[Publisher’s Note: Paul Clark’s reflections below were prompted by a conversation that developed after he remarked, “This virus has a wicked sense of humor – the preacher who proclaimed ‘God is greater than Covid-19,’ only to be killed within 30 days by Covid-19, and the ‘virus doubters’ who have been afflicted, like Boris Johnson and Trump. This virus is like that serial killer character you admire, not just killing to kill, but to have impact, to express wit – who was that character, the man who walked safely among hogs instead of being eaten by them?”
Moristotle, your term “escapist” is intriguing [opening sentence of the “Goines On” vignette: “Goines used to think of time spent watching movies or TV series as ‘escapist’”]. Since you portray Goines as a real member of the real world, may I ask why he feels the need to “escape” it, especially through feeling strong emotional connection to fictional characters and stories who live only on a screen? My life has always run at such a pace I often barely have time to become emotionally connected to real people, so I can’t fathom taking the time to be emotionally connected to fictional people.
Let me admit that I started writing this to poke fun at Goines, then I realized he is probably in the vast majority – at least here in America – because most people seem to spend most of their free time watching “escapism” on screens. Since I don’t “get” the attraction of “wasting time” (my definition, sorry) on fictitious fare, and I am in an apparently miniscule minority who do not do the same, my question is now equal parts trying to understand why people do such – and why I don’t.
Thinking hard, I honestly can’t remember the last time I felt any sort of emotional connection to what I knew was a fictional character. I’m not sure I ever did; to me it was always just some actor playing some role and it just didn’t connect me to anything worth remembering….
At that point I started veering from wanting to make fun of Goines’ connection to fictional characters, to questioning how it is possible I have zero connection to such. Maybe Goines is “right” in being a card-carrying member of the screen-watching majority, and I’m “wrong” because I’m in the non-screen minority? Say it ain’t so…as someone once said.
My connection to that fictional dog, and to London, was so strong that 35 years after reading the book I took a 300-mile detour on a trip to Alaska just to see what was allegedly/possibly/probably not the actual cabin London lived in while he was in the Klondike and began writing the book. So, 50 years later, I still vividly remember Buck, yet I can’t remember the name of a single human character from any of London or Hemingway or Ruark’s books, and can hardly remember any details about them.
Thus inspired, I may read Call of the Wild again, five decades after I first read that book, given to me by my father, that is an actual first edition printed in 1903. Maybe reading it again will cast some light on why I lost the ability to connect to fictional characters, and maybe help me at least try to understand why most people are so caught up in them – in an era when most real people barely seem connected to other real people.
| Copyright © 2020 by Paul Clark |
IMMEDIATELY AFTER LINCOLN’S re-election to the Presidency, in an off-hand speech, delivered in response to a serenade by some of his admirers on the evening of November 10, 1864, he spoke as follows:
ReplyDelete“It has long been a grave question whether any government not too strong for the liberties of its people can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies. On this point, the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test, and the Presidential election, occurring in regular course during the rebellion, added not a little to the strain.…
“The strife of the election is but human nature practically applied to the facts in the case. What has occurred in this case must ever occur in similar cases. Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learn wisdom from and none of them as wrongs to be avenged.…
“Now that the election is over, may not all having a common interest reunite in a common effort to save our common country? For my own part, I have striven and shall strive to avoid placing any obstacle in the way. So long as I have been here, I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man’s bosom. While I am deeply sensible to the high compliment of a re-election and duly grateful, as I trust, to Almighty God for having directed my countrymen to a right conclusion, as I think for their own good, it adds nothing to my satisfaction that any other man may be disappointed or pained by the result.”
I am just starting THE COMPLETE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN. The quote is from the introduction by Theodore Roosevelt, 1905.
Good to remember that our country has survived very troubled times before.
Neil, yes, this country has survived troubled times before, but at the time it was not a superpower confronted by a superpower the likes of modern China: the stakes are MUCH higher this time, for the U.S. and for the world.
DeleteTaking up for those that write fiction and therefore live in such a world: There is but a thin line between the two worlds. We all start out on an adventure with a fictitious vison of how it will turn out and even when the road turns or the earth moves under our feet we hold on to that picture that we created in our mind. Without that fiction man would do nothing. As for attachment to characters in books or movies; I have to agree with Paul. Even the characters in my books soon pass away from my mind. However, the people that were used to create those characters remain forever. There is a little truth behind all fiction, that is why so many people will believe a con man.
