Every
day we see our lives play out in miniature what the universe does at large. The
day rises, a scattering of clouds flare into gold, the sky goes from a
twinkling black to a lighter and lighter blue, activities gain traction, grow,
people interact, floors are swept, money exchanged, coffee poured, food eaten,
cars started, traffic entered, curses shouted, insults hurled, acidities
endured, jobs worked, products shelved, houses sold, ideas taught, civilities
exchanged, dates made, the sun grows higher in its trajectory, then slowly,
imperceptibly begins to lower, the shadows lengthen, the sun moves toward the
western horizon, then (if you happened to be watching) the last portion of
sunlight fades from view and night unfolds from the sky, the darkness diffused
by streetlights in the city, an ocean of stars in the country unpolluted by
light.
We follow the same pattern. We rise, get
out of bed, and begin a trajectory that will lead us through a chronology of pumps
and bumps and exploits and joys. There will be an arc to our day. We will do
what the sun does but do it in miniature. We will attain a certain fullness of
being and then feel the tautness of that being relax bit by bit until we return
to bed and pull the covers over our head and vanish, enveloped by oblivion.
Losing consciousness is a delight. It
always is. Don’t ask why. I don’t know why. The reverse is less pleasant.
Entering into consciousness has never been an entirely pleasant experience for
me. It varies, depending on circumstances. How much sleep I had, what lay ahead
of me in the day.
I suspect everyone has their own way of
doing it. Mine is most often prickly. It’s a delicate operation. If I’m not
careful, I get the DTs.
Doesn’t matter. I get the DTs anyway. The
DTs are unavoidable.
By DTs I don’t mean delirium tremens. I
mean Donald Trump. The DTs happen when I have a moment or two of forgetfulness,
a nice blithe somewhat foggy insouciance as I run water to shave or open the
refrigerator for a jar of blackberry jam. And then it hits me. Creeps back into
my blood like a virus, dyes my red blood with a black ugly bile, grows into a
mass of panicked awareness and crashes around in my head like an Iberian
fighting bull bristling with banderillas, rivets me to the ground with the dead
weight of a thousand dying suns: that face, those jowls, those freaky little
hands. I remember that this unevolved, loutish, lumbering man-baby billionaire
is president, and he and his billionaire cronies are looting the government,
and taking away health care, and taking away science and education, and
destroying everything good and decent and caring, and turning everything to
shit.
How is this even possible? Nothing
rational can explain it. I lose hope. But I don’t give up. I don’t succumb
completely. I learn to develop an attitude, a reinforcing mindset writer China
Miéville calls “undefeated despair.”
What a marvelous phrase!
Hope is over. Forget hope. Hope makes
things worse. It leads to denial. You start to hope for hope and then feel
duped. Doped, dumped, duped by hope. So you let despair happen. You make art,
you persist, you keep going. It works. Despair is a lousy feeling, but it’s
real, it’s more affordable than health care, and it’s not that bad. It doesn’t
kill you. It’s not strychnine. It’s just despair. It’s the stuff of great
novels by Cormac McCarthy and Fyodor Dostoevsky. Hope is fragile. It needs to
be coaxed into existence and assiduously maintained. Hope requires a lot of
work. Not despair. Despair has a built-in invulnerability. That’s why I often
feel so weirdly protected when I’m feeling it. Optimism is Norman Vincent
Peale’s idiotic grin on West 29th Street. Pessimism is a femme
fatale in a sexy black gown offering you a shot of heroin.
I’m most susceptible to the DTs in the
morning. It figures. I’m vulnerable. My mind is still afloat in that foggy
milieu of being half-awake. Once everything gels, once I begin forming
sentences and making plans and figuring things out, that’s when the bad comes
rolling in with the good. I put the heat on. The water starts to boil. The day
begins to roll.
There is also the narrative arc of our
lives. We follow a pattern similar to that of the sun on its pilgrimage across
the sky, but without the fanfare. We arrive in blood and mucous. We are dropped
or tugged into life. Screaming. But we begin. We grow, we develop, we evolve in
much the same way as wine maturing in a cask, we season in nuance and
character, our lives become complex, conflicted, ambiguous, huge. And then,
imperceptibly, we weaken, we diminish. Some are struck by disease and go more
quickly than others. Others go and go getting wrinklier and wrinklier and
hobbled and awkward and barely coherent until at last they let go. Which is
what we do. What we all do. There is no getting around it. We let go. We have
to. There is no other choice. You can’t cling to life. There is nothing to
cling to. It’s not a merry-go-round. There are no poles. You simply let go. At
least, that’s what I’ve seen people do. Both in real life and in the movies.
They let go. They shut their eyes and something vague and important sighs out
of them.
I apologize for these generalities. These
descriptions have the balance and simplicity of allegory. Nothing that lives is
ever that simple, or balanced. Most of life is a huge, chaotic mess. But it is
the model, the central narrative for sentient, mortal beings. The trajectory is
as certain as it is ancient.
