Blog Different

Photo of Steve Jobs

Taken from Steve's Glamour Shots collection

This past week, I wrote a post on my personal blog and snatched it down shortly after pressing “Publish.” As I typed out the gory details involving my depression diagnosis, it never occurred to me that I was sharing more than necessary. As you can see, I don’t have a problem mentioning depression–so long as I don’t know you in real life–but I sometimes wonder why I bring it up at all.

I don’t mind using it as a type of contextual framework for the column or essay at hand, but my blog went further than that. I outlined my depressive diagnosis, how it affected me, and even went into my treatment options. Now, there’s plenty of nonsense transmitted online every second and I doubt few, if anyone, noticed my little blog. But in the hour between publication and retraction, I felt easy. The blog served no one but myself–meaning, it belonged in a journal or in a Pages files on my iMac.

Annie Dillard said it best in her book The Writing Life:

“Your freedom as a writer is not freedom of expression in the sense of wild blurting; you may not let it rip. It is life at its most free, if you are fortunate enough to be able to try it, because you select your materials, invent your task, and pace yourself. In the democracies, you may even write and publish anything you please about any government or institutions, even if what you write is demonstrably false.

“The obverse of this freedom, of course, is that your work is so meaningless, so fully for yourself alone, and so worthless to the world, that no one except you cares whether you do it well, or ever.”

In my writing, I keep making the mistake that my depression is inherently valuable—but to whom?

Me? Well for what it’s worth, depression makes it difficult to see value in anything.

You? Why would you care?

I don’t mean to sound self-deprecating or bitter. I have depression; you might have early onset Alzheimer’s. A bit extreme, but the point remains: we all have issues, physical [or mental] ailments; literature helps to ease the pain, sometimes.

Even if you can’t relate to the subject matter–maybe you never experienced cancer or dementia or a 9.0 earthquake–good literature dredges the universal from the personal or, rather, provides a conduit through the personal where, toward the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel, universal appeal is accessible. It is the human condition in all of its yin and yang, its sunshine and pistols, crystallized by the personal, the valued, the worthwhile.

All of that sounds wonderful, except that it’s not a guarantee. No matter how hard I try, I can’t write about my depression in a meaningful way. I can’t find the conduit to universal appeal and, as I’ve noted in the past, that might not be a bad thing. One of these days, I’ll realize the struggle to write about depression simply means it’s time to mine new material.

A weakness in my creative development is the habit of writing about issues affecting me at the moment–okay, I’m depressed so I’ll write about that–versus exploring topics outside of “me,” yet interest “me” all the same: video games; sneakers; J Dilla; Apple products. Mundane things on the outside, but I like them.Therein lies the opportunity for me as a writer: to make you interested in my interests.

I suppose I could blame my problem on the immediacy of the blog form. I tend to open my blog dashboard and typetypetype until I can type no more. Something about that text box in WordPress begs me to quickly fill it up with words, to press publish and lean back, waiting for the comments to roll in [LOL yeah right].

My depression shouldn’t mean much, if anything, to you and while it’s cathartic for me to explore the disease as it relates to my own life, that doesn’t mean I need to share it and, worse, take it personal when no one responds should I publicize the findings. Besides, deliberate writing requires discipline; anyone can blurt seemingly self-absorbed fodder into a blog template, and it makes for quick results but, in the long run, it pays to take some time and figure out the angles.

Steve Jobs famously, and perhaps mythically, said upon his return to Apple, “Think Different.” All blogs need a purpose, even if the purpose is to be confessional and exposed. As a reader of blogs, I have no problem with the confessional; I’m as much of a voyeur as the next man. As a blogger myself, it just doesn’t work for me. Blog Different has become my motto, which might mean blog less often.

@thomasdemary. @thomasdemary.com. @zerobooks.

First Person Memoirs For People Who Don't Exist

I write first person memoirs for people who don’t exist. I just thought this to myself and it sounded cool and authoritative (in the author sense of the word). It may be accurate, since they’re as bewildered and mistaken about their pasts, and of themselves, as I am. And with that in mind, I don’t have to ponder my own problems; I can sort the issues of other people…who don’t exist. I’m tempted to think of it as a pathetic exercise, though it explains, in part, my difficulty with the third person voice. 

There, I sound too authoritative (in the classical sense) and my habit is to over write—that is, to overcompensate for the third person’s inherent distance from the subject. Funny since depression makes me feel distant and neutral—or not so funny, since writing affords me the time and space to elude reality, a daily and dissociative experience.  It makes sense that my strength as a writer, for now, lies underneath the skins of other people…who don’t exist…because that’s where I’d rather be—in the shoes and life of another, any other, besides myself. 

Most of the stories I’ve read of late were written in the first person. Individuals smarter—or perhaps more committed to the topic—than me have, perhaps, wondered about the proliferation of “I” in fiction. I tend to believe that it’s a form of warding off nonfiction’s recent surge in popularity and so-called “relevance.” If readers are so hungry for personal essays and memoirs, then fiction’s response—or mimicry, I suppose—is the first person. 

Who knows? I’m looking to justify my usage of the form, to explain in a roundabout way my difficulties with third person, which is more about aesthetic than execution. Indeed, I can write a third person story—I’ve written many—but my ear, so to speak, prefers the sound of first person. It forces me to find the character’s voice, its nuance and pitch and vocabulary, which develops an economy for the story to which I must adhere. It calls for discipline, a sensibility I lack when in third person. I take it as license to act like a wild man with the prose, lobbing tedious descriptions and dense swathes of narrative as if they were blunt objects or blades; I can only imagine what the poor reader, unsuspecting and innocent, feels at the other end of these weapons.