ReplyDeleteEd, I applaud your informed, worldly view. That said, I still think people would be better served to spend more time watching documentaries and less time watching fiction--and I think civilization would be better for it too.
DeleteDocumentaries are fine I watch them all the time. However, to limit ones viewing pleasure to one form of art, be it all fiction or all non-fiction deprives the viewer of the pleasure of art for art's sake. A person who writes documentaries is telling no less of a story than a person who writes fiction. If the writer is good, then you will enjoy it, if not then you will not. It takes the same skill set to write both. If a writer puts out something as being true and it is fiction that is a whole different ballgame. I had a cousin that put out a hometown periodical publication; it carried stories that local people wrote about their families--past and present. I found it very entertaining and even submitted a story myself, it was about a little dog I brought back from France. Anyway my cousin asked why I didn't write more non-fiction, my answer was: "In fiction the characters do what I want them to do."(Smile)
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest that the premise is flawed. Escapism is not the purpose of fiction; literary, cinematic, or theatrical. My own experience is with the last, "...whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."
ReplyDeleteI am not nearly as skilled with the pen (quill) as William Shakespeare, and so my pitch to students in my Theatre Appreciation class each semester is, if I, or any other actor of the stage achieves any sort of success, it is when an audience member sees my performance, and quietly thinks, "That's me. I'm not the only person in the world who thinks, or says, or does that. I am not alone." To feel not alone, is to be less afraid. To be less afraid, is to live with the sense that there is something greater than ourselves, and we are better creatures for it.
Thank you so much, sir, for validating the “used to think of time spent watching movies or TV series as ‘escapist’” of the opening line of Moristotle’s vignette about me! I no longer consider it so!
DeleteGoines, no offense to you or lonliestliberal, but I don't see how bringing Shakespeare into it supports your view versus mine. Wasn't Shakespeare basically the Breitbart of his day, ignoring facts and slanting his presentation to pander to the rich and powerful who paid his bills? Yes, he had much more wit and rhyme in his efforts than most modern-day right wing radio hosts, but the intent was the same: say what people with money and power want to hear so they will give me money and power. After Shakespeare's success entrenching with the powerful, the less powerful had no choice but to also acclaim his greatness, and thus Shakespeare has been passed along through the centuries as great, when maybe what he should have been seen as is just someone has been around so long, few people dared question his standing. There are other examples of this, most notably the competing bibles and religions that are accepted as "the word" despite not even being able to agree on what "the word" is. They have few--if any--facts to support what they say, but they have unexplainable, irrational clout simply because they have been saying it a long, long time.
DeleteIf you have have gained all the useful knowledge your brain can absorb, good for you! Then go indulge in Shakespeare, TV sit-coms or soap operas or sports, or whatever you wish. Until then, you might be better served by watching and reading the efforts of David Attenborough and people like him.
Roger, you posted a comment on Ed’s post, “Just Another Saturday Night South of the Border,” that you might have meant to post here, because the “you” whom you address seems to be Paul Clark: “Perhaps if you were the type to create characters in your head (I reiterate; I have no choice in the matter) you might have that connection to the characters of others.” You use the term type [of person]; Paul himself, in his comment just above –responding to loneliestliberal’s and Goines’ paired comments mentioning Shakespeare – uses the term view: he says “your view versus mine,” as though we different types of persons (with our divergent views) were somehow in conflict or debate. Do you think there’s a conflict? Is one type of person (or view) better than another?
DeleteMoristotle, is one type of person (or view) "better" than another? Sorry for the confusion, but that wasn't the question I was meaning to raise, or attempt to answer. People have to look within to assess what is "better" or worse and live with the results. Unfortunately, the rest of us also have to live with the results, and that is why the minority end up doing most of the heavy lifting while the majority seek their escapism and entertainment.
DeleteMy point is that people who spend more time learning and less time being entertained, are more likely to have more knowledge to share with others--and are therefore more likely to make a greater contribution to meeting the essential needs of society, rather than the perceived need of escapism. Can we live without escapism? I think so. Can we live without clean air and water and factual knowledge of what makes our natural and political worlds work as they do? I think not.
You have to look no further than our elected political leaders to see the damage done when people think they know enough, and have done enough, to sit back and revel in their self-perceived accomplishments and contributions to society--rather than making actual contributions to society.
The nexus of the liberal elite and the conservative redneck is that both are so delusion and self-congratulating as to believe they have worked so hard and done so much for those around them, they have earned the right to spend countless hours each day being entertained by society--rather than making a contribution to society. Makes no difference if you indulge in reading Shakespeare or watch "professional" wrestling, the time spent doing each is time spent not learning and sharing knowledge with others. And the damage is measurable in dirty air and dirty water--and in the power of dirty politics and all that comes with it.
