Posts Tagged ‘writing’

Still Life: Stories by David Sylvester

October 7, 2025

At the New York State Writers Institute’s annual book festival, there’s a hall full of authors at tables flogging their work. It felt like entering a den of voracious lions. A phantasmagoria of escalating efforts to entice victims with glitz and razzle-dazzle.

Evoking Ulysses and the sirens as those writers beckoned and wheedled for attention. One affecting young gal latched onto me not with claws but sweetness; I’m not too old to be susceptible. I succumbed to at least peruse her poetry volume, but managed to extricate myself with wallet unopened. I felt bad. However, I did not wish to wallow in her verses about epilepsy.

I had some empathy for all these folks — been there, done that, myself. But I couldn’t compete now, with their gaudily decorated tables, and incandescent smiling.

Then a surprise: David Sylvester. He and his wife had been to our house for dinner only days earlier. With no talk about writing! But there he was, gamely behind a table. A bare-bones display, among all the extravagant ones.

Here I couldn’t demur to buying a book. A slim volume of stories titled Still Life.

Short stories are harder to write than long ones. If they’re any good. Mine never were. The thing about a short story is that the story doesn’t matter much; it’s more how you tell it.

One in the book had a subtext of 9/11, and people who jumped from the towers. Actually conveying a fresh thought: why no helicopters to evacuate them from that roof?

But the book starts (fittingly) with one titled, “The Start of Something.” The premise seems formulaic, depressing even: set in a bar, with a woman having earlier been picked up by Eric at a literary event. She seems pallid next to a female acquaintance of Eric, who turns up and intrudes upon their date.

I loved it.

I’m still reverberating from my own ancient misadventures in that game. Still fascinated by how people negotiate through it.

The story’s title hints that this hook-up will indeed start something. Unless, of course, the title is ironic.

An intriguing initial aspect is the tale being written in the first person — the narrator is the woman (unlike the writer). Is this a kind of “cultural appropriation?” Maybe the woke moral panic over that has thankfully subsided.

Sylvester’s story does not put a word wrong. Now that is really saying something. What I mean is that nothing struck me as being weak, pedestrian, insipid writing. No clichés. Like what’s so typically ubiquitous elsewhere.

And meantime it’s full of lines that crackle wryly. One example: “All my relationships end with, ‘what do you want me to say to you.’ I tell them, but they never say it.” Not an excess word there.

Near the end: “We had both been pretending to be someone else; now only I was.”

And how does it end? Where can it be going? Starting something — really? It felt kind of sad. With even a fingernails-on-blackboard vibe. Right up to the very last line, transfiguring that vibe. Making me smack the page.

Attention Perversion

August 29, 2025

Chris Hayes’s 2025 book is titled The Sirens’ Call — How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource. The title nods to Odysseus’s striving to resist the Sirens’ song that could destroy him. The subtitle is a bit off: attention is not “endangered” but becoming a giant sinkhole. Hosting an MSNBC show, Hayes is much concerned with how people pay attention.

He explores the biological substrate. Our great “survival of the fittest” adaptation was social cooperation within the group. Thus the importance of people paying attention to each other; and the development of language. Hayes notes that apes, for example, maintain social connection mainly through grooming rituals. But language enables interacting with multiple people simultaneously — and while doing other things besides. A huge efficiency gain.

Fame is a form of attention, and as a TV personality Hayes gives a fascinating account of his own experience. Becoming very conscious of how others see him. A big psychological adjustment. Noting that a person has twin aspects: one’s inner experience, and operating out in the world. The two are very separate. Fame messes with that boundary.

Hayes started almost obsessively wondering if people look at him because they recognize him. That, and their saying nice things, was titillating for a time, but eventually became so routine it lost its sparkle. However, interestingly, nasty things said about him, even if only online, really got under his skin.

A key theme in the book is how, for many people, when it comes to that dichotomy between inner and outer realms, the outer is surpassingly important. Driven by those ancestral genes centralizing social connection. That’s why solitary confinement is such harsh punishment. People can literally go mad without social stimuli.

I myself am much engaged with the outside world; yet it’s my inner existence that is central. Almost as though the outside is some sort of phantasm.

