Page 22 of 47

Rule 8

I’ve loved Sr. Corita Kent’s “Rules” for Immaculate Heart College’s art department since seeing them on Austin Kleon’s blog, but of all the rules, Rule 8 wasn’t one that stuck with me. I am much more a Rule 9 and Helpful Hints kinda gal, but the other day I was thinking about the difference between reading a book and writing a book, and I thought of Rule 8: “Don’t try to create and analyze at the same time. They’re different processes.” First, I’m not saying that reading a book is the same thing as analyzing it… but maybe I am? We tend to define analysis as this super-serious and intellectual thing, but at its heart, analysis is to study something with care, to look closely, to learn the nature of something. When we read deeply, are we not doing this? When we delve into a book (not just skim it or run across it like basilisk lizards), aren’t we looking closely? Aren’t we trying to learn the nature of the story, of the ideas, of the author who gave voice to its words?

Rule 8 feels like another way of saying that when we take something in, it’s a different process than putting something out into the world. When I read, I’m looking closely at something that is outside myself: I’m taking it in.

When I write, I’m releasing something from within: I’m letting it out.

And these two processes must be different, though related. I can’t be looking closely at something and studying it with care if I’m in the midst of releasing it. My eye is directed inward when I am creating. It’s only once the thing has been released that my mind’s eye can be directed outward. But it’s the cycle between these two visions that Rule 8 is hinting at. It’s not one or the other: it’s not all creating or all analyzing all the time. It’s creating: putting things out into the world. And then it is analyzing: taking things in from the world. Or vice versa. Not sure it matters which comes first, the creating or analyzing. But it’s the interplay between the two, the cycle. That is what matters. We just have to remember to not try to do both at the same time. We can’t steep the tea and drink it at the same time.

This Blog Is Anti-Fascist

And anti-Nazi too.

Awhile back, I discovered dungeon synth and thought it was super-cool. The Italian punk label HDK put out cool tapes (Kobold, Gnoll, Basic Dungeon), and I thought, “Hey! This is fun RPG music I can listen to and get inspired!”

Then the YouTube algorithm led me to other bands: Fief, Thangorodrim,  Elador, Quest Master, Midnight Odyssey. I was digging all this new, evocative music.

But just the other day I stumbled (whilst looking up RPG stuff) onto a Reddit thread where people were talking about the Neo-Nazi, Neo-fascist dungeon synth scene and I was like, “Whoa! What?!” and started feeling all icky and gross because what if I had been listening to some disgusting fascist crap?

So now I am trying to research every album that popped up on YouTube and finding very little information about most of these bands. From what I can tell Fief and Thangorodrim are anti-fascist. And the stuff from HDK seems like leftist/anarchist; no Nazi stuff there, from what I can tell.

But I don’t feel safe listening to this genre anymore. It’s hard to find info about a lot of these bands, and I don’t want to listen to anything even remotely connected with racist or fascist ideology. I think HDK is still okay, especially considering they are more punk/diy/arthouse and seem to be coming at dungeon synth from the left. But it’s incredibly frustrating and upsetting that what seems like an innocuous subgenre of electronic music is very much attached to horrific Nazi stuff.

So just an explicit announcement: this blog is anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-Nazi, anti-white supremacy. From now on, I will probably leave off listening to most dungeon synth and just groove to old soundtracks from 80s movies.

On Tidying and Stuff and Resisting “More”

I’ve been trying to Kondo my stuff for over a year. This is partly because I have too much stuff and want to minimize, partly because all my stuff is making it hard for me to keep a (relatively) clean house, and because clutter and an unclean house give me anxiety. I’m also doing it because I want my husband and children to perhaps see my example and follow suit. I’m hoping our house in general can become tidier and therefore more comfortable.

I don’t need a house that is uber-minimalist, not by any means. I like piles of books stacked up on desks and shelves. I like random sticky notes stuck all over the place and tons of kiddo art hanging from the refrigerator. I like that we have an art room that is messy and an art shelf that is wonderfully helter-skelter. But what I don’t like is the feeling of my stuff closing in and creeping all around me like a black pudding. I want to be able to breath. And to dust a room without having to lift fifty million things.

