...it's amazing, so whatever.
Wilco - Country Disappeared - A Take Away Show from La Blogotheque on Vimeo.
Mar 29, 2010
Mar 28, 2010
some more mixtapes coming EXTREMELY SOON
by which i mean the next few weeks.
the only thing that ever made people read this blog in the first place (the mixtapes) will resume shortly. i didn't actually get anything written today, as i spent most of the day figuring out how to wrap up my 110 course (i really want to get back in the swing of writing, but i figure that not getting fired for just not teaching my class is more important). but. i have been listening to a lot of new good (the new mike doughty) and bad (phoenix) music. and a lot of that has ended up in a huge fucking folder called "mix" out of which i hope to develop a few new mixes. so keep your eyes peeled (and if you are an insect or something that doesn't have eyelids, just take my suggestion figuratively, and keep looking at this blog).
the only thing that ever made people read this blog in the first place (the mixtapes) will resume shortly. i didn't actually get anything written today, as i spent most of the day figuring out how to wrap up my 110 course (i really want to get back in the swing of writing, but i figure that not getting fired for just not teaching my class is more important). but. i have been listening to a lot of new good (the new mike doughty) and bad (phoenix) music. and a lot of that has ended up in a huge fucking folder called "mix" out of which i hope to develop a few new mixes. so keep your eyes peeled (and if you are an insect or something that doesn't have eyelids, just take my suggestion figuratively, and keep looking at this blog).
Mar 26, 2010
poems from the glovebox
so, in the interest of trying to tickle out some new lyrics for a new set of songs, and also in the interest of just provoking me into writing regularly again (and reading), i've decided to force inspiration for some poems by digging through my old glovebox.
okay, that sounds weird.
what i mean is, when i first got my car in '06, i almost immediately took it on a 3500 mile road trip from ohio to the southwest and back, and throughout the course of that trip, for financial reasons, i kept every gas receipt together in my glove box. that's a lot of gas receipts. then, after the trip, for other financial reasons (i.e. not having any money at all) i didn't drive for about nine months. then, the next summer, i went cross-country again and was amused to find all these old gas receipts in my glovebox. anyway, cut to now and massive freaking amounts of gas receipts in my car, many from places i didn't even know i've ever been in (apparently i have been).
i thought it might be a good and interesting start to dig through these old receipts and spit some rhymes about them (so to speak). so i'll be starting tonight or tomorrow. wish me luck. ones that are especially good might end up cross-posted on the lazy blazers page, if i think they might work as songs. which reminds me...if you haven't become a fan of lazy blazers yet, DO IT.
okay, that sounds weird.
what i mean is, when i first got my car in '06, i almost immediately took it on a 3500 mile road trip from ohio to the southwest and back, and throughout the course of that trip, for financial reasons, i kept every gas receipt together in my glove box. that's a lot of gas receipts. then, after the trip, for other financial reasons (i.e. not having any money at all) i didn't drive for about nine months. then, the next summer, i went cross-country again and was amused to find all these old gas receipts in my glovebox. anyway, cut to now and massive freaking amounts of gas receipts in my car, many from places i didn't even know i've ever been in (apparently i have been).
i thought it might be a good and interesting start to dig through these old receipts and spit some rhymes about them (so to speak). so i'll be starting tonight or tomorrow. wish me luck. ones that are especially good might end up cross-posted on the lazy blazers page, if i think they might work as songs. which reminds me...if you haven't become a fan of lazy blazers yet, DO IT.
the light at the end of the tunnel is just a train...OF WRITING.
i'm blogging again. which means, no doubt, that some rough thing, somewhere is slouching towards somewhere else.
