This is getting ridiculous. Here’s what I do all day: I sit on my ass and look at irrelevant shit on the Internet. If the Internet exists, how does anyone get anything done?
Perhaps I should be grateful I was born twenty-one years ago rather than a hundred years from now. A hundred years from now they’ll surgically install a browser into the brain of every baby born. It’ll be the first thing they do – before the circumcision, before even the vaccinations.
I get where this aimless web-surfing comes from. It’s a holding pattern I’m falling into because I don’t want to confront reality. This mindless low-level stimulation gets me from one second to the next. It’s not fun and it’s not an escape, but it’s a way to tune out.
It’s wasteful. It makes me sick. I should just stop avoiding what I have to do. I should try to study.
But even thinking about studying is enough to give me a headache and send phantom twinges of psychosomatic pain down my spine. I don’t want to study. I don’t want to go there. I don’t want to do that. Anything but that.
I only have so much energy. When I study, some of that gets sucked away. When I study, I don’t have the strength to do anything else.
If I saw value in the studying, i would be okay with that. If I liked where this was going, I’d be glad to give up the energy. But I don’t like where this is going. I’m not glad to give up the energy.
What would I rather be doing? Maybe I’d rather “be writing,” but that’s a fucking ridiculous thing to say, isn’t it? What kind of person has the douchetastic hubris to describe himself as a “writer”?
I picture a guy about my age lazing in an armchair in the corner of Starbucks. One of his hands twiddles the orange scarf he’s wearing for no reason. The other grasps a venti iced macchiato. In his lap is some Kerouac shit or something. On his face is a maddening, blood-pressure-spiking smirk.
Ask this guy what he does. He’ll tell you. He is a “writer.”
His life is a slave to his “art.” He only hangs out with people who’d make good characters for his “avant-garde fiction.” He intentionally tries to speak entirely in “insightful” epigrams, which he posts to Twitter when he can.
If this guy’s “literary career” doesn’t work out, he’ll angle for a job at Pitchfork.
If I say I’d rather “be writing,” I’m associating myself with that guy. That guy’s brand of foofiness is something I want nothing to do with.
If it seems like I’m ripping into him, it’s for a good reason. It’s because I think I’ve been that guy. I think I was him in high school. I had “literary pretensions.” I wrote a lot of awful stuff that I thought was very, very good. I believed I was some kind of genius.
I blame myself. I also blame the gifted education programs I was a part of in elementary and middle school.
In retrospect, the concept of “gifted education” seems breathtakingly flawed to me. If you put a bunch of already-bratty kids together in a classroom and tell them they’re “special” and better than everyone else, you’re not encouraging “gifted minds” to “grow.” You’re just cultivating a garden of insufferable dicks.
I have “a high IQ.” This of course means less than nothing, but I’m ashamed to say that for years I thought it was a big deal. Without knowing it, I was an insufferable dick.
In high school, I lived in a bubble, and inside that bubble I thought I was a brilliant, superior dude. If you read any of the stuff I wrote then, or even in early college, you can tell.
For example, I wrote “stories” that I thought were funny, but they were not funny. Their humor, which I’d thought was nuanced and intelligent and clever, came from a place of profound, self-absorbed naivete. The jokes only made sense in my head. On paper, they were nonsense.
I didn’t have many friends, and you could tell that too. The dialogue I wrote was stilted to shit because I had no idea how people really talked.
I think the only person I hate more than myself is myself five or so years ago.
So this is my problem: If “writing” is the only thing I’m good at, then not only am I not even particularly good at the only thing I’m good at, but the only thing I’m good at is a dumb, embarrassing thing. Why couldn’t I have had a more useful or interesting talent?
I have to study and I don’t want to study. I don’t know what I want to do instead. I have vague plans, sketchy designs that amount to nothing, to noise. I’d like “to write something.” I’d try to do that, but I’d be self-conscious about it, and I’d feel ridiculous.
So what’s the way forward for me?
I sit here at my computer and try not to think about that question. I go online, go to Wikipedia and hit the “random page” link, and read whatever the random page is.
I go to Google Reader and read the new shit there. There’s always new shit there, all the time. Even if I mark all the new shit as read, newer shit comes in five seconds later.