Our main injunction in life is to
reproduce. I failed at that. I chose not to reproduce. In the same way I got
out of the draft, I got out of reproducing. I didn’t want to kill people and I
didn’t want to bring people into this world. I knew very early in life that
what I wanted to do is write books and that writers, generally, do not make
much money. Some writers make a lot of money. Most writers do not. I don’t know
that the formula is for making a lot of money at writing. It’s probably a lot
simpler to make money by making movies or telling jokes on a stage to a crowd
of people but for whatever reason I chose writing, or writing chose me. In any
case, I did not reproduce. I made books. I will leave books behind. But whether
people read them or not is a huge uncertainty.
The good thing about books is that you do
not need to save money to send them to college, or support them in their
endeavors, or invite them to your house on Thanksgiving and Christmas. The
great frustration of books is that they require readers. I can read only so
many books. I write books and hope for readers. Some writers don’t care if they
have an audience or not. It’s enough just to write. That is, of course, the
ideal situation. To write, to enjoy writing, to find and fulfill oneself in
writing, and not need an audience. What a heavenly situation that would be.
I’m the kind of writer that craves
readers. The bigger the audience, the better. The words don’t even seem fully
alive until someone else reads them. Until that happens, the words are ghosts.
Wraiths of intention, wreathes of desire. This means that 99% of my life is
spent in frustration. The one per cent happens when someone enjoys reading or
hearing something I wrote. It is that one percent that drives the other 99% to
continue doing what I was born to do, which is put words together.
Which I do as weirdly and bizarrely as
possible. I write carnivals. I write crazy sideshows. I put words together so
as to maximize their enigma, their possibility to make meaning, to make worlds
out of nothing.
Why? I could lure an audience much more
easily by writing about drugs and sex and murder and violence. But I don’t. Not
directly, anyway. I don’t cater to that stuff. I cater to the weird and
surreal. I like constructing sentences that get up and walk around like birch
canoes on a surgical table.
I
like phantasmagoria. The bizarre. The ineffable. I like putting words together
in odd assemblies of syntax and grouping so that meaning erupts in flares of
fluky association and the words jut out in the crudity of their being like outcropped
rock. “Civilization,” observed
Portuguese writer Fernando Pessoa, “consists in giving something an unfitting
name, then dream about the result. And indeed the false name and the real dream
create a new reality. The object really becomes another, because we turned it
into another one. We manufacture realities.”
Manufacturing
reality out of words is a difficult but highly stimulating project. It also demands
a lot more effort from the reader. Most people want an easy ride. I know I do.
When I go to an art museum and see a painting of a barn that looks like a barn
and a mass of color and form that doesn’t look like anything other than what it
is -
a mass of color and form - it is the barn that looks like a barn that I
have the easiest time appreciating. It is the intensity of detail that brings
the reality of that barn into the barn that is my brain where I can mingle it
with all my memories of being in a barn, the smell of straw and burlap and cow
manure. The weight of things. The experience of things. Horns, udders, massive
bone. Old, rotten wood. Daylight bursting through little cracks and holes. I’m
on familiar ground there. I’m experiencing a barn. The artist has done
something to renew the phenomenon that is a barn.
Or owl or awl or lonely midnight street. It
doesn’t have to be a barn. It might be a Roman ruin, Thomas Cole’s Ruins in the Campagna di Roma, Morning, 1842,
which is a rendering of the Torre de Schiavi (Tower of Slaves), casting a broad
shadow over a shepherd and his sheep while an intense blue and golden light
suffuses the sky and planet with its bountiful grace.
A mass of color and shape such as Convergence by Jackson Pollock or Canticle by Mark Tobey requires
something different from me. This is work that requires an openness to the
immediacy of things, to the immediate presence of color and shape before it has
been worked into a familiar image. The public now knows what to call this
painting: abstract expressionism. But it still stumps a lot of people,
including myself. Is it supposed to be beautiful? Or is it ok as something
ugly?
Either of these paintings would sell in
the millions. How that process happens, I do not know. The commercial valuation
of art stumps me completely.
I do know one thing. If you’re starting
out, it’s a hell of a lot easier to make money getting people on board with
what is recognizable, with what they can understand, than something that makes
no reference to anything with which they’re familiar. No one likes to be in a
position of feeling dumb. Or clueless. But I can’t help it. I like doing what
those abstract expressionist guys liked doing. Throwing things, splattering
things, creating happy accidents. I like to put words together so that they
fling themselves into the air and bruise the mind with ineffability.
I like reading things I don’t completely
understand. I’m drawn into the intellectual challenge of trying to figure
things out, finding layers of meaning, sometimes paper-thin like the layers of
an onion, and sour, wonderfully sour, or thick like the layers of pasta in
lasagna, chewy, toothsome, fulfilling.
The public is different. The public likes
Disneyland. And Harry Potter and the Da Vinci Code and Fifty Shades of Grey. Treacle, trash, garbage. Sorry, Mr. and Mrs.
Public, but your taste in things sucks. Go listen to NPR. You can have American Idol. I’ll take Moby Dick.
Intellectual endeavor has never done
particularly well in the United States. Anti-intellectualism
in American Life by Richard Hofstadter goes into the history of this. It’s
a well-written book, a good read.