And yet, contradictorily, I grew up imagining that my life would be meaningless unless I made some mark and gained renown. Then I published a book that got a lot of attention, at least locally, a wee taste of fame. And that cured me. The attention felt nice, but didn’t elevate me to some higher plane of being, as I’d envisioned. (I still was getting nowhere with girls.)

Teaching me that thoughts about me, in the minds of strangers who don’t matter to me, don’t matter to me. (I’ve also learned that nothing about me matters much to them.) A very buddhist attitude, says my wife, who’s studied about buddhism.

Hayes writes about social media’s advent as a giant game-changer for the whole human attention landscape. Thus my initial comment that far from scarcity, attention is becoming a voracious monster. A lot of people seem to regard how many “likes” they get as almost a live-or-die thing.

As if “likes” really matter. But (as in my publication lesson above) they’re not the same as attention paid you by people with real connections to you. Social media feedback of various sorts is very largely a simulacrum of genuine social attention. As an ersatz form of it, that can seem to assuage the craving without really providing anything meaningful.

This is one way in which the internet, far from broadening people’s perspectives as once hoped, instead severs them from reality. Indeed, more broadly, the book shows how the modern information landscape is not that at all, but a hall of mirrors whose “information” has little nexus with what people really need to know and understand about the world.

Hayes invokes the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates (over what to do about slavery) as a touchstone for model public discourse, treating seriously with an issue. Impossible today. He does note one instance where a reality managed to break through to many people, who saw what an atrocity was unfolding in Gaza, and faulted the Biden administration’s culpability. And yet . . . that resulted in more votes for Trump, whose public stance on the issue was a muddle, but who was an even bigger apologist for Israel. WTF??

Essential to democracy is holding public officials to account. America used to, if anything, go overboard, intolerant toward politicians’ foibles. Now we blow off even felony convictions. Maybe even see that positively, making a candidate more interesting and thus perversely attractive. Trump’s m.o. has always been to hog attention, no matter what it takes, good or bad. Badness predominates, yet it works for him. He’s the biggest celebrity since Napoleon.

It’s not just Cronkite-style news that’s falling away, it’s any kind of rational discourse. Blogging like mine was already passe when I started in 2008. Nevertheless, the more I posted, the more people would find my site by googling various terms, and traffic rose. But that peaked in 2017 and has been falling since, despite the ever-increasing content. Few want to read thousand word essays any more. Preferring to scroll through amusing little videos. I should do my shtick while dancing on Tiktok.

Our attention is hijacked by those other types of mesmerizing online content because those responsible have huge financial reasons for achieving that. They monetize our attention by selling it to advertisers. Their algorithms are engineered to keep you on your phone as long as possible, so more ads can be thrown at you. And cunning algorithms exploit information about you to furthermore make those ads trigger your attention to them. So the platforms can charge advertisers all the more.

And, Hayes says, when contending forces vie for people’s attention, “amusement will outcompete information, and spectacle will outcompete arguments. The more easily something attracts our attention, the lower its cognitive load . . . Why read a book when you can watch a movie? Why read a newspaper when you can play a video game?”

Hayes invokes the term “enshittification” for what’s happening in the online realm. And the kicker is that much evidence shows people’s fixation on phone shit is not making them happier, but more miserable, with sharp rises in depression, alienation, and suicide, especially among younger people (as per Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation), who don’t even know what pre-iPhone life was like. Why not throw those damned things away?

(Note, if you enjoyed reading this, please click the “like” button.)

The Meaning of Dreams

March 20, 2025

“Dream” is a powerful word. As in I Have a Dream, or The American Dream. Such tropes are powerful because they invoke something we all experience, for hours daily, sometimes quite intensely — and often puzzle over.

This was discussed in a section of E.O. Wilson’s 1998 book, Consilience, about the unification of knowledge.

Freud was the first real dream theorist. It’s actually surprising how little serious attention was previously paid to this giant subject. Freud said dreams are where our unconscious gets loose, the ego (or self) losing control over the id, our deeper instincts. Thusly our innermost desires and fears come to the fore. Yet not explicitly — rather, coded into symbols.

Wilson says Freud was making a good guess, but it was basically wrong.

