Saturday, March 31, 2007

I love nonsense

My favorite type of art is surreal. Surrealist art, in my opinion, includes beat writers like William S. Burroughs, filmmakers like David Lynch, and painters like Salvador Dali. Many people dislike stories that don’t make sense. Some are actually offended, like you’re wasting their time or like trying to bewilder them. The latter is true for my writing, although I hardly think that reading surreal fiction is a waste of time.

Let me clarify why I try to confuse people. Seven years ago, I asked a high-school teacher of mine how I could clear my mind. He told me to try Zen Buddhism, and gave me the name of a temple. Zen means “meditation” in Japanese. That’s what Zen Buddhists do the most — they meditate. They count their breaths while staring at walls in an effort to clear their minds of un-needed thoughts (non-thinking) so they can let their true nature shine through and so they can see the truth. People are good at heart, so nothing bad results. We were also given lectures by our sensei, and in my spare time I read some koans (Zen poems). The lectures by the sensei usually made sense, but he would also rail against thought and reason, saying that they had no place in the temple, which is absolutely true. He wanted us to “just sit.” The koans I read were sometimes dense like a story from Jorge Luis Borges, with lots of symbolism and false clues, but more often just didn't make sense (e.g., cows on top of poles; the sound of a single hand clapping). As you progress in meditation, you sit for longer periods. The sessions remain the same length, but you do more of them each day, eventually sleeping at the temple to accommodate the meditation schedule. In this way, you begin to feel a sense of progress, but that’s when the monks at the temple step in. They throw you false clues in the form of nonsensical statements (e.g., “you must kill Buddha”) and act like they think you're doing a bad job. You begin to feel as if you’re no closer to obtaining “enlightenment” than before. You begin to break down, losing hope, and if you’re lucky, you do. If you’re lucky, you will abandon reason and the thoughts that are causing you to feel hopeless. You will give up trying to reason.

I never obtained enlightenment, because (1) I was 19-years old, (2) I have low self-confidence, and (3) I have ADHD [I didn’t know this at the time]. So, I gave up. But, I came away from Zen with an immense respect for things that do not make sense.

One thing Zen taught me is that humans don't really know anything. No matter how long you go to school – you can earn 5 Ph.D.s – you will still know almost nothing. Today, I see these professors in my classes – some in their 60s who have been studying things all their lives — roaming into subjects they don’t understand. For example, my professor in Spanish literature began to lecture us the other day about European history while he was talking about a poem, and for the first time, I noticed several serious mistakes in what he was saying. He said that in the 1600s, the Protestant countries of Northern Europe were more advanced than the Catholic countries, which is untrue. The most-sophisticated countries of the time were Spain, Italy, and France, which were all Catholic. He has also been lecturing me personally about how I need to format my papers. He thinks that I shouldn’t bold my headings (!) and that I need to indent paragraphs below headings (!) although the headings set them off just fine. Likewise, another professor told us about the “5 Ps of marketing” (the business Spanish professor thinks there’s 5, although all the marketing textbooks say there’s 4). Indeed, what good does a Ph.D. in psychology do if you want to talk about physics, and what good does a Ph.D. in Spanish do you if you want to talk about marketing? Once you realize how little you know, the better off you will be. Humans love to fool themselves into thinking that the world makes sense to them. The world absolutely makes sense, but not to a human, who is far too weak to understand something so complex and so large.

My fictional writing

Today I write what you might call poetry. It’s not that type of poetry, i.e., rhymed stanzas (lines) of a fixed length. It can be called poetry because it is phrased mostly for an emotional effect, rather than for a certain meaning. Anything that is arranged for a certain sound, impression, or even a certain appearance (e.g., words in a circle) is poetry. Most people arrange poems for a sound, making them beautiful but hard to understand. I phrase my writing in blank verse, meaning there is no special sound. I also put it into plain-old paragraphs. I phrase it purely to cause the reader to ask — as strongly as possible — what the fuck is going on?

