Writer's Block

The concept of writer’s block apparently came up in the 19th century in the romantic era in which literature, poetry and writing were activities that were considered as the result of passions; it could not be forced. The persons who dedicated their lives to such endeavors, were people that were 'skillful' in inciting their own emotions and passions by reeling in 'inspiration'.

As a student, trying to come up with coherent thoughts is hard enough, so I can't imagine what these artists where putting themselves through. They were perfectionists, but did so in their desire of fulfilling the purism expected of the time; a self-imposed purism based on the canons of good writing and the emotions stirred by art.

How hard is it when you think your life depends on your writing skills and you feel what you are producing is not good enough? When you are stuck and rightfully despair into doubt and preoccupation about your work, what should one do? Is it art what students do? I don't consider myself an artist for doing so, but as students we are expected to convey complex 'thoughts' and 'ideas' in a constrained and different language than the one we communicate every day. I bet that those of us who do a better job at this could be considered true artists as they convey 'thoughts' and 'ideas' to others; and by doing so, engage in dialogues that most often than not, stir emotional responses among us (or our professors).


I started this blog to practice my writing skills for my current and future academic life, but a lot of times I think of topics that I wish to elaborate on and fall short of elaborating them for fear that they might not be interesting enough. I think I'm still trying to find a style that suits me. So, I feel I should be writing something for the sake of practicing even though I feel blocked.



In reference to the New Yorker Magazine article: Blocked: Why do writers stop writing.

Learning to let go...

So, in order to move past the emotional circumstances that we go through, most of us need to learn to disassociate ourselves with the things that tie us down to those circumstances. I assume that these are distressful, because then there might not be a logical reason as to why one is leaving these experiences behind. Why do we attach ourselves to other people the way we do? Is this necessary at all? Is this behavior evolutionary? Well, in regards to this last question it appears so.

 At its core, it seems that attachment is the sense of security that we are offered as we are socialized. Maybe it brings us further close to the core belief that we live in fair world where all of us deserve to attain what we were taught that we would obtain; family, friends, romantic love, sex, etc... Such is this belief that if we follow the rules, then we will be 'all right'; which also means that if these goals are not attained some rule (and probably your fault anyway) was not followed as prescribed. Social variables aside, what is the existential need for attachment?

 I speculate that we attach to each other to continue this sense of security going on. Important enough that a ‘human need’ for continuity in our daily lives is somewhat expected. We invest more resources on those things that we expect to deal with tomorrow, and brush aside and/or give little importance to the passing ones. Is there spontaneity in this attachment then? Maybe so, but the expectation that everything in the world is fair and all the efforts that we have invested in this other person will pay off somehow, is what makes us latch on like remoras. The end result is emotional, physical, sexual, economic and/or social rewards that positively condition these attachments. What happens then when the sharks wants to set loose? 



Why is it so horrible to realize that the other half of the symbiotic attachment is not there anymore? Rationally, one can give many reasons to explain such an event, but in terms of emotions your body and mind is trying to do you a favor by trying to die honorably at these new unfolding events...a Divine Wind;Kamikaze. The outside world is trying to pull you back in to their belief of a Fair and Just World, one in which the separation or death of this relationship does not equate physical, actual, social, literal death. But your emotions ‘know’ that with this death, there is no rebirth of the efforts that you invested; there is no change, no surplus...most (if not everything) of it is now lost! While some might dwell on what they have lost, others seek to provide themselves with a new outlook that presents them with a congruent and normal fair view of the world. "Why did this happen anyway? I followed all the rules, right? Why didn’t the other person follow them as closely as I did?" Such is life...right?

But we do that. We fail to follow the ‘rules’, we die, they die, we change, they change, he did it, she did it...did I do it too? The hard part is not the 'getting attached to others' (although some of us might argue just that) but learning to let go all that you invested...and it’s hard...totally hard! right?

1. Can you actually let go of people that died?
2. Can you let go of friends that are now toxic, but they are still your friends? “They were part of your life man!”
3. Can you let go of your romantic other? Your ‘soulmate’? Your husband? Wife? Etc?

How do we unlearn the attachment and truly let go? If we do so, are we kidding ourselves?

The existential despair of a Soccer Star

[Edit: This is not a great post, is full of grammatical mistakes but I don't want to touch on this topic any further but I still think there is something here to be discussed.]

I don't mean to be dismissing on another person's despair or sadness. But I just want to put it in perspective.

