When I read these words this morning, I immediately realized two things: 1. That's why I write and 2. That's how I write. On any given day I see things, I hear things, I touch things, I feel things, I remember things. I forget things. I clutch things. I let go of things. Then while looking at the blank screen with all those "things" in front of me, I write.
Did you see the 1999 movie Being John Malkovich? In the movie a puppeteer finds a portal into the brain of John Malkovich. For a fee people could crawl through the portal, enter his brain and see life through Malkovich's eyes.
So that's what you get when you read my stuff; you get a portal to me. What I see. What I hear. What I touch. What I feel. What I remember..Only once you enter my brain you only see a very small part of who I am. This isn't just because I'm not telling you everything there is to know about me, but because I am unknowable, just like you are unknowable, even to yourself.
Let's say, for example, that you are having coffee with a friend. You say to her, "I am really upset with myself about that." Then which one is you, "I" or "myself"? It appears that "I" is in a position of judgment regarding "myself". "I" knows things about "myself" that "myself" is not aware of. What if "myself" is unaware that she has done anything wrong? There may not be a problem to begin with. It is simply the opinion of "I" that "myself" could have behaved better. Is "I" in a better position to judge "myself" than "myself" can judge for herself? Let's say that "I" is right, Then should "myself" change and do better or should "myself" just cease to exist? Maybe "the I's have it" has been true all along.
Just today I had breakfast at a Waffle House that I seldom frequent. My server noticed the book I'm reading and assumed I was reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." I explained that the book was, in fact, Guidebook to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and not the book itself. I told her that this book explains the philosophy included in the other. She was very busy and we had little time for conversation, but she told me about her interest in "Zen". She wrote down the title of Pirsig's book and then told me about the book she's reading, "We're all Doing Time." Apparently from what little she said, this book could have been titled, "Zen and the Art of Doing Time."
What happened in Waffle House is for me what he means by "the endlessly changing kaleidoscope." I don't have to look for something to write about. These things are looking for me. I just intended to eat a waffle and drink some coffee while Nissan changed the oil in my car, and life had other plans. There I was. And here we are.
When approached about the script, Malchavich asked, "Why not Being Tom Cruise?" And the writer, Charlie Kaufman said, "I think Malchavich sounds funny when you say it over and over."
Being David Helms is not always that easy. The "David" who observes "David" can be very exacting and unreasonable. And which David should I trust? The one who is reasonably happy with himself or the one who is never satisfied with himself? The one who is fairly content or the one who always demands more? When I was in high school a classmate said to me when I suggested he could be better, "If you don't like me the way I am, how do I know you'll like me if I change?" I'm liking the unreasonable "David" less and less and the reasonably happy "David" more and more. But I don't want to distance myself totally from the unreasonable "David" because he got me to where I am. And I really like where I am. But "where I am" is not a fixed place, but "an endlessly changing kaleidoscope". If you look at a kaleidoscope, it's not too impressive. To be amazed, you have to look through it.
No comments:
Post a Comment