On being forgotten

If there’s been any easily identifiable shift in my attitude toward life in the last couple of years, it is one that has also left me feeling much better off in the world: the shift from feeling sorry for those who, if they are mentioned at all in footnotes in someone else’s memoirs, are simply forgotten as soon as they die, to pitying those who think it’s a shame not even to make it into a footnote.

Wasting things

Striking to observe how difficult the idea of “waste” has become. Whatever “wasting something” really means isn’t obvious.

If you can use it again, keep it.

If you have no use for it anymore but it could be absorbed by another process, you’re recycling.

If you accidentally spilled it, take a picture and call it art.

It could sound like I’m being facetious but I’m not. There’s a moralistic, patronizing element to the condemnation of wastage. When the cost of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral was announced, one of the saner common responses to the announcement was the simple question of where else that money could have gone. In other words: What a waste.

It’s not that by being anti-Thatcher you are necessarily smarter about wasting things. Yes, a deeply conservative antagonism to some perceived decline in cultural standards suggests the regret that so much of worth in what has shaped one’s culture should “go to waste” amid the rabble and the babble; but the revolutionary spirit itself, especially when animated by the desire for bloodshed (or the terribly sorry necessity of it) brings with it another standard of wastage. Can human life be wasted? My ideologically inflected answer is: sure. But what kind of waste is impermissible? The genocidal? The plotted? An unfulfilled life? An unexamined one? A godless, hedonistic fall into hell?

Online culture, home of the new utopians, is one of the best examples of the trouble with waste as a concept. Whether it’s Clay Shirky with his “cognitive surplus” or Chris Anderson with his “long tail,” there seems to be a (perhaps imaginary, but too easily imagined) consensus on the matter: waste is difficult. Remixing and resampling is easy, and sharing is easy, so whatever old material you find, you can reuse artistically. No waste. Or: It costs little to store enormous collections of music in the cloud, so even if, out of all the available music, only a fraction of it actually generates real money on its own, the sales from the rest will also be significant taken together. No waste.

Thus, abruptly, ends my catechism.

Some literary hoaxes are beautiful

Let me link you to one of the best, most bizarre articles I’ve read in months.

Here it is. “When Dickens Met Dostoevsky” by Eric Naiman.

It’s a long one. I don’t want to ruin it, because its effect comes, partly, from the author’s deft suspense-building.

The world is full of crazies. Remember how pleased I was just from a bit of internet trolling? I hate having to admit I’ve been surpassed like this.

 

My book’s just 99 cents this month, look at the kitty

Yeah, fine, it’s already halfway into the month and I should have advertised it two weeks ago, but I’ve been busy neglecting to do that, so I didn’t get a chance to do it.

Praise of Motherhood is just $0.99 as a Kindle ebook this month. It’s been nominated for ForeWord’s Book of the Year award, and it’s got lots of nice reviews from people on blogs, magazines, and Goodreads. If that doesn’t sell it, it… has… a foreword from Caleb J Ross, who is nice, and… doesn’t… feature…

… vampires. I think.

Please buy my book. Please. Please.

kitty

Look at the goddamned cat. It’s frickin’ adorable. Buy the damned book.

 

Stupidly expensive academic books: a short first world complaint

Hegel’s Ladder by HS Harris is an incredible book for those who want to get to grips with Hegel’s Phenomenology. It’s also one of those stupidly expensive academic books — the first volume (there are two in total), even with Amazon’s discount, is $140. Yes, academic books are more expensive, and geared at a different readership, and will be purchased, very often, by institutions rather than by little folks. But it’s still a huge amount to pay for a single book. It isn’t like there’s a “Look Inside” function. There’s no ebook.

And there’s the collection of critical evaluations of Lacan that you can buy, right now, for a measly $1500.

I’m certainly very aware that almost nobody is going to want to buy those books anyway. But when you type in the name of a book like Hegel’s Ladder on Google, it automatically suggests “hegel’s ladder pdf”, which is suggestive. And anyway, the very existence of sites like aaaaarg.org is evidence, as if anyone needed it, that people DO want access to expensive academic books. They’ll share them illegally if they must.

Hey, even at Zero we have titles that I think are priced too highly (though I would say the one I just linked is worth it). Sometimes you don’t feel you’re going to recoup the costs by releasing a book, and in fact you’re pretty sure you’re heroic for even taking it on.

But a grand and a half for a book, when it’s listed on Amazon, is depressing. I’ve been talking to others in my company for a few months now about trying to do something that would make certain kinds of academic books (credible ones) cheaper to buy, easier to sell. No obvious solutions, even with the obvious problems, but it’s one of those things that sticks out in my mind as “worthy of tackling.”