I could take the position that the first person is my schtick, except that I want to be well-rounded. My style, whatever that is, might be better served through the first person, but that’s a far-off determination after years of trial and error, experimentation and failure and success. I’m keenly aware of the deficiency; no matter the number of publications I rack up in the future (God willing), I’m more concerned with becoming a student of all forms. Hell, I wrote a story in second voice—my own and only thus far—just to see how it worked, to feel how the story funneled itself through what some might call a gimmicky narrative element. Long story short, I’m trying to push myself out of my comfort zone. I think I love writing first person memoirs for people who don’t exist; I just don’t want it to be the only thing I can do. Sooner or later, readers will get wise—then bored.

Questionnaire time! Do you have a voice of preference within your own work? Are you strong in one perspective, but perhaps in need of practice with others? Got any tips for a lost soul like me?

@thomasdemary. @Thomas DeMary.

First Person Memoirs For People Who Don’t Exist

I write first person memoirs for people who don’t exist. I just thought this to myself and it sounded cool and authoritative (in the author sense of the word). It may be accurate, since they’re as bewildered and mistaken about their pasts, and of themselves, as I am. And with that in mind, I don’t have to ponder my own problems; I can sort the issues of other people…who don’t exist. I’m tempted to think of it as a pathetic exercise, though it explains, in part, my difficulty with the third person voice. 

There, I sound too authoritative (in the classical sense) and my habit is to over write—that is, to overcompensate for the third person’s inherent distance from the subject. Funny since depression makes me feel distant and neutral—or not so funny, since writing affords me the time and space to elude reality, a daily and dissociative experience.  It makes sense that my strength as a writer, for now, lies underneath the skins of other people…who don’t exist…because that’s where I’d rather be—in the shoes and life of another, any other, besides myself. 

Most of the stories I’ve read of late were written in the first person. Individuals smarter—or perhaps more committed to the topic—than me have, perhaps, wondered about the proliferation of “I” in fiction. I tend to believe that it’s a form of warding off nonfiction’s recent surge in popularity and so-called “relevance.” If readers are so hungry for personal essays and memoirs, then fiction’s response—or mimicry, I suppose—is the first person. 

Who knows? I’m looking to justify my usage of the form, to explain in a roundabout way my difficulties with third person, which is more about aesthetic than execution. Indeed, I can write a third person story—I’ve written many—but my ear, so to speak, prefers the sound of first person. It forces me to find the character’s voice, its nuance and pitch and vocabulary, which develops an economy for the story to which I must adhere. It calls for discipline, a sensibility I lack when in third person. I take it as license to act like a wild man with the prose, lobbing tedious descriptions and dense swathes of narrative as if they were blunt objects or blades; I can only imagine what the poor reader, unsuspecting and innocent, feels at the other end of these weapons.

I could take the position that the first person is my schtick, except that I want to be well-rounded. My style, whatever that is, might be better served through the first person, but that’s a far-off determination after years of trial and error, experimentation and failure and success. I’m keenly aware of the deficiency; no matter the number of publications I rack up in the future (God willing), I’m more concerned with becoming a student of all forms. Hell, I wrote a story in second voice—my own and only thus far—just to see how it worked, to feel how the story funneled itself through what some might call a gimmicky narrative element. Long story short, I’m trying to push myself out of my comfort zone. I think I love writing first person memoirs for people who don’t exist; I just don’t want it to be the only thing I can do. Sooner or later, readers will get wise—then bored.

Questionnaire time! Do you have a voice of preference within your own work? Are you strong in one perspective, but perhaps in need of practice with others? Got any tips for a lost soul like me?

@thomasdemary. @Thomas DeMary.

Disintegrating Novels

I’m glancing at my noticeboard, at the numerous tasks I need to complete: four stories (three fiction, one personal essay) in various revision stages, three works in progress and my column. The noticeboard excludes other lesser duties: update my Tumblr blog, submit inane messages via Twitter, read my favorite blogs, read a book or two, catch up on my yearlong backlog of The New Yorker and clean up the files cluttering my iMac screen—the latter is now complete, so yay for me.

My phone and computer calendars neatly outline my weekly to-do lists; even after ten hours a day at work, I sit down and plug away, feeling submerged. Much is made by women—rightfully so—of finding time to write amid a chaotic life. I understand (to a point, I’m sure). I’m pulled toward the work, tugged by my lovely wife who’d like her husband back at some point this week. Even now, it is after 4 PM on a Saturday: we have a movie date later; I’m stressing, unnerved by the real possibility that my obsession with this writerly shit might result in a missed date, a rescheduled date, a date with the cold side of the bed.

I deal with extremes: when I don’t write, I can experience a dry spell for months (a year being the longest); on the other hand, when I get going, when I feel I’ve struck a groove, nothing can pull me away. I get angry and hoard my time, in part because I think I’ve wasted enough of it for so long, in part because there’s a hint of inferiority involved.  I blame The New Yorker. 20 Under 40 or whatever the fuck they titled it. Seven months until I’m thirty. I push. I deny myself sleep. I hurl myself into poor health, poor eating habits, chain smoking and depressive episodes: the opposite of this madness is a half-me, a cleaved personality closed off to the world. No one diagnosed me as bipolar, but my love for writing approaches the maniacal. Thank God we don’t have kids—just a whiny black Labrador.

