And I shall be buried in Spain

In the café where I'm sitting there are always little slogans that are supposed to make "you" feel good. Today's is

Счастье - это когда тебя понимают...по-твоему.

["Happiness" is when (everyone) understands you in your own way]

At first I thought: "Sentimental crap." And then I thought: "This really upsets me."

Break it down: "тебя понимают" - there's another voice, the author's "I" - that doesn't figure into this at all. As if that one could teach "you" exactly how to be happy.

"They" - an unquantifiable, general, external, collective. And to put the meaning of the whole adage in just a slightly different cast: "You'll be happy as long as you've conformed to everyone's wishes."

I no longer want the superpower I earlier said I wanted. Now I want to edit and revise my writings to the point where I can say

1. I understand everything that I was trying to say there.
2. I could never say it a better way.

Nevermind whether they understand or not. I will still be happy.

In the Candy Shoppe

I had meant to write this post when I became distracted by Avatar and perceived disconnects. The jump, as it were, was bad writing. I was prepared to compare the script writers for Doctor Who with Anne Rice, who is famous for her disdain of editors and their publishing industry, as discussed here. That site led me to the pseudo-contests mocking individuals Storm and I very much admire and - dare I say - hero worship, such as the 1998 "Bad Writing" award winner and runner up, Judith Butler and Homi Bhaba, and I couldn't resist commenting.

If the drunken revelation I underwent in Avatar regarded the disconnect between various parts of my life, the end of David Tennant's run as the eponymous Doctor, The End of Time,* suffered from the exact opposite - from too many allusions to Tennant's, Davies's, and others' exit too strongly affecting the plot.

When I go book shopping, I go around and around the store, and pick up all the items that catch my attention. When I want to go, I find a quiet spot with the ten to fifteen titles in hand, choose a maximum of three, and put the rest back. I thus know I really want the books I've chosen; I economize; I am happy.

Someone needed to sit Russell T. Davies down and say: "You need to look through the fifteen plots you are doing poorly in this rough draft, choose three, and then edit and revise them."

-Drunk
* 2009, BBC One. Directed by Euros Lyn. Written by Russell T. Davies.

She Blinded me with Economics

There's a financial analysis program that's on the morning news. The anchor-analyst looks at data charts and riffs, entirely impromptu, off of them. The quadruple-Windsor knot around his throat seems to rob his brain of necessary oxygen, and he fails at the formation of complete sentences.

Sometimes he has a female commentator, sort of like a weatherman, who sits in front of a different camera. The analyst prompts her with scripted questions and she reads the answers off a teleprompter. She is so pretty.

The male analyst sounds like an idiot for all of his stuttering, used as we (I) am to the careful polish and script of newscasting. The female, in contrast to him, and with the Russian proclivity to read things as fast fast fast as she can, is a marionette whose strings are clearly visible.

I find myself comparing it to Anchorman*, and sadly realize that even such a movie as Anchorman does more to query the gender binary than this farce of equal-opportunity televidenie.

*2004, Dreamworks. Directed by Adam McKay. Written by Will Ferrell and McKay.

Not-conveyed in carrying-across-language

"...Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, 'What the hell do you mean by that?' And he said, 'He writes so obscurely you can't tell what he's saying, that's the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, "You didn't understand me; you're an idiot." That's the terrorism part.'..."
-John Searle

(full interview here)

Even if we reject solipsism (so there is a world-environment we share, and I can somehow convey my impression of that world-environment to you), how can I make my thought so clear that you will, if not agree, see the forms and functions of my argumentation as I perceive them? How can I “check” that you’ve, in fact, “got it”?

I can’t. But we go on speaking and writing, trusting that the amount lost will be imbalanced by the amount conveyed - hoping, praying. Even though Derrida will say, “You misunderstood me,” even though Joan Scott will differentiate between her physical self and the construct of her that has been extrapolated from her writings, even though Judy Butler will disassociate from the fields that arise out of her works.

There are checks and balances, discussions and reviews, edits and comments. Understandings can become mutual, and our precises can resemble one another.

Even then...Three people read a treatise. Two agree with the general thesis: even if there is inherently an ‘objective’ world, as soon as humans begin to represent it {in stories, news, art photographs, histories…} the world-signs become signifieds. They assimilate connotations and compile constructs like poison quicksilver moving up a food chain.