Paul, very well (and persuasively) said. Are you also suggesting that fiction writers like Roger Owens and Ed Rogers (and me, with my “portrait in fictional vignettes”) are wasting time we ought to be using for the pursuits you recommend? Am I wasting my time editing and publishing poems and stories and drawings and paintings and photographs and travelogues? Would the world be better off without “art for art’s sake”?
DeleteAnyone else want to weigh in on that last question?
Moristotle, the world would not be better off without "art for art's sake" but I think it might be a LOT better off if people gave a more objective look at the amount of time they spend learning and sharing knowledge versus pursuing their pastimes or expecting to be entertained. I occasionally devote a bit of effort to writing fiction or a poem, but I do that AFTER devoting time to my backyard wildlife habitat project, and my overseas environmental and wildlife preservation projects, and my various political involvements--not INSTEAD of pursuing those efforts.
DeleteAs I wrote previously, people need to look within to decide when they have done their share to contribute to society and the world, but I think most people tend to over-value what are often minimal contributions and are too quick to congratulate themselves and sit idly and expect to be entertained. As an example: Practicing recycling is great, but does carrying a box of plastic or cardboard to a container really justify spending hours expecting to be entertained? I use that example because, sadly, practicing a minimal bit of recycling is about all most people do to give back to the world in which they live.
Ah, a matter of proportion and balance! Yes, yes, yes! And thanks for the challenge to us all, to look within ourselves and see whether we actually do act with just deliberation to the proportion of time we spend helping other (including other creatures besides human animals) in relation to the time we spend creating art and looking at and reading and viewing art.
DeleteIn their minds, most people imagine themselves to be activists. In practice, most people are slacktivists. Thinking positive is good, actually doing something positive is great.
DeletePaul, in addition to thanking you for the challenge to us to consider whether we’re doing at least our fair share to help the world, I want to thank you especially for all of the examples you provide us: in your animal rights activism (rescuing fight dogs and serving on poacher patrols in Africa), in your building a nature preserve on your Virginia acreage and creating a website to encourage others to make their yards a natural habitat – and show them ways to do that – in your writings here and elsewhere (e.g., your “First Saturday Green 101” column and even your fictional story about a poacher patrol, “The Melon Gambit, from Poacher, a work in progress”), and in other things you have done and are doing. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, our esteemed friend and colleague!
DeleteAs a creature as steeped in a fictional world of my own making, as real as my real life, and I might flatter myself that I'm not bad at it, so I'm not the man to ask why you do not. Not in my nature. You're not alone, there are many, men mostly, who read only tech articles, Jane's Defense Weekly, or scholarly treatises on Cerambycidae, watch only documentaries and nature shows. When I was young and strong, I spent a lot of time doing, not imagining, but I did plenty then too. In between surfing, playing guitar and singing in a local band, camping, hunting and fishing, I always had a book. I had an adolescent love of dog stories, and I identified strongly with Jack in White Fang. He rejected the Inuit view of animals as nothing more than tools to be used, feeling his connection with the dog, as I felt the connection to Jack. As Ed said, to appreciate art for art's sake, ars gratia artis, the motto of MGM Studios. Me, I don't do sports, period. I cannot for the life of me fathom why millions of humans freak out about grownups playing with balls. I get the attraction, but as you say of fiction, to me it is an utter, meaningless waste of time. I know, I must be a Commie or something, but I don't care, NO sports.
ReplyDeleteRoger, I commend your appreciation of Jack London's writing. 'White Fang' is arguably the second greatest animal-centrist story ever written, after London's 'Call of the Wild' epic. For those unfamiliar with either: 'Call of the Wild' is about a soft domestic dog that goes to the wild and succeeds; 'White Fang' is about a hardened wild dog that comes into domesticity and succeeds.
DeleteThat said, I am intrigued by your comments about sports. How are watching sports a bigger waste of time than watching a movie or a Shakespearean play?