my exile from blogland has not been an enforced one, per se, but more just the effect of me getting hooked on twitter and then, through twitter, on facebook. then i discovered the shareaholic plugin for chrome and everything went to hell. see, many of my almost-2,000 (!!!) posts on here in the past have been simply my way of sharing cool videos or songs, or pictures or whatever with my readers (or potential readers), and now that i can share those things on facebook much more easily, and with people who are way more likely to actually see those things and read them (i.e. 150 of my friends), it just makes sense to hang out over there. as much as i have this weird feeling in doing so that i'm doing the internet equivalent of shopping at wal-mart instead of the local haberdashery, it's just much easier and more sensible. also, nowadays i find myself a lot more content and a lot more busy with my work (maybe those two are connected?) than i once was, and so there's much less time and reason for gigantic personal rants.
just for old time's sake, though, here...have a video of a dog eating a police car:
so why am i back? the answer's quite simple, really. i've forgotten how to write. seriously. somehow. even though i read and write for my job, i seem to have forgotten how to do either. and oh, what a horrible time to forget. see, i'm finishing up my last class (probably ever, after 25 years of going to school) and that means two and a half years of dissertation coming my way, starting now. unfortunately, i have no idea where to start. i'm working on revising a paper for publication right now (two, actually), and today after pouring over pages of notes, i realized that i'll essentially have to rewrite most of the paper. that realization completely floored and demoralized me. as if part of writing a paper isn't having to redraw and recast all of your ideas. i seem to remember trashing 25-page chunks of my book at one time and then rewriting them wholesale back in the day, and being able to do so with the understanding that that was just part of being a good writer...you know, the whole "kill your babies" thing. and i believe that's true, just as much for scholarly writing as it is for art-writing. or whatever. so, my current baby is a paper i wrote on heidegger's theory of dwelling and the implications of ubiquitous technology and location-aware technology for that theory. i spend about fifteen pages of this paper (and hours upon hours of crazy scribbling and reading and whatnot) unpacking heidegger and then applying my own twists to what he has to say. however, after a serious workshopping session, i've realized that this paper that i spent probably close to 50 hours on is not actually about heidegger at all. or, at least, it shouldn't be. it's about something much bigger and more important. but something that i have to delete my old work and start over to get at. no big deal, but somehow i've convinced myself that the need to revise is a failure, instead of a natural part of the process.
so here i am, trying to remember how to write. i have a feeling i'll be on here a lot more, at least for a little while. i need to find a way to keep writing and reading, even in my spare time, rediscovering the things that make me enjoy reading and writing and then find a way to work those things into my scholarly writing. or else i'll never survive the dissertation process. i'm starting to realize that.
part of my enjoyment of reading and writing has always been wrapped up in my desire to be able to think of myself as a "writer" type: the sort of person who reads for fun, under a tree, and then sits seriously at a typewriter, pen behind ear, hammering out thoughts serious and funny for the edification of those unable to express such thoughts themselves. but that's not a real motivation. that's a put-on, a costume, something to pose as so people will think i'm cool, or so i know what type of people are "my" people and which aren't. none of that helps actually getting good work done, though. which is why i have to find what parts of the work i really do like, rather than the parts i think i'm supposed to like. i'm a little afraid that i'll earnestly like less than i need to. but maybe not.
regardless, i've got a shitload to read, a shitload to revise, and i'm also feeling a distinct lack of life-quality due to not spending enough time playing music and taking photos. that's a lot to undertake at once, but hell, it's spring. so why not try it all at once?
my exile from blogland has not been an enforced one, per se, but more just the effect of me getting hooked on twitter and then, through twitter, on facebook. then i discovered the shareaholic plugin for chrome and everything went to hell. see, many of my almost-2,000 (!!!) posts on here in the past have been simply my way of sharing cool videos or songs, or pictures or whatever with my readers (or potential readers), and now that i can share those things on facebook much more easily, and with people who are way more likely to actually see those things and read them (i.e. 150 of my friends), it just makes sense to hang out over there. as much as i have this weird feeling in doing so that i'm doing the internet equivalent of shopping at wal-mart instead of the local haberdashery, it's just much easier and more sensible. also, nowadays i find myself a lot more content and a lot more busy with my work (maybe those two are connected?) than i once was, and so there's much less time and reason for gigantic personal rants.