But then the third opens his mouth. And he says, “As we see in this treatise on mythology, there can be an objective representation of the world.”

And I want to deride him for saying this; I want to storm and rage; but at a certain point I can’t break past the solipsism that is an individual’s interpretation of the text. Besides. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong.

A fortune; an interpretation

Creatures of the air
creatures somehow at odds with the world
[humans ought not to fly
the atomic bomb splits what should be whole
the vampire as a stereotyped Jew
the face that launched a thousand ships]

Creatures that have an outer shell
easily guess and qualified
a slight hesitation, only, that the sign
might be misinterpreted

Layers of interpretation
direct, synchronous testimony bears no might
nor does the long and weighty night
of retrospective, earnest contemplation
sometimes we don't have enough information

To solve the puzzle.

I'm Sorry

Most of the ways we apologize in English are pretty insincere if you really look at them:
1. “I’m sorry if I hurt you.”
2. “I’m sorry you feel that way.”
3. “I can’t express how sorry I am.”
4. “Oh my God, I’m so sorry.”
5. “Will you forgive me?”

1. I refuse to commit to the fault of my action.
2. Your faulty perception is the source of your sorrow.
3. I’m not going to apologize because it is hard.
4. I’m clearly not thinking hard about this because I’m quoting a saying [“oh my God”]
5. I’m only saying this because I expect you to get over it [it’s a meaningless ritual].

My question: does this mean we should start apologizing more actively [“I’m sorry for what I did. It was bad because…”] or is the entire premise of an apology un-fixable? Is an apology some kind of Catholic confession, where if you say what you did and then add the magic words [“I’m sorry”] the guilt and drama will just go away? [Which means that an apology will always be ritualistic and goal-oriented].

Perhaps we should re-orient to a new model of accountability, free of “I’m sorry” and “it’s okay,” where we try to figure out the effects our actions have had on others and try to understand why we did not predict or consider them originally.

Through the Looking-Glass

Heath Ledger's swan song, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus,* explores a possible union of a shadowy Eastern philosophy (closer to Buddhism than anything else) with the Western Devil-as-Great-Tempter. The titular imaginarium is a gateway Parnassus creates, through which audience members can travel into their own imaginations.

Within their world-construct, the e'er-smoking and smooth-talking Devil offers the temptation of the audience member's most-desired material possession {alcohol, sex, normalcy} while Parnassus offers a transcendental Nirvana. The path to Parnassus's option is often hard {in the distance, up a ziggurat, in the clouds} but the Devil's choice immediately implodes, taking the soul with it.

Heath Ledger smooth talks the souls into taking Parnassus's option, which results in their renunciation of material possessions - which they then give to the troupe. The Order of the Imaginarium thus show the paradox of their position: while attempting to save people from the illusion of samsara, they are themselves trapped on the outskirts of society by their rickety show, by their appearance as stereotypical carnies/gypies, by their carnal desires.

What's more, the film emphasizes the modern vanity - the supreme importance of a singular choice that will forever trap the soul in samsara, or release it to nirvana, when human experience is never so clean, never so easy to encapsulate in the run-time of 120 minutes. Even if the soul chooses the "arduous" journey, it receives instant gratification, and we are meant not to ask just what happens to the individuals who have given up all of their credit cards and furs and riches. They presumably have wrought themselves into a state of poverty and suffering, but we should rejoice because they have reached, in the "A-B-C-s" of enlightenment, "z"?

* 2009, Sony Pictures (et al). Written and directed by Terry Gilliam.

Heteronormativity

Gay people can be heteronormative. Heteronormativity is the logic that stems from a reprosexual way of looking at the world. A reprosexual way of looking at the world is one in which the ideas of male, female, partnership, love, family, sex, marriage, mother, father are given meaning only in relation to heterosexual reproduction [hence: love is for marriage, which is for family, which is for having children, which are either male or female, who will have children themselves]. Gay people can internalize this logic as well, trumpeting their ability to reproduce [both children and norms].

