Home

Advertisement

Customize
18 June 2009 @ 11:59 am
just had inaugural radio interview for she and i - got to be warm-up act for [and exchange words, off-air, with] five-time NYT best-seller connie briscoe.

the host couldn't have been better. he zeroed in on the issue of male emotional expressivity - one of the book's best portals to theme, style, and author's biograph-arc.

it's up on the web, so feel free to listen.



episode URL: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/conversationslive/2009/06/18/Authors-Connie-Briscoe-and-Michael-R-Brown-on-Conversations-LIVE-Radio

host's site: http://www.thebestbookclub.info

[ my next interview: saturday, june 20 - 8pm pacific time - "Author Spotlight" - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Adrienna-Turner - adrienna's site: http://www.adriennaturner.webs.com ]

[ following interview: sunday, june 28 - 10:55am pacific time - "Chapters" - http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Jayel-Gibson - jayel's site: http://www.jayelgibson.com/ ]
 
 
07 May 2009 @ 10:01 am
grrr  
it appears that my previous quote of george washington was a fake - good detective work by <lj user="odyssey_bold"> - discussion here: http://writerspleasure.livejournal.com/614132.html?thread=2924276#t2924276 . shows the importance of verification!
 
 
04 May 2009 @ 11:23 am
Publication date - Great excitement. Will get info together in a bit.

- http://twitter.com/fuguewriter
 
 
03 May 2009 @ 10:53 am
Wordle: "She and I - Intro"
 
 
02 May 2009 @ 05:23 pm
I mean to deromanticize the fragment.

- http://twitter.com/fuguewriter
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
23 April 2009 @ 01:57 pm
The new sales model is decentralized, trusted peers. Let's make sure our inner interests remain as energized as our connective technologies.

- http://twitter.com/fuguewriter
 
 
10 December 2008 @ 11:10 am
An energetic and positively-oriented publicity group, Phenix & Phenix Literary Publicists, have taken an interest in She and I.

Today in a brief phone consult we agreed to move ahead with them as my representation.

They've derived some interesting angles from the book, and I appreciate their expertise in 1) finding ways to penetrate the present oversaturated media static 2) building bridges between the book and the interests and concerns of book-buyers, both erudite and other.

Critical in my decision is the sense that they actually have read it, they understand in outline what I'm driving at, and they did not suggest any compromises, dilutions, or sleazings-down in order to achieve greater sales.

I'm truly pleased.

As publicity things are generated, I'll record some of them here.
 
 
22 November 2008 @ 06:51 pm
Laura from Indiana, USA asks: If you had to chose only one event in your life, which would you say has had the greatest impact?

Beth's death in 1998. It was ten-years-and-a-month ago, and I'm still working out ramifications of the life-and-death we shared. (When I go back and read some of my earliest reactions, from the days just after, I see I understood quite a bit. What takes time is the making-whole. It's intolerable to me to have dissociated bits. In that sense I'm more sympathetic to the universe as Whitehead's clump of goo than Russell's pile of buckshot. But really what we need is a fusion of the two. That's one of my long-term goals.) I'll write of all Beth and I shared someday - I touch on the barest essence in she and I - but for now, this.

I believe we're all biologically-determined - to be intellectual, emotional, mythic, spiritual. There's not one culture known without some ritual, however simple. We're biologically-determined to need, seek, make, and have meaning. Nietzsche says, dramatically, "Man will will nothingness rather than will nothing." In that sense, the purely empirical-pragmatic approach to humans is doomed to failure. There'll always be something missing. It's like trying to pilot a ship only by eyesight, without reference to maps, sounding lines, sonar, or stars, not to mention GPS. If there were no use for meaning, the need wouldn't have evolved out so universally. It probably had tribal survival-value. Certainly it can ennoble and inspire one to work in ways that benefit the tribe.

But there's a danger to myth, one that artistic or mythopoetic people don't sufficiently address: myths can be traps. One can wind up working for the tribe, say - and it turns out that the tribe wasn't worthy of your sacrifice. You're not, really, say, going to heaven with the however-many-dozen-virgins. Conversely, you can cut yourself off from human contact in the belief you have some great individual destiny - and it turns out you don't, at least not one that required that means of execution.

Trap-myths can also lead you to stay where you shouldn't, to tolerate what you shouldn't. I remember an Israeli, some years ago, saying, "Our grandparents were told to sacrifice so their grandchildren would live in a perfect land. Now they tell us to do that for our grandchildren! When will it ever end?!" (Quoting from memory.)