So I’ve been Kondo-ing, but it’s going slow. I did the clothes pretty easily, but then I’ve never been particularly attached to my clothing. Books weren’t hard either because I basically kept everything. (Okay, that is an exaggeration, but  honestly, I didn’t get rid of many books. They are the objects that “spark” the most joy.)

Paper — the category Marie Kondo says is the easiest — has proven to be the hardest so far. This has to do with the fact that I have a lot of drafts of my writing sitting in boxes, and notebooks from years past, and old magazines and cut outs that I plan to use one day for… something (maybe making zines?), so it’s not just a matter of shredding a bunch of old credit card statements and outdated bills. Also, my kids make art at an incredible level — and they often refuse to throw any of it in the recycling box — so we have boxes and boxes of their drawings and art projects. I want to keep some of their things for sentimental reasons, yes, but honestly, most of it needs to go. I feel bad though because this project was supposed to be about tidying my own stuff, not my kids’. Nevertheless, if I’m going to have any sanity, I need to tidy some of their artwork. Remember, for me clutter = anxiety.

So it’s back to the old grindstone, trying to sort my way through all these papers.

The latest installment of The Convivial Society newsletter couldn’t have come at a better time now that I’m rededicating myself to Kondo-ing. In this issue, Sacasas explores the way our economic system and society program us to want and need more and more stuff, and while our culture is perhaps very good at providing for our material needs, it’s less good at satisfying immaterial needs:

This is one of the most perverse effects of contemporary society. People need food, water, shelter, etc. These are, of course, material needs we cannot do without. Profound suffering accompanies their absence. But there are other critical needs which are nonmaterial in nature and thus cannot be simply manufactured and distributed. Your list and mine of what these might be will differ in the details of the enumeration, but I suspect we would both agree that such needs exist and that their absence also entails profound suffering. Material deprivations manifest materially. You can see when someone is being starved. Nonmaterial deprivations typically manifest non-materially. Someone who looks perfectly healthy may bear a crushing load of loneliness, desperation, or anxiety. I would argue that while modern societies may be particularly adept at the satisfaction of material needs (4), they are also structured so that nonmaterial needs are more likely [to] go unmet. These two tendencies are not unrelated. The relative degree of success on the material front depends upon conditions that undermine the satisfaction of nonmaterial needs.

The newsletter goes into much more depth than I’m quoting here, but what struck me about it was that even though I don’t think of myself as being particularly materialistic, my family’s life is still very much centered around material goods. My kids have a woeful amount of toys, so much so that they have taken over the living room. My husband and I buy entertainment-based stuff all the time: board games, role-playing games, gadgets, gear, books, DVDs, CDs, LPs, etc. I tell myself it’s okay to buy these things because these are the things we like, these are the things that “spark joy,” but what if I asked myself a different question? What if I asked myself whether this new CD or record album or book was necessary to my happiness?

I’m quite confident that my answer, in almost every instance, would be “no.” No, I do not need that CD or record album or book to be happy. I can find joy without it. In fact, we have so many books and CDs and records we’ve never even read or listened to that we could probably spend the rest of our lives just making our way through the stuff we already have. And on top of that, we could probably spend the rest of our lives making our own music and telling our own stories and not consuming anyone else’s at all. My husband and I can both play several instruments. We have musical instruments all over the house. We both love storytelling (and related pursuits like puppetry). We could entertain ourselves and our kids without any consumer products at all (as wonderful as many of them are).

But are we willing to live that kind of austerity? And if not, why not? Is it because when we feel an urge for something new, we know we can satisfy it, and there’s nothing really stopping us? How can we stop ourselves when the newest gadget or gear is just a click away?

My desire for more tidiness is one such antidote to the accumulation of stuff, but as a family, we don’t live an anti-materialist life. We — all of us, myself included — accept the default of our economy which is that if you can afford it, there’s nothing wrong with satisfying your desires by getting something new. After all, that newest DCC RPG product looks fun and we love to play role-playing games, so why not? After all, listening to music is fun and we’ll spend hours listening to that new Fleet Foxes album, so why not? I’m not even saying these products are bad or unworthy of purchase, but when we already have a lot of stuff, are they really necessary? Why aren’t we content with the DCC RPG stuff we already have? Why aren’t we content with listening to the four Fleet Foxes albums we already own?

