From whiskey river:
Let me make this perfectly clear.
I have never written anything because it is a Poem.
This is a mistake you always make about me,
A dangerous mistake. I promise you
I am not writing this because it is a Poem.You suspect this is a posture or an act
I am sorry to tell you it is not an act.You actually think I care if this
Poem gets off the ground or not. Well
I don’t care if this poem gets off the ground or not
And neither should you.
All I have ever cared about
And all you should ever care about
Is what happens when you lift your eyes from this page.Do not think for one minute it is the Poem that matters.
It is not the Poem that matters.
You can shove the Poem.
What matters is what is out there in the large dark
and in the long light,
Breathing.
(Gwendolyn MacEwen, “Let Me Make This Perfectly Clear,” Afterworlds)
…and:
Then there is the BIG PROBLEM — who are you? There is an endemic human tendency for self-deception. We all think we’re one kind of person when we’re somewhat different (especially viewed by others) than we imagine we are. You — the reader — no doubt feel you’re an exception.
(Alan Fletcher)
…and:
Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Can’t you see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front—
(G.K. Chesterton, from The Man Who Was Thursday [source])
Not from whiskey river:
Consider the plight of Ophelia and Gertrude, who must pretend that they are having normal conversations with Hamlet but know they are staging it for eavesdroppers hiding behind arrases and elsewhere. Bad enough, as I have been supposing, to have to attend to the colleague you are talking to and worry about what you are going to say next. But imagine if that colleague were Hamlet. A reptile on a cold day would be a nervous wreck talking with him. How do you converse with Hamlet and not walk away feeling humiliated unless, like Horatio, you have cultivated a stoical disposition? Hamlet is so much smarter than you, and he delights in never letting you forget it. He makes each conversation a contest to see whether you can follow his speed-of-light access to startlingly original images juxtaposed in difficult and fantastic ways. He tests to see whether you can fathom his incessant punning, his playing with words only a tenth of which you grasp at the moment; and while you are figuring out how to respond to them, another hundred whiz right by you, ones that future editors of Hamlet’s conversations will spend years parsing. When you finally steel yourself to open your mouth, he plays with your words, turning them against you or making you not only feel stupid but look it too. Now add that Gertrude and Ophelia have to perform not just for Hamlet but for the eavesdropping Polonius or Claudius and know that by so doing they are betraying Hamlet. It is amazing they don’t give up immediately under the stress of the duplicitous conditions in which they are being asked to converse and perform as genuine interlocutors.
(William Ian Miller, Faking It [source])
You may know it’s been an unpleasantly distracting week for me, technology-wise. Of all the songs which might have become lodged in my mind over the last few days, then, looping endlessly, the one which follows — which has nothing at all to do with technology — seems an unlikely choice to head the list of candidates. It fits right in with the whiskey river theme, though: Robert Cray‘s “Little Boy Big,” from his 1995 album Some Rainy Morning.
Cray is a great favorite of The Missus and me. There’s something about the way his voice combines the satin of soul with the misery of blues — something which just gets to us (and he’s a mean guitarist). In this particular number, he uses both those tools to good effect in a tale of a protagonist who fools himself while living a life of fooling others. (For some reason, the image in that last couplet — right after the whistling — always affects me.)
(Remember: If streaming audio is not working for you, there’s always an alternative — clumsier, but it should work just fine. Just keep an eye on the correct bracket.)
[Below, click Play button to begin. While audio is playing, volume control appears at left — a row of little vertical bars. This clip is 5:12 long.]
Lyrics:
Little Boy Big
(words and music by Robert Cray;
performance by the Robert Cray Band)(guitar intro)
So it’s all said and done
And you promised you wouldn’t do it againNow where are you going?
You’ve knocked on someone else’s door
And you, jived and you told some great big lies about it
Don’t you think they know you?Why, when something goes wrong
Do you walk away from love
Just like it was nothing?You hide, and then you move on
You don’t walk away from a good love
Nooo, little boy bigNow she begged and pleaded with ‘ya
Tried and she tried and she tried everything that she couldCould you feel it?
You got one more go round this time, little fella
You better take hold to it if you can
You know you’ve got toCan you feel it?
You hide, when something goes wrong
Even if it’s just a little thing
That throws you offWhy can’t you be strong?
You don’t walk away from a good love
Noooo(instrumental break)
Why, when something goes wrong
You turn your back and walk away from her
Just like it was nothingYou hide, and then you move on
You can’t walk away from a good love
Noo, little boy bigNo, no
La, la, la, la, la, la
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la
Little boy big(whistling)
With your hands in your pocket
You walk down the street singin’La, la, la, la, la, la
La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la
Oh, little boy
Little boy big
________________________________
Note: The image at the top of this post comes from Halbritter’s Plant-and-Animal World, by Kurt Halbritter. Halbritter was a German cartoonist who died in 1978. (Very little information about him seems to be on the Web — at least in English.) The book is a collection of line drawings of various fantastic flora and fauna, together with pseudo-academic thumbnail descriptions and even scientific names.
Here’s what Halbritter says of the little fellows depicted above, the Nosehare and the Snifflemouse:
Nosehare
lepus nasultusDistant relation of the Fingeroo (see page 41), but smaller and less outgoing. Can generally smell a rat before it sees it and a hunter’s horn before it hears it. Harebrained animal that one is best advised to shoot only on sight. Tamed, it is no substitute for dogs or cats.
