Nelson Lowhim's Blog, page 106

What is Fiction?

I've been on a melancholy streak recently. It's gone as far as to debilitate my writing. I hope it doesn't last. But it was Memorial day that left my heart dipped in acidic thought. 
Mainly, what was my writing accomplishing in this world of mindless parades and memorials [1] What was my fiction writing accomplishing? What does fiction writing in general accomplish? [2] And, more to the point, what do my pseudo essays accomplish? Can mixing fiction and non-fiction do much? Or am I merely confusing and irritating the reader?
That was the state of my chaotic mind when the muse hit: a quick visual of a character—a veteran—breaking down his life and all his sins done. [3] A consoling ear wanting only the veteran to be there and not elsewhere, told him to make right with God, the one who forgives all. The veterans scoffed and said he had enough of God, cared not a wit for his "forgiveness" and was only working until his death for the forgiveness of humanity because then came the fire. 
He meant the fires of hell, the hatred of God, but the civilian took it to mean an oncoming war, an ode to " The Fire Next Tim e". This was simply been the standard civilian reaction to most any veteran's statement, in that they take it to be violent.
This may seem like nothing, but allowing the muse to pass almost always multiplies my confusion and my triste. When this was combined with my thoughts, it make me wonder if such visualizations would turn into something worthwhile or if, as a piece of fiction, would it simply be useless since it relied on so much trope as to render it meaningless. 
Then, as I weighed its value as fiction versus non-fiction, I realized that it was most likely non-fiction. First it would gain more as non fiction. And second, it was possible that it was me going through the emotions of making right with humanity, my past sins. 
You've probably realized what I'm trying to do here. I'm not trying to confuse you [4], I'm merely trying to figure out what fiction and non-fiction mean to you when reading a text [5] And in this postmodern  world of minimal truths and only the biggest loudspeaker mattering, why does the fiction-non-ficiotn border matter? Or is it a myth we still need as a species or civilization?
Next thing I did, to wash away some of my melancholy, was to surf the internet. There I happened upon a short animation started to play on my computer. It was not so much a story as a video-easy. The narrator was speaking about how some civilizations tended to have myths about war, though it wasn't always certain if it was meant to assuage any post-war trauma. 
This one city on a hill spoke of evil spirits that stalked battlegrounds. They would tear off skin from dead warriors. Each evil spirit then pretended to be a warrior to the warrior's family or lover or wife. Thing is, everyone knows the warrior is dead, but this evil spirit still manages to make people think he's the warrior and slowly changes the survivor's perception of the warrior's untimely death and the reason for the war.
This is so effective a dance, that after the grieving of the family members is over, they are willing to go back to war, the multiple dead warriors animated and cheering them on, happy to have fresh new bodies in which to reside. 
In this specific story—there were many versions—the people found out that their king was the one who called these evil spirits. One day they decide to rid themselves of him. The end—and a happy one, right?
Except this wasn't a show I watched. Rather, it was a story I thought up, something to touch upon the trust that had descended upon me that day.
Once again I come back to that question: Why write? And does it matter that it's something I didn't really see? Is fiction better as fiction? Allowing you to put down your defenses—a trojan Horse, if you will—and let the idea in?
Or does the idea of it existing on the internet, a veritable idea-labyrinth, allow it some measure of stature and make it mean more? Or does it being fiction mean that it stretches your imagination in some way that non-fiction does not allow for? Thus by toying with the border, I'm doing a great disservice to the entire world?
I'm not sure. Really, I'm not. But as a writer, I sense that at least mimicking how futile it is to draw that line and to assume that all non-fiction represents truth while fiction is what's not real. Our current world seems to point to this being a natural state of humanity—so why draw that line? I'll continue to write pseudo essays and I'll continue to think that it represents a new way forward for writing. You?


[1] No I don't mean all of them and I don't use the word mindless that lightly.
[2] A quick look at even the "serious" tripe making it in literary circles is enough to make one weep. Of course even if it is serious, one wonders, like Jon Stewart, if it really matters in the end.

[3] The good we do is interred with our bones, while the bad we do lives long after

[4] And garner the reader's or consumer's hateful ire. A deathblow these days.

[5] And what it means to me when writing it? What does distance do to this seed of an idea? Anything worthwhile?



Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing
Donate Bitcoins

Run, Audiobook. CityMuse AudioBook

The Summer here in the Pacific NW isn't what it should be, though that's not entirely bad. We had a taste of the previous summer with a streak of 90+ degree days. It was compounded, on a personal level, by a non-functioning AC. Clear hot days would seem to be the reason for summer, but here too many such days a desert it shall make.



