Category: Essays

Still Alive

Okay, okay: Quick update.

School is coming to a close. Not winding down, as the expression goes, not yet — but it’s getting close to being over. I have a ten- to twelve-page research paper I’m working on, I have two or three major essay-based tests to study for, a ten-minute presentation to do, but then I’m fucking done.

At least until next semester. (The last one, finally.)

After that? Well, okay. Here’s the official announcement: I’m writing my first novel. I’ve got a couple of short story ideas brewing in the back of my mind, science fiction stories, but I’m saving those for afterward. I don’t want to get in the way of what has the potential to become a really, really interesting dark fantasy novel. Or horror novel. Or weird transgressive satire. I don’t give a shit what people end up calling it, because chances are that no one will want to read it. It’s a first novel — maybe you didn’t catch that part.

I’m calling it DOOMSTER, but you can call it whatever you want. Don’t call it crap, ’cause that’s rude as hell. Just ignore it, if you think it’s crap. Please.

I’ve got a lot of brainstorming notes and a very broad outline written, with some truly inspiring characters and ideas, but I honestly have no idea what it will end up being. It may prove to be a trunk novel. It may end up self-published. It may sell to a small press publisher like Raw Dog Screaming Press, who I think are doing some fantastic work in the field of horror and the weird right now, or somebody bigger. I dunno.

I just want to write a novel, and have some fun with it.

To write the book — here comes that advice bubbling up again — that I would want to read.

(Meanwhile, I’ll also be filling out applications to Clarion, Clarion West, and Odyssey. Fingers crossed.)

So what have I been reading? That’s relevant.

First: Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk’s earth-shattering debut novel from 1996. My favorite book, well, ever. Must’ve read it a hundred times. It’s been instrumental in motivating my lazy, stressed-out ass to hunker down and get a novel done. Finally. Before that: things like Horns by Joe Hill, and Palahniuk’s Damned. More recently, Jeremy C. Shipp’s Cursed, George Carlin’s posthumous memoir, Last Words, and The Dharma of Dragons and Daemons: Buddhist Themes in Modern Fantasy. I’ve been watching my favorite childhood anime series, Robotech.

This is where my head has been, when it’s not at school. Doing schoolwork.

By the time I get around to diving headlong into the novel draft next week, my head is still going to be here. I think that’s okay, even a great thing. These are books I love. The myths I’ve built my life around, to put it boldly.

They’re the reason I’m managing to make my homework fun in this last, final stretch.

Here’s the block quote that opens my final Buddhism term paper, for fun:

I would put forward that the next thing is going to be a story, because right now, people really don’t have a big story, a big software… They don’t have a big meta-narrative story; they don’t have a big story like Christianity was a big story. So right now, we need a really big story… And that story doesn’t have to be in conflict or in reaction to the current story, because I would say, right now, you don’t change anything by protesting anything… You give people a more effective way of living their lives, they won’t give a shit about foreign oil, you know? You give them the right story, and you make their cars obsolete, it’s gonna be like, “We are just swimming in oil. What are we going to do with all this oil?” And you can do that within the culture without reacting to the government, the war, whatever. Because in a way, by reacting to it, you’re wasting energy…you are making it stronger by giving it this token little resistance, keeping it in place. So your job, I would say, is to come up with a story like that, that makes all of the things we worry about so much right now completely beside the point… We won’t even think about them, because your story will be so incredible. I don’t know what that story is, but that’s why…if I can make my case, somebody’s gonna come up with that story.

–Chuck Palahniuk (Postcards from the Future)

The paper is called Karmic Demons and the Power of Compassion: Buddhist Philosophy as a Basis for Modern Myth, and I’m hoping to craft it into a kind of short fiction-writer’s manifesto. A foundation for the rest of my literary career, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, or even pretentious.

Because I’ve come to love the ideas that lie at the heart of Buddhist thought (even though I’m not, nor will I ever be, a Buddhist), I seek to imbue my stories with them — but only if I can achieve that without growing deliberately didactic. In this essay, I’m going to explore Buddhist ideas in existing stories and the larger philosophical truths they represent, and then explain the utility of such ideas from a contemporary storyteller’s perspective.

