My hair is often knotted up because I keep pulling at it and twisting it. This is just another exhibition of living with constant anxiety.
I'm working on comics but mostly it's drawing two lines and erasing one and a half lines. I don't even make progress in the long run, just run in place for a while.
One thing that sucks is trying to make something that I care about making. What I like reading is not always what I would care to generate.
Another thing that sucks is the ongoing sense of being interested in the wrong things. I had my brain rewired years ago by my introduction to the alternative/underground comics world until I convinced myself that certain things were "low" and "wrong" while other things were "high" and "good art."
As it turns out, all of those people were dead wrong, every last one of them. Wrong. Incorrect. Bad opinion.
The truth is, the concept of "good art" is one that weighs in favor of the values that were established by the same exclusionary culture that sets "The Catcher In The Rye" as a "great book." Even down in the "low arts," culture favors the "universal" "coming of age" stories such as "the here's journey" and things of that nature.
At my emotional core, none of that truly appealed to me on a gut level. Even if a lot of truly good works of art (not The Catcher In The Rye) come from that mode of thought. My gut feelings have always been elsewhere and it has been a difficult process letting go of the deeply ingrained sense that my feelings are "wrong" or "lesser."
I don't really hate The Catcher In The Rye, it's just a perfect work of art to exemplify what I am not. The book itself is fine, it's okay. It's just that what I'm about is better. Not a matter of opinion, it's a fact: the stuff that I enjoy is more important than The Catcher In The Rye. The reason is: because I get something out of those other things.
Maybe we as a people can call for the decline of testosterone-driven anger as being synonymous with "literary merit." Maybe male angst isn't the be-all, end-all of art, literature, culture or anything. Maybe Holden Caulfield is just a stupid, frustrated teenager and maybe JD Salinger is just one perspective of the world, no better than any other.
Nah, chill: I don't care about being egalitarian, I'm going back to my above point: I don't care for the narrow-minded, self-centered, egocentric type of Great Protagonist art and literature that typifies "high art/great literature."
I can read that stuff, I've read Hemingway, Bukowski, Palahnuik Daniel Clowes, Robert Crumb... I'm just tired of men writing with their dicks.
I get so bored of female characters who are more prop than character, more plot device than acting agent. I get so bored of aggressive maleness. And aggression isn't necessarily "male" but there is something peculiar in the way the art/literary world is constructed so that men, especially heterosexual white men, seem to turn out on top of things and everyone else turns out less critically respected, except when they are walking in the paths which comfort those heterosexual white male values.
Why do "important" stories lack endings? Why is "gazes into the distance" considered an acceptable ending to a story? Why is it important for a female character to be "beautiful?" Why are so many "artsy" films about a male protagonist's heart being "broken" by some "beautiful woman?" Why do female characters die? I mean, they die like dying is cool.
Don't women have anything better to do than look pretty and then die? Don't women have goals other than inspiring men?
Don't black people have anything better to do than speak in amusing phraseology and then lend sage advice to white people? And then die?
Don't the people who are in charge of what books are considered "great" ever get completely bored with themselves? Don't the people who are in charge of "fine art" ever want to see something truly interesting? Don't the people who are in charge of what comic books are considered "intelligent" ever get sick of themselves?
And speaking of novels and art and film and comics, how do these people have sex? If the works that they make and celebrate are any indication, most of these people are awful, terrible, atrocious, despicable and useless at sexual fucking.
I haven't watched a lot of movies, I'm not a film expert but almost every movie that I've seen that bills itself on its "brave" or "moving" or "relevant" sexual scenes has been total trash. It's like people are afraid of sex. Real sex. Happy sex. Consensual sex. It's as if "sex" only matters if it is a big joke or if someone is miserable or if it is shrouded in shame and secrecy. Here's a hint: it your actors don't "do" sex scenes, don't cast them. Here's a hint, if a woman character isn't enjoying herself in the scene (or attempting to), don't write it as a "sex" scene. Here's a hint, if the sex scene only exists to further a plot point, it's probably crap.
If you need a sex scene to tie directly into the machinations of an intricate story plot point, your characters aren't having "sex," they're just playing some spy game, it isn't sex like real people have in real life, it provides us readers/viewers no insight into the normal lived experiences of actual people.
And while I'm at it, let me tell you a thing:
Stop writing that thing where a white woman character has sex with a black or brown man to show the depths of how much psychological turmoil she has in her life. Black and brown people aren't a symbol of "hitting rock bottom," you racists.
Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.