Syllogism

A equals X

X equals Y

A equals Y : definition of a syllogism.


Logic and order. You don't read a book backwards. Sentences shouldn't have words that are unnecessary. Paragraphs shouldn't have sentences that are unnecessary. Just like with music - there shouldn't be notes that don't have to be there. Everything is focused. The craft of writing can be understood, but not the soul of writing. Nadine Gordimer, a South African writer who focuses on apartheid, mentioned that creative writing classes did nothing for her because the soul of an artist can't be taught in a classroom.

I've taken a creative writing class before. I sparodically attend a writer's group. I never saw either of these as necessary for my work, I just believed and still believe that it's comforting to be around people who are in some respects the same as me.

Good music -

Old Wives' Tales

* If you still get pimples after 30, you have the skills to build a lawnmower.

* If you're renting a new apartment and the previous tenant is a friend of someone you've seen before but haven't introduced yourself to, you'll eventually break a mirror.

* The best way to cure a broken arm is to start running everywhere you would normally walk to even if you're not in a hurry.

* You will give birth to octuplets if you won a surfboard in a Pepsi under the cap contest.

* A nine-year-old girl can cure chicken pox by trying to drive her parents' vehicle.

* The way to make leaves bloom early in the spring is to start smoking (19th-century logic)

* If you slightly burn yourself on a hot frying pan, an attractive older woman will smile at you someday.

* The best way to find a great new pair of sweatpants is to start pronouncing your "r"s as "w"s. (such as Wingo Staww)

* If you enjoy telling white lies, one day while singing karaoke you'll be ridiculed so badly by a group of teenagers that you'll want to be a teenager. And if you already are a teenager, you'll want to be friends with the teenagers ridiculing you.


Whispering and still, the wives wove the superstitions that we hold close. (but not really)

This is what I look like. There aren't any photos on this website demonstrating that. I honestly don't want to post too many photos of my face or me in general because it gives me a feeling of self-absorption, but one can't hurt.


There are times when writing reminds me of how as children we would place one hand or fist on top of one another to see who would go first in a playground game, like Four Square or Mr. Wolf.

I was nineteen and twenty years old when I wrote Disassociation and I had it published when I was twenty-one. And since then, the range of people's reactions has been fascinating - from people who absolutely don't care to people who want a copy strictly for the purpose of selling it on eBay in the future.

And through it all it always feels like there's a sense of intimidation (an oft-cited word nowadays, like intense and confident - I wonder why that is) that's carried with me whenever the subject's brought up. It feels like because I wrote it, there's a level of expectation that people attach to me and it never feels like I'm fulfilling it. Expectations like having an unmatchably quick wit, having incredible stories at my fingertips to tell whenever I like, of looking into my eyes and seeing innumerable points of wisdom, having a certain swagger, a je ne sais quoi. That certain something that just draws people towards you...which I don't believe in and never will.

Once when I was volunteering in a rest home an elderly woman said "Your eyes, they seem to have so much in them...".

But then again, when I was volunteering in a different rest home I walked by an old man who looked at me and kept saying "It's all your fault. It's all your fault."

What I feel I've cultivated with publishing Disassociation is intimidation...and jealousy, which is what I never wanted to follow me. This is why I don't immediately bring it up in conversation - I've noticed how it creates a barrier between people. I can't have any more barriers, but at the same time I don't want my writing life to become a secret identity. This is yet another dichotomy in my life that I've had to contend with.

There's no doubt that the novel is juvenilia, which people generally don't want to read. I don't take offense to people who say they'll buy the book or read the book and then don't - I have my reservations about empty pleasantries but they're par for the course in our society. Even the title itself is challenging - the word 'disassociation' exists but it isn't normally used, the word 'dissociation' is used. I like the challenge of the title, but people could easily see it as a huge spelling error when it wasn't meant to be.

And I've changed since publishing it. I've greatly changed from being a teenager. But I haven't changed drastically.

The life I live has always been lonely, and writing feels like it only increases that pressure. Where the girl whom I'm in love with and is two years younger than I am thinks I'm too sophisticated for her. Where writers are expected to be lonely in order to continually create. I've had to fend off the ugly premonition that I've been alone for so long, I've become too used to being alone.

And people might think I'm revealing my weaknesses, and therefore can't be an artist of any worthwhile measure as a result - with the word 'artist' not conforming to the higher-status platform that others use it for. But this is real.