Now we're choking in unhealthy, low-level myths. Our life-giving, life-enhancing myths are largely silent. We've not lost the capacity - I've heard, in my sojourns through strange places since about my twentieth year, when i left the College, the most remarkable creativity from the most seemingly-ordinary people - sometimes the most seeming-ordinary have the greatest poetry inside them - but it's spasmodic and brief. We live in a culture that permits and rewards firing off a blast of momentary attitude - Paris Hilton arriving at an event - and that inhibits and discourages the long mythic arc. Most of our myths are petty and negative myths about the bad motives of our enemies or opponents - all businessmen are greedy vultures, or all liberals want to clap us into a new Gulag. False, negative, unhelpful.

But we all have a mythic dimension. Our lives, like stories, have beginnings and middles and ends - climaxes, developments, surprises. It's a comedy / drama / tragedy / romance / absurdity. As Joseph Campbell says, the guy standing at the corner of Thirty-Third and Park in Manhattan is the heir of Odysseus - he just doesn't know it. (I'd add he's also the heir of Cyrano, Puck, and Monseiur Hulot.) Our lives are meaningful, whether we want them to be or not. And, just like our bodies, our myths are mixes of healthy and unhealthy. And we can and must work from within them to become healthier.

For ten-and-a-half years, the years of my marriage to Beth, I lived in a myth. A complex system of myths, actually. (I'm not referring here to her own multiplicity, but rather her mythic autogeny and sense of future destiny.) It inspired me to huge efforts, brought an unmatched sense of richness and meaning - but the system was almost entirely at a tangent to daily life, and at some points even in their manifestations (not to mention their roots) at odds with health, well-being, and prudence.

My own myth, if you will, was also almost entirely swallowed in hers. But, as Vladimir Horowitz once wisely said, when you're young and let yourself be strongly influenced by others, you're not being dominated - you're forming, through contact with masters. (Some of the poverty of our time consists in our refusal to accept any master but the one who promises to serve us, as with the President-Elect. We will acknowledge no master who is master simply out of transcendent competence and ability. And so we remain - not even apprentices. In Campbellian terms, we never so much as part off from the tribe. What we forget is that we cannot, then, return to help the tribe with the wisdom and honor accrued from our quest without. We just stay huddled in our community by the little fire.)

So even though my own myth-path was in some sense swallowed up Beth's - it was voluntary. I accepted it. That swallowing, too, was part of my myth.

What was not accounted for in any of the myths - was when her cancer was pronounced terminal. That was not part of the mythic path, which she'd believed mapped out in great multi-decade detail. I'd come freshly out of my first destructive criticism of Rand, and was as open as I'd ever be in my life. I was ripe to believe - and Beth came with unutterable force, shattering and healing. Through coming to know and love her, I was truly reborn in this life. For her part, she professed to have no idea why she'd been singled out for the strange life she had - had she'd her way, she often said, she'd have married her soldier-boy Kevin and had babies with him on the Jersey shore. But he was killed in a rice paddy, and she was ejected from that myth. "I don't know why," she would say, "but I'm one of those lighning-rod people. I don't go looking for it - but it comes."

And it did.

Not to put too fine a point on it: Beth told me it'd been foretold by a deeply gifted psychic - one who knew specifics of Beth's abuse by her father without Beth telling her a word of it - that Beth'd live to be either 78 or 87, that she would have several children, that she would be known in her lifetime for her novels but after her death more for her poetry.

And I believed.

So much else, even the most implausible, had checked out. (A tiny sliver: she claimed to have been an extra in the movie of Hair - and there she was in a scene. She claimed to have been a student of Salem Ludwig - and there was the casual photo of him in his apartment, and the student IDs from the acting school with her name on them.)

I believed that through our love, I'd entered a transcendent dimension. In a sense. I had - but what I did not realize was that it had little to do with daily life in its particulars. And in time, when it came time to deal with the lump in the breast that stood against the myth - that the myth would win. And in winning, lose. For she lost her life.

And our life together was lost.

And worse yet - I can't prevaricate here - is that even before her life ended, she pushed me out of our mythic existence. Unilaterally and without discussion, the essential foundation of our very existence was destroyed.

For those who've read She and I, they will understand why, almost at the very end, I smash my first on my desk again and again, heedless of injury.

Beth's death was the final showing that the myth had been contrary to the truth and needs of daily life - yet it'd felt so inimitably, powerfully right.