just for old time's sake, though, here...have a video of a dog eating a police car:
so why am i back? the answer's quite simple, really. i've forgotten how to write. seriously. somehow. even though i read and write for my job, i seem to have forgotten how to do either. and oh, what a horrible time to forget. see, i'm finishing up my last class (probably ever, after 25 years of going to school) and that means two and a half years of dissertation coming my way, starting now. unfortunately, i have no idea where to start. i'm working on revising a paper for publication right now (two, actually), and today after pouring over pages of notes, i realized that i'll essentially have to rewrite most of the paper. that realization completely floored and demoralized me. as if part of writing a paper isn't having to redraw and recast all of your ideas. i seem to remember trashing 25-page chunks of my book at one time and then rewriting them wholesale back in the day, and being able to do so with the understanding that that was just part of being a good writer...you know, the whole "kill your babies" thing. and i believe that's true, just as much for scholarly writing as it is for art-writing. or whatever. so, my current baby is a paper i wrote on heidegger's theory of dwelling and the implications of ubiquitous technology and location-aware technology for that theory. i spend about fifteen pages of this paper (and hours upon hours of crazy scribbling and reading and whatnot) unpacking heidegger and then applying my own twists to what he has to say. however, after a serious workshopping session, i've realized that this paper that i spent probably close to 50 hours on is not actually about heidegger at all. or, at least, it shouldn't be. it's about something much bigger and more important. but something that i have to delete my old work and start over to get at. no big deal, but somehow i've convinced myself that the need to revise is a failure, instead of a natural part of the process.
so here i am, trying to remember how to write. i have a feeling i'll be on here a lot more, at least for a little while. i need to find a way to keep writing and reading, even in my spare time, rediscovering the things that make me enjoy reading and writing and then find a way to work those things into my scholarly writing. or else i'll never survive the dissertation process. i'm starting to realize that.
part of my enjoyment of reading and writing has always been wrapped up in my desire to be able to think of myself as a "writer" type: the sort of person who reads for fun, under a tree, and then sits seriously at a typewriter, pen behind ear, hammering out thoughts serious and funny for the edification of those unable to express such thoughts themselves. but that's not a real motivation. that's a put-on, a costume, something to pose as so people will think i'm cool, or so i know what type of people are "my" people and which aren't. none of that helps actually getting good work done, though. which is why i have to find what parts of the work i really do like, rather than the parts i think i'm supposed to like. i'm a little afraid that i'll earnestly like less than i need to. but maybe not.
regardless, i've got a shitload to read, a shitload to revise, and i'm also feeling a distinct lack of life-quality due to not spending enough time playing music and taking photos. that's a lot to undertake at once, but hell, it's spring. so why not try it all at once?
Mar 11, 2010
some thoughts on depression
so, i was combing through my feed reader this morning, eating myself some breakfast of a soft taco and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (today was a late rising day), and i came across this ProfHacker post. it was really interesting, and i spent the next hour or so chasing links. the primary piece of interest here is this recent article, which suggests that in some respects that depression may be an evolution-like response to various social and personal dilemmas. in short, depression is a sort-of side effect of your brain winding its problem-solving skills into overdrive in order to solve a particularly prickly problem.
really, though, if you're interested at all, you should read the original Times article through, because it's not only interesting, it's exceedingly well-written. better than this blog.
anyway, i really really like ProfHacker; it's a really useful resource for teaching literature and comp, and i love reading their articles pretty much every day. i also haven't written this post to specifically pick on them, but more to pick on the point of view that their particular take on the Times issue seems to be emblematic of.
no, depression is not "romantic" (although "romantic", as per ProfHacker and Kramer is importantly different than "Romantic", as per the original Times article, but i digress); however, the idea that it is potentially constructive for some is an intriguing one, and one that it seems might allow the condition to be a little de-stigmatized. i guess i don't see what's so threatening about seeing depression as partially constructive behavior...maybe there's something comforting about being able to treat it like a mystery ghost that comes and goes, something we don't actively have to try to deal with because, as long as it stays mysterious, we can justify being at its mercy. oddly, one of the objections raised to Thomson and Andrews' argument (from the Times article) is that "romanticizing" depression is a destructive practice reminiscent of the "glamorization" of tuberculosis 200 years ago. i don't get this either. i'd say if there's any romanticization of depression going on, it's embodied in the idea that depression is an undefeatable, inexplicable condition that preys on us at will, and that we can only solve it by throwing medicine at the problem. the statistics provided in the Times article regarding the danger of relapse when taking patients off of depression are pretty compelling.