Yahoo Sports posted this online yesterday:

The existential despair of Cristiano Ronaldo

By Brian Phillips

The article blows out of proportion what Cristiano actually says. He just mentions his sadness at losing (something easily understandable at such a big and prominent event) and the article that actually mentions he being a 'broken man' is a link to a BBC interview with him. My first take on this is of disgust... my biases all seem to overtake me on this one, because he is just a month older than I am, has a better body and is on the face of the media constantly; something very much like the green eyed monster. To be honest, not that I want all that pressure on me, and that's why I shift from disgust to empathy on this issue. Though he will provoke little empathy from a lot of people (for being a model, a famous athlete, etc) he still is in a career that puts a lot of pressure on the him.

At the same time, I don't want to commit the same mistake my therapist did with me by saying: "Why would someone as successful as you, who obtained an all expense paid research experience to Cornell for the summer ever think that way about himself?" (This was at a time when I was feeling a bit sad). He still has the right to be "broken" by this event but he will be fine sometime soon when he gets back to the rhythm of things (I think). Anyway, to think about this and all the crap we grad students receive I'll share a Facebook status that I posted yesterday when I heard of these news:

"The existential despair of Ronaldo? Really yahoo sports? I mean existential? Just because his pretty face failed to qualify for the next round? When is Yahoo news going to do an article of the emotional despair of graduates students? i.e. getting rejected by grad school, getting rejected by grants/fellowships/funding, ...getting grilled on by how bad you write, receiving critiques that make you feel mediocre, never being good enough to your superiors in Academia, living on scrap money... how is that not existential despair? stupid stupid news"

Discuss

The extinction of the white male hegemony...or not really

I have noticed that being white and (more importantly being a white) male have become the object of the 'bashing' of the more left-leaning social sciences. Not only that but websites like Stuff White Like, and People at Walmart seem to clearly ridicule through humour the spectrum of what is perceived as being white: WASP-yuppie-white trash, among others. These representations seem to make clear that it's (apparently white people are not all that perfect and do not always adhere to their so called American Dream) ok and even accepted to criticize and make fun (in popular culture and in academia) of these images with very little retribution; ignore the conservative republicans giving me the evil eye right now. Is it that ok to denounce the hegemonic representations of whiteness in our society? Is denouncing the alternative representations of minorities (in both positive/negative ways) not the same (and possibly be perceived as favoring or discriminating against them)? Is this another truth to the hegemony of this whiteness?

In Men Behaving Badly: Mediocre Masculinity and The Man Show, I read how the white male hegemony reifies itself by rejecting alternative masculinities and femininities by representing their fear towards them in xenophobic and misogynistic ways. The wife is seen as a nuisance, and more like an instrument to reproduce further masculine ideologies. White privilege dominates the sphere by disempowering the images of the black matriarch, the lesbian, the dwarfs (little people) and the "intellectuals" through humour. The fear of the dominant hegemony in being overtaken by some of these subservient minorities, threaten the fabric of current society. These fears are normally expressed in private, are now expressed though humorist catharsis in shows like these. The article fairly concludes that the straight white male is having difficulty navigating through a multicultural contemporary society and that he looks for support in places like The Man Show.

To what extent then an alternative show like The Chapelle Show subverses any ideology presented in The Man Show? Very little (or so I think) as it only replaces the stereotypical white male with an equally stereotypical black guy. Equally opinionated about his hegemonic masculinity, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. Is this a place where black men come for support in their struggle against the dominant ideology? Do Latinos do the same with Mind of Mencia? Gays with Queer as Folk? Lesbians with the L Word? and so on...

"Television is a metaphor for living, a statement of human condition" (Hoppenstand as quoted by  Palmer-Mehta, 2009); if this is so where are the tv shows in which I can find support in my counter hegemonic enterprise with my many parallel (and sometimes competing) identities?

I'll stick with my sci-fi books. I think they suffice for the moment.

References:
PALMER-MEHTA, VALERIE (2009) Men Behaving Badly: Mediocre Masculinity and The Man Show. The Journal of Popular Culture. Volume 42 Issue 6, Pages 1053 - 1072

The desire to not write...[or writin skillz]

Ironically I do not have any desire to write today, but bear with me because this blog is my experiment to try and force me to sit down and write, write, write. As such, instead of being nonsensical about it, I will try to uncover this need for writing.

As grad students in the social sciences, we are basically reading and writing all the time, with little to no feedback on our writing skills. It is expected that we know the subtle and obscure science of academic, grant and public writing in the same way that Habitus imbues us with the social structures that generate further systems...? (Ignore this if you don't know). I don't assume that all graduate students have the same writing skills, but I do know that not being a native English speaker has its drawbacks when trying to get a graduate education in the US. I'm not complaining, just stating a fact that 'it's hard out there for us non-English speakers grad students'- but this is what we signed on for; a linguistic adventure of sorts. I have noticed that in the past two years I am mastering English in different and better ways that when I arrived here that August afternoon of 2008.

