Saturday, September 27, 2014

on repeat this week [9/27]

My mind's been future-focused these past couple of weeks - which is not a bad thing, but it's not great, either. In Louise Gluck's prose poem "Theory of Memory," from her new collection Faithful and Virtuous Night, she writes: "Right now you are a child holding hands with a fortune-teller. All the rest is hypothesis and dream."

That's very much how I feel when I step back from my projections - when I pull myself out of my head and force myself back into my body. I realize that it's okay to dream about the future, to fashion an image of myself when this or when that happens. But it's not okay to lose my current self to my future self. I need to take care of my current self, this hopeful, eager child clutching onto a shadowy and, ultimately, unreliable conception of what may be. Does this make sense? I hope so.

Anyway, it's all good things I'm looking forward to. But when I find the edges of my vision blurring and fading like a movie montage, and I forget the beauty of where I am and what I'm doing and all I have to live for now, I need something to tether me back. This is what music does for me.

On repeat this week is a bevy of oldies but goodies; I've been gravitating to these songs when I want to feel the most like myself.

Elliott Smith - "Angel in the Snow"
If you know me you know that Elliott Smith is everything to me - not to be melodramatic about it or anything - and choosing a favorite Elliott Smith song is like choosing a favorite child. But I've just been revisiting New Moon, and this soft song is speaking to me the loudest at the moment.

Ryan Adams - "My Winding Wheel"
In light of his new album, I've also been revisiting Ryan Adams' first, most brilliant album, Heartbreaker. I may be a purist, but I don't think anything the incredibly prolific Adams has released since his 2000 debut has come close - in heart, in honesty, in alt-folk-country troubadour spirit - to this very first album. Every song breaks my heart. Pun intended.

New Order - "Lonesome Tonight"
This song. Have you ever heard anything so fucking beautiful? This band, and this song, are especially close to my heart because both take my soul back across the pond to London (my rightful place, if I say so myself). This song, though. Have you ever heard anything so agonizing and gorgeous and redemptive? So bittersweet? So British?

Biffy Clyro - "27"
I'm not a massive Biffy Clyro fan, but this song never fails me: it's equal parts brooding and heavy-hitting, the perfect mixture of a '90s alt-pop structure with a sludgy dose of metal. Biffy Clyro are also Scottish, which I very much appreciate.

La Dispute - "Damaged Goods"

This post could not claim to legitimately reflect my inner self without the inclusion of a post-hardcore song. La Dispute cuts me deep. It's poetry, but it's difficult, raw, and unpretty. This is not for the faint of heart. But, if you can take La Dispute - if you let them in - you'll never be the same again. (I tried not to be melodramatic in this post, but that's not working out. No point in fighting your nature.)

Friday, September 19, 2014

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

ram dass on always learning


"The universe is made up of experiences that are designed to burn out our reactivity, which is our attachment, our clinging, to pain, to pleasure, to fear, to all of it. And as long as there are places where we’re vulnerable, the universe will find ways to confront us with them. That’s the way the dance is designed. In truth, there are millions and millions of stimuli that we are not even noticing, that go by, in every plane of existence, all the time. The reason we don’t notice or react to them is because we have no attachment to them. They don’t stir our desire system. Our desires affect our perception. Each of us is living in our own universe, created out of our projected attachments. That’s what we mean when we say, 'You create your own universe.' We are creating that universe because of our attachments, which can also be avoidances and fears."

Ram Dass


Leave it to the luminary Ram Dass to argue for solipsism as the benevolent work of omniscient universal forces. Here the spiritual teacher (also a Jew, btw) offers a complex, but ultimately comforting and also kind of trippy, philosophy: we all render the world into our own, personalized, micro universes in accordance with our particular fears and attachments. So the hardships we face are not random, nor are they unfair: they're simply the external reflections of our inner demons. We latch onto certain things that result in hardship because they resonate with some part of our souls that requires work. And if we can learn to face these difficulties as personalized lessons from the universal tutor, maybe it's possible for us mere mortals to reach Gandhi-like levels of magnanimous love - for ourselves, for each other, and for our flawed, shared world.

Read the rest of Ram Dass's quote here.

Friday, September 12, 2014

on jeff buckley

"Be awake enough to see where you are at any given time and how that is beautiful and has poetry inside."