One of my flaws is that I dwell on the negative too much, and this post reveals that. I've had a lot of support from a lot of people in my life as well. I won't lie, I need people's support in order to maintain my work ethic and drive. Even though I've had to depend on my own resolve a lot more than others, I can't say that all I need is myself. I don't find that healthy.

Rumination on Television

"IT ROTS THE IMAGINATION DEAD" - lyric from an Oompa Loompa song about Mike Teavee's obsession with television, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

"Television is the opiate of the masses." - Bill Watterson spoof on Karl Marx's famous saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

But this is not a rant. None of these posts will ever be rants.

I don't watch TV anymore. Of course I used to until I was about nineteen, but I never set aside a certain amount of time to watch TV except for The Simpsons on Sunday evenings. Then I pretty much stopped because I didn't get cable and the two channels available were fuzzy. When I moved out by myself a year later it was the same deal.

When I was twenty-two I moved into a place with free cable. I watched a couple episodes of Friends and then unplugged the cable, gave it to my landlord, and said I didn't want it in my place because it was distracting.

A year ago when I was working in a bread factory I told a kid I knew, a co-worker, that I didn't watch television and he responded, "So what do you watch when you're high?" I don't get high any more, so I didn't have an answer.

I still think there's value in some television programs, but not for the majority of it. Shows which aren't a variation of philosopher Robert Nozick's Pleasure Machine Thought Experiment, wherein cables are inserted into a person's brain and stimulate the person's neural activity to do nothing but receive pleasure, essentially making the person immobile and lifeless save for the continual feelings of pleasure.

That's not the kind of life anyone sane would want to live...
...and that's not how I view television.

The reason why I stopped watching television is simply because I felt I didn't have time for it any longer. I know for a fact that wanting to create effective literature is not an easy task. It takes a lot of consideration, research and development of style. It's a different discipline than a lot of other facets of life. I stil watch movies, and clips of older TV shows on Youtube. I have a few DVDs of TV shows I liked. I don't watch them that much any longer, but I still have them.

And sometimes I think I should keep watching television due to how it's a meter for current times. But then again the internet can serve as the same.

I can't really imagine what my life would be like now if I hadn't watched television when I was younger. If my parents hadn't let me watch TV at all. I don't know exactly who I'd be - I'd look the same (presumably) but it seems logical that I hypothetically wouldn't be as "in tune" with the rest of the world.

By in tune I mean, for all the years that I abstained from watching TV while my peers did...and going through the motions of dying to watch it in order to fit in as a child, and eventually accepting how I didn't need it, and then becoming very critical of it...it seems that I would be more wary and cynical about developed world culture than I am now. But that's only my initial, unresearched opinion. (And this isn't 'concrete' as William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White would say)

I asked a friend of mine once if he would give up buying a brand-new TV in order to donate the money to an underdeveloped nation and he said no. But before you think my friend is evil, countless other people all over the world have responded the same way, just not out loud.

Libyan Protest Rally - Toronto, March 2011

I attended a Libyan protest rally in Dundas Square here in Toronto a couple weeks back and shot the above photos.

For the most part, I'm not heavily aware of politics around the world. But I'm half-Libyan and I felt it was necessary to show my support for a new Libyan government from all the backlash I've heard about Gaddafi's regime.

The rally itself was for the most part well-controlled. There was no disparagement of North America or Jewish people, as some might expect from any Arabic protest. Any political uprising can never be effective if it promotes narrow-minded thinking and I would've left if that had been the case.

The two problems with the protest were that for one thing, some of the chants were trite (for example "Hey-hey, ho-ho, Gaddafi has to go"). Since that formula has been used so many times over it becomes clichéd and can be ridiculed easily. But there were also direct and powerful chants that I chanted along with.

The second problem was that there was a St. Patrick's Day Parade marching across Dundas St. People were watching the parade and simultaneously watching all of us show our support for a new Libyan government and it felt incongruous to me. It was beneficial because the rally was noticed by more civilians, reporters and photographers. But even so, it felt like we were impeding on the festive time people were expecting of the afternoon.

I also noticed two members of the actual parade try and mock the rally. One started to pretend to dance along to our chanting. Another started shouting "Gaddafi is a legend" and some older men in the rally turned their thumbs down at him. These were actual members of the St. Patrick's Day parade, acting like that...but that's what can be expected. Mockery in the face of rallying for peace, from anyone.

Just a reminder

1) That V. Which

- "The car that I was driving got a flat tire."
- "My son's car, which I was driving, got a flat tire."

- The distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive adjective clauses affects the choice between that and which. In nonrestrictive adjective clauses, which is nearly always used now instead of that.

