narrators

we shouldn't make too much of a big deal about the nested-narrative structure of some novels. It's just a device - a fiction - that writers have used to compose their story. One of the ways that you can tell that this is true is that the outer-most narrator is usually a minor character / e.g. Lockwood in Wuthering Heights, and Walton in Frankenstein. When each character is telling their story, or their story is being told, it's told directly to the reader - it's not mediated through any of the characters further out in the structure. It's just that, in the world of the story, neither the reader nor the writer exist, so the writer needs to establish a pretext for the characters' stories to be told. 

generation

Mary Shelley wrote an introduction to the 1831 edition of Frankenstein, telling the story about how she came to write the novel during that famous summer in 1816 while staying with Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Mary's sister Claire, and Lord Byron's personal physician, John Polidori, in the Villa Diodati in Italy. 

The story she tells is that, because of rainy weather, the group was stuck indoors, so Byron proposed that each of them write a ghost story or horror story to pass the time. Mary couldn't think of anything for a few days, but then one night she stayed up listening to Shelley and Byron talk about the possibility of using electricity to re-animate a corpse (scientists of that era were beginning to discover that there was some kind of link between electrcity and the workings of the human or animal body). 

Then, that night, Mary had a nightmare about exactly that, and she woke up terrified, and thus was conceived the idea for her novel. 

This account written by Mary Shelley, forms the perfect outer-narrative for the novel, and because Frankenstein is structured as a set of nested narratives, with the introduction, the novel becomes a narrative (of the monster) within a narrative (of Victor Frankenstein) within a narrative (of Walton the sea captain and explorer) within a narrative (of Mary Shelley herself). 

One of the interesting things about Mary's account is that it seems to contain a number of factual inaccuracies, or, in other words, in some ways it's a work of fiction. Like, for example, she writes that no one else came up with any decent ideas for a story and she specifically mentions Polidori's idea about a skull-headed lady, but there's no evidence that Polidori worked on a story with that idea. What he did do was work on a story about a vampire (The Vampyre) which he later published and it did quite well. Some people even regard it as representing the birth of the whole vampire genre - the first modern vampire story that rendered the folk tale of the vampire in literary form. Christopher Frayling writes that The Vampyre 'is probably the most influential horror story of all time' (Vampyres: Lord Byron to Count Dracula p107). 

There's another conflict between Polidori's and Mary's account of events. She writes that, over a number of days, every morning the rest of the group would ask her if she had come up with an idea and she would always say she hadn't, until the morning after her nightmare. Polidori though, records in his diary, in the days after Byron initiated the challenge, that everyone else had begun their stories except himself. 

But I don't think the inaccuracies in Mary's story were deliberate deceptions. Maybe she was 'fictionalising' to some extent, but I think it's more the case that real life is always more complicated than any story and lends itself to different tellings. Like, for example, I did some research and found out that Polidori actually worked on three different stories, and his vampire story was probably mostly written at a later date. Maybe Mary's account of his story came from something he said as a joke or in passing. There are all kinds of possibilities. 

Even the fact that Polidori wrote and published the story about the vampire is more complex than it appears. It was actually published without his knowledge and attributed to Lord Byron, and even after both Byron and Polidori objected, Byron was still listed as the author when it was published as a book (it was first published in a periodical). Eventually, in later reprints, Polidori was listed as the author. But, to complicate things further, Polidori's story incorporated or was inspired by, a fragment that Byron wrote during the days at the Villa Diodati. Polidori also developed another of the three stories he worked on into a novella, which he published. 

One thing we know for sure is true in Mary's account is what she writes about the weather. It was more than a few days of inclement weather....it was seemingly relentless. That year has become known as 'the year without a summer'. The eruption of a couple of major volcanoes (especially one in Indonesia) resulted in abnormally low temperatures, heavy rain, and severe food shortages because of the effects on agriculture, throughout the world.  

That crisis probably shaped Frankenstein in a variety of ways. The novel is full of storms and other dramatic natural phenomena. I think Frankenstein also reflects Mary Shelley's personal experience of, not just the global weather crisis, but her own crises. Each of us is unique and we face our own personal crises, but there's also a universal aspect to the challenges we face. That's why a writer can embody these issues in their work, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly, and they resonate with the reader. 

In her account of how she came to write Frankenstein, one of the most interesting ideas is the way that writing the story was not so much an expression of Mary's fears as a way for her to allay them. That's one of the things we do when we write....it's a way of exercising agency. 