None of the feeds I read contain information that’s in any way consequential. I halfheartedly process what I read, and then I forget I ever read it. I am a cow who chews grass with no serious intention of swallowing it.
I open iTunes. I scroll through a boring list of boring artists. I decide I hate music and don’t want to listen to any of this crap. I close iTunes.
I go to Google Reader again. Hey, new shit. I read the new shit. Close Chrome, open iTunes again. Scroll through the same list. Close iTunes again.
Is this what my life’s turned into? Twisting little feedback loops? Why am I doing any of this?
I could shut the computer down. Then what? Get something to eat? Drink something? Take a leak? Take a shit? Take a shower? Brush my teeth? I’ve already done all these things today.
Study? I guess that. But not now, please, not now.
What if I could freeze time and then sleep forever, and then only turn time back on once I’m tired of sleeping forever?
Sleeping – there’s an idea. I’ll go to sleep now and I’ll dream.
In my dream, I’ll be studying, and then my cell phone will ring. I will pick the phone up.
I’ll say: “Hello?”
The guy on the other end will say: “Hello. I’m from the government. We’ve been watching you for a while.”
Me: “Uh, what?”
The guy: “We like you. You’re an okay guy by us. And in light of that, we don’t want you to ever have to get a job. We’d like to give you a stipend of seven million dollars, no strings attached. You can use that money to do whatever the hell you want. Will you accept?”
Me: “I . . . of course I’ll accept!”
The guy: “Are you absolutely sure? There is a catch, you know.”
I’ll ask the guy what the catch is.
The catch will be this: to get the money, I’ll have to drop out of med school.
The guy: “I know it’s probably a tough decision for you, having to drop out, but please think about our offer.”
Me: “I don’t need to think about your offer. I’m dropping out. I’ll take the money.”
The guy: “Oh, okay. Sounds good.”
Then I’ll drop out. I’ll take the money. I’ll be happy, at least until I wake up.
Comments 3
Most successful writers only get any kind of substantial external validation of their ability after their first or second novel. In the years before that, they need to maintain at least by spurts an entrepreneurial spirit — a drive to action and an optimism about beating the odds — against the lukewarm support of friends and family, the awareness that much their previous writing (and that of the vast majority of unpublished writers) is rubbish, and the steady time pressure from diminishing savings or a day job. It’s a minor miracle that so many good writers, for whom introspection rather than drive to action is the crucial quality, manage to push through this period, and it’s even luckier that writers like Kafka whose self-doubt is at the center of their art have managed to produce something regardless.
To these external problems you add your own: as a matter of sensibility you’re repulsed by self-confidence, equating it with smug superiority and narcissism. But I shouldn’t really need to point out that the beret-wearing douche is an arbitrary point of reference — you could ignore him entirely and define yourself neither as similar nor opposite of him. There’s another, quieter and friendlier sort of self-confidence, easy to forget about because it doesn’t inspire envy or loathing.
Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 11:59 pm ¶Part of the deal with me really is this weird knee-jerk aversion to the kind of positivity that I actually should be embracing. The psychology of it is bizarre: on some unconscious level I think I actually hold the bullshit belief that self-deprecation and depression and so on are in some way more “real” or “authentic” than “believing in myself” (which by comparison seems like an inherently trite and douchey concept). That’s a frame of mind I really need to get rid of, to get anywhere.
Posted 10 Nov 2009 at 1:20 am ¶It’s the self-help culture that’s so prevalent in the US that does it, I think. No one with taste wants to be a follower of Dr. Phil. The TV shrinks and “Ph.D.” writers might actually be damaging the prospects for happiness among a segment of the population, by tarring the whole idea of self-improvement with their tackiness.
There’s no way to ignore the ingrained associations of a phrase like “believing in yourself”, so I think it’s more effective to come up with your own wordings. This isn’t purely a way to trick yourself either, since another thing that’s repellent about the self-help brigade is how they oversimplify and blindly deny anything sad or discomforting. It’s not wrong of you to want to maintain your awareness of the melancholy side of life (especially since even joyful artwork tends to have a bittersweet aftertaste to it). By reconstituting your own terminology and worldview, you can synthesize the positive and negative and arrive at something more nuanced that you can actually believe in.
Posted 10 Nov 2009 at 3:00 am ¶Post a comment