- Use only that in restrictive adjective clauses...we distinguish restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses in writing by putting commas around the nonrestrictive ones.

2) Lie V. Lay

- Rule of thumb: You lie around, but you lay something down.

Lie - conjugation:

Present tense: lie/lies
Past tense: lay
Past participle: lain
Present participle: lying

Lay = conjugation:

Present tense: lay/lays
Past tense: laid
Past participle: laid
Present participle: laying

- The past tense of lie and the present tense of lay are the same thing (i.e. lay)...this can create a lot of confusion.

Source: The McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Grammar and Usage, 2005.

Happy birthday, mom. I love you as I always have.

"It's so easy to be a poet and so hard to be a man."

That was written by Charles Bukowski, pictured above. When people were saying in the early 90s that computers were "glorified typewriters", he was embracing the new movement...that was the impetus for me to use this photo. I'm not promoting his writing or his beliefs because I don't agree with all of them, but nevertheless it's important to discuss him.

I always wonder about authors like him, and how they would view me (and if I achieved success in my writing, how they would see me then).
I never starved, although life's been hard since I moved out by myself five years ago. I never had parents who didn't care about me - they give me money to help me live. I never absolutely had to work a deadening job in order to survive, although I've worked those jobs before. I've never had a delibitating illness or physical handicap. I've never had to go to war. I've never suffered a great loss (such as the death of someone very close to me, yet). I've never had to run for my life.

But I don't see myself as better than people who've gone through these misfortunes. And I don't try to hide myself from the misfortunes of the world. I've never wanted to live off of my parents for as long as I could, I wanted to live on my own terms and support myself...but money is addictive when I have little of it. And I never believed that I was special and the world needed to know - I've only known that I'm taking a path which few people take, and I'm using the talent I have to press through it. And does it really matter what they would think? Do I need to dwell on it? (Not really.)

Yet if they saw me as unwise and uninformed as a result of not going through what they've gone through, and as a result they didn't see me as capable of creating great literature...is that tolerable? Do I need to suffer like they've suffered? Will that allow me to write better? (No.)

A lot of soldiers want to write their life story. And they do, and they take it to a self-publishing company and have it released. They're proud of having written their story. Does the fact that they've been through the depression of war mean that their work automatically has more substance than my own (assuming their experience/position led them to experience the sickness war can hold)?

I don't think so, but some would say that it's true. And this is another part of the interior struggle I have to contend with, being on my own and having a passion for literature.
Bukowski's quote above disgusts me - I never want to become someone who writes like they mean it yet can't maintain a stable life outside of writing. Who just leeches off of everyone and doesn't sculpt their own place in the world, who can't support a family, who only thinks of himself, who doesn't believe in charity. And yet still he strives to write meaningful literature. Again the question of autonomy comes up.

The quote ties into a mantra of mine that I've been thinking of for years - "It's so easy to fail and so hard to succeed." The two thoughts, when intertwined in my mind, create a parallel between how hard it can be for people to maintain a respectable position in life.
Many people, once they learn the discipline and craft of writing, can write a poem. And I'd like to believe that the meaning of that poem is based on how respectable the poet is outside of their writing, although that isn't always the case.

The image of me standing on the street, with clothes that attempt to look upper-class but are still fraying, with nothing to my name and no family, holding only my published work...it makes me wonder how far can the romanticism of art be pushed. People set themselves up to fail all the time. The lamentations of writers regarding how little literature has given to them in contrast to how much devotion they've given to literature is frightening.

So I shouldn't think about it and I shouldn't waste time, don't talk about it, only do it. Virginia Woolf wrote two pages a day. I told a friend of mine years ago that I wrote two hours a day (but nowadays I don't) and he was surprised at my level of dedication. I don't know where that dedication is going to lead. Yet it won't let me melt into the person I never want to become.

The Artist as Creator of Propaganda

(photo courtesy of hobotraveler.com)
Mural of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, with his face removed. I wonder who painted it, and removed his face...maybe it was the same artist. As I wrote that last sentence I actually had a faint moment of déjà vu.

Is the freedom artists have to not create government propaganda one of the few freedoms that is never taken for granted? Or do people here in North America forget about how we can create whatever piece of art we think of?

It doesn't seem as though people, when they want to create, will create vast poems, stories, music and paintings to praise the government. That would be funny - going out on a warm summer evening to a grassy hilltop by my villa...with a soft breeze and the recent memory of my wife's legs wrapped around my body as she sits beside me...and painting a picture of Stephen Harper shaking hands with George W. Bush based on the inspiration of my surroundings and memories.