I marvel at writers who fawn over the process, those individuals who carve koans out of craft, who imbue the work with the splendor of a nature hike. They’re aliens to me. Sometimes I call shenanigans on the love fest, because no one can possibly enjoy writing. Sure, they might enjoy writing about writing—Lord knows I do—and they get a rise from blogs and articles on procrastination, on query letters and searches for agents, of e-books and Amazon, of character sketches and Moleskines.

A culture of fellow writers romping through fields of daisies, traipsing along with commentary regarding the writing life, as if it’s a way of life as opposed to plain drudgery. I want to call them on their bullshit because the world offers more useful, more enjoyable activities: smoking weed, scouring Youtube for Sailor Moon clips, oral sex, bowling, shooting skeet (skeetskeetskeet). Perhaps I’m projecting my malady onto others; maybe writing is actually—you know—fun. Admittedly, it used to be fun when I wasn’t obsessed with control, with being deliberate in what (and how) I write, with authenticity, with the archeology that guarantees more visits to my psychotherapist. That’s not to say these happy writers, these pod people, aren’t trying hard enough. Maybe they’re well adjusted; if so, God bless them.

Or maybe they’re better at compartmentalization. Art seeps into all aspects of my life—just ask my wife behind me, impatiently waiting to start our date. There’s no right or wrong way to go about the work; there’s no such thing as “the writing life.” I can be accused of subscribing to the myth in the past, and I apologize for perpetuating it, but what the how-to guides and the Internet calls “the writing life” is a caricature of reality. It’s so simple: you can spend your entire life, and income, wanting to be a writer without scribbling a word. Even more insane is the notion of “wanting” to be a writer.

I mean, I am a writer—I want to be better, so I can be read—but why would anyone sit on the couch and think to themselves, “Of all the things to be; I shall be a writer.” I guess, on its face, creative writing appears easy. Shit, you go to the movies: anyone can write something better than the Big Mama’s House series. Perhaps that point is the tieback to those hippy, happy-go-lucky writers smiling toothy grins, turning the work into a faith-based initiative, a Zen-like experience, an otherworldly adventure. I’m more apt to believe writer-bloggers posting hopeless, tearful tomes about their disintegrating novels. I can understand the pain; that shit’s real. And when they fix the novel, when they’re back on track, they go silent—dead air—until reemerging with the details.

So fuck it. Some so-called writers are fraudulent and it pisses me off—clearly. I’m berating myself, racing against the clock, because the sun is gone and I’ve spent five hours writing five essays for this column so I can get back to a thirteen-page short story begging for a hatchet. And even if I succeed, I still got seven more pieces on my noticeboard, laughing at me with the husky chortle of Muttley, and in the face of all of this work, somewhere in my bitter heart, I’m happy. A small twinkle, a blip against the night; I’m still surrounded by maniacal mana and sometimes, I search the Internet (first mistake) for help on how to deal. Take a break, stretch your legs, treat yourself when you accomplish a goal: whatever, man—tell me to think positive thoughts, while you’re at it.

@thomasdemary. [at]thomasdemary.

They All Have Shaft Afros

At once, I see why I used to love—and now hate—the Law & Order series. When I was down with the show, I stuck with the original version. Every so often, I’d watch SVU, but I could only handle sex crimes and Ice-T-as-detective in small doses. Right now, Law & Order: Criminal Intent is on—Detective Goren hounds his suspect, trips him up in his own lies, as the violins warble in the background, as Detective Eames adds nothing to the investigation, as usual. In any iteration, I knew what to expect from Law & Order, particularly with the original: the police arrest their man (or woman), DA Jack McCoy gets angry because the police violated the suspect’s rights—digging for evidence without a warrant, interrogating him after he invoked his right to an attorney—and once the dramatized legal wrangling is over, the criminal either goes to prison or beats the case.

The last show I followed religiously was HBO’s The Wire; since then, sitcoms have come and gone, doctor and cop dramas rise and fall, leaving behind a trail of cliches, and reality shows, admittedly, try to allure me into their worlds. Three come to mind: Intervention, Heavy and The First 48. I watch them, wondering why I’m watching them, why I care about a meth addict goaded into treatment by a family he shamed and derided for years; why I care about a four-hundred-pound woman looking to reverse the self-inflicted damage done to her body; why I care about police departments hunting down murderers before the first 48 hours. After which, the murderer’s chances of escape increases, leaving John Walsh the unenviable task of tracking the killer down. The reenactments—also called skits—on America’s Most Wanted haven’t improved in quality over the years. They seem like wastelands for C-actor bumpkins looking for a way to break into the industry. I’ve never seen a leading actor at Sundance say, “Yeah dude, AMW was my big break.” I hold out hope.

I don’t watch as much television as I did in the past. I feel guilty at times whenever I think of my upbringing: if the hours spent watching television were instead devoted to reading books, I wouldn’t feel so behind. So many classics I still need to read: Moby Dick, various Shakespeare works, the genius prose of David Foster Wallace. I’d like to blame my parents, since I fail to recall a time when they shoved a book into my hands, turned off the television, and said, “Read, boy. You’re gonna be a writer some day!” No, instead they encouraged outside time—play time, I think it’s called—in part because of my weight, in part because I was a homebody. I’m still comfortable in my own space. I prefer it, although I’d like a closer proximity to a metropolis: a place with yoga studios (though I don’t yoga) and art galleries and snarky hipster moms pushing strollers the width of Hummers. A place like Tokyo, highlighted by Sophia Coppola’s Lost In Translation. I want to live like that, in a place like that. The closest metropolis to me is Philadelphia. It has its beauty, its artsy side—Philly ain’t Tokyo, though. Let’s leave it at that.