and, yet, of course, not all-inclusive. i think the most important part of the article is actually when Andrews acknowledges that part of the problem is that "depression" is actually an umbrella term for a number of different symptoms, and, likely, a number of different causes and solutions (something that the ProfHacker response seems to have missed). interestingly, Andrews, i think, would agree with Kramer's assertion that his analytic-rumination hypothesis is limited to a certain audience. precisely because of the assumptions it makes - that depression is a response to solvable problems - it would be useless to those suffering from depression because of a stroke or because of what Kramer calls "late-life" depression. those are problems that no amount of cognition or rumination, i imagine, can surmount. in fact, the Times article - and Andrews, and myself - are all ready and willing to admit that this one solution is not the solution to depression. but if can help some - as Andrews shows that it clearly has - why all the vitriol? why is it so important to not logically confront depression?
some of you know my own experience with depression, because i've written about it on here before, and i won't rehash it in detail. suffice to say that i have, at times, in the past, suffered from a lot of the symptoms of depression (as outlined in the WebMD link provided by ProfHacker). so i suppose i would understand the difference between "ordinary" sadness and depression, if that's worth anything. and i know i would have benefited greatly from having heard what Thomson and Andrews had to say in the past. depression, for me, has always been about wrestling with issues, whether it be a problem i couldn't - or didn't want to - solve, or adjusting to a major change that i had no direct control over in my life. the idea that the depression wasn't a hindrance to, but instead a necessary component of the adjustment process absolutely, certainly would have helped me adjust and get better a lot more quickly. i never got professional help for my own issues - though i thought about a fair amount - because i knew, on some level, that i was dealing with something i would ultimately have to work out on my own. like Andrews' heart-wrenching example, i knew my problems wouldn't be solved by medicine. instead, i just wouldn't care that those problems existed anymore. and encouraging people who can deal with those problems to just take medicine seems reductionist at best, and a lot of other horrible things at worst. i'd never presume to speak for someone else or their issues, and people are all allowed (obviously) to do what they want with their own lives; yet, when you're in the grips of depression, you're not exactly "yourself", per se, and someone else making suggestions about what might make you feel better is naturally going to have more sway over your decision than they might normally. so it has always made me very nervous that so many doctors are so medication-happy.
but that's my personal bias, which is, of course, based on personal experience. but again, if Thomson and Andrews' hypothesis is legitimately helping people, why such hostility towards it? is there something attractive about the idea that our sadness is beyond our control? about the idea that all of our problems should be able to be solved by pills? i don't know. all i do know is that something about the analytic-rumination approach really resonates with me, and i don't think it should be slighted or thrown out because it doesn't play into the idea that depression has to be an illogical, impregnable illness. don't we want solutions to be easier? i think the article makes it pretty clear that even Andrews and Thomson are pretty clear on the fact that his approach won't (and shouldn't) work on everyone, and that people who still need medicine or alternate approaches should get what they need. i don't see this new idea as romantic at all, and in fact the article's author goes to great pains throughout to characterize depression as the horrible malady that it is. so why all the grumbling?
i'm going to stop before i start grumbling, too...
grumble grumble grumble.
really, though, if you're interested at all, you should read the original Times article through, because it's not only interesting, it's exceedingly well-written. better than this blog.
anyway, i really really like ProfHacker; it's a really useful resource for teaching literature and comp, and i love reading their articles pretty much every day. i also haven't written this post to specifically pick on them, but more to pick on the point of view that their particular take on the Times issue seems to be emblematic of.