This was the great tear, the great split, I'm still engaged in trying to heal. I haven't succeeded yet, though I suggest (to myself as much to anyone else) a way out in the final scene of She and I.

For what I didn't realize was the immensity of the cultural change that'd happened in the time I was with Beth - the significance of her being seven years older than I - of having moved to the West Coast - and the fact that so many of the afterward-contacts were initially established via 'net.

For I've found that while people are still capable of the mythic flight, it's a spasmodic flap-of-wings - and then a quick return to ground. Most of the people I have known since - most've been females - have been able to whip up a mythic froth - but all too soon the bowl goes into the dishwasher and is set back on the shelf, and then we get back to the real business of living: which apparently largely consists in talking about other people (usually their negative qualities), laboring at unenjoyed work, and trying to get more stuff.

I'll take myth - even parted-from-reality myth.

I've not given up, and this is not to say that there have not been great moments, experiences, connections. There have. But part of the thing is, I have changed - and in the time when I most needed to repair to the wholeness of meaningful existence, to heal the edges of wounds - what would start out with mythic light would, again and again, deconstruct into banality on the other person's part.

There's a will to banality afoot these days. Apparently people feel secure, keeping things on that level. To me it's the worst place. I cannot breathe there. One of my crimes against myself is not having protested when the banal reduction began - and staying in relationships in the futile hope of elevation returning.

So there I am. I'm a myth-lover who sees the danger in myths, who lived a great myth and was thrown out of it - and then out of a bunch of succeeding ones.

I'm trying to find a way between the rocks, out into freedom again. I'm not there, yet, but I see more seagulls in the sky lately, a hint of salt in the breeze.

I've not yet scattered Beth's ashes. I shall not, until I write the book of our life-and-death together. For then the myth shall be, in a post-mortem sense, reborn.
 
 
22 November 2008 @ 05:09 pm
Susan, from Utah, asks five questions:

A. If you were not a writer what would you being doing right now?

Composing music, pursuing invention ideas in electrical engineering, delving into some historical-research questions that interest me, looking more into my family history.

B. What outside stimulation do you have that help you to write (e.g. music)?

My writing is always going on on the wordless level, so I only rarely need mood-setters or stimulation. It's an ongoing biological process with me. But I did listen to music quite a bit while writing She and I. Not as much listening right now: but I was editing for two years, so the writing before me was the music. During She and I these were some favorites:

Innocence Mission - a little folkie group out of Pennsylvania - had a brief big flare of publicity from around '89 to '92 but've gone back to smallness, which is really their element. Someone called them "rainy day music," and that was perfectly apropos. Since the cardinal element of She and I is water, their spirit was just right - and sometimes comforting, as I chewed upon the remains of the moments, trying to make them whole again.
* "Broken Circle" (that one the most of all)
* "Paper Dolls" (among the shortest pop songs - a small dawn)
* "A Thousand Miles" (rarely)

Bach
* The Grosser organ toccatas and fugues. Perfection.
* Passacaglia and Fugue on the pedal harpsichord - E. Power Biggs - perfection

Kate Bush
* "Moments of Pleasure" - magic lyrics, forever linked with Henry Darger
* "The Man with the Child in His Eyes" - purity of girl's love, with narci. underneath
* "Wuthering Heights" - pure dark fun

The Verve - "Bittersweet Symphony"
Beatles - Revolver
Fiona Apple - cover of "Across the Universe"
Heather Nova - cover of "We Can Work it Out"
Bob Dylan - "Tangled Up in Blue" - shows what perfect writing can do
Moby - "Go"
Don MacLean - "American Pie" - massive symbolic field
Derek and the Dominoes - "Layla" - nirvana in second section
John Mayer - "3x5" - beautifully turned
Leonard Cohen - "The Future" - searing lyrics
Rush - 2112 - unabashed romanticism, cribbed from Rand
Massive Attack - "Teardrop" - in my mind, the book's official song: "Love, love is a verb / Love is a doing word"

C. Who are some of the authors that have inspired you to write?

Not in any order, here are some fundamental ones.

Janwillem van de Wetering.

Specifically his autobiographical account The Empty Mirror: Experiences in a Japanese Zen Monastery. I came upon this book in the Ridgewood library around 1986, and was immediately fascinated by its purity and delicate effects of style. No translator was listed - originally published in van de Wetering's Dutch - and I'd always meant to write the publisher and find out. Just a few months ago I read he himself did his translations. Beautiful, pellucid writing. His follow-up volume, A Glimpse of Nothingness, is rather less successful - seems listless. Those are the only books by him I've yet read, though I want to read his years' later Buddhist book, Afterzen, and some of his others. His you-are-there style melded with Buddhist thought is like Pirsig but without the thoroughgoing symbolic architecture underneath.