Modern science actually understands what’s going on, chemically, neurologically, biologically. Sleeping, and concomitant dreaming, serve a biological purpose. Like everything about us, they’re adaptations evolved through natural selection to enhance likelihood of surviving and reproducing. During sleep the brain works at reorganizing and editing information in its memory banks. Dreaming, Wilson says, is likely a side-effect of that — “not, as Freud envisioned, the result of savage emotions and hidden memories that slip past the brain’s censor.”

Explaining further: during sleep almost all sensory input ceases, including bodily motion. Deprived of those normal inputs, the brain nevertheless still tries to keep up its ubiquitous function of positioning you within a coherent picture of the world. And now, cut off from external reality, it resorts to creating a fantasy. It hallucinates. By grabbing images from the corpus of memory it’s meanwhile also been working on. This needn’t be responsive to any deeper waters flowing in the id. Wilson actually calls it a kind of temporary insanity.

Yet he does give half a nod to Freudianism in trying to explain the actual content of dreams, with the brain predisposed to fabricate certain kinds of things, “fragments” that “may correspond in a loose way to Freud’s instinctual drives and to the archetypes of Jungian psychoanalysis.”

My own experience is actually suggestive of something a little more coherently explicable. Yes, there’s surely a large element of the brain simply processing memories. How often I wake from a dream able to connect an element of it to some (typically insignificant) happening in the previous day. Yet there’s also, sometimes, more serious business afoot.

The night after learning I was appointed an administrative law judge, I dreamed of walking down a road flanked by rows of bodies dangling from gallows. Horrified, I queried a passerby. “Don’t you remember?” he said. “You sentenced them.”

Not my brain grabbing some random image, and the interpretation required no psychoanalysis. I was mindful of the weighty responsibilities of my new position (even though it involved no hangings).

Most of my time is spent on numismatics. A small fraction at coin shows, yet my dreams often revolve around coin shows and buying things there, or trying to. Another frequent theme is travel — just trying to get from one place to another, often very complicated, often negotiating through confusing urban streets on foot.

Then there’s the ubiquitous student’s dream of facing an exam without having studied, or even attended class. I experienced constant variations on that long after graduating. It’s not just about school, but about life.

Those school dreams abruptly ceased when I likewise somewhat abruptly left my job. Replaced by two related dream tropes.

I’d accumulated a lot of stuff in my office (notably many boxes of re-usable scrap paper). Made a special car trip to haul it out. But long after, I kept dreaming there was more I’d have to go back and retrieve. And other unfinished business, on old cases, or new ones assigned despite my resignation. It never seemed to get done; drafts not getting typed up, etc. This went on for quite a few years before tapering away.

Again, the interpretations are obvious and had nothing to do with my id, or working through childhood issues, or deep Oedipal impulses.

Indeed, it’s kind of odd that it’s always been pretty rare for my dreams to be sexual. Despite the prominence, in my consciousness, of what was long a frustrating quest for a relationship; then frustrations concerning a lengthy troubled relationship; and since then the “happily ever after” of my marriage, the biggest thing in my life. Rarely has any of this ever figured in my dreams. Why?

And here’s a question I’ve always puzzled over. A dream typically unfolds as a story. Has the brain scripted it out from the start? Does it somehow know how the story will unfold? Or — as with an AI when writing something — does the brain just make it up as it goes along, with no prior plan?

A Review of a (Sensational) Review

January 20, 2025

Even if you don’t think you’re into poetry, here’s a must read for you.

It’s by poet Therese L. Broderick in Vox Populi, an online magazine — reviewing “Unlocking the Heart,” a book of poems and accompanying essays by James Crews. The review itself is an astonishing model of literary perspicacity, with deep insight into how poetry (and indeed literature more broadly) engages the human mind, heart, and soul. And it’s beautifully written. This is why we read.

Find the review at: https://voxpopulisphere.com/2025/01/19/therese-l-broderick-beautiful-uses-the-compassion-of-james-crews/

Here’s one passage that particularly grabbed me:

” . . . it’s difficult to write a decent poem that wins the respect and affection of one’s auto mechanic. To do so, poets must conduct themselves with honor, honesty, and hospitality. Our neighbors are a tough audience. Esoteric wordplay, heady concepts, supercilious quips, obfuscation of meaning, and haphazard imagery won’t be given the time of day.”