Mary's initial response to her terrifying nightmare was not to think that that was really scary so it would make a good subject for my horror story.....no, she was trying to think of a way to distract herself and occupy her mind so that she could forget the image she had seen with her mind's eye. So, she decided to work on her story, and then it occurred to her that what had scared her would probably scare other people - so, she now had the idea for her story. 

اعلى واسفل

As i've written before, i'm not that interested in books that talk about how the internet or technology is having an adverse effect on our thinking \\\ although I did buy and read part of one such book recently, just because i'm really interested these days in views that i don't agree with. i like to know what they have to say. 

I'm very interested though, in how technology affects the ways we think and communicate. word processing and email have had a huge impact on the way we write. 

and I suppose, in some ways, it has been an adverse effect....i'm just not interested in focusing on that alone. 

I always think it's funny/ interesting that Wordsworth wrote this 220 years ago: 

For a multitude of causes, unknown to former times, are now acting with a combined force to blunt the discriminating powers of the mind, and, unfitting it for all voluntary exertion, to reduce it to a state of almost savage torpor. The most effective of these causes are the great national events which are daily taking place, and the increasing accumulation of men in cities, where the uniformity of their occupations produces a craving for extraordinary incident, which the rapid communication of intelligence hourly gratifies. To this tendency of life and manners the literature and theatrical exhibitions of the country have conformed themselves. The invaluable works of our elder writers, I had almost said the works of Shakespeare and Milton, are driven into neglect by frantic novels, sickly and stupid German Tragedies, and deluges of idle and extravagant stories in verse.— from 'Preface to Lyrical Ballads'

It's so right and yet so wrong. and it just goes to show that, if you want to see adverse influences on the quality of people's thinking, you're going to see it. You don't need computers and the internet, for the powers of the mind to be blunted. that can be achieved by telegrams and newspapers. 

or, another way to put it is that at times writers and other intellectuals have always prognosticated that technology is going to cause our minds to atrophe. i think it's always a mistake to just see the negative, or to focus too much on it. Like for example, Wordsworth talks about 'the uniformity of their occupations' and that was true in the early days of the industrial revolution, but because of technological, social and legal developments, working conditions now are generally better and work is more rewarding and interesting....not always, but in general I think that's the case. The point is that things changed, and it was a mix of positive and negative, and that's the way it always is. 

the importance of context

one of my favourite films is Heat (1995) and one of the things that I like about it is that it's much more nuanced and complex - much more realistic - than other films about cops and criminals where the criminals are the bad guys and the cops are the good guys. In the film, the commonality between Al Pacino's character and Robert De Niro's character is highlighted. One of the greatest TV series ever - The Wire - did a similar thing: showing the human drama and the common humanity on both sides of the law.

Interestingly though, Michael Mann, who wrote, produced and directed Heat says that he saw the two characters as antithetical in many ways. Yes, they have some qualities in common, but they are worlds apart in other ways ||| Mann says that one of the important ways that the two are different is that Neal/ De Niro is a sociopath, while Vincent/ Pacino is not - he has a social conscience. 

a whole other dimension....now that I think of it....of this idea of parallelism between two ostensibly opposing characters, is that between the two actors - De Niro and Pacino. Their careers seem to parallel each other in many ways, but they're also very different, of course. 

The two appeared together in another film more recently - Righteous Kill (2008) - but it was nowhere near as succesful as Heat. So, it just goes to show - just having them together in a film isn't a guarantee of success. They're such great actors though that you could almost imagine that it would be a guarantee of success, but apparently not. and it's true that, although having De Niro and Pacino together was a draw-card for Heat, it's also a brilliant example of film making. They weren't expected to make up for any deficiencies in the film. 

I think a similar principle applies to a whole range of projects and work situations. From time to time you get the right chemistry of team members and context and success is achieved. but context is crucial. someone could be highly skilled, knowledgeable, experienced, and have a lot of talent and intelligence in their field, but the work setting and the rest of the team need to match up with those qualities for them to be effective. 

Having the right person in the wrong context or role is like using a formula 1 vehicle as a taxi // it's not made for that, and it's actually not going to do a good job.  