I've been a Jeff Buckley fan since my early teens, when I discovered that loving music was the closest thing to religious zealotry I could reach; that music is a magic I felt compelled - from someplace deep inside of me (or beyond me) - to chase forever. I am a literary soul, but music is my heart. And falling madly in love with Jeff Buckley, as a green thirteen-year-old, not only introduced me to one of my life's passions; but it also made me feel weirdly connected to Mr. Buckley and to the lost, poetic souls like him. Maybe Jeff and I met in a past life (yeah, I went there): sometimes, when I listen to his Live at Sin-é album, two decades melt with the reverb and I am sitting at a beer-soaked table on the very-Lower East Side circa 1990, and I'm transfixed on this unknown, otherworldly, portentously angelic singer called Jeff Buckley on the spotlit stage ahead. 

Probably these synesthetic moments don't mean that Jeff and I are soulmates. But listening to Jeff Buckley takes me to a place I never want to leave: it's a place of encompassing beauty, of innate poetry, of endless grace and inspiration. It's a place of real, viable magic.

The brilliant Maria Popova is killing it over at Brain Pickings this week - I was elated to find there this rare recording of an interview with Jeff Buckley from 1995, two years before his death. It's a short excerpt, but it's enough to get a sense of this consummate artist's evolved vision. It's a real gift.

(Jeff Buckley's (far superior, in my opinion) cover of Bob Dylan's "If You See Her, Say Hello")



Sunday, September 7, 2014

on love letters


(via Brain Pickings)

I have never received a love letter. I have, though, been peed on twice by two separate three-year-old boys (must be some kind of weird territorial thing?); and the unwitting inspiration for the Kill Caroline Club (must be some weird way for first-grade boys to work through their budding sexual angst?); and the subject of an ode exalting my excellent reading skills (they were, in fact, the best in my second-grade class).

But, no. I’ve never received a love letter.

Unfortunately, I am a diehard romantic at heart, so my never having been the subject of such a missive – or, actually, my not being born during a period in which these correspondences were regarded as normal, rather than stalkerish – makes me feel a little forlorn, and a little nostalgic for a time and a feeling I’ve never experienced. What must it feel like to be the subject of a feverish outpouring of love and devotion by some poor wretched soul? I imagine you’d feel like Pattie Boyd, or Juliet, or at least a Disney princess. I pride myself on being hyper-independent maybe to the point where it’s becoming a problem, social-life-wise. But us sovereign ladies can still be suckers for sap. And it’s always nice to hear – or to read – that you are loved.

This mid-nineteenth-century letter, which I came across today on Brain Pickings, is exactly the kind of letter I’d want to get. It’s pretty ingenious, and I admire this young man’s utter cheek, the pure virtuosity of which extends across centuries of cultural evolution to resonate today. I really cherish these kinds of social artifacts, which confirm that our alien-seeming ancestors were, in fact, as real and sarcastic as we are.

I know that this suitor’s impudence could have translated, in real life, into little-shit status. But my poet’s heart chooses to believe that the audacious W. Goff was a good guy – and that Miss M. recognized that, and responded accordingly. 

Monday, September 1, 2014

on writing


Leonid Pasternak, Throes of Creation

Writing is very, very difficult. Not necessarily the actual act of it, the stringing together of words and worlds: that comes pretty easily to me. It’s everything that comes before that’s the hard part.

Mostly I dread the feeling of needing to write. If I don’t do it for stretches at a time (a day, a couple of days, a week, a month) I feel myself gradually becoming my own worst enemy. I imagine that I understand what schizophrenia feels like. I imagine that my brain will overheat and turn into a soupy mess, or else the unrelieved excess of electricity will churn itself out through my ears and erupt out of my skull like a watermelon dropped from a great height, like that Russian chess player whose brain exploded during a particularly intense match.

Sometimes I try to dodge the impulse. I ignore it, I tamp it down. I work, or read, or browse, or walk, or clean, or cook through it. I invent errands to which I suddenly must attend. I pretend the feeling isn’t there. I pretend I don’t want to write. I pretend I’m not a writer.