Snifflemouse
nus olfactansDistant cousin of both Church and Lay mouse (kitchen variety). Unlike the latter, it doesn’t mouse around but sticks its nose into everything. Its abnormally enlarged olfactory organ (the sniffle) makes it the nosiest creature on earth. It sniffles loudly, especially at night, particularly annoying to anyone trying to get a good night’s rest. Snifflemice, however, never cry.
And, since someone is bound to ask, here’s the Fingeroo to which the Nosehare is distantly related:
Fingeroo
halmaturus digitatusA real handful, the Fingeroo cannot stop jumping around. Capable of enormous leaps and bounds in any and every direction. Although volatile by nature, the Fingeroo is a faithful lover and picks his partner according to the size of her pouch.
Froog says
I can see I’m going to have to read the Miller book. I think there was a television series based on his Anatomy of Disgust ten or so years ago on the UK’s Channel 4 (well, I can’t remember if he was the presenter; it might just have been on the same topic, but that seems a somewhat unlikely coincidence).
The Hallbritter is altogether too creepy for bedtime.
I hope this week’s theme is prompted purely by the Muse of whiskey river and not by any crisis of identity in your own life.
DarcKnyt says
I’m sorry about your technological woes this week, John. I know how tough those can be. My wife and I have been battling — as best we can with one hand tied behind us, as you are aware — with our own technological demons. Hopefully yours will resolve and be exorcised soon.
Have a great weekend if you can, and let Robert Cray sing the blues for both of us.
John says
Froog: I always like to read analyses of great works by people who have actually taken time to read, really read them, and then to have thought, really thought — and then probably to have re-read them etc. ad infinitum.
I myself haven’t read Faking It, but it seems to have attracted generally positive notices. And after reading the first few pages of the book at the Amazon site — or at Google Books (linked above), for that matter — I agree: it might be very hard to pass up. (His voice in those sample pages reminds me of yours, at least as it sometimes comes across online.)
Darc: Thanks again for the moral support! I have no idea on what basis cries for help on the Ubuntu forums are answered or ignored (the latter, in my case — two times over). But there comes a time when a guy just has to tell himself, well, the heck with it: I can probably figure it out.
Fingers firmly crossed, of course. :)
Hope you and Falc banish your own digital demons soon (and will let me know if I can help). You have a great weekend, too!
cynth says
I haven’t read The Man Who Was Thursday for quite some time and was pleased when you mentioned it again…I have to look for that. I never heard Robert Cray before. There you are opening my eyes to new things again! Perhaps the Fingeroo is bungling up your Ubuntu?
ReCaptcha: Imprint allowed
fg says
Those cartoons are very curious. I have a feeling they will stick in my mind a long time. A little scary but then you see how they are made and are comforted but not enough to rest easy. Then I laughed at the text description he invents but am still left uneasy.
Of course ‘things which seem otherwise’ can be a fresh thinking and an exciting pursuit but somehow your title feels like a preparation for a deception. The older I get the more I gather I stumble on this ‘endemic human tendency for self-deception’, you refer to, to the point were indeed many of us if not all can’t see the woods for the trees or more precisely would find it more shocking to consider a truth.
(PS Truth comes up a lot in my profession, and my stock in trade has naturally enough has been to question it.)
Jules says
I, who am slow getting to your blog this week, am also sorry about your tech troubles.
Now I want to see other stuff Kurt Halbritter did. I agree with fg: Curious, indeed.
Looking forward to launching the Robert Cray tune-age.
The Querulous Squirrel says
I can’t tell you how much time I spent studying these illustrations. Way too much. I have them memorized. They are certain to appear in my dreams.
John says
cynth: I lost my original copy of Thursday years ago but bought another fairly recently because my bookshelves just didn’t feel balanced without it.
(And the Fingeroo/Ubuntu line made me laugh out loud. Wish I’d thought of that connection!)
fg: Someplace recently — it might have been while preparing this post — I came across a quote about the extent to which people simply do not tell the truth about things: not out of intention to deceive (themselves or others), just because it’s so easy to get the details wrong. It’s actually a natural genius which humans have, in a way — inductive logic, the capacity to look at a host of specifics and come up with a general truth. That final mosaic of truth is no less true just because it excludes some of the specific little fragments which went into it.
Or something like that. :)
Jules: Like I said, stuff about Halbritter lies sort of sparsely on the Web’s ground. But a Google Image search will turn up some pretty good results. (Note: he did an illustrated version of Mein Kampf, and maybe that’s one reason why there’s not much about him — even if he didn’t treat it remotely respectfully, it’s still an odd choice of subject.)
Squirrel: The entire Plant-and-Animal World book reveals a mind strangely obsessed with hands and fingers, feet and toes. With what I think is your professional background, you’re more likely than I to, er, grasp the significance of those choices (on HB’s page or in your dreams).
I do remember an exercise which we were asked to do at the start of an undergrad psych course. The professor asked us to draw a person; that was the only instruction he would offer, even after much pleading.
My result: a rather Charles-Barsotti-ish fellow, very plain and not particularly interesting… except for his hands, which I’d taken great care to depict as having a full set of fingers and opposable thumbs.
So then the instructor tells us when we’re done: You just drew a picture of your self.
A simplistic exercise, no doubt. But I’ve agonized over it for decades.
marta says
I can’t organize my thoughts to say something clever (thank you, Hamlet), but I have to say that my recaptcha says: 1,160,274 hunks.
At least I don’t have to write that many words–or hunks even.
John says
marta: That’s a brilliant recaptcha. If Alex Trebek dreams in random answers, that probably hasn’t even shown up on his list yet. But the category must be something like “Harlequin Romances.”