This introduces further disquisition on what poetry should indeed be doing, providing the context for Broderick’s highly appreciative take on Crews’s work. But never mind him. Read her review for its own delights.

As someone who’s reviewed books here myself, my hat is off to Therese Broderick for this splendid piece of writing.

Disclosure: she’s my wife. Lucky me.

Feh

December 4, 2024

At the New York State Writers Institute’s annual Albany Book Festival, a panel discussion on “girls coming of age” was cancelled. Because two panelists had pulled out, saying the slated moderator, author Elisa Albert, is “zionist.” So there was a big blow-up, hurling words like “anti-semitism” and “freedom of speech.” The panel topic had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian issue. How do you justify reneging on a gig because of a participant’s views on an unrelated subject? This kind of behavior enflames divisions and mutual hatreds. A sign of the times.

Another panel was headlined “religion.” I’m against religion, but didn’t boycott the event. (Actually I’m a glutton for punishment on this subject.)

The discussion included Sarah McCammon, an NPR journalist who’s covered the Trump campaign. Where she encountered many Evangelical Christians — like those she grew up among. McCammon has written of her struggles trying to reconcile her continuing religious beliefs with, well, reason.

In the Q&A I spoke of a Muslim student from Africa I’d mentored, who similarly wrestled with her faith’s contradictions. After intense discussions, she finally became an atheist. Suddenly, everything made sense to her. I recommended that path to McCammon.

The other panelist was writer Shalom Auslander. From a very Jewish family, dysfunctional in other ways too. He soon spurned them completely. His animus remains palpable; also against God, whom he considers an asshole and prick.

Auslander seemed a very droll, funny, sardonic man. The kind who’d write a book titled Feh. An expression of disgust. Seemed a great title, so I decided to buy the book, for a birthday gift. Maybe a dubious idea.

At the signing table, I asked Auslander to inscribe it to a woman’s name. I explained: we’d lived together for a decade, she left to marry someone else, then 33 years of no contact. Then an e-mail pops up. Turned out her guy was a total monster.

“Wow,” said Auslander, “that’s quite a story!”

And I hadn’t even mentioned she needed money.

I read the book. It’s a memoir, interspersed with very short stories. Each ends with the words, “The End.” The book’s ethos might be summed up with the ancient aphorism, “Life sucks. Then you die.”

Those words weren’t actually in the book, but it’s full of lines exactly like that. Auslander drenched in self-loathing, directing the word feh at himself. His name is uncannily apt: an auslander translates as someone from a country “outside” — as the author feels himself to be vis-a-vis life itself. (And “Shalom” can mean either hello or goodbye!)

Auslander is not just down on religion, but also capitalism and, indeed, anyone successful (though as a writer he’s way more successful than me at least). Facile targets.

At one point, though, Auslander suggests that perhaps people aren’t feh but merely meh. And while the Bible’s God is always punishing us for transgressions, maybe that book’s real hero is humanity, with God being the bad guy. “What if it’s God who is feh?”

There is a lot of humor — but it’s so mordant, so relentlessly negative, I found it wearying.

(An aside: that word “mordant” just popped out as I was writing. Appropriately, I think. That’s how I write, almost like an AI, just spitting out what seems like the next appropriate word in a sequence.)

Nearing the end, I scribbled the words “enough already,” but then the book’s tone swerves. Auslander stumbles upon an antidote to his fevered cynicism, in a pastor spreading goodness and charity. But then just a few pages later — COVID hits. And more acerbic prose.

However, that’s not the end either. It’s not exactly a happy ending, but Auslander posits that “feh” directed at ourselves is a story we tell ourselves; but there’s a different story to be told.

I pondered what to write in the birthday card for my ex, to accompany this book. I decided on, “Read it and rejoice at not being this guy!”

And what are the next words I should write here?

The End.

Life, Love, Death in Maria Popova’s Book “Figuring”

October 4, 2024

Found this in my book cupboard with no idea how it got there. A fat 500+ page 2019 paperback from apparently a proper British publisher, but presentationally austere.

Quoted is the NY Times calling the book “category-defying.” The back cover says it “explores the complexities of love and the human search for truth and meaning through the interconnected lives of several historical figures.” The first page holds one long lush lyrical sentence, extending into the second, full of enigmatic imagery.