Do you think men can be feminists?

My faithful friend and reader, the novelist Sarah Martinez, suggested I write a blog post on whether I think men can be feminists.

The short answer is that I think the question frames things in an unhelpful, group-narcissistic way. A serious commitment to change, of the sort that is not safe and perfectly within the coordinates of what’s acceptable at almost any level, is accessible to all and accessed by very few.

One of the first things you learn when as an undergraduate was that any ism, from atheism to anarchism to seemingly more narrowly defined things like Trotskyism, is going to be open to continual and sometimes violent reinterpretation. This is especially clear when you’re a nineteen-year-old student and you see your professors — people who have been at it much longer than you have — disagreeing on even some of the most basic things that would seem to unite them in a political or academic cause.

From context to context, you’ll find that what feminism “is” changes on a profound level. In one school of thought, gender identity is socially constructed, and has no essence of its own; it doesn’t actually exist in a meaningful way, and may be modified or at least subverted. In another school of thought, there is an essential difference between women and men, a difference that goes beyond anatomical differences, and the major political issue is identifying and correcting, as much as possible, the points at which those differences lead to oppression or inequality. There are other basic perspectives, some extremely abstract and beyond the grasp of the uninitiated, others annoyingly lazy and simplistic.

Facebook-skins-post-1024x1024If there’s no agreement on what feminism is, then the definition of membership is also left open. My feeling is that the very idea of membership is a problem, and that whether someone “is” or “is not” a feminist hardly matters outside of the context in which that discussion takes place. We can all agree to be feminists, but only some of us are really going to go out there and do things that bring change. For that, yes, I think men and women can both be feminists, because action is tough and potentially socially isolating.

To be clear, I’m not saying that the question of whether one should espouse feminist values is not important. It is. My own understanding of the differences in how men and women are treated and treat themselves has only been sharpened by my being chided by feminists here, repulsed by male sexism there. Being called out on a dumb opinion or behavior has helped me, not just in that moment, but later, when, having thought about the criticism (sometimes indignantly), I observed the validity of that criticism in other people’s behavior.

A deep and difficult commitment to a cause is, I think, the only useful test. If I’m a feminist and you’re a feminist, but you’re the one who is very actively trying to redress the balance, in whichever way you deem the most effective (protesting, dressing differently, creating unexpected female characters in art, questioning academic givens, ignoring the warnings and actually going for a top position in an industry dominated by men), then I need to concede that, however aligned our interests may be, you are the one helping move things forward.

I put the emphasis on real-life action, and serious commitment, for two main reasons.

  1. It’s easy to identify publicly as something, anything: concerned with the “starving kids in Africa”, upset about people in North Korea, heroically anti-capitalist or anti-whatever else. Such identifications are, depressingly often, meaningless. Especially in a culture of self-promotion madness and social media-constructed alter egos, what people tell you they are is always going to be dubious until you see that part of their identity in action.
  2. If feminism were simply a matter of dogma, and you could just verify that someone’s actions were in line with the explicitly stated intentions and guidelines of the group, things would be pretty easy to sort out. But like any loose-knit group of tenets and ideals, feminism will be most powerfully defined by the actions of those who take it seriously, even without having figured it all out.

Hooray for award nominations, but who am I when I get nominated?

First, my book Praise of Motherhood gets nominated for the ForeWord Book of the Year award in the autobiography category.

Then my band’s album Reading Journals get a “best concept album” nomination at the Independent Music Awards — which, I assume, means not very much in terms of my chances of winning, since you need fans to vote, and I don’t know where my fans really are. It’s still gratifying.

It brings up a question I’ve been struggling with consistently. I have people listening to my music here, people reading my books over there, people who are aware of my columns way over the horizon, but I don’t know how to make these things work together.

Do I really need to obsess about being a “brand”? To I need to “position” myself in the marketplace? Is my platform really meant to be my priority?

At the moment, I haven’t got much of an idea about merging (in people’s minds) Phil the musician with Phil the author and Phil the guy running a press.

Maybe awards are a good way to do it, in that they seem to legitimize what you’ve tried to accomplish. At the least, it’s a bit of recognition from people who profess to care about these things. And I’d certainly prefer to be recognized than not to be recognized for what I do.

I keep resisting the idea of “branding” myself too much. It annoys me when people have a very obvious and calculated “brand”. It’s hard to explain why — a sense of inauthenticity? or they’re just more aggressive than I am about it, so they annoy me automatically and it’s my problem?