Reading a book is actually difficult work for me. I don’t know why. I’m not dyslexic nor do I suffer from some other learning disability. It’s a malady of the imagination: I see the words, I read and process them, though sometimes—more times than I care to admit—my imagination misfires. I can’t see the characters completely. No matter how spectacular the description, the character is a silhouette with gender features, maybe a light jacket for the Spring breeze the author introduced into his world, and I never get the hairdos right, even when the author failed to say “He is bald” or “She has dreadlocks.” If she’s a black character, I automatically give her dreadlocks or a small afro; if I’m feeling adventurous, a Halle Berry haircut.

But it’s always wrong: the author gives her an afro and I think “Well, is that a Pam Grier afro or a Shaft afro? It makes all the difference!” When I write, my inclination is to associate characters with the looks of a known person. It’s lazy work according to craft, and I remove the crutch during revision, but if the reader knows the difference between Pam Grier’s afro and Shaft’s afro, then that’s the reader I love. It’s who I’m pursuing in my work. I make the association as a kind of ice-breaker, to show we’re on the same wavelength. Stories, according to craft, don’t work that way. As a reader, I have to fill in the blanks—which is fine, except the blanks remain so when my imagination goes on sabbatical. As a result, I always feel like I’ve missed something. I settle for anything, even a pedantic analysis of the story’s theme: oh, they’re in love, but they can’t be together—I can dig it.

Is this television’s fault? Or images in general? I was born in 1981: I literally grew up with cable, with Sega and Nintendo, with home movies on VHS tapes and photos my brothers clipped out of rap magazines. They pasted MC Lyte, Slick Rick and Doug E. Fresh to the wall; the emcees were adorned with chunky gold chains, with Adidas jumpsuits or Air Jordans. They posed in a frozen performer state: mouth agape, microphone in hand or hand over the turntable, with drops of sweat on their foreheads or necks. Doug E. Fresh sampled the theme from Inspector Gadget, a cartoon I watch with the confounded look I now give Intervention, Heavy, and The First 48. A goofy detective with a helicopter propeller jutting from his gray hat: I wonder if the animators smoked dope and shamed and derided their families and required of them interventions. “Johnny, please. You stole all my gold and invented a mentally disabled robocop. Please Get Help!!”

I can see Inspector Gadget in my head, but not Junot Diaz’s Oscar, who was fat and nerdy and uncomfortable and Latino: when all else fails, I give Big Pun or Fat Joe a pocket protector and Dungeons of Dragons knowledge, maybe a little acne, because I can’t see what Diaz saw. Some would suggest this is the freedom literature affords, that a well-crafted story leaves enough space for the reader’s imagination. I think I want specificity. I’m used to it. I’m trying to break the habit, to convince myself that I’m not missing anything when I read a novel. I imagine the characters and their environments as best as I can, but I’m used to the ease and immediacy of imagery.

Murakami gives me a resplendent Tokyo, Shibuya Station and all—but Sophia Coppola beams Tokyo directly into my brain. I see Bill Murray’s frumpy, dissatisfied stance; I see Scarlett Johansson’s grace (and ass via pink, sheer panties); I see Tokyo’s fantastic arcades and titty bars and golf courses. I come from a life of images, not words. Enjoying and creating temporal art isn’t impossible, but it’s hard work. Readers may not be lazy, per se—just wired differently. Maybe I should try picture books or pop-up books. Here is Sam entering his bedroom; his face is sad because Janet, his girlfriend, appears to be getting it from behind by John, Sam’s best friend and former animator. Sam grits his teeth; see Sam reach for a blunt object.  I have no idea what Sam, Janet or John looks like. They all have Shaft afros.

@thomasdemary. @author of zero books.

There Is More To Life Than Writing

I have no business posting this.

“ A life, Jimmy, you know what that is? It’s the shit that happens while you’re waiting for moments that never come.”

-Quote from The Wire

***

I am of two minds, of two lives—the space in between these worlds, taking the form of a highway truncating South Jersey, acts as the bridge. On one side, the near side, I am Thomas DeMary: middle manager for a global conglomerate, a loving husband and dog owner, a distant son to parents, an acquirer of various and sundry Apple products. On the other hand, farther away, I refer to myself as Mensah. I gave myself the moniker in 1999 because I needed a cool screen name, because I was Afrocentric, and my ex-girlfriend discarded my real name, opting for the pseudonym as my permanent identifier.

She knew, as I knew at age eighteen, I was trying on new skins, donning different colors, because she knew, as I didn’t know, I wanted to transform. The way she doted over me and touched my ego with tiny, black fingers—the way she pressed her breasts against my back as we slept—symbolized her worries for me, although I didn’t know. She did—she just never told me or, more likely, I translated her love poems as signs of romance rather than ominous scripture. She too was depressed: PTSD as a result of childhood horrors. Oh yes, she knew. To transform is to know, in an intimate way, pain akin to stabs, doubt akin to agnosticism.

They say youth is wasted on the young; they also say you are what you eat. I’m still young, though I’ve wasted years in this nebulous duality, that gray area in the middle of the highway: the phantasmic cursive wafting from a lit cigarette. I eat fat; I am fat. I used to be thin. I used to hoop: dribble off the knees, between the legs, stutter-step and drive to the right, push back—fade away. And one. You say “and one” when you think you’ve been fouled, been wronged; you say it every time you shoot in hopes that sooner or later, the other team will shrug and say “fuck it” as you stroll to the free throw line.