I don't think that creating surrealist art is easy. That’s why I think Jackson Pollock is such a horrible artist. Is splattered paint really unusual? Of course not. Walk over to a neighborhood with a lot of construction, and you will probably see some splattered paint on the ground. His artwork doesn’t make any sense, but as I wrote above, most things in life do not make sense to humans. To see something nonsensical is not surprising to most people. Better surrealists take their art a step further and make it bizarre. Better surrealists still take it into the realm of terror and then humor. When your art is so damn strange that audiences break into uncontrollable laughter, then you know that you have created something very surreal. (Laughter is our instinctual response to paradoxes in life.) I am not entirely certain which is stranger: things that are humorous or things that are terrifying, but if you’ve reached either threshold, you’re doing your job. Here is the general progression of nonsense:

    clarity → murkiness → nonsense → absurdity → horror → comedy

So, writing great surrealist material is not as easy as writing random things. I’m not sure what the magic ingredient is, though. My technique is like walking a tightrope. I am always trying to make things as weird and stupid as possible, but at the same time, trying to keep the reader from giving up on reading the essay or story, or getting bored from something that is so random as to not be stimulating. One method I use is changing the way in which the piece does not make sense. This may mean talking about an event which could never happen in one sentence, like never listening to music in your life (“I’ve never listened to music before in my life.”) In another sentence, you might include words that appear to make sense at first, but are really just a bunch of tongue-twisters (e.g., “Is me what it is that tell be want to do.” which seems almost like “Is me what it is that you tell me what to do,” which still doesn’t make sense even when it is translated). An essay I wrote the other day colored each word in a paragraph differently. Another included some photographs of people in strange poses. The general idea is to always keep the reader on his or her toes.

The best place to present your writing is in a café. You can’t use color or arrange your words in shapes, but you can use your voice and your body. I like to place emphasis on words which should not be emphasized (e.g., “Because this music is of just like talking to me.”). The audience will already be confused by the fact that you are referring to nonexistent music and that it is just like "talking," but if you act like you are surprised by the fact that it is talking to you, you will make their bewilderment complete. You can also gauge reader responses easily in such an environment. If you’re posting your writing to some site, it’s much harder to tell.

Here is a short story/poem/essay I wrote a few months ago. I also posted it on Uncyclopedia. Feel free to tell me what you think or give me suggestions on how to make it better.

A Breath of Heaven

Dad, can eyes see themselves? I plan to cure all illnesses of mankind, 'cuz I'm so fucking ideational.. Like the O as in Don’t eat that fruit! You can belly-laugh it up.

I was with another guy having lunch at an outdoor restaurant. My companion was looking at me eat, saying “Oh yeah…” I looked innocently at him--not confused. The other guy kept talking, “that feels good, doesn’t it? Whoo, whoo, whoo, whoooo…” looking very emotional, near tears. I looked at his face and saw a tear streaming down one side. That night, he got really, really, drunk. He then went driving on a county road. He could only see a blurry tunnel. He saw an oncoming car’s headlights as a light and he heard a voice saying, “go towards the light.” So, he turned towards the car, and said, “I CAN SEE THE LIGHT!" and began screaming, "AAAHHH!” He hit the accelerator, saying again, “I-CAN-SEE-THE LIGHT!!!” He hit the car and they both vaporized.

Although he vaporized, he still went to work the next day. He clocked in, sat down, and went to work. I remember him, and in our hearts, an evil power is spreading. Indeed, my rage is like a hot coal. If you touch it, it will burn right through you straight to your soul. I’ve swallowed the coal, and it’s killing me. Because this song of is just like talking to me. Quite frankly, you ought to just open the door to see who's there.

