Skip to main content

the end of the line?

thanks for ruining my life from beyond the grave
i was watching a documentary earlier about iconic 80s teen film director john hughes and i saw a quote from an interview he did in 1999, the kind of thing that every writer hates to see. basically, he was talking about how he tapped into something during his highly prolific days making films in the mid-eighties and that he had been trying ever since to do that again.

no one needs to know that.

as a writer who's been finding it ridiculously difficult to get any writing done [this place aside and even then, i couldn't get my addled head together enough to do my weekly "friday favourites" yesterday], i do not want to know that people have fourteen year dry spells. i do not want to know that it is possible to have a really creative part of your life, where the words just come pouring out of you and that it can just stop. in fact, the only thing that keeps me from beating myself over the head with the cast iron kali statue that sits on my desk is the idea that my lack of creativity is a temporary thing, a combination of distraction and anxiety that will pass with time as it has always done.

you understand? i need to believe that it's going to pass or i'm going to make a bloody, brainy mess everywhere.



i don't know how many writers out there have stopped simply because their artistic gift has dried up. you know why i don't know? because i have never wanted to know. i do not want to know that it's possible for that to get shut off, especially not when i'm in a slump, feeling creatively vulnerable. for all i know, there could be hundreds of writers out there who just had to stop because their talent shriveled like stuff left at the back of the refrigerator. i hope there aren't. but a part of me needs to believe that such a thing just isn't possible, because if it can happen to one person, surely, it could happen to me.

too horrible to be contemplated.

i'm glad that i saw this toxic quote the day after i did some work on "a definable moment in time" [which is not being written "live", exactly, although at the rate i'm going, i'll catch up to myself and then i'll have something new to panic about], because at least i can sort of say that i worked on something. i didn't finish anything, of course, but i kind of know where i'm going with that, so it sort of counts.

i do sort of wish that if i had to be exposed to that quote, it hadn't come the week that i had the revelation that i don't have a previously unpublished short story of between 1,200 and 1,500 words to submit to a contest i'd really like to enter, at least not one that i think of as good enough caliber. so now i have to choose between submitting something that's not my absolute best or trying very deliberately to write a story with a ridiculously narrow word count allowance from scratch in the hopes that somehow, it comes out better than stuff i was doing when i wasn't feeling quite so retarded. [note :: before you get all uppity about me using that word, consider that i've actually used it in its correct way- meaning to be slowed or impeded, which is exactly how my brain has felt lately. in fact, i actually just typed "later" instead of "lately" for no reason other than that i'm retarded.]

so now, every time i think back on hughes' oeuvre, films that helped shape my adolescence, there's going to be a part of me that feels the fear. the fear that one's creative voice can be silenced, even when one is still eager to speak. please feel free to jump in and reassure me that it can't happen.

[the part of me that's not being narcissistic and angst-y would like to encourage you to check out the documentary "don't you forget about me", which is a love letter from a group of young film-makers to hughes and includes interviews both with his contemporaries and latter-day fans as the crew takes a road trip to try and interview him at his home in 2008.]

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…