I got hooked on intellectual creation
early in life. Maybe I did so to help disguise the fact that I’m essentially
stupid. I don’t know. But by age fifteen or so I loved Aldous Huxley and Edgar
Allan Poe and William Shakespeare and Jack Kerouac.
It was still possible in the 60s, and even
the early 70s, to make a living as a writer. A writer of quality literary work.
Wild, crazy, idiosyncratic work. There was an appetite for that. People weren’t
so one-dimensional. They had a sense of adventure. They didn’t dismiss work
they didn’t immediately understand. You didn’t have to dumb it down or fill it
full of garish sex and violence. You could sell a literary product based on the
merit of its style alone. People were well-read and despite the advent of TV
circa 1947 (the year I was born) people liked
- and continued - to
read. They were able to appreciate a well-crafted sentence.
The Internet has totally destroyed that.
The Internet does not respect readers. There are, of course, exceptions. Some
wonderful can be found on the Internet. But by and large, the Internet’s
ubiquitous pop-ups and advertisements that suddenly begin blaring when you’re
immersed in a text (…where the fuck is that coming from?) and pages that jerk
up and down while you’re trying to direct your attention toward something do
not make for focused, concentrated reading. Not to mention the awful grammar
and infantile shallowness of most the writing that is plopped, flung, and
deposited there.
By the late 80s, writing had begun showing
signs of obsolescence. There were a few authors such as Stephen King, Joyce
Carol Oates and Danielle Steele who still sold books in the millions and made a
good living, but writers like Richard Brautigan, whose suicide in 1984 underscored
the growing abyss between commercial, mainstream writing and the already
severely marginalized writing of a more experimental or higher literary merit.
It was a dark premonition for the future of writing. Midlist writers were being
dismissed from mainstream publishing and urged to submit their work to the
burgeoning small press arena. It was easier to get published in that world, and
the readers were more sophisticated, but you could not make a living.
Literature emerging from the small press arena was a labor of love, never a
commercial enterprise.
Even journalism was dying. Newspaper
circulation has been declining precipitously since the 80s, at least. It’s
extremely difficult to make a living as a journalist. The implications of that
are pretty disturbing. Chris Hedges discusses this in depth in his book Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and
the Triumph of Spectacle.
Nevertheless, I persisted. I’m a writer.
It’s what I do. It isn’t denial. I don’t know what it is. I can’t explain it. Why
am I like this? Why do I chase chimeras?
Am I on the wrong planet? Is that it?
Was I born on a planet that was in the
process of being destroyed and my parents put me into a capsule for travel in
outer space and set my craft to travel to a planet they thought might be favorable
to my survival and well-being? I don’t know if this is the planet they had in
mind, but I don’t have superpowers. I don’t even have tights. Just a drawer
full of Fruit-of-the-Loom underwear.
Earth is, in many ways, a beautiful
planet. It offers lots of water and blue skies and ocean surf and strawberry
jam. But I don’t feel that I belong here. I feel like I’m the wrong kind of
animal for the wrong kind of terrain. Maybe I would’ve preferred being a bird.
I was eight when the Broadway musical Peter Pan with Mary Martin in the lead
role appeared on television. I was quite taken with Peter Pan’s ability to fly.
It seemed completely feasible. I spent an entire day jumping off of a knoll in
the attempt to take flight. I could feel the possibility of flight. It felt as
if I put enough passion and will power into it I would just naturally take off
and fly around the neighborhood. This didn’t happen. I finally gave up and
surrendered to gravity and the human condition.
My father flew. He was a pilot during WWII
and continued to fly gliders late into life. I could’ve learned to fly. I could
still learn to fly. But the sensation I hunger is better satisfied in the
action of putting words together and watching them pound their way into
reality. I don’t know what to call this sensation. Transcendence sounds too
serious, a little pretentious. It comes from Latin, transcendere, meaning to climb over, to step over, to surpass. The
mania I feel vibrating my nerves has nothing to do with stepping over anything.
It has to do with penetration. Immersion. Feeling my subjectivity dissolve into
the largeness of things, the universe. What do you call that?
Ineffable. From Latin ineffabilis, meaning unutterable. Your mouth can’t make the right
sound with the right meaning for a body of sensation that feels simultaneously
familiar and unfamiliar. This is how Zaum came into being. Zaum is a Russian
word coined by the Futurist poet Aleksei Kruchenykh and translates, roughly,
into “transreason,” “beyonsense,” and “transration.” It can be defined as an
experimental poetic language characterized by indeterminate meaning, a transrational
language that crashes its way out of the chains of the rational to become
something fully, insanely, maniacally ACTUAL.
These words fail: I am not suggesting that
logic is bad and madness is good. I am not anti-science. What I’m trying to get
at is an intensity of expression that derives from eccentricity, incongruity.
Sparks flying out of welded contrarieties.
There have been other literary endeavors
as well, projects calculated to transcend the bind of logic and attain heights
and intensities of experience: Dada, Surrealism, Futurism, Symbolism, or just
plain jism, the language of ejaculation.
Zaum, Zoom, Zinnia, Zipper. I celebrate
all combinations of sounds, all inflammations of language that vivify experience
in mutant volatility. Anything that builds a horse out of vowels and a gnu out
of glue.