Soon though we’re on to Kepler, and I think, “Okay now!” Because Johannes Kepler is one of my heroes. A man of science set on proving a big theory — only to prove himself wrong. Yet he had the intellectual courage to go with the facts — giving us the true laws of planetary motion.

But the chapter mainly concerns Kepler’s elderly mother. No, not portraying an indomitable woman raising her son to achievement. Rather just a very ordinary woman. But accused of witchcraft — in 1617, serious business indeed. Very few like her escaped being burned at the stake.

Kepler returns to his home town to defend her (at no small risk to himself). The indictment is long. But he undertakes to factually expose as lies every line of it. And, against all odds, he prevails.

Gosh we could use him in today’s America.

This is a stunning book. Popova writes beautifully, insightfully, engagingly. Relating not just the bare facts about her subjects but plumbing their depths. Their inner lives, and especially love lives, are central. And mortality is much present.

Popova discusses Louis Daguerre, who made photography a thing. And the idea of photographs immortalizing a person. Yet also poignantly capturing a fleeting moment in time — already past when viewed — ineffably reminding us how that epitomizes life itself. In the end, everything is lost.

For most people in past times, this was a much bigger fact of life than now. With widespread early deaths of parents, spouses, siblings, children, friends. It was always in their faces. How differently we exist today, sheltered from that.

Another section that really hit me concerned physicist Richard Feynman. Also someone I’ve greatly admired. His delightful autobiography, Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman, gave me a particular laugh at its chapter titled, “You Just Ask Them.” My own (unpublished) memoir had one titled “Just Ask.” His chapter explained the method he’d discovered for getting women in bed. Mine too.

But Popova’s Feynman discussion is more serious. Concerning his first youthful marriage to Arline — beset with mortal illness soon after they’d met. She died when he was 27, working on the Manhattan Project.

Their passionate love through this ordeal, as related by Popova, is deeply moving. Then she presents a letter Feynman wrote to Arline — 488 days after her death — found after his own, by his biographer James Gleick. Which, Popova says, “discomposed” Gleick’s “most central understanding of Feynman’s character as an apostle of science and reason.”

It might seem as though Feynman was actually trying to communicate with the dead. But I think instead he was struggling to articulate, to himself, how connected he still felt with Arline, and what it meant for her to be gone. This seems clear from the letter’s final words:

“I love my wife. My wife is dead.”

Popova provides a few rare glimpses of herself. For reasons personal to her, Sapphic love is a recurring element. We see Emily Dickinson, for example, through the lens of her startlingly all-consuming love for Susan Gilbert. Later came Kate Scott Anthon — introduced to Emily by Kate’s love object — Susan. Dickinson’s letters to both women are quoted, full of wildly overwrought, even downright bizarre, expressiveness. Of course, for the bygone personages portrayed, such love was beset by its societal forbiddenness, indeed thus rarely accommodating physical expression. So much unquenchable desire. (Though at least one erotic episode between Emily and Kate may be plausible.)

While Susan’s epistolary intimacy with Dickinson was lifelong, Kate’s emphatically stopped. And Susan shut the door on physicality with Emily — upon belatedly consummating (instead!) her marriage to Emily’s brother. The dual developments were crushing for Emily, probably accounting for her otherwise seemingly mysterious self-imprisonment in the seclusion of her bedroom for her remaining quarter century.

(Another key personage Popova discusses is Margaret Fuller. I will cover her separately.)

Harvey Havel: Dealing with rejection

May 23, 2020

This big fat book showed up unexpected in my mailbox. Harvey Havel is a fixture in the local literary scene. Chatting with him at a recent author talk, it had emerged that we’d both published blog essay collections. So he sent me his. He’s a sweet person. Also tormented.

The book starts with political essays (a decade and more old). Perhaps unusual for a professional writer of color, his viewpoint is determinedly centrist. And Olympian, looking past the issues of the day, in a larger perspective, trying to see the tectonic forces shaping our politics. As a professional writer, Havel has a glib command of the relevant lingo. Yet I found his analyses somewhat oversimplified, falling short of profundity. (Sorry, Harvey.)

So after reading some of this I decided to skip ahead to the later sections dealing with more personal matters, and stuff like sexual politics. This was much more engaging. Havel speaks from the heart with unsparing candor.