Robert Pirsig.

Mentioned previously. His Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is one of my seminal books. Partly it's Pirsig's style, to which my own has some likenesses, partly the content (his is one of the most interesting philosophical systems created in the last hundred years and may be taken more seriously yet over time), but most of all it's the deep, fully-worked-out symbolic architecture underneath the journey-narrative of a father crossing the country with his son and, on a separate motorcycle, two friends with a very different philosophy of motorcycle maintenance. The journey starts in Minnesota, passes up into then down out of the "high country" of the continental mountains, then approaches at the end the promised land of San Francisco. It took a very important book - Ron Di Santo and Tom Steele's Guidebook to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values - to make me suddenly aware that the perfectly coherent outside-world narrative in ZAMM functioned as a fully symbolic intellectual-spiritual journey - "high country of the mind" and all. This connected in my mind with an essay by an Arab scholar who spoke of spiritual topography in Hafiz. I realized in a flash that even very Western narrative could bring both a completely meaningful outside-world-journey-narrative and, integral with it, inseparable, a spiritual-emotional-journey narrative. Not with the outside world as a mere stand-in, but true integration - inseparable, fused.

Mary MacLane.

One of the earliest and greatest. She was an autobiographic writer but not a memoirist - I wish she'd been the latter: might have brought more order to her existence. What MacLane taught me, first/foremost, is the possible power of first-personal narrative - then (and with her this was as one with with the preceding power) the power to be derived of word-choice. She was capable of the most blinding, annihilating power simply from her virtuosic word-choice, her concision (at war with her early affectless repetitions), the sword-edge with which she carved out her meaning and persona. When she is on, she's on more than anyone else. I know of no writer who can best her for pure high voltage - but it's all flashes and hints. Gertrude Atherton picked up MacLane's worst shortcoming well: in her autobiography, Atherton discerned in MacLane a paucity of creative power: "in the end she could only write of herself" - and so she wound up in a dead end. This is a danger of the pure egoist way - the eventual annihilation of content - and it's one I've kept in mind, having been drawn in my youth to egoists like MacLane, Stirner, Rand, Nietzsche. The individual must take care not to turn him/herself into an emptiness merely in reaction to outward bonds, or with obsessive focus upon the core of the core of the core of I, I, I. I prefer the Buddhist Mahayana path of liberation: accept the world and one's presence in it, completely, accept one's karma completely, and work from within that. Walt whitman knew:
(Still here I carry my old delicious burdens,
I carry them, men and women, I carry them with me wherever
I go,
I swear it is impossible for me to get rid of them,
I am fill'd with them, and I will fill them in return.)
But MacLane gave me invaluable lessons in heightening expression and the precision, interior mechanics of it.

Nietzsche.

Covered here recently - I'll add only that he showed me the subtleties of language and the need for a rich fund of allusion, from both classical and popular sources. He is one of the great writer-adventurers.

Jack London.

In two of his not-known-to-everyone works (The Sea Wolf and The Road), London showed me the sound and look of perfect writing in American english. Unsurpassed.

Ayn Rand.

Yes. Despite so much that repels me now - the stylistic bathos, the gradual loss of any sense of actual motivation in people - hidden in her lesser-known things and in her remarks on other writers and on the art of writing is some surprising richness. (This is generally true of her: she was at her worst where she thought herself best.) She taught me what it was like to have a systematic view of literature and an explicit philosophy of it. One of her pieces of advice served me well in finding the precise voice for she and I: don't feed the reader your explicit intention or judgment - give only the specific details, written in such a way the reader naturally comes to the feeling as if by his/her account alone. I don't really have a specific agenda in She and I (more on that in a later answer to another reader), but I wanted that sense of the reader creating the emotion for themselves, such that I'm not telling, but showing. I bore much in mind an off-hand comment of Catherine's, early when I announced I was writing it to tell the truth: "But how will you know your Truth is really true?" (Quoting from memory.) That was one of my guiding thoughts through the whole seven years - and I don't know if she knows that, or even remembers saying it. But it was, and is, so.

D. How would you describe your writing style?

In She and I: lyrical sharpness. Journaling: intellectual pinwheel. Online chat: heartfelt movement. (Face-to-face conversation, generally: warm sharing.)