I'll answer Morris' question and yours here. No sir, I do not think there is any conflict between the different 'types' we are discussing; as an avid student of human nature I am continually amazed that, despite our truly vast differences, that humans can even establish a society at all. We can look at precisely the same thing, yet each see something different, and interpret it in a completely different way. It is our ability to overcome those differences. My mind is awhirl with thoughts and ideas of a fictional nature, while Paul's seems more than aptly described by his nom de plume, 'motomynd'. Men like Paul DO change the world, and I applaud you Paul for just that, but so do men like Shakespeare. I contend we, as artists, contribute to society by providing what does, at its core, amount to entertainment, yet the chasm between being entertained by a Shakespeare play vs "The Flintstones" makes the Grand Canyon look like a roadside ditch. I'd also maybe disagree that men like the Bard always kotowed to the rich; in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" he brutally lampoons the rich and powerful (but gently, through gentle Puck's narration; a concession, to maybe a BIT of ass-kissing). As to sports: how did we ever get this fascination with what are essentially schoolyard games? Perhaps I consider them more of a waste of time (and money, don't forget the MONEY) because I am not the 'type' to be entertained by them. Paul isn't the type to be entertained by fiction, simple as that. The value of anything is in the eye of the beholder; ergo the gifts and contributions of artists (or anyone else) have differing value to different viewers. I see the difference, I just don't see it as a conflict.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare was the Breitbart of his day. That's a depressing thought. The math minds will have to help out here, is it the inverse property at work which permits me to then predict that, 400 years from now people will stand in line and pay money to view Breitbart?
ReplyDeleteloneliestliberal (haven’t you misspelled your own moniker?), you have just demonstrated one of the niftiest polemical moves I have EVER seen! Bravo! It gives me great pleasure to have witnessed the utter destruction of Paul’s comparison of Shakespeare to Breitbart. May the comparison remain forever dead!
DeleteLonliestliberal, following your logic, then salt pork is a great food because people have been paying to eat it since the time of Shakespeare? Being of Scottish ancestry, let me admit my beef with Shakespeare starts with his unwarranted, historically inaccurate besmirching of Macbeth. If Shakespeare were to peddle such blatantly dishonest drivel in litigious America today, lawyers for the Macbeth brand would pounce. Thus the comparison of Shakespeare to certain (usually right wing) media types who never let facts interfere with their storylines, and seemingly always manage to make excellent incomes (as did Shakespeare) by selling their slanted, biased or in some cases - fabricated - version of current or past events. Perhaps I should have used Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly as comparisons to Shakespeare, rather than the lesser known Breitbart: my apologies.
DeleteMoristotle, I have apologized to LL (I hope that abbreviation is acceptable) because you may be right, I perhaps should have used the better known Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly as comparisons to Shakespeare, rather than their so far lesser-known successor, Breitbart. And yes, 400 years from now, people will probably still be paying to follow them, just as the descendants of today's believers in Reagan's "trickle down" economics will still believe, even as they have descended into poverty thanks to how "trickle down" (which should be called "trickle up") principles actually work.
DeleteUh-oh, looks as though I commended loneliestliberal’s deft polemics a little too soon!
DeleteMotomynd, a mighty sad state of affairs, whatever one’s view of William Shakespeare.
DeleteMoristotle, no matter one's view of William Shakespeare, or religion in general, or the Christian bible in particular - or eating meat, for that matter - it is a sad state of affairs that certain things gain traction early on, and maintain that traction later on, simply because they have always had traction. A lack of questioning and rethinking perpetuates bad ideas just as well as it does good ideas. And self-delusion leads many people, or most, to sit and bask in self-congratulation, when they should be doing.
DeleteElon Musk, with his Tesla cars, rocket programs and Mars mission ideas, has certainly earned the right to take time away for Shakespeare or TV - or "professional" wrestling for that matter - if he so wishes, but how much time can society afford for him to take? And what have others contributed to whatever societal achievements that makes them feel they have the right to exponentially more down time than Musk?
This is such an interesting subject and discussion, and got me thinking, especially Paul's comment about a backyard nature preserve. Our back yard is just that, filled with butterfly- and hummingbird-attracting plants. It's a jungle, mostly let to run wild, although I grow some pineapples and okra. I also film and narrate things like the different butterflies laying eggs on different plants, the epic battles between them for the newest tender shoots to lay their eggs on, their progression from egg to larva to cocoon and finally emergence, all filmed as it happens. I publish them on YouTube, my FB timeline and a page called Florida Insect, Arachnid and Reptile Identification. Ants and aphids living symbiotically on my okra, that sort of thing. Bugs are my specialty, and so I do a lot to educate folks as to whether they should use pesticides (mostly how to NOT), how to control pests outside without harming beneficial organisms and so on. I hadn't ever thought about it, but I do documentaries myself! Thing is, I have always been a story-teller. Born that way. As Ed said, I look at the films I make as just one more story, only this one's true. My whole family are engineers; I can't balance my checkbook. I could be an English Lit teacher though, with all my classes. Every single elective I took in college was a literature or creative writing class of one kind or another. I was living a life to read books and tell stories; I was in piggy heaven! Characters pop into my head like Athena springing fully formed from the forehead of Zeus, and after a while it gets crowded in there. They want OUT. They clamour to get out; it's maddening. Someone once said, "My head is stuffed like a pie with fruit, and sometimes the filling bubbles up through the crust." That's me and fiction-my capacity to identify with fictional characters as well as create them seems limitless, and doesn't seem to interfere with my other, and to Paul more productive, reality-based pursuits in the least.