પુસ્તકો આનંદ

one of the best books I've ever read is the Australian classic, Such is Life (1903) by Joseph Furphy (aka Tom Collins). It's also one of the most - maybe the most - difficult books I've read. It's an Australian classic, true, and it has a deeply Australian flavour, but there's nothing parochial about it. It's a heavy hitter. To my mind, it's up there with any of the classics...it is seriously good literature. 

another book I really like (and actually read around the same time, and for the same course....or maybe it was just relevant to the course but wasn't a prescribed text) is The Story of an African Farm (1883) by Olive Schreiner. It's weird....I don't remember much about the story, I just remember really loving it, and that it celebrated the value of books, which is probably one of the main things I loved about it. 

a writer that I know is one of the greats, but I struggle with, is Thomas Mann. His works are just so long and slow-moving - so ponderous and endlessly digressive, unlike War and Peace, which is very long but surprisingly readable. I think, over time, some books become inaccessible to us, because the modern mind can no longer engage with them. I'm not saying that Thomas Mann was a writer of period pieces - works that are popular in their time but get forgotten because they don't have lasting value. His works are great works of literature // not that I see it - I'm trusting Harold Bloom about it. I like the idea of Mann's The Magic Mountain (1924). Reading Bloom's commentary on it makes me want to read it, because he's so enthusiastic about it, but I've started it before and it didn't hold my interest. I just didn't really enjoy it - didn't get it - didn't see the art in it. It's on my shelf though, and I like having it there. 

that's one of the strange things about collecting books....there's a joy about having the collection that is distinct from the joy of reading all of the books. 

ಸೃಜನಶೀಲ

I cut my hair. 

with covid and everything it's been months and months since I got a hair cut, so it got pretty long and unkempt. then, as things eased up recently with restrictions, I had been meaning to go and get my hair cut. but then, now, there's a bit of uncertainty about what's happening in Sydney and whether we'll need to have further restrictions....so there's that, but also....I'm not that motivated to go out and get my hair cut. It's like one of many chores/ errands that I need to get around to and keep putting off. Going to the local shopping centre is no longer a routine thing for me....that's been one of the effects of covid. 

and then I had one of those moments that I sometimes have where I think - I'm just gona cut it myself, because I want to get it done and I'm sick of it the way it is. So I did the main cutting with scissors, and then, coincidentally, the clippers I had ordered from Amazon arrived today so I neatened up with them. 

being able to cut my own hair like this is one of the advantages of my hair thinning out as I get older. 

another thing that arrived today is a new pencil sharpener that I bought. I have a few different sets of coloured pencils, and I discovered recently that the sharperner I've been using doesn't fit my derwent pencils - they're too big. (I'm really not sure why I've never had this problem before) so I bought this quite expensive sharpener with a big and a little hole. and I've been getting back in the mood lately to do some art....I've got an idea of something I want to do...the only thing is that I'm not sure if I can do it with pencils and pens. i feel like I would need to use paint....or maybe some kind of markers? or maybe what I have in mind would be best achieved digitally. 

сэтгэлгээний арга

some people say that the way the internet fractures our attention with all the stimuli it provides, is a really negative thing that is making us dumber, basically, but I'm not sure about that. I think there is a time and place for both kinds of thinking - that frenetic, kind of distracted mode where you're working on multiple things, and the mode of sustained focus on a particular task. 

And despite what a lot of experts seem to be arguing, I don't think developing the skill of the 'distracted mode' necessarily diminishes your ability to read a whole book or stay on task for more than half an hour. That's what some books are arguing - that we're losing certain faculties...that, especially young people, who grew up with the internet, are incapable of the kind of sustained focus required to do excellent work. 

I think both ways of thinking are pretty much essential for a lot of the work we do these days. when you start a new project or task, it's good to get a sense of the whole thing \\\ to work quickly through it, making notes, plans, amendments - setting up a kind of framework. Then you work your way methodically through the project. It's not always, first distraction mode, then focus mode...sometimes you might alternate back and forth between the two a number of times...but both are important. 

even in academic work - which is all about thinking - that's the case. Even if they had the time to read every book and article relevant to their field, from cover to cover or start to finish, that wouldn't be a good use of their time. Academics need to be able to process a lot of material really quickly, and the only way to do that is to practice a mix of scanning (distracted mode) and close reading (focused attention). 

post-modernism

It's hard to understand the movement from modernism to post-modernism until you realise that there are two different ways of defining modernism, and post-modernism is more a response to the kind of modernism that it seems more remote from. 

There was the modernism of the early twentieth century, which was basically about questioning everything and embracing the idea that you could do things in different ways. Like, a chair doesn't have to have four legs and a back rest...literature doesn't have to conform to established patterns and formulae...that's modernism. 