To give you an idea of the paper’s meat-and-potatoes content, the preexisting basis for my argument, here’s my works cited bibliography:

  • Bacigalupi, Paolo. “Pocketful of Dharma.” Pump Six and Other Stories. San Francisco: Night Shade, 2010. 1-24. Print.
  • Dick, Philip K. “Beyond Lies the Wub.” Paycheck and Other Classic Stories. New York: Citadel, 1990. 27-33. Print.
  • Hill, Joe. Heart-Shaped Box. New York: Harper, 2010. Print.
  • Hill, Joe. Horns. New York: William Morrow, 2010. Print.
  • Loy, David, and Linda Goodhew. The Dharma of Dragons and Daemons: Buddhist Themes in Modern Fantasy. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2004. Print.
  • Mitchell, Donald W. Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist Experience. New York: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
  • Okorafor, Nnedi. Who Fears Death. New York: Daw, 2010. Print.
  • Palahniuk, Chuck. Damned. New York: Doubleday, 2011. Print.
  • Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club: A Novel. New York: Henry Holt, 2004. Print.
  • Postcards from the Future: The Chuck Palahniuk Documentary. Dir. Dennis Widmyer, Kevin Kölsch, and Josh Chaplinsky. Perf. Chuck Palahniuk. Kinky Mule Films, 2003. DVD.

The Eyes Have It: Sight, Blindness, and the Telling Expression in Robert Browning’s “Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came”

The first footnote beneath the text of Browning’s “Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came” explains that, when asked if the meaning of the poem can best be summarized as “he that endureth to the end shall be saved,” Browning replied, “Just about that” (251). The end spoken of being, at least in part, death, this reveals a great deal about the psychological atmosphere with which Browning composed the work. The apocalyptic imagery, the chaotic state of the narrator’s consciousness, and even the image of the Dark Tower itself imbue the poem with a distinct deathly tone. And yet most intriguing is the image of the “hoary cripple” (2), whom the narrator — the titular Childe Roland — asks the way. It is this figure with whom the narrative begins, and also with whom Browning begins a motif of imagery focused on facial expression, blindness, and sight. Using this motif of facial expression and eyesight, Browning establishes that reality is ultimately subjective, and may be largely dependent on one’s imagination and how well attuned one is to the realm of the spiritual.

From the outset of the narrative, Roland distrusts the cripple, noting his “malicious eye” (2). What of this cripple, though? Is the narrator’s assessment of the figure as malicious accurate? The aspect of the would-be hero’s journey — and the apparent aimlessness with which it is ultimately made — lends a bit of irony to the narrator’s attitude toward the cripple. It is quite possible that in the wasteland Browning describes — “grey plain all around [...] to the horizon’s bound” (53-2) — the direction given is irrelevant, or even that the cripple tells the narrator the truth. For instance, that Roland feels he has been lied to, and yet eventually finds his way to the prophesied Tower, is at least some evidence to contradict his suspicions.

Following the description of the cripple’s eye as “malicious” (2), the narrator describes his mouth: “scarce able to afford / Suppression of the glee, that pursed and scored / Its edge” (4-6). This image brings the reliability of the narrator’s regard for the “hoary cripple” (2) into further question. If suppression of the cripple’s glee is possible at all, how are we to prove that there is any glee in his expression at all? Might not this merely be the narrator’s own distrustful tendency — lack of faith, one might put it — bleeding into his interpretation of this particular perception? One might be so bold as to argue that the figure is merely smiling.

Browning’s emphasis on imagination, on the fantastic, only intensifies as the narrative moves into its second stanza, wherein Roland “guessed what skull-like laugh / Would break” (10-11). The image of laugh as skull-like is purely the narrator’s own speculation, and yet the image is too deliberately strange, too deliberately original, to be dismissed. Given the absurdly elusive nature of the Tower, and the supernatural image of Roland’s peers gathered “in a sheet of flame” (201) to glimpse him arriving at his lifelong quest’s end, the use of the skull in place of the previous descriptions of the cripple does not seem overbearingly outlandish. In fact, it only serves to reinforce the work’s unifying mood of weariness and death; one might go so far as to conclude that the cripple “with his staff” (7) is the traditional figure of Death Incarnate found throughout art and literature, particularly in the paintings of the Romantic Period or mythological figures like the Greek Charon. Of course, we are limited to drawing such conclusions on the basis of the narrator’s questionable descriptions, which makes any claim to certainty on the matter dubious at best.

Even the desolate landscape through which the road to the Dark Tower winds is regarded as having a kind of face, or at least a capacity for facial expression. At the day’s close, it casts “one grim / Red leer to see the lain catch its estray” (46-8). Its estray, in this instance, is surely the narrator; and given the construction of the previous lines, it is unreasonable to suggest that the subject of this sentence could be anyone or anything but the day itself. Roland goes on to describe the “starved ignoble nature” (56) of the wasteland, even claiming that “inertness and grimace, / In some strange sort, were the land’s portion” (61-2). Again, the land — this time the barren earth, instead of the setting sun — is personified, and moreover, with a grimace. Since objective reality as we understand it has no capacity for facial expression, we must conclude that such sinister sights are merely illusions born of the narrator’s imagination.

