Thursday, 26 May 2016


I'm on a collision course with everyone around me; well, everyone that is that doesn't share my opinions. I don't stoop to disagreeing publicly, there's no fisticuffs, swung handbags, shoving hands or pointing fingers, or coarsely thrown words. No, I keep silent, and only air them to the few I know that are in accord with me or else I argue with non-present broadcasters i.e. the radio, the TV in the relative safety of my home, which being at the end of a corridor means my many-sided debates remain unknown.
I have a voice but I don't use it for fear of repercussions. I don't want a slanging match with anyone nor do I wish to provoke a jabbing finger. I find that kind of behaviour aggressive and unnecessary. I'm not keen on any overly public displays of hostility, vulnerability or passion, although there are situations where I accept they might be unavoidable. At their peak, emotions can be hard to control. But for most there's a time and a place...which understandably for each of us will be different, depending on whether we're comfortable or ill-at-ease. Spontaneous reactions, I grant you, are impossible to factor, and can be effusive: amusing to see, yet feature very highly on the embarrassment scale. Your idiotic burbling often realised only much later, despite the red, laughing or mortified faces around you at the time, when your lively enthusiasm for whatever it was has died. Circumstances, whenever, wherever, however they arise, can prove obstinate, they won't always play how you'd like them to so that when they refuse to be directed you find you're just a passenger at the mercy of your own improvised reactions.
Anything you say can be misconstrued, or interpreted in such a way to cause offence. To someone, somewhere. A new and unintended slant given to your words, be it a flippant remark, a thought-through comment or a written speech. The use of a single word can transform a civilised discussion into a vehement dispute, and it might not even be a noun or verb that is usually thought of as insulting. But once the collision has occurred it's hard to withdraw without a fight or an apology.
Freedom of speech, yet we seem less able to tolerate differences of opinion, feeling it rather too personally if someone happens not to agree with our view, which of course means we collide. Again and again and again. Figure of speech also comes under attack, regardless of the speaker's cultural background, since the speaker should have the sense to know such language is objectionable, voiced or printed. But how can any of us know that when the parameters constantly shift? A term that was benign yesterday is considered derogatory the next.
Words evolve: take on different uses, different meanings, which is precisely what makes language so rich. The use of one word over another could be a conditioned response or in your native tongue have a different meaning to someone than how you choose to use it. Over-sensitivity is not forward-thinking, nor is ventilating your grievances or exposing your every thought, as despite assurances that these are symbolic of a democratic society they often cause trouble. The thinker who dared to voice their thoughts aloud is bombarded with unpleasant messages or hounded, whereas the offended, even if they are not the sort to bully, still adds to the moral outrage making such actions perpetrated by others justifiable.
We all get steamed up, riled, incensed by something another has said or done because we're all different and that's human nature. End of. Over-sharing leads to over-sensitivity, and over-sensitivity often leads to censorship or forces those more extreme underground. Freedom of speech is generous in that it celebrates diversity yet enables conflict to peaceably co-exist but not prevail. It does not mean to voice your thoughts irresponsibly or to browbeat others to your opinion.