Then, post-modernism came after that, but post-modernism is less a continuation of that questioning process (although it can be regarded as that, in a way) and more a reaction against a much broader and older trend that is also called modernism, which grew out of the enlightenment and the scientific revolution. That form of modernism is about the primacy of reason. Post-modernism questions things that used to be considered absolutes - objectivity, morality and truth. Post-modernism embraces relativism. It's easy to see how that is incompatible with Christianity, and in fact Christian thinkers have been very vocal and prolific critics of post-modernism. and in the same argument, post-modernism is often (in some ways rightly) associated with critical theory. 

it seems like history is a series of reactions back and forth, but it's not that simple. In relation to religion, post-modernism is more of a continuation of modernism than it is a reaction against it. One of the ideas that drove the enlightenment was that the old grand narrative(s) - which were based in religion - should be superseded by reason. But then, when post-modernism rejected the primacy of reason, it also rejected religion and the idea of moral good and evil being objective realities. 

Because, from a post-modern point of view, modernism - even with all of its talk about the primacy of reason - was still subject to the old narratives and paradigms. I think that's true. Isaac Newton, for example, was a devout Christian. 

But I think there's actually a positive way of viewing post-modernism, even from a Christian point of view. Because, in Newton's day, being a Christian was just the 'done thing' - it was hardwired into the DNA of society. What post-modernism does, with its intense scepticism and its representation of other ways of thinking about the world, is that it gives us a choice. It's socially acceptable in today's world, to not be a Christian, or not even to believe in God, and there's a sense in which that makes being a Christian a more meaningful thing - because you've chosen it. 

ទ្រឹស្តី

I love literary theory. that's why I often write about it when I read negative views about critical theory. Literary theory - including the Marxist and post-colonial approaches, but also others, like structuralism and post-structuralism - liberated my mind and opened my eyes to a whole realm of great ideas. 

In high school I never 'got' English. Like, for example, the idea of style. We always had to write about what the style of the writer was, and I never knew what that meant. Then I studied English at uni, and it was an amazing experience, because my teachers gave me something that I did 'get' and really liked. What changed everything for me was the realisation that you could approach and understand literature in a whole range of different ways. Learning about the different theoretical approaches taught me that, but that was just like a gateway, because it's the idea that it's possible to take different approaches that is really empowering. You can draw on different approaches and develop your own approach. That's what was missing in high school English for me - we were taught a particular approach as if that was the way - that was just the way to do English. But at uni I learnt that there are lots of different ways of analysing and thinking about literature.

That's why I can't agree with the views people express about critical theory being subversive and destructive and undermining healthy intellectual discourse. Critical theory didn't indoctrinate me or make me want to be a Marxist or even be an activist. For me personally, it was about literature and really engaging with literature and with interesting ideas and issues - it was an academic thing, which I think is how it should be in higher education.  

So, when I see all the many youtube videos that say that critical theory is incompatible with Christianity, I think they've missed the point. Another thing that I notice is that a lot of the most vocal opponents of critical theory - both Christian and secular - are not experts in literature...their specialisations are maths and science. They see all the links between theory and ideology and theory and culture, but they're not interested in the links to literature. They regard critical theory as a world view/ ideology that is diametrically opposed to Christianity (for the Christian opponents of critical theory) and diametrically opposed to good scholarship (for the secular opponents of critical theory). 

But there have been some very good literary theorists who are Christians - Northrop Frye, for example. He was actually an ordained Christian minister and one of the greatest literary theorists of the twentieth century. Besides formulating groundbreaking literary theory, he also wrote a lot about the Bible. I'm not sure how well his theology would stack up against that of recognised pillars of the modern western Christian church like John Macarthur and Paul Washer, at least according to them, but he does embody the reality that literary theory is not essentially unChristian or opposed to Christianity. 

نام

this thing would shut me down

it keeps me from expression

i'm not going to give it a name. we accept all the labels too easily.....and then, even as I assert that - express my view - i'm defeated and wrong, because i rely on the labels to get what i need

and after all it seems like it wins, because it does keep me from expression and it does keep me in a place where there's a lack of hope or meaning and a place where I'm not whole ///

if only giving up was a way to find some kind of peace

it's ironic that this thing that attacks me manifests in the appearance of passivity and apathy, which is the very opposite of my experience of it

ਮੁਕਾਬਲਾ

I was walking to the local shops today and on the way I saw a dog that I've seen around before. It's extremely rare around here to see a dog on the loose. I've noticed before that he (or maybe she, but I'll say 'he' for convenience) seems to follow people but then stop and return to a certain area....maybe someone around there owns him...I don't know. 

But he looks kind of lost and hungry. It seems like he's looking for something. He looks like a pit-bull, so he's probably a bit intimidating, but he doesn't show any aggression. 