I used to feel so young, so idealistic. I am still young, but the world turns, the years descend from the stands and swarm me mid-court. The years smother me, as does the fat; they say it’s darkest before the dawn. I wouldn’t know. I write at night, about the night, and the sun I see is my ex-girlfriend’s touch: a good memory, but a memory nonetheless. She said “and one” every day in our final year. Which leads me to my wife, who touches me better, and so—we move forward. Wiser in life, I hope. Better equipped to translate. My wife presses her breasts against my back; my wife kisses my bald head and traces the O’s around my eyes: she wants her husband. Whole.

Wiser, I hope. Writing is what I do—am I a writer? My power is in language, in getting you to think of crusty adages, hoop dreams and bare breasts, of highways and The Wire. I am that powerful, though still young: youth is wasted like gin sloshed onto a bar or spilled from a careless mouth. I’m not much of a drinker.

I’ve been drunk once; I awoke to my ex-girlfriend riding me. There is no metaphor within this paragraph: my ex and I indulged in sport, drunken and gaussian, and I turned over to vomit onto the hardwood floor. Months earlier, in that same room, I watched The Powerpuff Girls with two women: my ex and my wife. There is no metaphor, but time connects moments, bridges them, blends them into one sound: writing gives me this flexibility. Transformation is not so easy.

I go to therapy to figure out Thomas—officially. Word on the street is: I’m more interested in Mensah. It is because I think Mensah is more interesting, less pragmatic but not completely foolish. I go to therapy to treat depression but not split personality disorder. Mensah is my secret, my scar I’d show to women. He doesn’t drink either, but he gets lost on windy roads in a black Mustang; Radiohead pours out of his car’s open windows; he lights cigarette after cigarette because death is death: peaceful or lungs full of phlegm, it’s the shit that’ll happen in between the penultimate and final moments. He has no use for God until shit hurts.

He is all the things I keep to myself, all the truths I tell myself in benign notebooks. You might think this weird, but I don’t give a fuck. We all have someone we want to become, a secondary figure sliding down & climbing up our spines. We all want to transform: into monsters, into better lovers, into plastic toys and androids, into sexual heroes and sensual empaths. We feel each other’s pain; we have the capacity to connect; we spin solipsistic tales and launch them into the skies. They say UFOs don’t exist, but the multicolors twirl and blink amid a cloudless night, anyway.

There is more to life than writing. I keep telling myself to stop writing about writing. I write about writing because for most of the day, Thomas doesn’t write. Hatred for his job drove him to therapy. Hatred toward people leaves him lonely with O’s around his eyes. Every night, he sits in front of the iMac, waiting for Mensah to step forward. Mensah will save him—writing will save him. I don’t know what I’m writing right now. I meant to write about the juxtaposition of pragmatism and idealism. Presumably, you’re reading this because you write—are you a writer?—and you understand my original theme.

We all want to write and fuck in London and sell books and toke in Amsterdam and blog about our author platforms and clink glasses at AWP and feel beautiful among the land of giants. Meanwhile, we leave behind complicated lovers and scold children and hold contempt for miscreant teenagers and balance our checkbooks and work less than stellar jobs that won’t even afford enough ennui to dream of feeling beautiful while staring at a spreadsheet. Everyday, we attempt a transformation, perhaps dragging updated versions of ourselves from our dreams. Every morning, we wake up and mutter “fuck.”

My ex-girlfriend and I haven’t spoken in ten years. I don’t miss her but I remember our last conversation. Well—really—I only remember her word of advice. “Your hands,” she said to me, “they comfort people. Never stop touching people.” A hell of a thing to say to someone who never kept his hands to himself. They say genius is rare; she always thought of me as a genius and told me so. I wished she hadn’t. It added to my writerly sense of entitlement; it further severed Thomas from Mensah, divorced us from a common ground. There’s nothing genius about writing nonsense and furthermore, if I’m a genius then why can’t I live the life I want?

Which is to say—what do I want out of life? There is more to life than writing and they say geniuses suffer from madness. Transformation is a big word for change and Octavia Butler wrote of a transformative god in a fictional world set aflame by economic disparity, slavery and sexual violence. No metaphor, no connection: I love Octavia Butler. I miss her—genuinely. Her work transformed me into a better writer, but there are no self-help books to aid in personal transformation. Life is suffering, so said The Buddha. As it should if you believe the epigraph way up there.

I thought about quitting my job. Once a day, I think about it—like, “my wife won’t be that mad if I walked out.” Then I read an article about a man. He’s depressed and suicidal and drained of hope because of his unemployment. I have a job. I can pay the bills and buy aluminum toys. I contemplate returning to school full time. I’ve been accepted to three schools: two in a new city. I think about majoring in English—then I switch to journalism—then I switch to business, law, international relations, interpretative dance. I think, “I cannot do this.” I look for ways to comfort myself. “Never stop touching people.” Masturbation doesn’t help.

My depression surfaced in the final days of our honeymoon. The London skyline winked its Eye outside our hotel room. We rotated through the famed Tubes with Brits, the French, Germans and the Portuguese. The Republicans stormed the castle while we were away; I didn’t want to go home. Let’s keep going, keep moving, forgo responsibility and make love, make moments, make literature, make babies and transform. Let’s transform, my eyes suggested to my wife. She kissed my mouth and caressed my wedding band: she too wanted to transform. I found my soulmate. There is more to life than writing.

