to be a mirrored room of gumdrop prisms. there we shall feast to our heart’s content until our bodies are full of one another and our minds are empty of harm.
dearest mimi, you are the ego-membrane, we are cells of a single tissue, ever digesting itself, never diminishing.
dearest mimi, together hand in hand we shall journey to the ego-membrane, and it shall reveal ourselves each to be a mirrored room of gumdrop prisms. there we shall feast to our heart’s content until our bodies are full of one another and our minds are empty of harm.
dearest mimi, you are the ego-membrane, we are cells of a single tissue, ever digesting itself, never diminishing.
this is an interesting distinction, Ken. i definitely agree that the Dionysian is associated with the ecstasy of creation. but where you put locate publishing within the Apollonian, i would put editing, revising, fashioning of something out of the raw. so in that sense, destroying a manuscript would be a disavowal of Apollo, because once you create something the only way to persist in the ecstatic state would be to then destroy it in a kind of fever. but it seems wrong to me, as a practice. it seems dangerous to opt out of the Apollonian altogether, to create and destroy without check.
a purely Dionysian experience may be exhilarating, but the price is far too steep: nothing is so pernicious as an effort toward purity of any kind. when we admit the one we have a responsibility to admit its opposite.
this is an interesting distinction, Ken. i definitely agree that the Dionysian is associated with the ecstasy of creation. but where you put locate publishing within the Apollonian, i would put editing, revising, fashioning of something out of the raw. so in that sense, destroying a manuscript would be a disavowal of Apollo, because once you create something the only way to persist in the ecstatic state would be to then destroy it in a kind of fever. but it seems wrong to me, as a practice. it seems dangerous to opt out of the Apollonian altogether, to create and destroy without check.
a purely Dionysian experience may be exhilarating, but the price is far too steep: nothing is so pernicious as an effort toward purity of any kind. when we admit the one we have a responsibility to admit its opposite.
most everyone is over thinking this situation which devalues it.
the power is in the act, not understanding the act.
the issue, as i see it, with most people in the 21st century, is they have lost communication with their heart.
the mind is too powerful in most people.
perform the act.
search for your heart..
most everyone is over thinking this situation which devalues it.
the power is in the act, not understanding the act.
the issue, as i see it, with most people in the 21st century, is they have lost communication with their heart.
the mind is too powerful in most people.
perform the act.
search for your heart..
michael,
i think your name is michael, if my memory serves me? yes, those were the circumstances.
blake alluded to a destruction of a MS he thought would never “get published”.
i interjected my bullshit philosophy.
people got upset.
like they are now.
but to be honest, i only care about specific individuals and have no desire to try to understand the larger group.
there are a few people i would pose the exercise to, but, definitely, not all.
none of that thinking has changed.
Nick’s anger over lost text reminded me of the same hostility exhibited over my original proposal to blake.
i am not here to teach anyone anything.
michael,
i think your name is michael, if my memory serves me? yes, those were the circumstances.
blake alluded to a destruction of a MS he thought would never “get published”.
i interjected my bullshit philosophy.
people got upset.
like they are now.
but to be honest, i only care about specific individuals and have no desire to try to understand the larger group.
there are a few people i would pose the exercise to, but, definitely, not all.
none of that thinking has changed.
Nick’s anger over lost text reminded me of the same hostility exhibited over my original proposal to blake.
i am not here to teach anyone anything.
was it about an ms that would never get published when blake was about doing this? if that’s the case, that’s a different kind of thing, like just coping with rejection. i’m not talking about destruction as cathartic when i’m thinking about it. its almost like i need to know its going to get published, then do it. like wait for someone to accept it and then withdraw it and destroy it.
was it about an ms that would never get published when blake was about doing this? if that’s the case, that’s a different kind of thing, like just coping with rejection. i’m not talking about destruction as cathartic when i’m thinking about it. its almost like i need to know its going to get published, then do it. like wait for someone to accept it and then withdraw it and destroy it.
darby,
blake expressed the desire to get it published but thought it never would.
i saw his post as an opportunity.
blake valued the writing very much. obviously, since he did not destroy the work.
i think it was “ricky’s anus”?
i could be wrong.
darby,
blake expressed the desire to get it published but thought it never would.
i saw his post as an opportunity.
blake valued the writing very much. obviously, since he did not destroy the work.
i think it was “ricky’s anus”?
i could be wrong.
Jereme,
Yep, that was me. I thought about that a lot more after we had that discussion, and I realized what you are saying right now, that “i only care about specific individuals and have no desire to try to understand the larger group.”
The interesting thing is that Nick has a chance to completely rewrite what was unintentionally purged and yet he is trying to rewrite what he already had. I’m not making a judgment on Nick by any means (I would, in all actuality, try to do the same thing, but when I failed, I might take the opportunity to rewrite it).
I’m still wondering where “Ricky’s Anus” (or “Ricky’s Blood”) is in Blake’s mind now, since that was the manuscript that sparked this whole thing, in a way.
Jereme,
Yep, that was me. I thought about that a lot more after we had that discussion, and I realized what you are saying right now, that “i only care about specific individuals and have no desire to try to understand the larger group.”
The interesting thing is that Nick has a chance to completely rewrite what was unintentionally purged and yet he is trying to rewrite what he already had. I’m not making a judgment on Nick by any means (I would, in all actuality, try to do the same thing, but when I failed, I might take the opportunity to rewrite it).
I’m still wondering where “Ricky’s Anus” (or “Ricky’s Blood”) is in Blake’s mind now, since that was the manuscript that sparked this whole thing, in a way.