But we saw the great tree of life. We were all facing it, and began climbing it. The tree began rumbling and making a sound “aahhr.” By the time I quenched the light with my hand, it had burned my eyes. My eyes were in shock—I didn’t see white—I saw red and cried out loud: “aaah.” It's incredibly ideational. I raised my hands towards el cielo, praising God.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Twin letters

Over the past year, I have noticed more and more how certain letters in alphabets are related. For example, B and P are both sounded by popping your lips. They are also written similarly. The only difference between them phonetically is the vibration of your throat when you make a /b/ sound. This fact is nothing new — I read about it in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

Today, I was looking at a chart for the Russian alphabet, and I noticed that the Russian letter B — lower case в — actually is pronounced as /v/, as in our vacation. Б, lower case б, is pronounced as /b/. I then thought about how the Ancient Greek beta (B, β) was pronounced as /b/, but today is pronounced as /v/. The Russians had adopted the Greek alphabet in a modified form during the Middle Ages. I am currently studying Spanish in college, so I thought also of how Spanish pronounces Vs as /b/. (I will add a chart below to help keep track of all this.) Spanish is pretty much a direct descendant of Latin, the language of the Romans. The Romans pronounced V in the middle of words as /u/, as in our undone and also as in tool. It was pronounced as /w/ at the beginning of words.

So, it became clear to me that the closest letter phonetically to B besides P is V. Vs are also pronounced using your lips, pressing your top teeth into your bottom lips and vibrating your throat. So, as you may see, most letters in alphabets can be paired together: e.g., b, p; v, f; d, t; c, g; s, z; and u, w.

But I digress:

LetterAncient GreekModern GreekRussian
B/b//v//v/
V
LetterLatinSpanishEnglish
B/b//b//b/
V/u, w//b//v/


So, how did we come to pronounce V as /v/ in English, French, and Italian? One possibility is that the Romans came to pronounce V as /v/ in common speech (i.e., Vulgar Latin). Much of English is descended from Latin via French and French is descended from Vulgar Latin. So, /u/ → /w/ → /v/ → /b/. This could explain why V is /b/ in Spanish, as that language is descended from the vulgar form of Latin, also. In German, W is pronounced as /v/. As I mentioned earlier, W and U are twins (double-u, right?). Still, Old English wrote Latin words that began with a V with an F, instead. And Old English is very close to German (closer than to Modern English). V wasn't used in English until the French-speaking Normans conquered England, inaugurating the Middle English period. The University of Texas at Austin has a site devoted to El cantar del mio Cid — the first major piece of Spanish literature. It has a recording of the tale that pronounces Vs as /v/.

A problem with this, though, is that it doesn't match the evolutionary paradigm of Greek to Modern Greek mentioned earlier. P took a similar route to /f/ in that language. The ancient Greeks pronounced Φ, φ (phi) as /ph/. (The superscript h represents a puff of air.) They later pronounced it as /f/. Note that today the pair ph is pronounced as /f/ in English. Remember that P is almost identical to B and F is almost the same as V. Perhaps, then, the pattern was really /u/ → /w/ → /b/ → /v/. And isn't it strange that Spanish — being so close to Latin — would have taken an extra evolutionary step beyond French? French is much further from Latin than Spanish. The OED seems to support this view:
Under the Empire, however, the semi-vocalic sound gradually changed to a bilabial consonant, and finally became the labio-dental voiced spirant now denoted by the letter in English and various other languages.—Oxford English Dictionary, "V"
To translate, it seems to be saying by "bilabial" that it was indeed pronounced as /b/. By "labio-dental" I assume it means V. If this is true, then perhaps Cantar del mio Cid is being read incorrectly on the site mentioned earlier. Whether it is or not is not known to me.

Introduction

This blog will be a place for writing I want other people to see. I will post observations about things that I am interested in, such as language, history, politics, cars, and computers. I will also post fictional writing. I may wait a few days between posts, but I won't stop entirely without leaving a note first. My full name is Richard E Maxwell. That is why the address for this page is http://richardemaxwell.blogspot.com.