So, while I was at the shop, I bought a can of nice dog food - not the cheap kind, but the kind with actual pieces of meat and gravy - and a couple of packs of 'straps' dog treats. On my way home, I didn't see him at first but then I looked up a side street and there he was. He was maybe 40 or 50 metres away from me. 

After I left the shop, I was thinking, I should have bought a bowl, because, what am I gona put the dog food in? But then I realised that I could put it in the plastic container that the nectarines I bought were in. 

When he saw me and saw that I was walking towards him, he wagged his tail, so that's a good sign. But then, when I got close, he wouldn't let me approach him. He didn't growl or anything - he just backed away and stood a few metres away. He seemed kind of jumpy, like he thought maybe I was going to hit him or something. He whimpered a little bit, which shows that he would have liked to come closer, but he didn't trust me. 

So, anyway, I emptied the nectarines out of the container and put the dog food in it, and left it where he could see it. Then, when I walked away and looked back, he was eating the food. 

I'll keep the dog treats in my bag (and maybe give some to my own dogs....I already gave them some) in case I see him again. 

On the subject of pit-bulls, I actually kind of like them. I haven't had much experience with them, but I've had experience with other types of dogs who are kind of known for being potentially dangerous - like the kind of dogs that make good guard dogs, and I've always found that, if you give them a good home where they are cared for and you give them attention, they're totally good natured, trustworthy and manageable. 

Of course they do also make good guard dogs. 

ଅଧିକାର

One non-fiction writer that I've been getting really interested in  lately is Chris Hedges. I've been interested in his work for a while, but I wasn't that enthusiastic about it, because his books and other writings and speeches seem to be kind of negative /// For example, his most recent book is entitled, America: The Farewell Tour (2018) /// for me, work based on negative premises is usually a turn-off. Like, all those books about how the internet is adversely affecting society - our thinking, our relationships, etc. As a matter of principle I pretty much have no interest in those books, because I think they're wrong, but also they're bemoaning the inevitable. I did buy one of those kind of books - The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the way we Think, Read and Remember by Nicholas Carr - because, as I wrote about recently on my blog, I've become more and more interested lately in reading books and other texts and watching videos that present views I disagree with. I might write about The Shallows in another post, but here I want to write about an idea Chris Hedges expressed that made me want to read everything he's written. 

At first I thought Hedges must be an opponent of religion, and Christianity in particular, because he's written and spoken extensively criticising the radical Christian right (e.g. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America (2008)). But then I found some videos on youtube about him debating Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other prominent atheists. After that, I found the video that really piqued my interest. Hedges was talking about these debates he had with Dawkins and Harris. He says that, initially, he was expecting the debates to be an engaging contest of ideas - a balanced and well-reasoned discussion - but 'to his horror' (his words) he discovered that, the approach of the so-called new atheism was problematic in ways that actually mirrored the flaws of the radical Christian right. So, he wrote a book that was like a complement to American Fascists, called When Atheism becomes Religion. 

I don't know everything Hedges has to say about this issue - I'm planning to read some of his books - but it's an issue that really fascinates me. It's sometimes called the horseshoe theory - the idea that the far-left and the far-right (or any other extreme 'opposites') are not in fact opposing ends of a continuum, but are actually very similar and in some ways the same. They have a kind of symbiotic relationship - they feed each other. 

You can see this effect in the witch narrative(s). That's what I liked so much about the movie, The VVitch. It represented the reality that, in many ways, the witch doesn't manifest as a purely malevolent phenomen....it's not simply a story about the subversion of what is good by what is evil. Instead, the potency of the Puritan's hatred and fear of what they regarded as evil, manifested that evil. The witch narrative was written not by witches but by Puritans. 

As I write this, I'm listening to a talk by Chris Hedges called, The Politics of Cultural Despair (October 19, 2020). It's pretty much unrelentingly bleak. This is what I'm not that keen on. There's no (or little) positive vision. For example, he's almost equally critical of the democrat and republican sides of politics. He talks a lot about the problems and he doesn't seem to see any possible solutions to our current malaise. 

Doing further research, I'm pretty sure Hedges is a Marxist. In his book, America: The Farewell Tour, he is super critical of corporate capitalism, and he quotes from and uses the ideas of Marx himself and other Marxist thinkers, like Antonio Gramsci. He adopts their arguments into his thesis. He also has a show on RT's YouTube channel called 'On Contact' as well as videos published on Democracy Now! and The Intercept, but he also has videos on YouTube channels without that political flavour, like Rolling Stone and Toronto Public Library. But the titles of his videos give a pretty clear reflection of his views e.g.  Chris Hedges: "Democracy has been destroyed by global capitalism". 