E. who is the first author that you first feel in love with and had to read everything you could get your hands on?

Rand. From age 12 to 15 I breathed in everything. Next was Nietzsche, then Mary MacLane, then D.H. Lawrence, who freed me.
 
 
22 November 2008 @ 05:03 pm
Liz, from Boston, Massachusetts asks: What's in a name? (Take that as you will.)

At once nothing, and a very great deal.

Philosophically I tend strongly toward nominalism: what primarily exists are individual things. Generic abstractions ("Man," "Virtue," etc.) refer to real states of affairs, but abstractions do not in any sense rule over individual things. In that sense I'm an Aristotelian and decidedly not sympathetic to Plato. (Coleridge maintained that every person is one or the other, and I've found that true.)

However, we're not just sensate robots, and there are all sorts of drives and and states in (and aspects to) each consciousness. I think it's part of art's job to explore and communicate that - and that's one reason I don't like art that gets too disconnected from our present sensory modalities. I can understand the rebellions in art history - verismo opera has to be understood as a reaction against Romantic overlushness, just as aesthetic Impressionism, Naturalism, and Futurism have to be understood as reactions even though they defensively garbed themselves as revolutionary) - but I generally don't like what they produce. They haven't shown much staying power, especially in our restless age.

So any name has a sort of dual reality: the pointing-function or nominalist aspect - and the aesthetic/energetic function, which is not particularly realist in its bases (though it is biologically-grounded).

Altogether I would like to see life be more nominalistically-grounded, with aesthetic experience animating and enlivening it. (I understand what Heraclitus meant when he said "A dry soul is best.")
 
 
22 November 2008 @ 04:51 pm
Justin from Toledo asks: who are your favorite philosophers?

I'm glad people think there's something like a favorite philosopher. There emphatically are, for me. Here are some Westerners.

1. Nietzsche. That eccentric thinker in which silly nonsense is woven inextricably with the most stunning profundities and the most graceful stylistic pirouettes. One of the great stylists, in any language, and certainly one of the founding fathers of post-modernism. Less well-known is that he set down some unpublished speculations in the 1880s on changes he detected coming in physics - he knew something was coming that'd upset Newtonian atomism, which he called "reduction to terms of maximal stupidity". In these speculations and in bringing in the Jesuit scientist Boscovich he vaguely intuited the Einsteinian revolution 25 years before it happened. I'm far less impressed by the alleged Nietzschean thunder and lightning, the amoral egoist pursuing his own designs with no regard to others, etc. - that's a preposterous caricature and Nietzsche was never so uncomplicated. (Nietzsche's thought might be looked upon as a deliberate self-complicating. One of his acquaintances annoyedly said, of one of Nietzsche's books, "He announces rapidly approaching hair-raising audacities of thought, which then, to the bored disappointment of the reader, never come." (Quoted from memory.) There's truth in this, and in Nietzsche's teacher Jacob Burckhardt calling The Birth of Tragedy in his diary "intellectual spree [can also be translated as 'debauch']." (Quoted from memory.) Contra another silly popular falsity, Nietzsche was, after emancipating himself from Wagner, an eloquent and outraged enemy of anti-Semites.

Boscovich is another intriguing thinker - his anti-Newtonian energy-physics is mathematically fascinating, and he's remembered today for, among other things, a focus on mathematical singularities.

- - - - -

2. Max Stirner. Stirner is more the "Nietzsche" of popular imagination, and in many ways a mightier and more devastating thinker than the complex and neurotic Nietzsche. Stirner pursues an implacable program of destruction of all "wheels in the head" as he puts it - subordination to any abstract concept or transcendent being, be it God, Mankind, the State, or The Good. His one book, The Ego and His Own, is simply fathomless in this negative agenda, for a parallel to which one probably must look outside the West to Nagarjuna and his mighty negations, but once Stirner is done with his negative destroying something curious emerges - an almost delicate awareness of the mysterious origins of the self. Stirner, the great voluntarist egoist, saw that the self comes out of a "Creative Nothing" which is akin to the creative emptiness (or emptying of God - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis ) of Meister Eckhart. Stirner, the furthest outpost of Western dualism, discovers a secret tunnel over to the East. So even at the foundations of Western thought is a little escape route - or root system. This is rather akin to Brownian motion, or how the Bose-Einstein condensate works, the quantum in the Heisenberg uncertainty relation or the formally undecidable propositions in Godel's treatment of Russell/Whitehead - there's always a little displacement in thought, a little jiggle, just to remind us that it all has to keep moving. You can never fully insulate the house! And how wonderful, that Stirner saw it, and left the self its origin in mystery. Another intriguing and somewhat mystical note to Stirner is that he disdains to tell us what a future world of realized Egoists would be like. He says only that each self would voluntarily ally, or not, for individual benefit - he calls it the Union of Egoists. But what would that be like? He portrays us no Utopias. Here, too, he rested in the silence of wisdom.