Fortunately, reproduction is not the only thing that gives the world meaning (especially today, as overpopulation depletes the world’s resources) [and even if it were, humans are capable of reproducing outside of heteronormative conditions—i.e. marriage and families]. I’m curious what our idea of love would look like if it weren’t all tied up in reprosexuality. One thing is certain—we wouldn’t need to have holidays to test our allegiance (skills at) to normativity.

The Places that Scare Us

Once upon a time, for about a week (that is, a very long time), we empathized with all our red and beating hearts as Tyra Banks mourned the thirty minutes that she walked around as an obese individual (and the four hours it took to get in and out of the latex suit).

In the red corner, a so-called "mobocracy" with Palin, et al., at the helm rants against big government, Obama, national debt, and other "taxation-without-representation" issues. In related news, tickets to their convention, plus keynote speech, are over $500 a pop.

And in the former capital of the Reds, a lone white American middle-class straight male kvetches that he might experience some slight discomfiture, as if he were suddenly a member of some subaltern community, as if, in one crystallizing moment, he understood what it meant to be on the business end of repression.

It was for this I wanted to prepare in my previous post. The rhetoric needs to change from one of instant gratification and momentary, shock-therapy-driven revelations. Instead of making wild promises or throwing tantrums that one political group has been capsized by another, instead of "suddenly understanding" the sum totality of a human's problems (the so-called "another's doorstep" syndrome from To Kill a Mockingbird), instead of infusing our world with a wasted rhetoric of revolution...

An Intimate Gathering - My 1500 Closest Friends

Consider this article.

In short, it explains the statistical phenomenon that for any human (x) with set number of friends (y), at least one friend (z) will have a set number of friends (y') that is significantly higher than x's y. Why? Because x is part of z's social circle, and it's much easier to be 1:100 than it is to be 1:5.

But the tone of this article is not "so stop comparing and appreciate the people you DO have, those people who will tolerate your drunken revelations or ponder your queer thoughts." No!

This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually ­busier than they actually are: by ­definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded.

The article takes what could be an opportunity to expose the irrational, consumerist underbelly of demand-based economy, and chooses instead to make it into a reductive account of the observation bias.

Modern vanities.

As print newspapers struggle and web-based newspapers grow in supremacy, I vacillate between my excitement and my fear.

Because web-based news is in real-time, there's no longer a canon of headlines and "major issues" - no history of Great White Men and their Great Wars that will dominate, forever and ever, amen, the homepages of newspapers. What runs as the major headline of the New York Times homepage will not be the major headline for even a day, even twelve hours, even, perhaps long enough for me to read the headline before it changes.

Because web-based news is in real-time, any ridiculous issue on which a journalist's written for the sole purpose of keeping the job will get more-or-less identical treatment to the outbreak of a Great White Man's war, and both will seem to have equal importance, and we will choke on the bile of our own hysteria.

Queer Community

We usually think of identity as referring to some group that one either “is” or “is not” a part of. With gay identities, the boundaries of such a group are harder to identify. The irony of coming “out” is that it really means going “in.” When you come out, you become part of a group that you were previously not a part of. There is a moment where you belong to the group without knowing anyone in it. Additional complications: what of all those cases where someone is put “in” the group against their will?

Would a QUEER identity (which tries to catch all) have to include all those who are mistaken for gays; all those who will be gay but aren’t yet; all those who have been and no longer are; etc, etc.? I think so, yes.

And it is for that reason that a Queer community is a contradictory, impossible thing.

Am I arguing "guns don't kill people?"

Give a public speaker a bad microphone. She might have the vocal power to fill the hall on her own; if she had seen just one more "Stomp the Yard" movie as a teenager, she might have become the 32-year-old star playing a teenie-bopper in a Disney made-for-TV movie; she had chops.

As soon as that mic is in her hands, she can't let go. Even as it loses battery power and ultimately dies, she clutches the useless metal and plastic. She raps it over and over and over. She presses it to her mouth and prays it will eventually fix itself.

There are all those stories of people "feeling depressed after watching Avatar," or of going insane while Blackberry™ had a temporary outage and they couldn't compulsively check their emails and facebook pages.

In short, I planned this to be a drunken revelation that amounted to technophobia. But then. Oh, then -- then I was in the metro, and I saw a teenage boy playing on his cell phone, and the only seat open was right next to him. And from that seat I could see that the kid wasn't playing on his cell phone - he was drafting poetry.