Nature itself speaks in favor of this understanding: “See” (63), it says, “Or shut your eyes” (64). There is perhaps a kind of irony in this statement, if the act of Nature speaking is to be taken literally, but its meaning seems the primary intent of the lines. If sight in the traditional sense of the word is deceptive, and therefore it would be better to shut one’s eyes rather than to continue eyeing false perceptions, then almost certainly Browning is illuminating a key truth about human consciousness: To see, one needs not eyes but imagination; that the sight afforded by the mind is at least as important as mere ocular perception. Since the footnote mentioned at the start of this essay reveals that the poem came to him “as a kind of dream” (251), we can be certain that Browning holds the vision of the mind’s eye in high regard.

Two stanzas after Nature speaks directly to the narrator, Roland encounters a “stiff blind horse / [...] stupified” (75-6). While he is uncertain whether the animal is alive or dead, and stops to ponder the question, he gives no sign of uncertainty regarding the creature’s blindness; and yet, in the following stanza, the horse is described as having “shut eyes underneath the rusty mane” (81), which seems to trivialize or at least draw attention to the narrator’s claim of the horse being blind. So much of Roland’s regard for his fellow travelers among the apocalyptic plain is, given the scope of the text and the images therein, more or less unfounded. We are given the statement, and then in most of the aforementioned cases, one specific image serves to contradict the narrator’s perception — which is, more often than not, that the reality through which he is traveling is unsatisfactory or even, in the case of the crippled, skull-like figure, malicious. Without bringing into account the meta elements of the narrative, it seems that it would be to the benefit of Roland — as well as that of readers — for him to shut his eyes and seek the path toward the Dark Tower within, rather than without.

Having been thus instructed by Nature in its wisdom, Roland explains that “I shut my eyes and turned them on my heart” (85). Looking inward, the first image he sees is that of his fellow knight’s “reddening face” (91), which extinguishes his “heart’s new fire and [leaves] it cold” (96). Once back in the realm of raw perception, he describes the road to the Tower as “my darkening path [...] / “no sight as far as eye could strain” (104-5). And so, having experienced the vision of mind and memory, his eyesight has been further diminished. When at last he arrives within reach of the Dark Tower — “[a]fter a life spent training for the sight” (180) — Roland describes it as “blind as the fool’s heart” (182). Concealed by “two hills on the right” (176) and “a tall scalped mountain” (178), the Tower has eluded him not because his eyes were poor but because he failed to consider the idea that it might be hidden. The years he has spent wandering about the world in search of the Tower at last come to fruition, and even now he fails to see the purpose of his quest. “Not see?” he asks, “because of night perhaps?” (187).

There is a sense of tragedy to this final failure, although it does not seem to matter, in the end. A “ghost not fit to cope” (22), Roland is but a spirit of great persistence, come at last to fulfill his quest. In the moment of his completion, of his death, and of his journey’s end, his lost peers “stood, ranged along the hillsides [...] / To view the last of me, a living frame” (199-200). The sheet of flame mentioned offhandedly in this stanza may be seen as not only Roland’s noble end, then, but perhaps more specifically as “the Last Judgment’s fire” (65) said by Nature to be the only end to “set my prisoners free” (66). That Roland’s long-lost brethren await him in flames at the Tower says much of its purpose. As it was always his destination, and sole occupation, as a lifelong questing knight, it is first and foremost the place of his fulfillment. Because of the apocalyptic nature of the poem, and the fantastic manner in which his fellow knights are described in the final stanza, one can rightly argue that the Tower — the Dark Tower, most importantly — is a symbol of the death that awaits us all in the completion of our lives. Childe Roland describes the Dark Tower as the sight for which he has spent his whole life training (180). Sight, then, can be seen in this powerful and artistically rich work as vision, as the ability to reunite with the supernatural — his fallen peers — and as the acknowledgment of one’s own inevitable finitude without sacrificing the honor of succeeding in one’s purpose.

Works Cited

Browning, Robert. “Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came.” Rpt. in The Broadview Anthology of Victorian Poetry and Poetic Theory, Concise Edition. Eds. Thomas J. Collins, Vivienne J. Rundle. Toronto: Broadview, 2005. 251-5. Print.

On Creativity

You’re so creative, people will say, ignorant of their own humanity.

What goes on in your mind that you can think of this stuff? Why don’t you write something…I don’t know, normal? I mean, there’s more to life than this weird crap.

It’s hard to make a living as a writer, or any kind of artist. Many preach it; few would have the audacity to deny it. Creativity isn’t something our society necessarily values, although it might assert that it does. Of course.

Truth is, everyone is creative. Or at least has the capacity to be creative. To say otherwise is to be foolish.

But, who has the time to write, or paint, or learn an instrument?