Like about his alcoholism. It nearly destroyed him; he believes it’s actually necessary to sink that low before one can overcome. He’s apparently been off the stuff for a good long time now, but alcoholism still looms as a big presence in his life.

He was also ruined, he says, by money. Given a big lump sum by his father upon college graduation, he lived the high life, as though it would never run out. Of course it did, while turning him into “a man of low morals and character,” blocking his capacity to grow. Thus he says he remained a child (as of 2005 anyway). He had to learn the meaningfulness of earning what one has. He feels his “relationship with money now is the happiness and satisfaction that I have somehow rid myself of it.”

Here, and elsewhere, he brings in belief in God, crediting that for positive change in his life. I know many people feel the same. But Havel never really analyzes this (as he analyzes so much else). I have no such belief. For me, divorcement from reality cannot be the basis for an authentically meaningful life.

One 2009 piece starts off, “read this poem and then we’ll have a discussion about it.” Titled “Qualm” it ostensibly debates pushing an airplane alarm button, and Havel does discuss it at length. Finding this in the book was a nice surprise, as the poet is Therese L. Broderick (my wife).

Havel is not one of those many people who write as a sideline or hobby. Instead, he decided out of college to make this his career. Now approaching 50, he’s been at it for decades. With little reward. He has self-published many books (including this one), but his indefatigable efforts with established presses have met with constant rejection. Publishers tend to be very picky; selling printed books that make money is extremely hard; so a stream of rejection letters is inevitably part of any writer’s life.

But, having indeed devoted his life to this, Havel cannot just shrug off the disappointment. He has quite a lot to say about it. Mostly he discusses this as a sociological/cultural phenomenon. But one essay tells of his reading a terrific short story. Bringing on an attack of FAS — “Failed Author Syndrome” — and its corrosive resentment of others’ literary success. (He doesn’t mention dissecting that story to tease out what made it so good.)

I am no stranger to literary rejection myself. I spent years struggling to get my magnum opus (The Case for Rational Optimism) published. UntiI finally remembering the press that, over 30 years prior, had reissued my Albany political book. I’ve had ten book publications and made money on all but one. But the loss on that one exceeded all the gains. So I guess I’m no literary success either.

Havel also writes about rejection by women. This too resonated with my own history.

He has a “thing” for white women. Who, he says, generally refuse to view him romantically because of his color. For me it was height (or its lack). One guy’s recent radio essay related how he’d meet women for dates and see their “libido drain away” when he’d stand up, revealing his shortness. I was clueless in my own younger days (part of my problem), but in hindsight being 5’4″ explains a lot.

Back to Havel and his attraction to white women. One entry in the book is actually titled “In Defense of White People.” I was expecting something sardonic. But no. Havel explains that at one time he did share the stew of negative feelings toward whites that some non-whites hold. However, he says, he joined a white family for a time — what he means by this wasn’t clear to me — but anyway, he received acceptance and love, leading him to reject, as simply incorrect, the standard indictment of whiteness.

Of course that doesn’t mean all whites are good. But white people are, mainly, just people, and most people are good. Yet it almost seems as though Havel puts whites on a pedestal.

Perhaps this partly explains his attraction to white women. Then again, a majority of American women are white, so Havel may actually be conflating an attraction to women with one for white women. But he does feel his color is a barrier with white women in particular.

I found this odd. No doubt some racist women would manifest this, but in my observation, many if not most females are sexually receptive to nonwhites, many indeed positively attracted to them. Secondly, while Havel is slightly brownish, his ethnicity is far from evident visually. In fact, being of Indian ancestry, he is caucasian. Also, while I’m no great judge of this, I would rate him pretty good looking.

So what, really, was the trouble? Relating an actual romantic debacle might have helped elucidate this, but Havel includes none. The book makes it sound as though he never actually had a relationship (despite a lot of sex). However, there are some clues in the book regarding his mindset about women. It smacks of that old stereotype, “objectifying” women. He wants one not just white, but beautiful, well-educated, and affluent; it’s very much a package. He seems to believe the ideal way to get such a woman is to fight for her — literally. Physically fighting other men. His writing so often of “winning” women does make it sound like a competition. And he posits that what a woman most wants from a man is to be protected by him.

How about just relating to a woman as a fellow human being?