A raven touches down in unstable lands. I’m being maudlin: I mean to say—revolution surges around the world. I never thought I’d see this. People are tired and fed up. I never thought I’d witness this unleashing of anger, of dissatisfaction. Transformation is never idyllic. I must be mentally ill to believe such a lie. Transformation burns. It tears down. It razes. It finds itself in the crosshairs of what is known—not conformist, but comfortable. A boot to the back of your neck is never comfortable, but neither is a canister of tear gas fired from your army. I will not compare Thomas to a dictator, Mensah to a mob of young stars heaving white heat. I do, however, see the connection.

I do not weep for the revolutionaries. I grit my teeth, I walk around with a tightness in my chest. They stand up to say in unison, “And one.” To fear my own transformation, when compared to revolution, is comedic at best. Shit happens but sometimes, the moments do come. More like the opportunity or, maybe, the final straw. I may be gainfully employed, but I’m already depressed and suicidal—sometimes—and revolution promises nothing but a new tomorrow, either with fertile ground or dead soil. The young is full of hope, so they say. I dribble words off my knees, between my legs, stutter-step and drive to the left—strong to the hole. I don’t know what I want out of life; Rilke was wise. “Live the questions now.” Fair enough.

@thomasdemary. @zerobooks.

Electric Parade: Patti Smith & Me

Patti Smith (pic courtesy of Wikipedia)

I’m a quarter through Patti Smith’s memoir, Just Kids. I don’t have anything to say about the book itself, other than I can’t wait to finish it. That aside, I was shocked to learn that Smith lived in my section of South (New) Jersey: towns like Glassboro, Pitman, Woodbury and Camden flitted past my eyes in their woodsy, towny and—in reference to Camden—stabby splendor. Anyway, I have to reiterate my faith in books and readers finding each other like soul mates. I’m not a fan of Patti Smith’s music—that is, I’m not familiar with it, so I plead ignorance versus poor taste. But I can relate wholeheartedly to her reasons for fleeing South Jersey for NYC.

I’ve abandoned South Jersey twice in my lifetime, adding up to a seven year stretch split between Washington, DC and southwest Georgia (aka Not Atlanta). I was 18 when I first moved away. In the moment, I didn’t assign deep, artistic reasons for leaving; just getting away from the same people, the same streets and smells, the farmland and flea markets, was enough justification. Then again, maybe I knew, though I couldn’t articulate, the reality of my home.

It is predominately a blue collar area, with a few white collars peppered here and there. It has an “older” feel—slow, drowsy and uninspired. The people here are educated: most graduate high school, some earn Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees. I don’t know everyone’s name; I don’t know their private affairs; South Jersey is rural sprawl, not a network of cloistered villages connected by a singular Main Street.

Some Guy Writing (pic courtesy of me)

I’m sure writers live here. They’re where I’d expect them to be: scribbling stanzas on the back of brown diner napkins, working out character sketches in their heads while attending to WWII and Vietnam vets, or driving trucks, or trudging within the chalky epicenter of a quarry. They might not call it literature: no, they “write rhymes” or experience a personal catharsis through “journaling”. They hide in plain sight, well-versed in begrudging acceptance: bills must be paid, children need steady hands, the world in South Jersey—trapped underneath overcast, the clouds as fortuitous signs for rain or snow, and nothing more—never aches to hear their songs, to read their stories.

For some, the Internet provides just enough interaction to stave relocation to artistic hubs, NYC for example. Patti Smith had no such convenience; desperate to become an artist, she boarded a bus and ventured toward—maudlin as it sounds—her destiny. Such a decision is far from anachronistic, for people still flock to meccas in search of respite from Smallville’s ho-hum melody, as steady and irritating as the same guitar chords strummed over and again.

The stuff memoirs are made of: I left home for “personal reasons.” I rode DC Metro trains with Go-Go teenagers and Georgetown frat boys. I joined a nation of circus freaks. We treated previous nights with fugue indifference, so long as we defeated our specters during REM sleep. Poetry infused with ghost-ash; we built art houses with their phantasmic carrion.

I could be less cryptic, less writerly, and tell it straight—tell it South Jersey style—but life away from home, swaddled by like minds equally warped by depression and trauma, evoked a habit of expression akin to a watercolor portrait waterlogged by a flood. Telling it straight ain’t quite the same as telling it like it is—or was.

State Route 55, South Jersey (pic courtesy of dougtone @ Flickr)

I’m home now, back for four years, itching to leave once again—most likely for good, holiday visits notwithstanding. Like Patti Smith, I’m cognizant of the incongruence between home and my personality, my desires. Or more to the point, I’m aware of South Jersey’s effect on me. It’s home. Not everyone knows my name, but home elicits old habits: it affords little expansion from the blue collar cocoon, no place to let one’s rainbow mane fall in relaxation (albeit I’m bald, but whatever).

South Jersey presses down on the imagination, stamps it out like a cigarette butt, though I see the teens getting restless. Their earlobes stuffed with black plastic discs, their colorful sneakers vaguely reminiscent of 80s styles I long ditched, I feel them scratching at the brick walls, sifting through broken beer bottles in the park, looking. Some of them will stay, whether by choice or otherwise, while some will jump ship and hop buses out of town.

About a year ago, I assumed I needed metropolis energy, as if I craved for DC days gone by. No. It is that begrudging acceptance again: I can’t change my home, the realization reached by a punk legend, and if I stay, home will change me—leave me hollowed and wishful, my tattoos and waterlogged memories rendered as mere commemorations of the past, and nothing more.

@thomasdemary. @author of zero books.

