here are a couple of things that might make my original post make more sense.
1. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE CHOICES THAT ARE NOT EMOTIONAL
everything a human being does is emotional. every decision is emotional, because every choice is based around the human being thinking, "if i choose A as opposed to B, i will feel happier, so i will choose A". people always choose A. people are primarily concerned with feeling happy, rational thinking ("will my actions have a positive effect on the universe, overall?") is secondary.
for example, if i plant a thousand trees, i will be acting both emotionally and neutrally. but mainly emotionally. i would only plant the thousand trees if i knew that i would feel happier after planting them, which is regardless of whether or not it is a "good" thing to do. other examples: mother theresa helped poor people because it produced serotonin in her brain. george w bush invaded iraq because it produced serotonin in his brain. i wear fake wayfarer sunglasses because it produces serotonin in my brain. all human choices (beyond basic survival) are the same, everything that people choose is, "what will produce the most dopamine and serotonin?" that is what emotions are for, helping people make choices that will lead to more dopamine and serotonin being produced in their brains.
[so, i guess my whole argument is "flawed" then, who the fuck cares? i dislike it when people say, "your reasoning is flawed". everything a human being does is hypocritical, people who try to use "logical fallacies" against other people do not accept that everything is arbitrary, that people and beliefs are contradictory. a person goes to a zoo to look at cute animals and then eats a chicken burger at the cafe, a person buys a t-shirt saying "capitalists, your fall is near", a person who does not believe in god says "god bless you" and prays that he will get a promotion, a person who hates the alienating effects of technology has a mobile phone etc.]
2. NEUTRAL LIT IS THE OPPOSITE OF ADVERTISING
emotions are able to be easily exploited. people buy things (like clothes, home entertainment systems etc) because they think it will make them "happy". advertisements are generally based on saying, "you will receive more serotonin in your brain if you buy this product". in the 1940s, though, lots of advertisements were more neutral (although not completely neutral). they were more like public service announcements. here are some i made up: "buy and wear sunglasses in order to prevent the development of cataracts in your eyeball" or "buy and eat oranges in order to increase your intake of vitamin c" or "use soap in order to prevent the spread of deadly bacteria on your body."
today, advertisements are more like: "wear sunglasses in order to be more sexy", "eat oranges to be more sexy", "use soap in order to be more sexy." (sex produces a lot of serotonin).
neutral lit is the opposite of advertising, because it is rational. it does not try to "sell" a lifestyle because it is "sexy". neutral lit is almost always funny and sarcastic, the reason neutral lit is funny and sarcastic is because it is so odd to see things that are not advertising. lorrie moore's characters are the exact opposite of people that you would see in advertisements.
neutral lit is funny because it says things that are rational and sensible and we are not really used to reading things that are rational and sensible. we are used to reading things that are "sexy".
3% of the people who just read this post understood it, 2% agreed with it, and 1% will comment it.
6 comments:
This is all true, I think.
Good job.
I keep trying to respond to these arguments (This one and especially the one in which Tao Lin himself jumped in). But it's 4 in the morning and I keep disagreeing with myself. I don't think I want to argue about this anymore. I mean...even rationality is subjective. This debate is self defeating, because it uses abstract terms and then tries to prove things about them. I mean, I could argue that by purposely being neutral, you are acting contrary to some established idea or norm which cancels your neutrality and replaces it with opposition. You could argue that your neutrality occurs naturally and it only seems intentional becuase by discussing it, we've forced ourselves to give it a name. Otherwise it would just be an internal force that informs your writing without your conscious mind even playing a part. Ultimately...it really doesn't matter. We all have a personal reality in which these terms mean different things and so we when we say "neutrality" we are never even talking about the exact same thing. It's so confusing and interesting living in the same place, but having separate brains.
I realize now that the only reason to oppose art is for commercial reasons. I wouldn't care that Tao Lin was writing stories and poems if he wasn't getting published. It doesn't bother me that you, Conn, write what you write any more than it bothers me that my neighbor will read the paper this morning. It doesnt' affect me, and it's not my place to pass judgement. I wish I could get the amount of recognition for my writing that Tao Lin gets for his, but I get recognition from certain people for my own writing, and so, to envy Tao in this respect is to say that the people who like my writing are inferior to those who like his, which isn't fair. Anyway, a lot of the people who like to read Tao Lin seem to be writers who share stylistic traits with him, so they're already inclined to like his work. But even for those who like Tao Lin's writing but don't fall into the category of the previous sentence (writers who etc...)...if I were to say that Tao Lin didn't deserve their praise, then I would be denying the right of those people to like what they want to like. We're so lucky to be living in a time where we can self publish on blogs and people will read it. Maybe we don't have an overwhelming amount of readers, but we might not have any readers if not for the internet. So unless we feel the need to have 8,000 readers or something like that...which is to say, unless we think more readers is better than quality readers who provide encouragement and thoughtful input like those in the blog community tend to do...we've beaten the system. We don't need publishers anymore. Now, would I like to get paid for writing? Maybe...but at the same time, I like the fact that I don't have any strictures on my writing like I would if it was my job. There's no pressure to produce, no expectations, no limits. I can experiment and follow my every whim in writing and it won't be a risk.
I could tell you some stuff about being on psychiatric drugs if you still need to know about it. Also...I'm trying to start up a project that requires me to compile a whole bunch of interviews. Can I interview you sometime?
yes i agree with you ben.
when i wrote this post and said "3% of the people who just read this post understood it", i think i was sort of referencing the fact that i used so many abstractions. emotions are an abstractions, neutrality is an abstraction etc.
i think the point of the post was mainly for me to talk to myself and work things out in my head. maybe i shouldn't have even posted it, oh well.
i'd like to be interviewed, i can interview you too, that would be fun.
sorry i deleted my comments. i got nervous.
There was nothing wrong with posting what you did Conn. I often like to voice my ideas, so they become clearer to me. Shall we do the interview by email or an instant messanger?
Post a Comment