*Picture Credit: Rodin's Thinker, Edvard Munch

Thursday, 19 May 2016


The world's news is switched off and the lesson commences: the current book opened at the place I left off the night before, or the first page of a new subject turned; each greeted like a respected teacher about to impart new knowledge: Morning Friend, did you miss me? or Hello, it's nice to make your acquaintance – I hope in time we'll become good friends.
Addresses made, I focus on their words, fix my being to the spot for the next forty-five minutes to an hour. My unchanging surroundings fade in and out as background noise fluctuates, oscillates and softens. Nothing, except the printed word, allowed to fully infiltrate, as I, their faithful pupil take it in.
Whatever I'm studying (at any time of day) I immerse myself in it: leap into a pool of words . The lengths I manage measured in pages, those read and absorbed. How far have I got? Have I been drawn in deeper or am I still at the shallow end? Sometimes I'm in so deep I can't speak because to critique would break the spell, whereas if I'm still paddling I reserve passing judgement too soon. Some books take longer than others to get into, some books have you in their grip straight away and don't let go till the happy or bitter ending; others are middling, enjoyed at the time but instantly forgettable.
The neutral feeling leaves me cold: the not caring one way or another what happens, what is happening, and yet determined to reach the final word on the final page. Never giving up, even though I might close the book and think what was that about? I want to feel sated and left feeling hungry; I want to have soared and to have died; I want to have learnt something about myself and possibly something of the author; I want to feel inspired and encouraged. I expect a lot from a book, but in exploring you also learn what you like. Above all, I want to have gained an insight into another world, a way of life that might be very different to mine or similar.
The spate of time does not exist in books. You can traverse in many directions, and feel no qualms at doing so. I actually find it slows or quickens up time as you know it. Your pace can be rushed whilst the outside world counts the minutes and seconds, or it can be like a luxurious wallow where time, any concept of time, is neglected; in emerging from either you have to adjust, reset your senses to the present instant.
Time is what I have plenty of, or at least that's what others assume, but none of it is wasted or abused. Interests that were hibernating have awoken, those that weren't allowed to develop before now have me in their thrall. The thirst for knowledge is unabated – I read, think, read, research, write, and still want more, more. More vintage classics, more translated into English literature, more recordings of history, more fantasy, more author memoirs or biographies, more renowned or not so widely read works, and yet more of the previously heard of but unread until he, she or it makes itself known to me.
It's a voyage of discovery, one with no land in sight, just a perpetual sea, which flows onwards into art, photography, black and white film, historical events and public figures. An education that travels down through the ages like a family tree or pans out as a camera does as you keep reading and ingesting material.
I have given myself the rare gift of being a scholar, a home-schooled scholar without the privileges that seemed common in the days of E. M. Forster and Henry James, in order to form a sole member literati who debates with opposing sides of herself and with non-existing individuals. It's a bit like a gentleman's club, except it contains no cigars and only one gentlewoman with a plethora of books.

Picture Credit: The Yellow Books, c.1887, Vincent Van Gogh

Thursday, 12 May 2016


I'm just going to come out and say it: I'm selfish and self-indulgent. Up to a point. But especially when it comes to MY writing. Notice the use of 'MY' in capitals, meaning it belongs to me and nobody else. I hoard the time it requires and wrap the words, those written or those waiting to be, around myself same as I do when I hug my person which I do all too often. Freud would possibly say I'm self-comforting.
Am I? instant reaction would be to deny that statement. Who admits to their weaknesses straight off? And it's not altogether strictly true anyway. (See!) The wrapped arms is usually because I don't know what else to do with them as they are rather orang-outang- like, and because I also hold this misguided notion that in doing so it generates warmth, although I recognise there are times when it probably is a comfort thing. A self-seeking reassurance. It's not as so-called body language experts might suggest a defensive mechanism which should always be read as such.
Unless, I have my own weird language that not even the best or those with a smattering of knowledge can decipher. No, seriously I don't think I'm that special; just your average 1980s model with a few quirks: some software faults which could easily be fixed but my system refuses to upgrade.
Where does the selfishness come in? Perhaps I mean stubborn...can you be one without the other? To put your own interests first you have to be steely, though I try to ensure my selfishness doesn't cause any others harm. The choices I've made have been precisely to avoid that – to prevent hurt or resentment – and yet some of those have led to accusations of doing exactly that, whereas I think I've acted with the utmost consideration: I've examined the circumstances and decided in that role or situation I'd be found wanting. Surely it's better to know oneself than not at all?
Anyhow, back to writing. Writers, I think, are a self-serving breed, (I hesitate to classify myself as a 'Writer' because that implies it's 'Work' and it's not, it's a creative exercise that allows the self to breathe. I write for myself and nobody else; I don't write for an audience which is yet another example of my selfish bent), because anything could be used as material, the sensitive, the confidential, the snatched conversation, the overheard snippets. It all feeds! The world is a feast literally for the eyes and ears. Truths might get twisted, but it's come from somewhere. Writing, including retelling and re-working another's famed work (even if I don't think it's called for) is always exploratory and experimental.
I believe there's always an element of you in the guise of different voices: a girl, a boy, a woman, a man, a bit-part player, an animal, a narrator; a character that enables you to express what you might be unable to in the everyday, or because a set of circumstances you've given a character did not personally arise. Writers concern themselves with the what if? question, which in many ways pertains to the 'I', because even if you consider yourself separate from your creation you still have to walk in their shoes, hear with their ears and see with their eyes.
Nobody, fictional or non-fictional, escapes close examination.

Picture Credit: Escher's father with magnifying glass, 1920, M. C. Escher