ReplyDeleteRoger, how big is your back yard? I hope it is very large indeed, but I sort of have the impression (from what sources I’m not sure) that it’s but a fraction of an acre, right?
DeleteJean Val Jean in Les Miserables left a great impact on me. I think that’s where I began to develop my concern for social justice.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. My back yard is about 160' long but only about 60' wide, maybe 40' where the back porch sticks out. The ditch between our house and those behind us is perennially overgrown, and farther down the ditch as well, so there is a continuous "green belt" that stretches the length of the block. We have hummingbirds, doves, a flock of resident house sparrows, and woodpeckers including the big guys, the Red Pileated woodpecker, that stand nearly 2 feet tall. They sound like someone using a small jackhammer on the rotted oak branches above our heads. We get Painted buntings, the occasional Indigo bunting, and from time to time a red-shouldered hawk will swoop down and take one of the songbirds off for dinner. Squirrels, probably rats too, infest the heavy brush, while 'coons and 'possums take turns raiding our pet food through the doggie-door on the back porch. I just let them; they need to eat too. We have a large open cabana and about 1000 square feet of deck I built myself, and we literally live out here, so we get to see all this wildlife right in our neighborhood. I'm there right now, this is where I do all my reading and writing too. We have tried to create a little jungle of our own, and a bit of privacy, and it is so utterly pleasant just to hang out here. Cindy is complaining that her Painted buntings aren't here yet, they've never been this late. She is in a bird group that tracks their migrations and she keeps calendars of their comings and goings, their numbers and so on. Maybe it's still so warm up north they haven't started yet.
ReplyDeleteRoger, I applaud the two eloquent pieces of writing you created in your comments. My apologies I lost track of this thread as I have been busy homeschooling my six-year-old son, replacing headlight harnesses in our Mercedes-Benz, writing a piece for Moristotle -- and building a website for our own backyard project, which just became a National Wildlife Federation Certified Wildlife Habitat. Your yard sounds epic! Have you looked into the NWF certification program? You no doubt qualify, and having such credentials gives at least a bit of leverage against pushy neighbors and zoning code enforcement.
DeleteAs to the broader point, so I hopefully won't be branded a hypocrite next time I vainly attempt a bit of fiction on Moristotle, I don't see anything wrong with people spending time writing fiction, enjoying Shakespearean plays, attending sporting events, or watching movies - so long as they look inward and honestly assess if they done enough for the real world to have earned their time in the imaginary/escapist world. It is an honor system sort of thing, so I don't know what sort of formula would ever apply, but as an example: it sounds like you do so much to contribute to nature, you certainly have earned the right to your down time for fiction, if you can find the time! You sound like an amazingly busy and overwhelmingly creative guy.
Congratulations, Paul, on the award of the NWF certification. I look forward to learning from your website how I can apply also. I look forward even more to the opportunity to promulgate your work by doing all we can do here at Moristotle & Co. to spread the word and introduce candidates to your website. When do you expect to launch it? A next-door neighbor asked me yesterday for advice in feeding songbirds....
DeleteI just got back onto the blog after Morris' technical difficulties. I've been missing some interesting threads!
ReplyDeleteBackyard: I chose my house because the back yard is part of a steep ridge, about five acres, that the city deemed too steep to build on. The wildlife comes to me, and occupies my back yard. I only added a waterfall, which is a local attraction for coons, migrating birds, foxes, bobcats, bears, lions...
Earning the right to entertain myself: never occurred to me. I've tried to help a little (e.g. research for the Nature Conservancy) but basically I don't exist only to serve. I exist because the fates so ruled, and try to survive just like every other sumbich. Which is why I haven't done the best service I could do; to waste certain political trash. I've been resisting that impulse ever since the Cambodian invasion.