The lure of novelty, of newness, as well as the fear of missing out, are strong pulls on our desire. Austerity and self-denial do not come easily. You’d think, since we’re Catholics, we’d be pretty good at self-denial, and I guess we are when it comes to things like Lenten sacrifices and no meat on Fridays, but when it comes to the things we really love — the books, and music, and games — then it gets a lot harder to deny one’s wants and be content with what one has.

I have no answer to give. I’m lost in the muddle of trying to declutter and minimize my stuff, but I don’t know if I’m ready to stop buying. Of course, I have to buy some things — food, clothing, toilet paper — but can I call a moratorium on buying entertainment products? Can I spend a year without buying a new book or a new game? Can I spend the next ten years?

After all, we have these places called libraries. I can always just check out books I want to read. I can check out DVDs too. And we have enough role-playing stuff already in our possession to last a lifetime.

In many ways, our desire for more stuff inhibits our ability to create. There’s nothing stopping us from making our own music or inventing our own games. There’s nothing stopping us from even making our own movies.

But of course, creating and consuming are two different activities, and they do fulfill two different needs. There’s input and output, after all. But nevertheless, perhaps we need to do more output to balance the scales.

Again, I’m not sure of the answer. I know I want to reject consumerism as much as possible and help my kids to do the same, but I also know how weak and flawed we are as humans. I suppose all I can do is try. I can keep Kondo-ing, and I can keep resisting the urge to satisfy my every entertainment whim. I can invite my children to create more and consume less. I myself can create more and consume less.

I can try saying, “‘That’s enough, thanks,'” to myself and to the marketplace. I have to believe it will be worth the effort.

Summer Drift

Summer is slowly whittling away…

I have reached the half-way point for summer break (gotta go back to work on August 10), and yet there’s still so much I want to do: the beach, Greenfield Village, the Detroit Zoo, up north again, finish a short story, finish Avalon Summer, finish Gates to Illvelion, read more books (so many books!). It’s not like this summer has been sloppy or anything — we’ve actually done quite a bit. But there’s so much more that I want to do. I can’t figure out why it feels like the summer days have slipped through my fingers…

Maybe it’s because I HAVE done so much already. Maybe that sense of going places and doing things has caused a kind of drift, like when one is swimming and the tide slowly carries one farther and farther from shore. Summer drift has pulled me out past the breakers.

Last summer, we stayed home and did mostly nothing. We tried to be cautious because of Covid. We embraced peak Idler. (It also helped that I had been working from home since March and so spring simply melded into summer and it all felt like a hazy fog of time.)

This summer, of course, now that I’m vaccinated, and our local Covid numbers are low, we feel safer, and we’ve ventured forth. So instead of a hazy fog of time, we’re in a rip tide. Time has sped up. We are racing toward the end without any feeling that time has passed. This moment is the same moment as the first summer day; June 1st and July 7th are two points on the line, but we’re moving so quickly, they feel the same. All points are the same. And when summer ends and I go back to teaching, it will feel as if no days have passed, as if summer has just started.

But of course, summer will have ended. And I still have so much to do.

Looking for the early 1990s

e13d13798c2b8c46b9076c25651e2b1bThe 1980s spilled into the early 90s.

This is a phenomenon we see throughout the 20th century. The early 60s were a continuation of the 1950s (until Kennedy was assassinated). The early 70s continued the tumultuous counter-culture of the 1960s (until withdrawal from Vietnam).

And the early 90s were one last flourishing of the tubular 80s: neon was still en vogue (though perhaps declining); jangly college rock was still ascendant; hip-hip was still funny and loose and political; for me, Nickelodeon still represented the kid-centric spirit of the age, with its slime and its orange splat and its strangeness.

The 1980s were the decade of strange: Pee-Wee Herman, They Might Be Giants, Dungeons & Dragons, Garbage Pail Kids. The early 90s were strange too; Ren & Stimpy were born, and Dick Tracy came to the big screen, and R.E.M. could sing about “Shiny Happy People.”

The early 90s are R.E.M. to me. The early 90s are color-change t-shirts. Super Soakers.