Since I was small, I’ve felt this consistent need to create things, and I’ve felt that need as suddenly and urgently as an unscratched itch or an unalleviated headache. So during my childhood and adolescence I baked a lot of cookies. And I made a lot of bracelets and pillows and collages. Or I’d cut up a shirt into artful strips, cut slits into the shoulders, stick safety-pins into the whole mess and call it punk. Or I’d rip through an entire novel in one lonely and draining and exhilarating Saturday, replacing my own unwritten and surely terrible words with the better ones of these published writers. And I’d finish the book or the pillow and say: that’s it, then. That’s my need to create, satisfied. Good on you, Caroline: you’ve taken care of yourself.

But it wasn’t until I gave up on sleeping and opened up my laptop and dared to face the abyss of the looming blank white screen – or I gave up on homework to prop myself against my bed frame, prop my journal against my bare white legs, force my pen against the creamy white page – it wasn’t until I’d decided to stop crying or whining or baking another fucking pie and face my fear of failure (or is it a fear of success?), my fear of what lay buried inside my gut, the drama of my repressed desires and the theater of my suppressed memories – that I’d felt really, truly satisfied. It wasn’t until I’d released the relentless voice inside my head onto the victimized page that I no longer felt (quite so) crazy.

But why should writing be so painful? And why is it that many (or all?) writers feel this same sense of agony about their very livelihoods? We all know that we write to live, that we live to write. So why should we have to suffer through it?

I’m currently reading (or ripping my way through) Erica Jong’s Fear of Flying, which, by the way, can account for the neurotic tone of this particular piece of writing. It also accounts for why, after three studied hours of silently and obediently reading someone else’s voice that I felt overcome – truly, nauseatingly devoured – by this need to release my own “New York voice on the couch,” as John Updike calls Jong’s urban-feminist vernacular.

There’s one particular scene in the book in which Erica Jong-as-Isadora Wing expresses the scariness of writing. Or, the scariness of being a person who needs to write. Or, the scariness of facing up to the fact of being a person who needs to write. Isadora, who is currently accompanying her analyst-husband to a convention of analysts in Vienna, feels seriously fucked up about falling in love with a man (also an analyst) who is not her husband. In the thick of her mighty interior battle, Isadora runs into one of her former analysts, Dr. Happe, to whom she, in a moment of desperation and total self-hatred, spills her conundrum. And Dr. Happe replies to the overanxious, conflicted, twice-married-before-reaching-thirty Isadora:

“‘You’re not a secretary; you’re a poet. What makes you think your life is going to be uncomplicated? What makes you think you can avoid all conflict? What makes you think you can avoid pain? Or passion? There’s something to be said for passion. Can’t you ever allow yourself and forgive yourself?’”

How brilliant, how searing, how helpful, is this fictional Dr. Happe? You are not a secretary; you are a poet. And, as such, your life will be plagued with complications and conflict, either real or imaginary. And the only way to live, with some modicum of dignity and harmony, is to allow yourself to experience that pain, that passion, that uncontrollable need to create and create and create. The only way to do this thing of being a writer – or of being any kind of artist – or of being any awakened human being, a being containing worlds within yourself which lie just beyond your own understanding – is to forgive yourself of that very condition of being complicated. To not let that desire eat you up until there’s nothing left of the dignified person you once were, until you are reduced to a thumping gut of need, need, need. There is a way to do this thing of being an independent entity without imposing a fear-and-avoidance-fueled embargo on that entity.

The way to do it, according to the sage Dr. Happe, is to forgive, and to allow. It’s to face up to the beast and to see that, closer up, the beast just wants to be cuddled. That the beast can be tamed. That the beast is a part of yourself, and there is nothing to fear about yourself.

Isadora’s redemptive encounter with Dr. Happe reminds me of a similarly pivotal encounter of my own. Earlier this summer, I participated in a workshop at Kripalu called “Writing Through the Chakras,” led by the brilliant and elegant Dani Shapiro.
After the first evening session, I somehow managed to eke out the courage to introduce myself to Dani. And I, shadowed in the light of the writer’s golden aura, somehow managed to tell her that I had realized, after agonizing over what I should do with my life, that I think I really, actually, need to be a writer. And I somehow managed to express to her that this was the harder thing to do right now.

And after patiently and lovingly listening to me re-enact my interior drama, Dani replied: “It is the harder thing to do. But it’s the only thing to do.”