But, whether you love or hate Marxism, and notwithstanding the bleakness of his views, Hedges's writing is just fascinating. His videos are interesting too. I watched an episode of 'On Contact' in which he interviewed the Islamic scholar Hamza Yusuf (who I know from researching Islam and watching YouTube videos about Islam) and they talked about extremism and Islamophobia. 

It's nice listening to, or reading, intelligent commentary on politicals for a change. It's rare these days. 

One of my favourite scenes in all literature is in Dostoevsky's Demons. The book is very much about ideology and extremism. In this scene that I like, there's a man who is highly respected in the community and known for his intelligence and integrity. The scene is well into the book and takes place after we have gotten to know this character very well. and the story is about a political movement/ ideology that is growing and gaining power, and of course, getting this man onboard would be a big win for the group. 

So, he decides to attend one of their rallies. There's a huge crowd and, because he's such a well respected and wise member of society - and because they want to coopt those qualities as a reflection of their group - they invite him to speak. There's a real build up to the speech...Dostoevsky evokes a sense of tension and expectation around this speech. The man (I forget his name) begins by explaining that he has studied this political movement deeply and thoroughly and discussed it with its proponents, and he has come to a conclusion regarding it and what it is about....everyone is hanging on his every word. And he says, this is what it's about: stupidity! - which leads to an uproar. 

အဓိပ္ပါယ်

I was thinking about irony because I've been reading Genius: A Mosaic of One Hundred Exemplary Creative Minds by Harold Bloom, and he writes a lot about irony. He writes about the centrality of irony in writers that most of us probably wouldn't associate with irony - like Homer, Plato and Chaucer.  

when a work of fiction talks about things that are true (in the world of the story), that is a profound example of irony. it's a truth, and not only that, it's a truth that in varying degrees can correspond to the real world - but it is contained within a fiction...so, by definition, it's not true. 

interestingly ||| though maybe this is a statement of the obvious ||| irony is a trope (like metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, etc) \\\ tropes are basically ways of creating meaning, but not only that, they are the only way we have of creating meaning. literature is made up (he he) of tropes and figures. but what actually is a trope? - what does the word mean? The word 'trope' is derived from the verb τρέπειν (trepein), "to turn, to direct, to alter, to change". The way that I always explain tropes to students is to say that a trope is any statement that is not literally true. So we create meaning by distorting the truth. 

I think that's why people disagree so strongly about all kinds of issues ⇾ very compelling narratives and explanations can be created, but all narratives are a kind of distortion. Even subject matter that is as hard and objective as mathematics and science represents a kind of fiction. A good example is the humble line. You can draw lines and use them to prove geometrical principles, but any line you draw is not truly a line, because a line is one-dimensional, and any line you can draw will have a thickness, so it's two dimensional - it's a lie you tell in order to explicate the truth. 

objective truth exists, but no mere mortal human being can express it, and that's a good thing because it's that reality that enables us to be creative and, ironically, to express the truth. 

փորձի արժեքը

what does it mean to heal or recover?

strangely, what we call sickness is (often) our body trying to heal itself. like, when you throw up, it's your body expelling the contaminant. when you have a fever, it's because your body raises its temperature to try to kill the virus or bacteria that is affecting you. Migraine is another good example. Before you get the actual headache associated with a migraine, you get (at least I do) an aura - a visual disturbance. Growing up, I never knew what that was, and then one day when it happened, I went to the see a doctor straight away. By the time I got in to see the doctor, the visual disturbance had stopped, but when I told him about what had happened he knew exactly what it was. He asked me if I had a headache now, and I was like, yes, I do, and he explained that it was a migraine and how migraine's work. 

the aura is caused by the constriction of blood vessels - for some reason your blood vessels constrict and limit the flow of blood - and then your brain or your body releases a chemical that expands your blood vessels back to normal, and that's why the aura goes away, but it's that chemical that gives you the headache. and that's exactly what happens - the visual disturbance usually clears after 15 minutes to half an hour (I think...I've never actually timed it) and then I get a headache and a kind of mild nauseous feeling. I'm lucky. For some reason I don't really get a very bad headache like some people do. I can generally go about my normal day. The worst part for me is the visual disturbance. 

I remember reading part of a book called Productive and Unproductive Depression (1989) by Emmy Gut. Her argument in that book is that depression has a purpose and, if we engage it in the right way, depression can be a productive process. It's widely recognised that depression literally slows you down /// it slows down your speech, your movement and your thinking, and of course it drains your energy and demotivates you. It's physiological as well as psychological. In her book, Emmy Gut argues that what's happening there is that a lot of the resources you need to function normally are being redirected to the problem that is at the centre of your depression, and importantly, that that is a positive thing. The path of recovery involves figuring out what that problem is and working through it. 