First emerging in the 1980s, “nerd kid culture” took wing in the early 90s. The dweebs from all those John Hughes movies gave us permission to be proud pre-teen dorks in the early 90s. Drop Dead Fred told us to go play with our imaginary friends, and Salute Your Shorts invited us to make summer camp adventures in our own backyards.

The backyard was still a world in the early 90s. So were sidewalks and community swimming pools. So was candy from the corner store.

Do I sound ancient? Do I sound like I’m murmuring “the good old days”?

Well, I am. If today is all flatness, then the 1990s were the last decade of dunes and divots and bumps. It was a pimpled decade — especially the early 90s — not yet completely air-brushed.

Everything is on the internet now, or so we tell ourselves. Hundreds of thousands of websites and articles and listicles about the 1990s, but none of them really contain the early 90s. Not my early 90s, anyway.

My early 90s are not these flattened versions, these smoothed out versions that we see reflected back at us today, all these websites showing us the same things. My early 90s doesn’t exist on the internet. It can’t.

It’s too personal, too wrapped up in the strange confluence of pop culture and real, lived experiences that make my memories my own. When we write about these decades in our usual flattened way on the internet, we reduce them to the culture of the time, to advertisements and trends. But these don’t capture the experience of living through a time period. They don’t reveal what it felt like to live in that era.

Maybe this is why I decided to write Avalon Summer, my weird memoir-that’s-not-a-memoir. I wanted to see if I could capture the experience of my childhood. Stories, after all, aren’t websites or articles or listicles. Perhaps narrative is the only way we can really express the lived experiences of our memories.

Looking for the early 90s is quixotic. It only exists inside my head, just as it only exists inside your head, if you were lucky enough to be alive back then. I don’t know why I want to write about it, except somehow, I want you to understand. I want you to go looking for the early 90s too. It won’t be found in a “You Might Be a 90s Kid” video or a pop culture website. It can’t be found on the internet at all.

And that’s why we have to find it.

Input Update 5/8/2021

Reading: The Right to Useful Unemployment by Ivan Illich

Listening to: Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto #1

Watching: The Last Blockbuster

 

I have thoughts about nostalgia, video rental stores, Blockbuster Video, the documentary referenced above, etc. that I might riff on in another blog post. Overall, the best parts of the documentary were in watching Sandi the Blockbuster store manager do her thing, and seeing how a humanely-run and community-oriented business can be such an important part of people’s lives (the humanely-run and community-oriented business in question is specifically the franchised Blockbuster in Bend, Oregon, not Blockbuster stores in general).

As far as the Illich book, I don’t know what to think. I was very excited to read it, and it’s the first of his books I’ve tried, but I’m worried that I’m not intellectually up to the task (i.e.: I’m not a good enough reader/not smart enough).

I feel like maybe I’m not getting the nuances of Illich’s points. Based on my reading so far (about 2/3s through), his ideas would fit right in with today’s Covid anti-vaxxers and denialists. And yet, thinkers I admire like Sam Rocha and L.M. Sacasas are Illich guys (as is Mr. Idler Tom Hodgkinson) so I’m not sure if I’m just reading Illich wrong, misunderstanding him, or being too quick to lump him in with the “Free Michigan” people who stormed my state’s capital last spring. Or maybe my reading of the book is right, and Illich would be very much against the vaccine and masks and everything related to slowing the spread of Covid, things I consider to be necessary for the common good and do out of concern for my fellow humans. David Cayley’s piece on Illich and Covid seems to indicate that I am reading him right, which is kinda… bleh.

I was very excited to dive into Illich’s writings because I’ve become more and more disillusioned with our current meritocracy, with our hyper-Capitalist society, and with the ways in which we devalue work that doesn’t contribute to the GDP. But in reading this book and seeing Illich argue against things like gynecology and giving birth in a hospital just seems insane to me. I and/or my daughter probably wouldn’t be alive today without modern obstetrics. His weird swipe against breast self-exams and mastectomies was jarring too. Like, why are you against women getting treatment for breast cancer, Illich?

Anyway, maybe I’m not following his argument or I’m missing some important details. I’m planning to give Tools for Conviviality a try next.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Jennifer M. Baldwin

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