- - - - -

3. Alan Watts. No Stirnerite here - the urbane former Church of England man called himself a "philosophical entertainer" and undertook to interpret Eastern thought to a wide, well-amused public in books, articles, and public lectures. Readers of she and I will catch a few references - he is a near-silent connecting thread between important things. If Watts' central insight could be reduced to a sentence, it'd be this: one cannot have an infinite sequence of control mechanisms: at some point one has to come upon something that just functions, rightly, by nature - therefore seek that inside oneself (in a kind of sauntering spontaneity of life) and externally (politically in "high philosophical [min]archy") - Watts is a significant resource for those who would like to see non-Western traditions of libertarian thought, and a wonderful intellectual adventure - the Mozart of improvised philosophical sparkles.

[ Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aufuwMiKmE ]

- - - - -

4. Aristotle. In Greek his name means "the best [or highest] goal [or end]," and that's his motive from start to finish. Despite the horrible wreckage of his writing - we have mostly classroom notes and a mixture of his developmental stages - cf. Werner Jaeger - a great, exact, creator-mind shows through.

- - - - -

5. Korzybski. "The map is not the territory." Thank you, noble count.

- - - - -

There are others, but I'll let this rest here for now.
 
 
22 November 2008 @ 03:59 pm
The other figure in Buddhist history to whom I feel most strongly connected is the mighty Drukpa Kunley, the Tibetan saint who took as his meditation - sexual ecstacy itself.

The wiki on him is woefully inadequate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drukpa_Kunley - but Aikido master John Stevens' book Lust for Englightenment: Buddhism and Sex contains a long, wonderful section on him. i cannot recommend the Stevens book highly enough - it's the most sexually enlightening book I've ever read. Anyone interested in a completely non-Western take on spirituality and sexual passion would do well to read it.

Abebooks has it cheap, too: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=john+stevens&sts=t&tn=lust+for+enlightenment&x=0&y=0
 
 
19 November 2008 @ 08:18 pm
Lizzie from San Diego asks: What sort of religious affiliations do you claim (if any) and why? (I.e.: were you raised in it, found it later, etc.)

I belong to no religious organizations, and in that sense affiliate myself with no religion.

I was baptized into the Episcopalian faith and raised nominally Episcopalian. Observance at home was light in the extreme - briefest prayer prior at dinner ("Lord, we thank You for our food, Amen") and before bed ("I pray my soul"), both of which which faded over the years - and the putting-up of an old felt pocketed Christmas calendar inside by the front door, which didn't fade, even after my mother left my stepfather. I inherited the calendar from her when she died - it's packed away somewhere.

The religion was all on my mother's side - my stepfather was an atheist behaviorist. He had little concept of consciousness above empirical sensations and logical conclusions drawn therefrom, though he had a powerful thinking mind and every so often surprising aesthetic turns. My mother's concept of religion was heaven, where all the people who'd gone before us were waiting for us sitting on white chairs in a vaguely white open space.

My mother went to the Community Church in the little town in which I grew up - it was Dutch Reformed. I remember at the tail end of Hippie culture, early 1970s, they'd invite guitarists in for the service music. That church was the occasion for a quip of mine - probably age eight or nine. "Dutch Reform," I said to her cheekily, "is the closest you can get to being an atheist and still call yourself a Christian: believe in God and do good things!"

I never strongly identified with either faith, but when I was quite young - up until about nine - I'd belief in a fearsome and absolute deity - basically the Biblical God without Jesus' forgiveness. I remember finding some forgotten Passover matzoh crackers and wanting to taste them - but worried God would be angry at me for being somehow impious. I ate anyway, asking His forgiveness as I did it.