I wish I had a greater command for words in English, as I do in Spanish, but again this is why I must practice. One of my plans is to start a writing group this next fall with my fellow graduate students in my program to see who is interested to look over each other works and give feedback. This is the answer to the expectancy that our professors have towards our writing, without clearly stating so. Professors do not feel in a position to teach their apprentices the magical world of writing as a graduate student. My answer to this is to teach ourselves, in a very Dumbledore's Army kind of way; I will learn my curses and charms from my fellow Ravenclaws then.

For some reason, I love the idea of writing and trying to explore new ways in which I can further hone my skills. The anthropologist in me is always curious about novel ways in which I can achieve this. My latest adventure is this blog in which I am trying to be more disciplined, academic (in the sense that I am critically thinking about a topic) and logical while not boring myself. I guess this post should serve as an introduction to this blog...but that's the beauty of the writing exercise, at least Ideas are flowing somehow, and hopefully they will get better and well developed. My goal is to write as well as some of the people I currently am reading, let's see how that goes.

Capital gay Pride

Yesterday I went to the Capital Pride Parade. It was a very interesting experience and one that I personally enjoyed. Though the activity retained a festive characteristic it was very well put together and did not have many "exaggerated" elements that I was expecting in this kind of event; I don't know if that is a good tng or a bad thing...yet. It was full of contrasts and very much reflected the highly political atmosphere that always permeate DC. I'll come back to this in the end.

When I was in Madrid two years ago, I went to the pride parade there and though I was reluctant to go, I had a good time nonetheless. It was a very different experience from the one that I just went in DC. One of the main aspects of the Madrid parade was that big and little, local and international organizations related to LGBT issues were present in the floats; lesbian (in)visibility was highlighted at the parade (it was actually the theme of the whole event) and there seemed to be a great presence of lesbians in the floats. Another contrasting characteristic between the two was that while the event seemed to highlight very serious issues (mainly civil and sexual rights), it still had an element of playful debauchery and explicit challenge to mainstream norms; there were a great number of drag queens, leather gays, people in very minimal (nude and body painted, underwear, swimsuits) and revealing clothing. All of this existing parallel contrasted with the family environment that the parade encouraged; there were homosexual and heterosexual families with little children at the sidelines of the parade who were engaged with the floats and its participants.

In contrast the DC parade had an element of a big block party with a particular surreality to it. For one, the parade seemed to be aimed just to the LGBT community and rightfully so provided an outlet of lax playfulness to the everyday constraints of decorum and conduct; much like Latin American Carnivals that present an escape to everyday rightfulness and permit sinful behaviors just before lent starts. The music and floats seemed to be invite everyone to "just relax and chill" while showing everyone how diverse the DC and its surrounding areas really are. Despite this, there were no naked people, no body paint, nothing out of the ordinary except for the DC gay leather float (which had men in leather jocks at the least and other S&M clothing), a strip pole (with models that when taking into account that they were using a strip pole, might as well be wearing suits and dresses) and someone in underwear would appear once in a while. It was a very conservative LGBT party when compared to the one in Madrid, but the comparison might not be fair given the two very diffent contexts. Another aspect of the DC parade was the many (many) floats of politicians including incumbent mayor Fenty and others seeking (re)election this coming November, and the different Church's floats. Churches? in Gay Pride? At first it was just weird. Though I am not a big fan of religion I am respectful enough to not be too negative about it if not previously brought up. There were many floats, I did not count how many there were to be exact, but an educated guess would be about twenty floats; twenty floats were from churches encouraging diversity and acceptance in their communities across the DC area. Their message was clear: we accept you in our communities. I don't have further thoughts on this.

Going back to one of my original thoughts on this matter, it is obvious why that this event is highly politicized, full of religion, a cup of progressiveness and more goodies mixed in the batter. Inmigration equality had a float, as well as the controversial Human Rights Campaign along with the gay cowboys and the local gay sport bar. It seems that these organizations, which are based in DC, see these types of events to publicly bolster their claim as defenders of their 'subjects': the LGBTs, the immigrant LGBTs, the religious LGBTs, the LGBTs that are parents, the republican and democrat LGBTs, etc. DC is not a battleground, but it does have a cathartic characteristic to it in which one can come and bitch about what is perceived as wrong and try to get someone to pay attention to you...and this is what the DC pride parade missed: a social involvement with the community was downplayed in order to demonstrate the importance of DC as a political stronghold; much like one of the Two Towers of Middle Earth.