I'm no fan of such days. But I like them better than the high summer here, with its cruel blue sky that threatens at every turn to pick your bones clean. No, with these spring-like days I get to watch clouds above roaming like great herds—all translucent gray and white. I especially like their linings. Fractal cracks in the blue sky.

I'm rambling now. Sorry about that. I've been very busy lately. Here are a few audiobooks. The first, Run, I talked about listening to a few weeks ago. It's short, but at the price of a cup of coffee, it's still worth it. I would like to hear what people have to say about it, if it evokes the same level of emotions as it does for me. So here it is:

Audible

Amazon

iTunes

On that note, there's also Citymuse, the Audiobook. Now, this one is much longer, but a little more vetted than my own. It's a novel that speaks to a similar ghost as Run does, but it's more upfront about it. I also recommend this and think you will love it. If you haven't tried any audiobook yet, try these. It's good way to get into them. It's also a good way to read a book while doing less strenuous work (or driving, when there's no traffic)

Amazon

Audible

iTunes


Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

New York Times Doing it's Worst Impression of Journalism

And the stupidity continues. Hardly any good analysis out there, The Intercept excepted. Nonetheless, it's interesting to hear all the reactions, and what's considered newsworthy:
"Claimed Terror Ties in' 13"

Except he didn't. All these people want are more thought crimes and punishment for jokes (I wonder if there will be similar punishment for those making false accusations, then?):"He admitted making the statements his co-workers reported, but explained that he did it in anger because he thought his co-workers were discriminating against him and teasing him because he was Muslim"
I'm usually embarrassed by looking in the past and hearing what the loudest people (newspapers etc) had to say (and have to say) about tragedies in the past, hoping that our generation will be better. But hearing what people have to say about this has been wholly disheartening. So it goes. 
And the two Presidential runners are also trying to top each other in terms of platitudes, though Hillary is much better than Trump.[1] And I understand some of her sentiments, but this?
“It is time to get back to the spirit of those days,” she said, “the spirit of 9/12.”
What does that even mean? Be stupid and listen to people in the government and conservative industries who want to pick the American people's pockets? /end rant


[1] Can't say enough about how silly what he said was.
 
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing
Donate Bitcoins

Orlando Shooting

Well. The largest mass shooting in our country's history has just occurred. So far there has only been a trickle of information about the gunman . Mainly that he might have pledged allegiance to ISIS and that the FBI looked into his terrorist connections. I withhold judgement until I hear the nature of those "connections" [1]. It looks like a lone wolf op—the kind that ISIS has been asking for. 

I was going to keep silent about the entire matter, but there's no such restraint anywhere else, so I'll get into a few points:
As usual, the internet seems abuzz with all sorts of vile talk in the aftermath of this shooting. Take this one on an Army subreddit. It was initially full of prattle about how newscasters were getting discussions about the specific guns wrong. That and how there was a conspiracy on other subreddits to delete information on the shooter/terrorist being a Muslim. Or remarks about the religion of peace. Talk about focusing on the wrong issue. [2]
Those two points, type of specific gun and the media trying to hide the shooter's religion, are distractive tactics in this debate. Great, let's focus on the specific gun, not how he got it, or how to stop people like him from getting guns in general. And let's focus on the "otherness" of the shooter because this will also move us away from looking at the problem at hand. 
One of the other points brought up, and a hard one to combat, is the claim that it's a person's right to defend themselves and their homes—especially in the face of such events. Even if the reasoning is circuitous, it is a prevalent one and accounts for much of the emotion in this debate. [3] And, in the end, if the media only focuses on these shootings, this almost appears logical.
Personally, I'd rather not focus on these mass shootings, as they're still a minor  symptom of a larger public health issue. I'd only look at them if it would help to conjure up some more rational public discourse [4]. Note that to this day "military style weapons", as bad as they are in the civilian world, aren't the cause of most gun-related deaths. We should not lose sight of this, even in the face of such a gruesome act. 
And on a final note, I talked on Twitter (see above) to one of the more rational and intelligent people on this matter. The question at hand was whether or not we should focus on the shooter. [5] She said, "Focus on chronic problem; identify pattern; don't focus on individual killer—they're all unhinged in a million different ways."
Good advice, I think, though I wonder if it will work in terms of the world we have. Couldn't sensationalism work to have more discourse on that "well-regulated militia"? Especially when we can say why give this deranged person a gun, let's change the laws that do that? Or will it only play to the emotion of wanting to keep safe from such events and thus increasing the people who want guns? In that case shouldn't the media help to focus on all shootings that occur in a day—everyday? Just put up a tally, and how it occurred. This would bring it all into perspective. How can we get such a change going?
What are your thoughts on this issue? Would love to hear where I'm wrong in my reasoning.