My sense of this severe God faded. In eighth grade, no doubt partly under Rand's influence, I declared myself explicitly atheist, though quite internally tormented about it. Torment faded with time, and toward the end of the Military School I began re-approaching religion as a kind of aesthetic experience. I was a member of the Chapel Club, whose advisor was an extraordinary military chaplain named Robert Laston - Southern gentleman with white hair and a long-chinned face and prominent teeth. He spoke with the mellow, recessed tones of an educated Southerner, though his voice rushed and went high when he became excited. I learned, years after graduation, that he'd had the best pornography collection of any of the living-in-dorms teachers. We'd never've believed it. I gave a guest sermon once - something I'd written on the origins of the Lord's Prayer - and in the chapel-auditorium (with which readers of She and I will become familiar early on) I once read in the Bible that he who read the whole Book of Revelations aloud would be blessed. I wanted to be blessed, so I began reading it aloud. I didn't finish it - someone came in, and I got to talking to them. I should do the whole reading someday. Just for completion.

With more time the extremes faded, and I simply voyaged around the earth and neither denied nor affirmed God nor any other thing of faith. I wanted more to understand, always to understand, in both objective and subjective spheres. And so it is to this day.

If I had a religion it would probably be extreme Rinzai Zen Buddhism. This is to my mind the fullest flower of the Zen (or Ch'an), which in turn is the fullest flower of the Mahayana impulse - the aspect of Buddhism that does not deny the world but instead unstintingly affirms it, affirms it even beyond yes-and-no. It all began with Buddha's Sermon, and that is where one of the two Buddhists with whom I most identify comes into history: Kasyapa, or Mahākāśyapa.
Zen purports to lead its adherents to insights akin to that mentioned by Śākyamuni Buddha in his Flower Sermon in which he held up a white flower and just admired it in his hand. Mahākāśyapa smiled faintly, and Śākyamuni Buddha picked that disciple as one who truly understood him and who was worthy to be his successor.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahakasyapa.
My writing may be understood to take place in the emotional spaces of the Flower Sermon: that fullness in Buddha just before he held up the flower, the recognition in Kasyapa as he smiled, the connection between the two men, and Buddha's proclamation after: a just-so happening in inspirational space, unconventional, gnomic to conceptual thought but a rich source when accepted into oneself.

I could call Rinzai Zen Buddhism my religion because it's the religion that doesn't allow a denial of God to even be possible because they never affirm God. They manifest the wholeness of reality and the self through their paradoxical, spontaneous actions that in the end turn out to be good common sense and helpful teaching. (Though saying so spoils it a bit.) But even RZB isn't it for me. I just go along, more and more grateful for this precious span of time I have, ever conscious - Buddha said focusing on this is the swiftest path to spiritual growth - that one day I shall die.
 
 
19 November 2008 @ 05:13 pm
Misha from Saint Louis, Missouri asks: Who is your favorite poet?

Tough to narrow it to one. If I had to name just one, it'd probably be Edgar Lee Masters of Spoon River Anthology. I believe he opened a road in that book for American literature, a specifically American kind of poetry, that has yet to be much traveled down. Certainly it hasn't been extended, and few off-branches have been cut into the woods at the road's far end.

In bringing forth the brevity and self-possession of the ancient Greek epitaph-writers (who were his influences even down to the title of his Anthology), he created a wholly new sense of American identity and how it could be presented and represented.

He impresses me deeply in his polyphonic creation of multiple story lines through the use of single, simple details. His epitaphs gain poignancy through their first-personal voicing, and in their post-mortem evocation of evanescent mortal joys and passions and miseries even find relevance to some literature of Buddhist cultures, which similarly focuses on the transient beauties of the (as they put it) "floating world." The first words (and final scene) of She and I weren't a conscious reference to this Buddhist aesthetic thrust, but they're consonant. I simply knew that it had to begin and end with air and water. Certainly the book's ruling element is water - which fit its focus upon the yin - the Feminine - and the writer's path through it and upon it. Unspoken-of is the Japanese current of the Pacific Ocean, which runs offshore from San Francisco and gives rise to fogs.

If I could add more names, I'd make a triumvirate: Walt Whitman and Robert P. Tristram Coffin.

Whitman is, to my mind, the greatest American poet in the literal old meaning of greatness - vastness and power. (I think his emotional successor is Allen Ginsberg, by the way - not quite sure I'd give Allen grandeur, though. He's more modern, Freudian, more aware of troubles and issues. Greatness sometimes must be unaware. This is why it is difficult in our era to be great, or believe in greatness.) Whitman belongs with any of the Classical greats in terms of cosmological splendor. (I do mean "cosmological," not "cosmic," though there is that, too.) Perhaps Plato of the broad shoulders can stride with him, and Virgil comes close. Rumi has spiral galaxies within him, but he's a classic introvert. (Rumi's extroverted brother is Hafiz, whom I much prefer, though I think Rumi probably the finer artist, judging as I am from translation. I'm open to persuasion from Persian adepts.)