Actually, it’s very often just my problem. So PLEASE VOTE FOR MY ALBUM GUYS IT’S RIGHT THERE HOLD ON I’LL JUST SHARE IT AGAIN

 

“My boyfriend is gay” is a song that knows it’s a cliche

Here we have it, then, another song confused about which team it bats for: the open-minded “let’s laugh at things because we’re all one!” community, or the basically regressive and unaware of it group.

This time it’s the obliviously see-through title “My Boyfriend is Gay” and it’s by Hailey Rowe.

Not much to say about it, except: note how the lyrics subtly play off the expectations of the LOL-typing 20-something ideal listener. Like “gay” is something you should just be able to “see through”:

My boyfriend is gay
I know it sounds cliché
That everybody saw right through this guy but me
My boyfriend is gay
Should’ve known by the way
He tivoed every episode of RHOC
My boyfriend is gay
He was really such a great guy, but I saw him with another guy
His favorite color was turquoise and he always drank chocolatinis through a straw
My boyfriend is gay
I didn’t really mean to spy, but I saw him with another guy
You should’ve seen his place and he cried more than me at every chick flick that we saw
(say) la la la la la la la la la la la la la la la

Rely on cliches about gay dudes? Check.

Bring in the whole “cheating” thing so that it kind of sounds like a casual pop breakup song? Check.

Acknowledge the lack of originality of your song in its very lyrics? Check.

I’m a straight guy in his twenties, and I’m very bored with the things that I’d be sure to love.

How to be absolutely fascinating

I have a few pictures of myself graduating from high school, and on a recent trip back home to Portugal I found them in a box full of other embarrassing mementos. I know, just from looking at those pictures, that I was in good physical condition, and that my hair has never been quite as luxuriously indifferent to the world since I left school.

PJ Grad

Keeping grinning, kid.

Most of it is a blur, of course. I don’t really remember much about that day, not on the whole, except that I had very suddenly (the night before) embarked on a wildly terrifying and fun romantic whirlwind with someone I’d just met. And that I drank less champagne than I should have.

I also know I that gave a graduation speech, and that I hadn’t been the popular choice for that task. I like to think I didn’t disappoint the critics in my class: I made no mention of how much fun our class had had together, and I didn’t try to highlight the cohesion of the group, the debt we owed to our teachers, the memories we’d cherish forever.

Instead, I addressed the younger students, tried to imply (without overtly criticizing anyone) that it was worth trying to talk to those in the student body who were usually isolated, and offered some other sound bites that weren’t particularly in keeping with previous graduation speeches at that school.

Yep, I was that kid, the loner on a messianic mission.

The only things I knew were keeping me going at that time were a total faith in my ability to “do better” than I’d done so far, and the incredible relief of seeing the light at the end of what I thought to be a very dark tunnel: the end to five years at an expensively impersonal boarding school.  They were years of feeling utterly alone, and although I didn’t quite want to admit it at the time, a lot of that loneliness had come about through my own social ineptitude and my own glorification of it, the self-serving belief that chosen isolation was better than the nothingness of popularity.

It may not be surprising that it was around that time I read Kierkegaard most obsessively.

While many parents came up to me to congratulate me after the speech, what I remember most is a few unpleasant glares from my classmates as I walked off the podium. They were probably right: I was the school’s best student, and one of its unhappiest. I’d trained myself badly. I would have preferred more friends and less publicly acknowledged brilliance. I’d have tried less hard to stand out because of my achievements if I’d felt like I had a place.

But on that graduation day, smiley and enamored as I was, there was very little inside me that you could call happy. The killer part is that a lot of that unhappiness was a result of my own decisions, and had been innocently encouraged by a school that wanted a truly good student and which, in the end, was much less to blame for my unhappiness than I thought at the time.

I was publicly aggressive. Because I got along with the teachers (yep, I was also that kid), I was often given, hmm, special privileges. Sometimes they let me get away with things I really shouldn’t have been allowed to consider doing at all. That, too, was ultimately counterproductive. It made me feel comfortable not following the rules, and making up for it by being a high achiever. This is a stupid attitude to create in yourself: the idea that as long as you keep on being excellent at a few things, you are exempt from social niceties. You lose friends that way, and eventually you lose all sense of what you actually are: a mortal, flawed, egotistical kid.

When I left school, I spent a year “finding myself” in the world. Technically, I found very little of myself. I discovered ways of being more sociable (tip: ask people questions about themselves before you announce the death of civilization) and I got some travel experience.