I really like that argument, because the idea that things like depression can be inherently positive and productive, resonates with me. It's what I believe. I've read other books in which the author's view was that there's nothing good about being depressed - that that part of your life is lost and the only rational thing to do is get through it and come out the other end and not be depressed any more - only then will you really be living. 

It's true that, with the particular book I have in mind, the author's experience of depression was particularly debilitating, so his view is understandable, and everyone is entitled to frame their life experience as they see fit, but I don't share that view. It's not that I see depression/ anxiety/ mental health issues as something benign and easily manageable. Calling depression a black dog - even though I know it's a common metaphor - doesn't really do justice to the reality of the condition. It's more like a vicious dog that actually bites and sometimes even kills. 

So, I'm not minimising it. It's tough. But I still think, as bad as it gets, there is value in the experience. 

బౌండ్

It's a weird thing - a mystery - how your own mind can cause you such intense suffering. There's something about it that doesn't make sense. How can we be at the mercy of our selves?

but I have an idea about how it works. there's something about the world or the reality in which we live that reacts in a certain way to things that are really good. For example, it's almost a given that talented comedians have severe battles with depression. I would say most, if not all, of the funniest people in the last 100 years or so struggled with depression. 

and same with other talented or smart people. Sylvia Plath, David Foster Wallace, Virginia Woolf, just to name a few.....and I think their depression is related to their intelligence. 

being good at thinking means you have the capacity to think really intensely - to worry and ruminate and over-react. people who are creative and have highly developed sensibilities that enable them to produce great music, artworks or literature, are highly sensitive, and that can lead to them experiencing a lot of pain. 

but it seems like we're all, regardless of intellect or talent, subject to this dynamic. strength and weakness are intimately bound up with each other. 

crises

It was a failure inside a success inside a failure inside a success inside a failure.....

none of those failures really bothered me. sometimes failure bothers me, but then I realise it's an opportunity to start something new. 

sometimes that new thing is more directly related to the failure. like, say if you do a course, and you fail the course, you might do the course again and work harder so that you can pass. but you have to weigh up whether that's what you want to do. just doing the course again, in itself, will not lead to success. 

then there are other times when failure represents an opportunity to do something different - to take a different course

acceptance is crucial. it's true what all the 12 step programs teach ⇾ the first step that you have to take in dealing with your issues is to acknowledge those issues. if you never accept and admit that you have a problem you will never make any progress in dealing with that problem. 

we tend to think of acceptance as a passive thing...like you can only accept bad things ||| you resign yourself to the unpleasant truth, you accept that you've lost something or failed or that you're not good in some way ¿ but maybe victory and progress are things that you have to accept as well. maybe changing your inner world involves accepting the reality that you don't have to think and feel the way you have been thinking and feeling

another example of acceptance is related to control /// especially of feelings. We begin to have more control over our thoughts and feelings when we give up trying to control them. 

a lot of this relates to the 'journey of the hero'. the first thing that happens after the would-be hero receives the call to go on the quest, is that they run away. they refuse the call, because it's overwhelming. that refusal is a necessary step. it's a natural reaction. unless the quest is something that inspires real fear in you, it's not the journey of the hero. another way to put it is to say that the call comes in the form of a crisis. it both terrifies you and motivates you. it's not an ordinary fear that you can avoid - like, if you're afraid of heights you avoid heights

this is like getting attacked by a savage beast or by a demon. you have to fight. so that's accepting the quest. you feel utterly weak and defeated but you're forced to be strong. then, at some point, when you feel at your absolute weakest and you still have to do stuff, you cross a threshold. that's when things become so hard that you feel like you literally can't go on. you have to do something and you think that you just can't do it, but you have to do it....so you do it....and it's very empowering. In that moment when you thought you couldn't do something, but then you do it anyway, you come to a new realisation about what you are. It's like a transformation. you know that you are strong, because when you were at your weakest, you didn't let that define you. 

revision

I've written before about how I'm not really convinced by a lot of Harold Bloom's views or conclusions but what draws me to him is his thinking - the way he arrives at his views. 

I think there are two key ideas that underly Bloom's theory of influence. Built on top of those ideas, there is a whole intricate system. One of those idea is belatedness and the other is about the writer's response to their own belatedness. 