Edit: Well, I just spent a few minutes I can't get back. Anyhow, it's beautiful to see what those on the fringes think. And yes, there are people saying this is a false-flag operation done by the Jews to take away guns. Not saying this is all of the people who want guns. For example some of these people have pro-Palestinian statements. A reason why those for BDS are being careful about anti-semeitcsx in their midst. Nevertheless, it's horrible to hear things like: "WWII should have been abt ridding Europe of Jews, defeating communism, liberating Russians. Instead, Jews won WWII."
Skewed history, back at it again. 
[1] That in itself is a whole can of worms that I won't get into right now. I've heard of stories of the FBI using KGB-like tactics (beyond ones we already know about) and making house visits when a 8 year old child makes statements not in line with the usual anti-Palestine propaganda here in our nation.  But I'll get to that and how they either entrap people ( homeless and the mentally ill ) &/or drive them to extremism in another post (as well as the fact that failure for them and the military means more power and money, for some reason, not a rethink on what they're doing). 
[2] A better issue would be how we define terrorism , and especially how our government conveniently does this labelling. Note that a racist shooter hitting a black church was not a terrorist , even if it fits the definition thereof. Also note how those fighting for the environment are labelled. {a}
[3] I live where, apparently, people carry guns because they feel that downtown (a pretty safe place) isn't safe and so forth. It seems like a very visceral and genuine reaction to feeling unsafe—and one that's ingrained in our culture{b}. Even Chris Rock joked about needing a gun after being threatened by gun rights people. And some of my gun rights friends on Facebook usually flood it with anecdotal information on how a law-abiding gun carrier saved the day or something or the other. So why, then, do people feel so unsafe when crime has been plummeting? Why is it only a smaller amount of people with more guns? Questions for another time, unfortunately, though I sense it's partially at the conjunction of racial attitudes and a skewed world view.

[4] This would be taking advantage of the emotional impact of these events to deal with guns for other, more common, events. Or to put it more succinctly: use events that disproportionally affect the middle class to help alleviate events that affect those disadvantaged in other ways.

[5] Again, I'm of the mind that if we even just focus on mass shootings we're not looking at this rationally. In the face of only thinking of these events, the gun owner/concealed weapons carrier could be forgiven for thinking they have the only solution—self-defense against a crazy... yes, yes, I'm not saying it's a logical argument, but rather an emotional one.


{a} The branding of "ISIS" on any lone wolf attack is an interesting development. It only goes to show that they're there to get an overblown reaction from us in the West, and is part of their strategy of death  of Empire by a million cuts. Let's not fall for it, shall we? And the other matter is how since shootings have now become a method for terrorism, rather than bombs, we might see a smarter reaction from people about guns.

{b} Note how Bill Maher reacts to the Texas shooting.

Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing
Donate Bitcoins

The State of Literature Today

Another email out. Another story as well. For those who haven't had the chance to sign up , I recommend that you do so now. Now on to other matters:
Here in the States, the literary world seems to be improving in leaps and bounds and in a myriad of ways. Let me not, however, talk about the different ways people are using it, but rather how it seems to be growing more diverse. I speak of the newer groups of writers. 
In fact, even a few years ago, I wouldn't have expected such a reaction to a writers'  letter I found to be childish in its outlook on life and history. [1] It's good that original voices out there are achieving a higher volume than before. [2]
There are a few examples. One hopes that the success of Coates, and how he's now touted in the mainstream , will result in a better literary landscape. [3] Of course, the title alone of that latter link goes to show that there's a lot of work to be done. And there have been setbacks to the contrarian  [4] voices out there. Bookslut seems like a great place to find information on new books—ones not seen elsewhere—and yet now it's gone. Unfortunately, there are few venues that I trust enough to curate my book recommendations. 
Again, this speaks to how out of place the mainstream literary scene still is. I would be disingenuous if I didn't say that I thought this blog and my writing to stand in the tradition of  those writing from the fringes. To that end, I am also trying to diversify my reading. Worldwide as well as here in the States. Living New York at least gave me an appreciation for the voices that were outside of the normal Manhattan ones, as well as those that not even New York espouses. 