Technology is technology is technology. "Good" and "bad" are terms we can only add after the warranty's worn off.

Poem #1

Revelations: Grime
A poem in alternating stanzas
by Storm and Drunk

The wine flowed like urine
The urine like blood
I wandered to Turin
I witnessed the flood

Send Delilah out of Samson’s tent
And Mary, from Jesus, to a nunnery
Since Eve we’ve not a thing to say
To women, evil Jezebels eternal.

Slimy, crabby, lace-y, lube-y
Crawling like spiders towards the light
These girls dress in silk that’s ruby
And wait like mantises all night

And they wonder why whores – killed Jack the Ripper
It was because he couldn’t get to Victoria
Through the jewels, and the couriers, and the drugs and the fat
Nothing would ever kill her, were it not for that satanic gnat.

And from the rift, a monster beckons
As if half-sleeping, looking foolish.
My guard-dog barks, I think he reckons
Tonight’s events must needs be ghoulish.

They walked through the forests, deep and dark
In the forests they walked.
Those pagans, those carnivores, to whom Conrad gave his heart
Who killed Piggy, and Simon. They start –

Anon! A monkey shrieks and I head now towards death
I wish I’d known her smells and sights before…
And so I take a hit of crystal meth
So as to bring me closer to her door

OH, IN THE DEPTHS OF MY DEAR GHETTO
NEVER GET IN A CAR THAT SMELLS LIKE CAT PEE!

Nudity

Why is it embarrassing to be naked, or otherwise sexual in front of a non-human animal? Are we worried about shaming the animal? That seems silly: I know the animal does not follow our moral codes. Are we ourselves shamed because nudity and sex are private? That seems silly: we take naughty pleasure from the idea of sex in public.

Or…(I’m leaning toward this one) are we disturbed by the fact that the animal doesn’t know to look away, doesn’t know what my nudity or our sexuality mean? Are we afraid or shaken up by the fact that the animal will just keep staring, that it doesn’t care? Are we frightened of seeing that our human conceptions of decency aren't a part of the natural world?

The Streets are Paved in Gold

One of the dramatic readings at a recent festival, Кино без плёнки [Films without any film], was a "whodunnit" melodrama staged at the 1957 World Festival of Youth in Moscow. The scenario was pretty horrible, but the discussion on how to "improve" it afterwards was fascinating.

I'm still struck by one of the phrases that came out of the anti-hero, Zina's, mouth:

What's there to love about the Urals? It's all dirt, drinking, degeneration... But here - in one word - is the capital!

This is interesting on a couple of levels, not least of which that it is an Armenian man in St. Petersburg writing about the glory of the capital, at such a time when Piter has been relegated almost to the provinces.

To Russian provinces, that is, as opposed to American: I recently gave a presentation on American suburbia, which I loosely translated, for the fulfillment of my purposes (but with full disclosure that my definition wasn't definitive) as an ideologico-geographical space somewhere on the periphery of a metropolitan area, where families live in nuclear houses. You notice - this includes small towns and bedroom communities, but does not include apartment slums.

After the presentation a few people made a point of verbally and, to an extent, vehemently disagreeing with those two specific points (no slums, small towns included). "I grew up in the suburbs," one said, "and the defining feature of the ideology, for me, was that we spent all of our free time out of the suburbs and in the city."

It highlights an American centrism we don't prefer to accept. We don't have the same relationship to our capital, the hotbed of Senatorial prostitution, muggings, and heightened crime rates that it is; but for all of our multiplicity of metropolitan areas, there still is the sense of being IN or being OUT.

-An urbanite: "I might not be from New York, but at least I'm from Philadelphia."

-A suburbanite: "I might not be from the city, but at least I'm not from a small town."

-A small towner: "I might not be from the suburbs, but at least I'm not from a farm in the countryside."

And admitting any happiness at being from a more provincial region, or by identifying ideologies that might clump an individual with a "lower" podunk village - that is vulgar and conservative and repulsive.

"To Moscow, I beg you!"

Image: Mikhail Trakhman, "String Orchestra in a Car," 1957 Moscow Youth Festival