So, belatedness....the strong writer realises they are a latecomer. According to Bloom, central to a writer's thinking is that perfection, as they see it, has already been achieved by their precursor(s). So the only way for them to write anything of worth is to revise the work of their precursor. Of course they don't admit that that's what they are doing, even to themselves. That's why Bloom infuriated a lot of writers. He insisted that every act of literary creation was an exercise in wilful misrepresentation of some other writer's work, and writers don't like being told that. 

Here is what Bloom identifies as his central argument in The Anxiety of Influence:

Poetic influence...always proceeds by a misreading of the prior poet, an act of creative correction that is actually and necessarily a misinterpretation...the main tradition of Western poetry since the Renaissance, is a history of anxiety and self-saving caricature, of distortion, of perverse, wilful revisionism without which modern poetry as such could not exist.

You might think - but here he's only talking about poetry - and technically that's true, but that's just because Bloom's main concern was with poetry. In literary scholarship, poetry can be defined in a broad way to include all literature, and Bloom does go on to apply his ideas about influence to other forms of literature in later books, like, for example, The Western Canon. 

So, that's one of the central ideas - that good writing is always misreading. Then, another big idea underlying Bloom's criticism is related to how and why writers do that. All creative writing is made up of tropes and figures. The way that you identify tropes and figures - in other words, the way that you tell whether a text is literary - is that it is not literally true. For example, if you write that 'the city was blanketed in fog', it's figurative /// there's no actual, real blanket involved. Bloom points out that, for the poet or creative writer, the literal truth is like a kind of death, because it negates their creative expression which is fundamental to their identity. They have to distort the literal truth - it's what they do. 

Bloom relates this distortion to his other idea about how all literature is a distortion of other literature, and then he introduces Freud to really develop his theory about how writers do this revision. Freud formulated a range of psychic defenses by which we evade the idea of death. Bloom relates each of 6 of these defences to a particular trope (irony, synecdoche, metonymy, etc) and then to his own invention - 6 revisionary ratios, or ways that writers revise their precursors. 

reader empowerment

I read an article about reading and the value of reading, in a periodical that's known for promoting the views of the so-called intellectual dark web, and of course the writer had a go at critical theory, suggesting that literally all critical approaches to literature are flawed because, while they claim to illuminate the text and enrich our understanding of it, what they actually do is act as a kind of filter that excludes anything that falls outside the theory and makes the literary work subservient to the approach taken to interpret it. 

I don't think that's true though. He writes that, because of technology, social media and critical theory, we can no longer enjoy the text for itself, but instead get caught up in all these side issues and idealogical concerns. For me that's not true. Studying critical theory hasn't stopped me from enjoying and getting a lot out of both fiction and non-fiction books. I can still appreciate texts for what they are. I don't have to impose some kind of ideological framework on everything I read. I think that's the mistake a lot of people make - they think that literary criticism, especially that which comes under the aegis of 'critical theory', has to be ideological. 

To me, it's never ideological. I suppose for some people it is - people both for and against critical theory. I don't read Foucault, Barthes, Kristeva, Derrida or anyone else because I want to subvert the social order. I read them for their ideas, and especially their ideas about literature, because I'm interested in literature. I'm fascinated by post-colonial theory, structuralism, post-structuralism, modernism, post-modernism, etc, but I don't think learning about those frameworks has ever stopped me from really enjoying good literature and good non-fiction texts. 

To be honest, in many ways I see the two fields - literature and literary criticism - as being separate but related. We can enjoy reading literature, and as a completely separate thing, we can enjoy and learn from reading and studying literary criticism and theory. And then, if we choose to, and in the way we choose to, we can relate the two fields to each other. 

Harold Bloom hated critical theory and the ideology often associated with it, that divides the world into oppressors and oppressed. One of his main complaints about it was that it doesn't help us to read more deeply and wisely. He wanted to develop a 'practical criticism' - one that facilitates a deeper engagement with the text - that illuminates the text in the way that the writer of the article I read claims critical theory doesn't. But, even though Bloom is my favourite literary critic, I don't read him because he helps me appreciate literature or be a better reader - at least not primarily ||| I read him because I enjoy his writing. And, as a side-effect, I probably do appreciate certain literature or literature in general more deeply, but it's not a simple reaction. I disagree with or don't understand a lot of Bloom's views, but I enjoy the way he arrives at those views, or the way he elucidates them, because of his amazing erudition and intellect. 

I suppose you could think of it like this ⇾ Bloom is a model reader. We can see him as a mentor. So, the point is not that, after we read Bloom, we go away and apply the framework he has imparted to us on everything we read (which is the way a lot of people seem to think critical theory works) but rather that we use what he has taught us, to read more strongly for ourselves.