I'm already limited to about 5 hours of sleep tonight, but since I finally have access to high-speed internet for the first time over break, I'm going to write up a quick post, just to assure people that I'm not dead.
Cable is actually not available in my area... That's right, I'm one of those poor back-woods hicks that still can't get cable. Thus, I'm restricted to dial-up, and I refuse to use it because I hate it. So I check my email at work. This is about the only thing I can use the internet there for, mainly because computer use is heavily monitored, both remotely by scary tech people and locally by my boss. So this is the first post of the break, because it's the first time I've been at a friend's house who happens to have any form of high-speed internet.
Break has been good so far. Working retail over Christmas is busy as hell (another reason I haven't been posting), but very worth it, because I enjoy the store, I enjoy my co-workers, and I make a lot of money.
I have various things to write about, but as I need to get some sleep before I work tomorrow, I will leave them for later posts. Upcoming attractions: if all goes well, I'll be leaving a drunk post on 21st birthday. Chances are I won't update between now and then, but I'll try to make it entertaining.
Si Legebis, Scribam
There are three reasons for becoming a writer: the first is that you need the money; the second that you have something to say that you think the world should know; the third is that you can't think what to do with the long winter evenings.
-- Quentin Crisp
This doesn't quite apply to me, as I'm not writing for profit at all, but of the two remaining choices, I have to go with the latter. I think that I've always written for myself, and to help myself understand what and how I think. I never have anything inspired to say, and I usually do write just because I have nothing better to do.
But I'd be lying to myself if I said that I didn't want people to read what I have to say. Maybe I want people to tell me that I make sense, or that what I have to say is interesting. Maybe I need validation for what I do. Even the entries that I write but don't publish because I don't want someone to read them, I want them to be read eventually, if only so that part of my life will be preserved.
Really, though, am I alone in this? Does anyone actually write just for themselves? I very much doubt that anyone does. Even the people with secret diaries probably hope, in their heart of hearts, that someone will find it, read it, and comfort them for their heartbreaks, congratulate them for their cleverness, and just come to an understanding of them in general. That's really what it all comes down to. People write to be understood.
I wrote a while ago that an essay is a facet of the author, and that the only essay that would ever be truly "completed" would be one that encompasses all of the author's thoughts and experiences. This implies that every human experience is connected in some way or another. The farther I come along in my liberal education, the more I tend to agree with that implication. It also implies that honest writing is a deeply personal act. There are all sorts of cliches that come to mind: pouring one's soul onto the page, sharing one's self with one's readers, baring everything, etc. Cliches are, well, cliche... but for something to become cliche, it must be used regularly - and to be used regularly, there must be something about them that people understand. They have a kernel of truth in them.
So people write, and in doing so they are revealing part of themselves to their readers. Why do this? Do all people seek validation for the way they think, and the way they are? Or perhaps they have realized things that they want their readers to also realize? I suppose it depends on the writer. And maybe that's exactly what Quentin Crisp was talking about - maybe the writers seeking validations are the ones who have nothing better to do on a winter evenings, and the writers trying to share a realization are the ones who want to speak to the world.
I'm still not quite sure which one I am. I don't necessarily have anything important to tell to anyone, though I know a few people are amused by my writing. But I don't think I'm writing just for validation, either. Perhaps a simple dichotomy is too restrictive, and there's a third option out there. I'll figure it out someday.
But as for now, I must wrap this up. I have better things to do on this long winter evening.
Defensio Mei Vestitus
I write this as a general response to those who claim that I have somehow "sold out" by changing my manner of dress. There have been at least three people who have made this or a similar claim, and while I don't believe that they were completely serious about their criticism of my choices, I do believe that there was an underlying belief in their accusations upon which their jokes were based. So it is to this that I respond.
Starting several months ago and continuing up to the present day, my wardrobe has been slowly changing. My old stand-by, which was basic jeans from a supermarket and a random t-shirt has been gradually supplanted by clothes which are considered more stylish by the mainstream market - clothes of brands such as Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle, etc. Along with the change in brands, there has also been a change in style. Gone are the large t-shirts with something nerdy on them. Instead, I have button-down short-sleeve shirts, or polo shirts, and so on. Also being replaced are the generic Wal-mart or Meijer jeans. In their stead are faded jeans from the Gap or AE. These changes have not gone unnoticed.
Most have commented favorably. But there are those people who consider wearing clothes from such retailers to be selling out. The claim is that in wearing these clothes, I am joining a part of society which they dislike. They say that I am trying to imitate the popular people, that I need to fit in with the crowd, and that I am trying to define myself by what I wear.