It's abnormal for anyone creating art to have that level of patriotic compassion. We create art to look inside ourselves and to express what we admire, or desire, or detest, or disagree with...not to indulge in patriotism (unless commissioned and depending on their morals). There are artists that take it upon themselves to do so, but from what I've seen they comprise the minority.

Which fuels the paradox of anti-conformity. "So what if I write stories promoting our Prime Minister's greatness...is that what's popular? I don't think so. That's why this is the cutting edge."

You'll be the name to know, a mainstay on the Oprah Network, praised by every famous literary convention and conference including the Meat Loaf with Dijon Mustard Box Social, winner of the Governal General's Award, wined and dined by the ghosts of Virginia Woolf and Hunter S. Thompson on a celestial plane, invited to partake in a seminar at the York Woods Public Library.

Maybe the real artists in our society don't forget that they have freedom of expression because they let it wash through them every day they choose. But I'm forgetting that people are still people, and one quality in a person doesn't rule out any other quality (as Thomas Harris wrote, I like his work). The issue of censorship in art is a huge issue - "You can say what you want but we still have to regulate it."
Does that mean that it's pointless to say anything at all?

It's plausible that people who don't create art are those who forget about their freedom of artistic expression.

I always marvel at concerts where people go crazy for musicians. It seems to me like these are people who've never attempted to create music themselves. If everyone who attended a concert was a musician, I think they'd be more grounded and not as fame-struck. They might have more appreciation for the artist's talent, but there'd be a common ground.
The audience should never forget the potential they have to learn what they want to learn.

Abandoned Factories/Royal Coat of Arms

Large abandoned buildings have always held my intrigue. I'm sure it's like that for a lot of people. Their immensity and complexity contrasted against their emptiness is undoubtedly appealing, as is their prospect of exploration. I can't really do anything but look at them and admire them. I've never been into an abandoned factory, warehouse, prison or any other building for that matter - they might be better left to my imagination.

Back in 2006 when I was living in Winnipeg, I drove a line cook home one night from the restaurant we worked at. He had a band and I wrote them a song for fun, but it wasn't very good. It was the only song I've ever written so far...now being older, it seems like the music should come before the lyrics.
Along the way, he asked me to make a detour to this one abandoned house because he wanted to show me some graffiti that was written. I said alright - I wasn't afraid that he was going to do something dangerous, he was a good kid. It was January and there was snow everywhere, so I parked a small distance away from the house and we walked through the snow so he could show me what he wanted to.

We get to the house and he shows me one side. It said "FAKE STREET KIDS GO HOME" written in large letters. "See", he said. "Fake street kids go home." He looked at it for awhile then we trudged back to my car and I took him to his dad's place.

He didn't to show me the graffiti in order to teach me a lesson. I had no idea the house existed, nor did I pretend that I had lived on the streets at work. What I believe he wanted to show me was that there were kids trying to pretend as though they lived in poverty and abuse, and that they were known to do so by the kids living hand-to-mouth every day. The "cool" that the fakes wanted to inhabit was unacceptable. When I thought about what he showed me afterwards it seemed incomprehensible that the struggling kids had to write graffiti on a house they used for shelter in order to ward off others trying to feed off of their lifestyle, and who could even bring attention to the house and perhaps have it sealed off.
But that's what happens in many instances - when an aspect of life is untouched and appreciated only by those who truly care for it, the risk of it being overexposed and losing its meaning becomes that much greater.

What does this have to do with royal seals/emblems/coats of arms? I would say it's only the same complex imagery. Like large abandoned factories (and buildings in general), a country's coat of arms has always appealed to me visually (that is, when it's very detailed and not sparse/trite in design).

The point I want to make with a coat of arms is that even though they're aesthetically appealing (the two examples above are the Bahamas and Canada), they still run the risk of standing for injustice, hypocrisy and lies. Ian MacKaye from the band Fugazi stated that flags were ugly things based on how they stand for a country's misgivings. I think that statement could extend to a coat of arms as well, especially since it might be more prevalent in a military. There is a contrast between their appealing style and what they stand for.

This then asks the question, "Can I really look at a coat of arms with the same admiration?" It's like the issue of literary autonomy - can I read an author's work with the same comfort if I know that he or she stands for something wrong or has done something unforgivable? I can't, because it matters to me who the author is as a person. With a coat of arms, I'll admit that they look stylish - I've always wanted to create a line of shirts and sweaters with full-bleed (meaning covering the entire front or back) coats of arms on them. And I suppose I could, since families create their own crests all the time. Yet the point still remains that any appreciation of a coat of arms is always tarnished by the wrong decisions of a country - it's the hiding behind appealing visual symbols that feels impure.