But the most valuable part of that year, I think, was the chunk of time I spent living in Turkey. That was truly life-changing, and I wish I’d kept the true lesson of those months in mind later. I moved to Istanbul to live with a friend I’d met while traveling there the previous summer, and I set myself a stupid, helpful, reductive goal:

I would not leave Turkey until I’d spent three months talking to 30 strangers a day.

With the exception of Sundays, when I was allowed to slack off, I had to approach 30 different people every day and talk to them, however briefly: young or old, male or female, hostile or welcoming. It didn’t matter if it was only for ten seconds. It didn’t matter if it went terribly wrong. The only goal was to have a verbal exchange with 30 strangers.

Why? Because I was a wuss. I was afraid of people. I had managed to go my entire life without ever feeling comfortable around people. I’d told myself I was absolutely fascinating, and I’d proved it by being absolutely fascinating to those who bothered to notice, without ever really sitting down to ask myself whether I was okay. The short version is that I wasn’t okay. I was academically “okay”  and I had developed an unapologetically vicious sense of humor; I had a naturally athletic body (though even that deteriorated for a few years) and few obvious nervous tics.

This is Howard Roark, who never cared what anyone thought, ever. And was a fictional character.

The result was that I could be clever and funny and presentable for the first few hours of meeting someone, and beyond that I felt stifled by my own inadequacies. What was there to me, beyond what I already knew and couldn’t communicate? Even if I had interesting things to say, or assumed I did, there was always a hostility to the way I handled social situations, something irrationally aggressive and individualistic, that stopped me from making friends. It was sheer self-defense. And I hadn’t even read Ayn Rand.

Those months in Istanbul were transformative because I had to humiliate myself. I decided to get humble. Realistic. The first couple of weeks were terrifying: I relied on a Turkish phrasebook, which I would use to approach some random old man, some store clerk with nothing else going on. I’d point at a Turkish word and ask them how to pronounce it. They usually looked amused, and helped me out. Then I thanked them and left the scene. That was one. Only twenty-nine more to go.

I knew it would pay off, because it was logical that it should pay off. Talking to thirty strangers a day is scary even when you’re “normal” or well-adjusted. I was no longer able to come across as absolutely fascinating for a few hours, and then crash and burn. I had a few seconds of a stranger’s time, multiplied by thirty. That was it. Many of these people spoke no English. They looked at me as if they thought I was the weird thing they’d seen that day, and I probably was. I had a forehead covered in sweat, I kept grinding my teeth, and there’s also this: I was walking around asking people how to pronounce words in Turkish.

But after the first two weeks, things picked up very, very quickly. It was a dramatic difference. I started making friends. The scary part died down, and it turned fun. Because I didn’t know anyone there except the friend I lived with (who worked at a fashion design office until midnight every weekday, and so couldn’t keep me company), I had to start from scratch. I went from having no sense of what was happening around me to getting the numbers of many new people.

I remember a dude with a ponytail called Ugur in particular, because we both played bass guitar and I met many new people through him. I went on dates, and wrote a lot of songs. An unusually poppy track that I recorded recently features a section that I wrote back then. (It’s the obnoxious “I don’t wanna go home again!” part, which probably isn’t surprising.)

Kierkegaard’s handwriting here spells out the following words: “I should really get a social life.”

What initially took me four or five hours, with a lunch break in between, ended up taking no more than two on a normal day. I knew the most crowded places (my favorite was Taksim, which is worth witnessing for yourself if you ever go, because some vendors will try to sell you your own shoes if they feel cocky; when you sound American, you make an obvious target) and I went out there, talked to my strangers, and left.

Sometimes I cheated: If I talked to someone who was in a group, I counted every single person to whom I addressed at least a word. But that was okay. I was happier.

I have never been quite so sociable since. It’s a shame that, over time, I forgot the biggest lesson: that I was only happier because I’d tried to overcome my own pathologies. I’d admitted to myself that there were things to work on, and then I’d gone out and tried my best. When I left Turkey I felt better than I had ever imagined feeling.

I went to university, and fell prey to many of the traps of undergraduate life: inflated sense of my own understanding of the world, libido, and a tragic forgetfulness when it came to recalling how much happier you can be when you just admit you’re still learning to learn how to live.

Call Me Maybe — my new cover, I’m going to hell, see you there

Yeah, I did a cover of Call Me Maybe, last year’s most successful pop song or something.

Sure, I made it dark and creepy and miserable, but it’s still hell-worthy. Enjoy.