Electric Parade: Patti Smith & Me

Patti Smith (pic courtesy of Wikipedia)

I’m a quarter through Patti Smith’s memoir, Just Kids. I don’t have anything to say about the book itself, other than I can’t wait to finish it. That aside, I was shocked to learn that Smith lived in my section of South (New) Jersey: towns like Glassboro, Pitman, Woodbury and Camden flitted past my eyes in their woodsy, towny and—in reference to Camden—stabby splendor. Anyway, I have to reiterate my faith in books and readers finding each other like soul mates. I’m not a fan of Patti Smith’s music—that is, I’m not familiar with it, so I plead ignorance versus poor taste. But I can relate wholeheartedly to her reasons for fleeing South Jersey for NYC.

I’ve abandoned South Jersey twice in my lifetime, adding up to a seven year stretch split between Washington, DC and southwest Georgia (aka Not Atlanta). I was 18 when I first moved away. In the moment, I didn’t assign deep, artistic reasons for leaving; just getting away from the same people, the same streets and smells, the farmland and flea markets, was enough justification. Then again, maybe I knew, though I couldn’t articulate, the reality of my home.

It is predominately a blue collar area, with a few white collars peppered here and there. It has an “older” feel—slow, drowsy and uninspired. The people here are educated: most graduate high school, some earn Associate’s and Bachelor’s degrees. I don’t know everyone’s name; I don’t know their private affairs; South Jersey is rural sprawl, not a network of cloistered villages connected by a singular Main Street.

Some Guy Writing (pic courtesy of me)

I’m sure writers live here. They’re where I’d expect them to be: scribbling stanzas on the back of brown diner napkins, working out character sketches in their heads while attending to WWII and Vietnam vets, or driving trucks, or trudging within the chalky epicenter of a quarry. They might not call it literature: no, they “write rhymes” or experience a personal catharsis through “journaling”. They hide in plain sight, well-versed in begrudging acceptance: bills must be paid, children need steady hands, the world in South Jersey—trapped underneath overcast, the clouds as fortuitous signs for rain or snow, and nothing more—never aches to hear their songs, to read their stories.

For some, the Internet provides just enough interaction to stave relocation to artistic hubs, NYC for example. Patti Smith had no such convenience; desperate to become an artist, she boarded a bus and ventured toward—maudlin as it sounds—her destiny. Such a decision is far from anachronistic, for people still flock to meccas in search of respite from Smallville’s ho-hum melody, as steady and irritating as the same guitar chords strummed over and again.

The stuff memoirs are made of: I left home for “personal reasons.” I rode DC Metro trains with Go-Go teenagers and Georgetown frat boys. I joined a nation of circus freaks. We treated previous nights with fugue indifference, so long as we defeated our specters during REM sleep. Poetry infused with ghost-ash; we built art houses with their phantasmic carrion.

I could be less cryptic, less writerly, and tell it straight—tell it South Jersey style—but life away from home, swaddled by like minds equally warped by depression and trauma, evoked a habit of expression akin to a watercolor portrait waterlogged by a flood. Telling it straight ain’t quite the same as telling it like it is—or was.

State Route 55, South Jersey (pic courtesy of dougtone @ Flickr)

I’m home now, back for four years, itching to leave once again—most likely for good, holiday visits notwithstanding. Like Patti Smith, I’m cognizant of the incongruence between home and my personality, my desires. Or more to the point, I’m aware of South Jersey’s effect on me. It’s home. Not everyone knows my name, but home elicits old habits: it affords little expansion from the blue collar cocoon, no place to let one’s rainbow mane fall in relaxation (albeit I’m bald, but whatever).

South Jersey presses down on the imagination, stamps it out like a cigarette butt, though I see the teens getting restless. Their earlobes stuffed with black plastic discs, their colorful sneakers vaguely reminiscent of 80s styles I long ditched, I feel them scratching at the brick walls, sifting through broken beer bottles in the park, looking. Some of them will stay, whether by choice or otherwise, while some will jump ship and hop buses out of town.

About a year ago, I assumed I needed metropolis energy, as if I craved for DC days gone by. No. It is that begrudging acceptance again: I can’t change my home, the realization reached by a punk legend, and if I stay, home will change me—leave me hollowed and wishful, my tattoos and waterlogged memories rendered as mere commemorations of the past, and nothing more.

@thomasdemary. @author of zero books.

When Not To Write A Memoir (Or Letting The Pain Go)

*

What to make of Health.com’s recent assertion that writers and artists are fourth most likely to be depressed? Beyond the typical ephemera found on Twitter (their depressed cuz they suck! LOL FTW! getarealjob), there isn’t new ground to tread here. One could burrow into the oft-discussed link between creativity and madness—as if one is a conduit to the other—and trot out literary greats who suffered under, and were done in by, the weight of their geniuses. I’m no literary genius, but I am creative and I did receive treatment for depression years ago. No connection. My work didn’t improve under the spell of depression (on the contrary, the quality bottomed as the quantity increased).

**

I should say that being creative, and wanting to find the precise way to express something important to you (or me), can exacerbate a preexisting bout of depression. Likewise, being unproductive can have the same effect; the depressive writer is left with little choice but to proceed, to truck through the bog, and hope for something a little less damning on the other side of the gloam—an acceptance letter, perhaps, or a good night’s sleep.

***

I like to think I’ve given up on my quest to explain, with the few literary powers in my hands and brain, the crippling effects of depression; there are a few understanding souls, with the rest of the masses convinced depression is a there-there outcry from the patient, a bluesy day draped in gray sweatpants, a moist face plopped in front of a black and white movie, a disaffected scowl hooded and wedged between headphones, Fiona Apple or Nina Simone piped into ears. Yet, here I am again: champion of the depressed, an unreliable narrator committed to the ideal that depression, like all aspects of humanity, of frail bodies, of hormone floods in between gray matter gaps, can be translated. I’m failing again. I think.