But this is absurd. The only people who would make such claims are people who are themselves defined by what they wear. Or, more specifically, defined by what they don't wear. I am wearing these clothes because society has deemed it more stylish to wear these clothes. Yes, I am changing what I wear on the whim of the masses, but I don't define myself by what I wear. Someone who refuses to wear certain clothes because certain portions of society also wear them is defining himself by what he wears, and is thus guilty of the very thing they accuse others of. They somehow believe that wearing certain clothes will identify themselves with a part of society which they hate because it is, in part, defined by its clothing. But in doing so, they are the ones defining that part of society by its clothing.
I for one have no qualms about wearing the clothes that I do, because the way I dress is pragmatic. I dress comfortably and (I'm still working on this...) stylishly. I may dress like certain parts of society which they dislike, but they should define those parts of society by their actions, not their clothes. In not doing so, they are being as shallow as the people they scorn.
I am not defined by the clothes I wear, but perhaps they are.
Starting several months ago and continuing up to the present day, my wardrobe has been slowly changing. My old stand-by, which was basic jeans from a supermarket and a random t-shirt has been gradually supplanted by clothes which are considered more stylish by the mainstream market - clothes of brands such as Abercrombie and Fitch, American Eagle, etc. Along with the change in brands, there has also been a change in style. Gone are the large t-shirts with something nerdy on them. Instead, I have button-down short-sleeve shirts, or polo shirts, and so on. Also being replaced are the generic Wal-mart or Meijer jeans. In their stead are faded jeans from the Gap or AE. These changes have not gone unnoticed.
Most have commented favorably. But there are those people who consider wearing clothes from such retailers to be selling out. The claim is that in wearing these clothes, I am joining a part of society which they dislike. They say that I am trying to imitate the popular people, that I need to fit in with the crowd, and that I am trying to define myself by what I wear.
But this is absurd. The only people who would make such claims are people who are themselves defined by what they wear. Or, more specifically, defined by what they don't wear. I am wearing these clothes because society has deemed it more stylish to wear these clothes. Yes, I am changing what I wear on the whim of the masses, but I don't define myself by what I wear. Someone who refuses to wear certain clothes because certain portions of society also wear them is defining himself by what he wears, and is thus guilty of the very thing they accuse others of. They somehow believe that wearing certain clothes will identify themselves with a part of society which they hate because it is, in part, defined by its clothing. But in doing so, they are the ones defining that part of society by its clothing.
I for one have no qualms about wearing the clothes that I do, because the way I dress is pragmatic. I dress comfortably and (I'm still working on this...) stylishly. I may dress like certain parts of society which they dislike, but they should define those parts of society by their actions, not their clothes. In not doing so, they are being as shallow as the people they scorn.
I am not defined by the clothes I wear, but perhaps they are.
In Me Aspecto
I'm convinced we all are voyeurs. It's part of the detective thing. We want to know secrets and we want to know what goes on behind those windows. And not in a way that we would use to hurt anyone. There's an entertainment value to it, but at the same time we want to know: What do humans do? Do they do the same things as I do?
--David Lynch
Recently, I've been in a situation where I'm not quite sure of what I'm doing. So I've looked to others for advice. But every piece of advice I've gotten I've discarded almost out of hand, telling myself that I know what I'm doing better than this or that person does. I'm being vague, but basically I feel like I don't exactly know what I'm doing, but I know better than anyone else does. And I suppose that makes sense, as the situation isn't really a public matter, and I know it better than anyone else save one. So I have to go it alone, and trust my own instinct.
Of course, my instinct was bred from subconciously observing others in similar situations. So am I actually doing anything autonomously? Does anyone ever do anything original? Well, originality doesn't really have anything to do with autonomy. Scratch that. But am I acting of my own free will, or am I just doing what I've been programmed to do by the unique set of circumstances that got me to where I am today? Am I wholly defined by external events that have shaped me and will continue to shape me?
I don't think I can answer those questions without writing for a very long time, and since Dan complained about the length of my posts (and I tend to agree with him), I guess I'll just stop there and not really worry about it. Instead, I'll just do the best I can with what I have. I know what's going on in my life better than anyone else, so I'll have to rely on my own judgement. Whether or not that judgement has been programmed into me my upbringing and so on is a moot point; it won't change the fact that I need to use my judgement.
And honestly, for all the talk and feelings of being unsure, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to do. I just need to go do it.