I wanted to see more social work and less politics, but pride still works and should be celebrated. Though I don't highly identify with "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", I do have things in common with other LGBTs; as such I felt the need for this reflection and to celebrate 'queerness' by being present, never invisible! Looking back this post is more of a reflection and right now I don't seem to have more opinions about the event. I wish more refection of this manner could be achieved. Therefore, in keeping with the style of previous posts, I will just present my unanswered questions and thoughts on the matter.

Other thoughts:

1. Is the pride movement in the US more conservative than in Spain (Europe)? I want to say yes...
2. Has 'pride' been more successful in being family friendly in Spain than here in the US?
3. Is it a positive thing that pride here is not as 'nude' and 'out there' as in other places? Am I just reproducing Phallic-WASP Ideology with such a statement? Again, did I do this when i refer to other expressions of pride as 'exaggerated' at the beginning of this post?

Ender's Game and NOM

x

x

[Warning: Highly subjective and personalistic post]

Yesterday I realized that the author of this book I'm reading, is a conservative gay-marriage-hater Mormon . I am currently reading Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card and I am enthralled with the book. This is taken from the author's wikipedia entry:

"A devout and outspoken Mormon, Card is a board member of the National Organization for Marriage." (wiki link).

NOM is an organization that embodies many things that are wrong with American society (I am not even trying to be objective, but this is my narrative after all so bear with me) as they are against civil liberties and rights that should be entitled to every person regardless of their sexual identity, gender, race, religion, etc. I feel really strongly about this topic, but this is not the issue that I want to discuss.

It was a shock to learn that the author of this book that I am reading (and enjoying) would be against something I thought so essential in my life. I felt insulted; but that was partially my own fault. I should have done more research about the author before I started reading the book. I feel conflicted, as it is a moral and spritual dillema for me; If I knew beforehand that he is an outspoken participant of this organization, I would have boycotted reading the book in the first place. How do I make it right in my mind right now? I am disturbed and feel wrong about this. How do I deal with the fact that this guy is a "gay-hater" (my personal subjectification) and I enjoy his sci-fi books?

It would have been clearer (easier) for me to have made this decision if Glenn Beck came out with Sci-fi books; I would definitely not go there! That's why it's easier to make this kind of decision with contemporary authors, and that is exactly why I don't read Paulo Coehlo's books among others. Problem is, Orson Scott Card is a contemporary author. BURNED doesn't even being to describe how bad this looks.

My mistake still makes me think about the product of artists and authors when we consume them. Obviously I don't see a problem when the product goes along the lines of a more liberal (as opposed to conservative) vision of the cosmos. In addition, thinking about art and its products reminded me of my short trip yesterday afternoon to the National Portrait Gallery in Chinatown, where I lingered on the President's Hall. Out of curiosity I went to this specific part of the museum trying to replicate a sublime experience such as the one I had last Sunday at the National Gallery of Art. I felt sad and scared, but no sublime. The portraits presented a group of white men who are regarded as the epitome of the American Republic; a climax that everyone thinks represents what it means to be American. I definitely didn't feel that way: I felt as a stranger looking at canvas in disdain. I felt sad because of the many catastrophes these men unleashed. But of course these men also had many great qualities, but so did many other monsters through history. Point is, no one is one-dimensional and these men definitely were not just brave, awesome and the founding fathers and leaders of the American dream the discursive narratives repeat; they also owned slaves, treated women as inferior human beings and did as they pleased with Native Americans and the emerging American Countries all over the continent. My gaze in the museum lingered on a imperialist perception of an neo-imperialist nation. I didn't feel represented by that. How can non-male, non-white people see these men and see empathy in their eyes? How can they see themselves as part of the result of their endeavors? How can people see them in such a romanticized manner? How can they insert themselves in this narrative?

And that was my lesson; a rude awakening. Being a victim of what I profess, I realized that these presidents, these artists and these contemporary authors are more than just anti-gay conservative bastards, or self-help suppliers to needy-emotional junkies. These people are also creative souls that can inspire me and make me joyous in other aspects of my life. This aspect of living in multiverses also reminds me on how people from different beliefs are crossing over into areas some people never thought they would go.  Conservatives writing Sci-Fi; homos like me preying on sci-fi; Cher and Madonna resisting aging; Apple and Google fighting over control of the world; Gays wanting to get married, etc... Nothing is just something and authors, very much like humans are more than just one thing: they can be other things too and that is ok.

Orson Scott Card is an asshole, but I can still enjoy his book. It's ok, I can do this.

Other thoughts

• Is this why Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh's wedding? Because he knows Rush is not just a conservative prick?
• What's the difference of this and when I read The Chronicles of Narnia?
• Would I be disillusioned if I knew that Asimov was also a homo hater? What about other people like Darwin, Galileo, Pope John Paul II?
• Is this really important? Do I really need to know the artist's politics to enjoy it more? Less? Same?