[1] unfortunately, the original letter isn't a complete surprise to me. such unoriginal and staid thinking is what I've come to expect from such quarters (the mainstream literary ones). 
[2] I want to try and curate some of the best magazines and places where these voices have a place to say what's needed to be said. 
[3] You may or may not have heard my complaints about the literary landscape today. Most of the books touted by the elite turn out to be weak in every way (but craft, or that specific MFA craft)
[4] No, I don't mean just contrarian for the sake of it, but rather Cassandras who were willing to say that the Emperor had no clothes. And just from that interview, you can see that Jessica Crispin was up against some great odds. And being that she was on the fringes (in this sense) it even tainted her view of self. Now that is an example of how long people can stand to be outside the mainstream. On the interview, what can I say about the Paris Review? I read their old interviews with much fondness, but does it really have value today? I'm not sure. I know I cancelled my subscription to it because it simply seemed not to speak to the currents in the zeitgeist out there today. In other words, it seemed hopelessly out of touch.
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

Bansky With a New Tag

Banksy has tagged this on the side of a school. It has garnered much attention, especially since it's on the side of a school. Does that make it all right? What does it even mean? A child playing a child's game, but with a known tool for the wretched of the earth. Well, I don't mean to be so dramatic, but burning tires have been used by insurgents and people fighting established powers to decrease visibility and to block roadways.
Still, the main point about the entire piece is that it rests on some level of ambiguity. I've mentioned my artist friend who's reaching out to newer things to upend the status quo as it is. She too painted next to a school. This one a factory for the bourgeoisie of a certain city on the West coast. 
But she painted nothing ambiguous. The entire school was dosed in paint. Walls had been made to look like bullet holes or bombs had hit, and on trees, with blue backgrounds, drones had been painted [1] to look like they were coming overhead. The stencils of children running and soldiers and other weaponry of post-industrial armies. Behind them were the usual platitudes that precede war. You know, talk about freedom and terrorists. 
On some walls were specific instances of such propaganda and the ensuing mass murder: Laos, Vietnam, Central America and so on. Even I had to admit that it was well done.
The parents bandied together and painted over the offending graffiti with white paint. They also somehow framed themselves as victims in the media.  The mob that followed was as could be expected. Being that this was a school for the wealthy, or the powerful, the people soon had the Justice department looking for her under some odd reading of the Patriot act. She left the country. 
My only wonder is if any of the students took a look at the painting and decided to change their trajectory in life. Doubt it. Brings up that timeless question. What is art? Or rather, what is art for? Can it effect change in the world?


[1] Inaccurate, right? No one can see drones.

Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing
Donate Bitcoins

Short Story: Time in College

With enough time, one can look back fondly at college, a time when certain eccentrics were looked upon as a badge of honor (depending on the circles you lived in). I remember a certain girl I had the fortune of meeting at a coop party [1].  Reeking of weed and incense, she had a spark in her eye that I could not understand.
I would return to her coop, over and over, just so I could meet her and hear her views on certain topics. We could clash, of course, in a battle of wits. I enjoyed it, though, as it was a welcome change from the normal discussions.
For example, she enjoyed tagging cars and walls with these stickers she made and I, a brainwashed child of the middle classes, would dutifully point out that it was not her property she was tagging. She would giggle at this and say it was not the point. I should also point out that she was the kind of person who tagged Amerikkka, U$, on as many walls as she could. Coming back from parties late at night, walking through the tranquil streets of Ann Arbor, were quite the walks, as this was her favorite time to tag. 
Back then I was a stereotypical immigrant, in that I loved my adopted country in a conservative, fundamentalist manner. Thus her tags—and those spellings of said country—were an affront to my love of country. [2] A shallow love, this, and I only know that after forcing myself to understand my lover, and thus, truly love. 
But I digress. Back then I suppose I hung out with her because of the rush. After an especially heated argument about the America spelling, our conversation tangent in Christianity. Then God. At this point she gasped when she found out I believed in no higher deity. I gasped when I found out that she did. I was a little surprised that so rebellious a spirit would indeed believe in a higher power. To say nothing of the kind of higher power as did the people you were rebelling against. [3]
Of course, I simply asked her how her all-loving God could exist with her knowledge of history. She explained as such: she had this issue early on, when as a child her conclusion was that God was blind to people's suffering. A minister sat her down and told her that this was wrong. Young enough to be directly influenced by authority back then, she discarded her view. 
After a quick reading of a physics book, she switched to a view that God was all seeing and powerful, but that he was in all places at once and all times at once. From this inherent truth, she extrapolated that if God were at all times at once, He/It only seemed careless because It was unaware of loss or death, or time, or reward, even. If you were happy once, you were happy always, it was just a place in a land of time. Thus even causality didn't matter.
I never asked her about how she derived her strong sense of justice from this view of God. I was soon shipped off to Iraq and had lost touch with her. Even to this day one cannot google her name to find out what happened. So it goes. But I remember that time as a step in my education of how different human beings can be, even if they have certain labels. And it's one of the few moments in college that I remember fondly. 
[1] Oh my, you haven't lived until you've gone to a coop party. 
[2] To say nothing of the stifling of the love-making process byre highlighting of a blemish.
[3] I admit this wasn't a nuanced view on human nature at all. Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