no, depression is not "romantic" (although "romantic", as per ProfHacker and Kramer is importantly different than "Romantic", as per the original Times article, but i digress); however, the idea that it is potentially constructive for some is an intriguing one, and one that it seems might allow the condition to be a little de-stigmatized. i guess i don't see what's so threatening about seeing depression as partially constructive behavior...maybe there's something comforting about being able to treat it like a mystery ghost that comes and goes, something we don't actively have to try to deal with because, as long as it stays mysterious, we can justify being at its mercy. oddly, one of the objections raised to Thomson and Andrews' argument (from the Times article) is that "romanticizing" depression is a destructive practice reminiscent of the "glamorization" of tuberculosis 200 years ago. i don't get this either. i'd say if there's any romanticization of depression going on, it's embodied in the idea that depression is an undefeatable, inexplicable condition that preys on us at will, and that we can only solve it by throwing medicine at the problem. the statistics provided in the Times article regarding the danger of relapse when taking patients off of depression are pretty compelling.
and, yet, of course, not all-inclusive. i think the most important part of the article is actually when Andrews acknowledges that part of the problem is that "depression" is actually an umbrella term for a number of different symptoms, and, likely, a number of different causes and solutions (something that the ProfHacker response seems to have missed). interestingly, Andrews, i think, would agree with Kramer's assertion that his analytic-rumination hypothesis is limited to a certain audience. precisely because of the assumptions it makes - that depression is a response to solvable problems - it would be useless to those suffering from depression because of a stroke or because of what Kramer calls "late-life" depression. those are problems that no amount of cognition or rumination, i imagine, can surmount. in fact, the Times article - and Andrews, and myself - are all ready and willing to admit that this one solution is not the solution to depression. but if can help some - as Andrews shows that it clearly has - why all the vitriol? why is it so important to not logically confront depression?
some of you know my own experience with depression, because i've written about it on here before, and i won't rehash it in detail. suffice to say that i have, at times, in the past, suffered from a lot of the symptoms of depression (as outlined in the WebMD link provided by ProfHacker). so i suppose i would understand the difference between "ordinary" sadness and depression, if that's worth anything. and i know i would have benefited greatly from having heard what Thomson and Andrews had to say in the past. depression, for me, has always been about wrestling with issues, whether it be a problem i couldn't - or didn't want to - solve, or adjusting to a major change that i had no direct control over in my life. the idea that the depression wasn't a hindrance to, but instead a necessary component of the adjustment process absolutely, certainly would have helped me adjust and get better a lot more quickly. i never got professional help for my own issues - though i thought about a fair amount - because i knew, on some level, that i was dealing with something i would ultimately have to work out on my own. like Andrews' heart-wrenching example, i knew my problems wouldn't be solved by medicine. instead, i just wouldn't care that those problems existed anymore. and encouraging people who can deal with those problems to just take medicine seems reductionist at best, and a lot of other horrible things at worst. i'd never presume to speak for someone else or their issues, and people are all allowed (obviously) to do what they want with their own lives; yet, when you're in the grips of depression, you're not exactly "yourself", per se, and someone else making suggestions about what might make you feel better is naturally going to have more sway over your decision than they might normally. so it has always made me very nervous that so many doctors are so medication-happy.
but that's my personal bias, which is, of course, based on personal experience. but again, if Thomson and Andrews' hypothesis is legitimately helping people, why such hostility towards it? is there something attractive about the idea that our sadness is beyond our control? about the idea that all of our problems should be able to be solved by pills? i don't know. all i do know is that something about the analytic-rumination approach really resonates with me, and i don't think it should be slighted or thrown out because it doesn't play into the idea that depression has to be an illogical, impregnable illness. don't we want solutions to be easier? i think the article makes it pretty clear that even Andrews and Thomson are pretty clear on the fact that his approach won't (and shouldn't) work on everyone, and that people who still need medicine or alternate approaches should get what they need. i don't see this new idea as romantic at all, and in fact the article's author goes to great pains throughout to characterize depression as the horrible malady that it is. so why all the grumbling?
i'm going to stop before i start grumbling, too...
grumble grumble grumble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)