****

When I entered therapy in 2006, I promised myself that I’d refrain from becoming a zealot or evangelist for depression, in the vein of those who lose three pounds and tell you the ills of your double bacon cheeseburger. Who wants to hear that shit—my shit? And sometimes, the writer must shelf his writerly tactics, his thrill for poetic license, and describe the thing in plain language. Literary trickery is a red flag to the trained reader; her eye slices through metaphor and double entendre, asking the question at some point in the essay or memoir (or, if truly crafty, the short story)—what exactly is he trying to say? What’s at stake here?

Such questions arise when the writer appears noncommittal, or ambivalent, toward the subject matter. The reader knows a faker when she sees one. In that case, I should understand why all my writings concerning my depression comes off flat; I fail to make the reader care, leaving me to wonder if I too am unswayed by my own would-be tearjerkers and blues.

If I’m right, then I also understand—finally—the power of my favorite memoirs. The subject matter must be more than personal, life-altering and, in some cases, tragic; the material must matter in some intrinsic way to the writer. So while depression is an ongoing battle for me, I’m divorced from the subject as a source of literary soil. It hurts, yes, and pain in of itself may move the feverish pen within the confines of a diary, but not enough for me to craft a half-decent piece of literature.

There’s liberation in this realization: not every bruise requires a poem, not every disease begs for a memoir. Everybody hurts, so goes the song, in varying degrees and for different reasons; I can attest to the cathartic effect of probing one’s pain, whether through prayer or conversation with friends or private writings. But writing literature is another matter. Focusing on the pain, or viewing the world through its murky prism, causes myopia.

The beautiful, the fantastic, the miraculous—shit, the mundane—is missed. I thought I was writing the same story for three years, no matter the changes in main characters, settings or points in time; I kept dumping in the same sad material, whether in my fiction or my memoirs, and I was numb inside when I re-read the work. I aimed for more than a numb feeling when I wrote the pieces, no doubt. If the work failed to move me—what did I expect it to do to you? Time to move on, I suppose, and return to the world.

@thomasdemary. @thomas demary.

Choice of Words: A Note on Gabrielle Giffords & The Tragedy in Arizona

I was in the middle of writing a column for PANK—or rather, the beginning. The idea came to me last night; I planned to use the cloistered downtime of a Saturday snowstorm to get the writing done. I went as far as the title—A Novel Gestates—and my Twitter timeline exploded with accounts of a shooting in Tucson, AZ. House Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) stood in front of a local grocery store, preparing to hold an event for her constituents. From there, the details were—and remain—sketchy: shots fired, people killed, a gunman taken into custody, the Congresswoman was rushed to Tucson’s University Medical Center, where she—at the time of this writing—continues to fight for her life.

As news outlets scrambled to find and report accurate information, Twitter—my portion of it, at least—was set aflame, not only by the seemingly instant outpouring of prayers and condolences for Rep. Giffords and the other victims involved, but by the shrunken links to a page on Sarah Palin’s PAC website; links that directed me to a graphic of the United States dotted with bulls eyes, twenty in all, “targeting” Congressional seats needing reclamation from the Democratic Party.

Courtesy of The Huffington Post

Courtesy of The Huffington Post

What followed for the next two hours was a barrage of blame aimed at Sarah Palin for inciting the shooting, for appearing careless in her choice of words. That phrase—choice of words—is one all writers, creative or otherwise, grapple with each and every day. The wrong word destroys a piece of writing, it erodes the alchemy that writing creates in the reader’s brain, sending the entire piece toppling over in a pile of scattered syllables and random punctuation marks. And that is, sadly though realistically, the best or, I should say, least troublesome outcome. In short, writers are lucky if the wrong word is a question of style, and nothing more, which leads to a relatively easy corrective measure: consulting the thesaurus, rewriting the sentence, or removing the word altogether.

The most extreme consequence of choosing the wrong word is a matter of the irrevocable: a friendship disappears, a defamation lawsuit is issued or—God forbid—something far more permanent and visceral is rendered as a suitable reaction. No more erroneous adage than this: sticks and stones break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Words have led to divorces and broken families, suicides, homicides, genocide, cross-country and cross-planet warfare; words (and far less) led to lynchings, to rape, to disenfranchisement, to lack of ownership of one’s own body and mind; “separate but equal” left an indelible pockmark on America; “don’t ask, don’t tell” turned soldiers into sexless automatons, committed to the protection of this nation, yet fearful of a simple expression: to love whom you choose.

For now, I’m turning the tragedy in Tucson—and its immediate, byte-sized aftermath—into a moment of reflection when it comes to my craft, the literary art I love and cherish in incalculable ways. I never thought about the power of my words, often relegating to self-deprecating humor as to how powerless they appear to me. As much as I want to invoke emotion into my readers, or instill them with information they may find relevant, I”â„¢m remembering the necessity of prudence.

In the weeks, months and years ahead, more truths will surface from today’s tragic events: the who, what, how and of course, why. It is far too soon to turn Gabrielle Giffords into a sounding post for America’s political landscape and its recent fascination with incendiary, and oft-times grotesque, rhetoric. Yet, I look at that graphic above, at its words, at the targets, and I think about Giffords’ husband, her family, the families of those either clinging onto life or of those who’ve already faded away. And I think of that phrase—choice of words—and begin to see it beyond the literal, the literary.