More of the Same

A recent article by the NYtimes has its commentators [1] are salivating over the idea that Germany could be rearming. Let's not think for a second on how the article dismisses the thoughts of the German people who, apparently, don't want this, but their dear leaders will force them any how. Again, this is par for course for this elitist rag and its readers, so it shouldn't come as a surprise, but it always annoys me. 

[1] As per, a sad lot, these. I've met such people in New York. Full of very specific affectations and love of power, of self, low on original thought and ability to think outside their own gain. Note the commentators talking about fending off the hordes. Yes, I wonder why Trump is so popular.
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

Memory and the Internet

My sister and I were recently arguing about the memory of a cartoon you may know: the one with a football involved. A girl holding the ball, then boy running to it, only to miss the ball because the girl pulled it away. Well, at least that’s how she remembers it. And even if it seems basically right, this memory, I think that she’s wrong.
I argued my point: that the cartoon had much more to it than that. Essentially, she was wrong that all it was trying to convey was some heuristic inherent to humans (or even Americans).
My view, backed up with multiple secondary sources, was that the story had so much more to it: that the boy loved that game more than anything: lived and breathed it and that the girl had the only ball around. I even showed her the cartoons which showed just what I claimed.
But she wouldn’t believe it and demanded to see original sources: in this day and age anyone could create counterfeit cartoons with their computer. Also the world was what I wanted and she could see the thinks I had learned, after seeing the first cartoon, having info ted my memory. Her memory, however, could not be hacked so easily.
I let it be at that. I was there for a wedding and not an argument. In our family we were two of the less argumentative ones. 
Later, I wondered if she were right. There was a moment on the internet when one could google facts and settle arguments. But that moment was long past, excepting for the simplest of facts or spelling.
What then was true? A visit to a physical library might help solve this, but the end result is online online one was easily swindled.
My issue was I was the one who counterfeited those cartoons. I had taken great pains to change such a well-known narrative. Let’s put aside for a second what that says about me and let’s focus on my sister’s resilient defenses against renewing that narrative. It’s impressive, for even the original creator had accepted these cartoons as his (and so a  visit to a physical library would prove me right). 
But what happens when the next generation sees all these cartoons? Certainly they’ll have been reeducated. I suppose I was foolish, then. Perhaps this conversation should focus on may desire to change the narrative. I, of course, don’t agree with that.

Back to my sister: she much have seen that gleam in my eye, then. A hint at my mischievousness that she must have known of since my childhood. All this has taught me is that I should stay online. The world here is so much more easily manipulated.  
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing Donate Bitcoins

Current Events

Some quick notes on current events and the state of the status quo. I will note that this is not an endorsement of anyone in particular but merely an observation. Mainly that those in the status quo [1] reacting to Trump in ways that I find laughable and, quite frankly, only goes to show how weak their stances are, especially when they try to cry crocodile tears about the whole matter. [2]


Meanwhile, I stand here full of schadenfreude, wondering when those up top will realize if they even know that the rules to their game have been changed? I mean it, because the country must be saved. From whom, is the question we're fighting over. 
[1] Or the defining power of our time and those who look to gain by kowtowing to power, or those who simply want to sit in the cool shade of power.
[2] In no way saying I think Trump has better intellectual standing, or is even close to them in this respect.
Good writing, huh? Share it via email, facebook, twitter, or one of the buttons below (or through some other method you prefer). Thank you! As always, here's the tip jar. Throw some change in there and help cover the costs of running this damn thing
Donate Bitcoins