Movie Music

Not my favourite movie.

"Nothing's Sacred"

"You're an artist Clifford, it's your job to give offense." - Jennifer Wallace, character from Martin Crimp's The Treatment.

And that's the bottom line...I try to rebel against that idea. It's not impossible to write literature that doesn't offend yet still challenges and stimulates an audience.

When looking at comedy for example, even though it can't be taken seriously (no matter how much the comedian tries to assert that they're making a dire statement), there's comedy that directly offends other people (for example Don Rickles) and comedy that doesn't attempt to provoke and offend and is just as popular without becoming pablum (for example Mitch Hedberg RIP).

If this is true of one "artform" then it should be true of all of them. If comedy can hold this dichotomy, then so should literature, painting, et al..

To write and challenge without offending is a non-conformist idea to me. What I hold valuable in writing is the concept of appealing to audiences without creating unnecessary offense or barriers between people. I don't try to write wild claims in my work that I can't back up solidly just to get attention.

This is one of my golden rules when trying to create effective literature, whether it's successful or not time will tell. But then there are other maxims for success (in a lot of the business world, at least) which have translated sucessfully into art that I have trouble with...

...for example, "sex sells" and "anxiety sells", with the former being more well-known. To incorporate both ideologies into art - but in a manner that creates inspiration and knowledge rather than insecurity - isn't an implausible direction for me to work towards.

The "sex sells" attitude is detrimental in my mind to progression as an author. I have nothing against sex itself, no hesitation, disgust, perversions, dismissal. A lot of people say they have no issues with sexuality, but they still harbour discomfort surrounding it. I'm heterosexual but I believe in rights for homosexuals and women. I wish sex was a part of my everyday life to tell the truth, and that's not because of the fact that I'm twenty-five either. To me it's integral to health and to relationships...but it seems to me that sexuality has been tarnished by an overabundance of media regarding it, as well as it sinking so quickly into humour. Its meaning can become dulled as a result.

I don't take sexuality completely seriously (as should be the case), but I think its power, importance and its complexity is diminished by an unceasing flux of media content which exists mainly to generate profits. It's common sense that too much of anything doesn't result in positivity. Yet since it's an integral part of life (as should be the case) it needs to have a place in art. What sort of place it has, and should have, in today's society needs to be taken into deep consideration by artists.

"Anxiety sells" when it comes to aging, comfort in your home, countless other issues...the problems that could arise or be there already, but you don't know, but buy this product just in case they happen, or buy this product to save time because time is money...
...and it's easy to get caught up in this. I recently bought tea tree oil for my hair because I'm worried about losing it from stress, and I think it's healthy to use. Will it work? Time will tell. Are natural health products a huge goldmine which all stem from fostering anxiety? Does just thinking you have a problem lead to you having an actual problem? Paranoia should never be the only sane state of mind...it shouldn't exist at all. No one told me or suggested that I'm losing my hair, or to buy tea tree oil - it was all by my own volition. And I'm not saying that health and beauty products are unnecessary, they can definitely be beneficial. Only in cases where a business will convince people that their lives are lacking without certain products, and trying to foster instability and a sense of self-loathing which can be cured by buying their merchandise, pressuring people to consume and not allowing them freedom of choice is what's repulsive.

I haven't separated myself from regular consumer choices. I choose not to purchase certain products, yet I still own pairs of Nike shoes, I still wear clothes with logos, and it's rare but I'll go to malls if I need something like electronics or dress shoes. I don't see doing so as being tricked into supporting devilish industries. But I still try to stay aware of what I buy and what shops and industies I support because it's incumbent on me as an educated member of society. Most advertising depresses me and I choose to ignore it, for example the ad which starts this post and promotes violence against women. But when I saw the ad pictured below for the first time, it gave me some hope for the future of the advertisement industry.



There are people who would completely do away with the ideas that sex and anxiety sell and strive to create meaningful art without their backing. If this has been attempted and it works (outside of children's literature that is), then I'd applaud the author who managed it...

...and simultaneously ask the question, did they do so just to be different from everyone else to try and achieve attention that way, or did they have a genuine interest in subverting creative norms?

And is the attention they might receive a result of the public as a whole becoming sick of how much sexual content and anxiety are inundating society, or would it be based on the right timing, a welcome change of pace that opens people's eyes before they inevitably close, to go to sleep once again?