But Whitman captured the American thrust - the expansiveness (sometimes overmuch, as D.H. Lawrence valuably corrects him in the jeering but finally laudatory and loving chapter in Studies in Classic American Literature), the optimistic democracy, the horizontal striding down the open road (Song of the Open Road gets a quotation toward the end of She and I). And there are the cosmic moments when Whitman seems to peer below the quantum level when he speaks of the seeds at the root of everything, outward beyond the mortal frame when he speaks of rebirth through imagination at the end of the final annex of Leaves of Grass). He speaks of beings on other planets, and even enters strange Goethean mysteries in his enigmatic, Plato-tinged eidolons.

His use of specifically American English is hugely significant - I think him the most hypnotic stylist in British and American English. (I more or less follow Mencken in regarding them as separate tongues, in both of which Americans and British persons should be well-versed.) He comes from a completely other creative center, entirely his own. He's out on his own orb, a self-sustaining sun that shall never collapse. His letters, even in draft, bear witness to a preternatural creativity in prose. And not only a poet, but a house-builder, real-estate speculator, newspaper editor, at home with the rough and tumble boys and young men to whom whom he, like Horatio Alger, was strongly attracted and with whom he likely was erotically involved. Whitman is America's poet, the poet of her taut, muscular youth. He is a source of energy to whom we should turn for refreshment, as surely as reading the Constitution (and the neglected Articles of Confederation) or the words of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. His innovative use of contraction and the stylistic effects he derived from ellipsis are fascinating to me. I'm uncertain of the extent of their influence on my own turn to brevity in the successive revisions of She and I as it found final form, which turn seemed to have its own force.

As to Coffin - a peculiar poet, one who can make me shift in my chair sometimes with his rhymes (until I realize again he wrote in accent - a doubty New England one - deliberately), but one whom I love for his cheerful regionalism, his awareness of the light and dark nature of Nature, his use of rhyming and scanning lines in a time when such were scoffed at, his New England people rendered in as dry and separated a manner as the air up there but always with a core of life under the bark, and most of all for the old-soul assurance of the introduction he wrote to his Collected Poems - it may be better than his poetry, which raises the interesting perspective of his poetry as performance art. And this homespun-seeming New England regionalist, trotting along beside his ponds and seashore and church steeples, was a Rhodes scholar, well-familiar with the most modern currents but choosing, like Bach, to work in the older forms.

And looking over these names, I see of course that they are all so distinctly American. It never really occurred to me until now. And though born in Britain, and natively drawn to the British English, I am myself an American writer, through and through, who wishes to bring influences from other lands into this, our experimental land of Import and Export.

Briefly, now, if I had to pass outside of America I'd name the British sensualist Robert Herrick (with a descendant of whom I had a brief romance - appropriately, we came together because she was one of the earliest web-quoters of Mary MacLane, the feminist writer Beth and I revived back in '93), though really it's for the total feeling of Herrick's imaginative world and not any one single poem or even the lot of them ... I'd name Hafiz, of course ... and the Japanese writer Basho, one of the purest pens ever there has been.
 
 
01 November 2008 @ 12:01 pm
As will be discussed here soon, I dislike bald narrative statements in the context of art. They lack almost all of what I look for, both as appreciator and possible creator. Yet they have their uses.

And so: I am Michael R. Brown, writer and piano player and a few other things besides, but mostly a wonderer and delver and expressor.

I was born earlyish in 1965 to an American mother and British father. The mother stayed with me to the end of her life, though the relationship never found final closeness. The father was absent before I was even born, and went under his own power further away in the next few years after. I did not see him since I was three years old.

And so I am very interested in father and mothers, and children, and the lives of each as living sparks, or beings, in their own rights, below and above the various conditioners of culture, gender, class, and so on. People come to look very interesting when thought of not as exemplars of this generic quality or that, but as single sparks or flames to whom these various conditions and qualities happen.

That is how I look upon you, and upon myself, and it is out of this that I try to find art - to find the natural patterns, outside of verbal traditions and preconceptions, that are the ways things go.

This journal shall be part of that, and so shall include various passing things. Because everything has its own, standing-up being - and everything is thoroughly connected in pattern to the greater whole. And it's fascinating, being here.

How can one ever be bored?
 
 
 
 

Advertisement

Customize