There is a myth that permeates our society: We have deeply ingrained in our collective social psyche that only a select few individuals — “gifted,” they might be labeled — are endowed with the seemingly innate drive to create art.

This is a myth born of institutions, of conformity, and of laziness.

It’s easy not to write a novel despite your full-time job or schoolwork. It’s easy to put off writing those poems you’ve been meaning to scribble in your journal. It’s definitely easy to never bother stepping foot inside the art supply store, picking up a set of brushes, paint tubes, canvases…

Avoiding creativity is lazy. It’s a function of the human being to want to make art — depressed or conflicted souls are especially inclined, but that’s another argument entirely — and yet we go out of our way to convince one another, and ourselves, that our time ought to be spent doing something else. Something productive.

But even the individual who has never penned so much as a single poem or short story reads the occasional novel. Maybe even reads a chapter or two, or three, every night before bed.

It is a part of what makes us human. Every bit as natural as breathing. Or war. Hell, there’s a reason critics diagram fictional narratives using the metaphor of sexual intercourse. A little foreplay, but not too much; the obligatory cuddling following the explosive climax. And then the story’s over.

Conflict, the most human trifle, is the catalyst for art. Whether internal, on the beaches of Normandy, or a vendetta spanning generations, our differences and search to understand the horrors of reality are our kindling for creativity.

Occasionally, though, we find it a convenient alternative to merely shut our eyes to such burdens. Instead of seeking to understand the wrongdoings that occur daily in our world, or reading up on the history of our kind, we might turn to a different form of creativity: We might resort to being merely clever.

Marc Smith welcomes the crowd to the Fifth Annual Rootabaga Poetry Slam. His face is an almost-perfect replica of George Carlin’s, minus the trademark beard of white. His slow Chicago rasp befits a man inclined to perform his poetry rather than merely scribbling it in a notebook someplace.

He asks for a volunteer to draw names — to determine the order of the first-round contestants.

The young poet in the weathered tweed jacket and brown fedora tiptoes onstage, clutching his own poetry collection against his chest and sipping a tall, perspiring glass of golden beer.

My ears recoil, pained, at the sound of more goddamn ars poetica.

Like Kristen Bell’s character at the self-parodying opening to Scream 4, I was within my mind offering a howling proclamation of my hatred for self-conscious, meta bullshit. It’s utterly uncreative.

Simple as that. Sorry — pardon me, folks – I can’t stand the seemingly universal desire of artists, primarily poets, to create art about the very act of creating art. It’s easy. It’s a fucking cliche, too, by the way.

It was clever, maybe even appreciable, the first time I heard it done well.

The first time.

Kevin Williamson’s script for the original Scream was a brilliant examination of modern horror cinema. It got at the heart of the 90s zeitgeist (born, one might argue, via the fruitful loins of individuals like Timothy McVey and the young boys who perpetrated the Columbine Massacre), it dissected the spirit of the teen-targeted, hypersexual slasher flick, and most importantly, it established and then manipulated the ubiquitous “rules” of surviving such a film.

It did it well, and as a result, the film worked. It was scary, entertaining, and even smart.

The first time.

By the third Scream film, the rules and tropes established by the first two movies in the franchise were virtually exhausted, and only the sole mystery of the killer’s identity managed to hold the audience’s interest — and just barely.

Scream 4 destroyed the soul of the original three films by taking the meta-horror component of the narrative to the absolute furthest extreme.

There is one sin even greater, even more certain to kill your art and alienate your audience, than total self-consciousness: Take it too far, and you will remind your readers, your viewers, that what they’re reading/seeing is just a book. Just a movie.

Not real.

And then — suddenly nobody cares. Your characters aren’t real, your poetry-stoking struggles are nonexistent, and your plot is a matter of mere puppetry. Whatever happens is okay, because it’s all an illusion, you’ve lifted the curtain just an inch too far, and now no one gives a shit who lives or who dies.

Hell, by the end of Scream 4, I didn’t even care who the killer was.

By the end of the tweed- and fedora-clad poet’s ars poetica manifesto of words tossed out in a clumsy rhythm of poor puns and even poorer metaphors, I’m no longer even listening.

I stopped listening minutes ago, because the poet has proven that he is uncreative. Too lazy to draw the influences of his past life together, too lazy to observe some unique cluster of minutiae about the world, too lazy to move beyond the process and into the realm of substance.

Long live art. Down with the meta.

Make me care; make the art matter. I don’t care how clever you are.

That, my friends, is all.

Freedom: A Lyrical Essay

Jimi Hendrix is one of those guys who does a lot of his singing posthumously. The bane of rock and roll is its ever-growing death toll. The wind, the sky, they’re always crying. And so you get a lot of death imagery — guys like Black Label Society and My Chemical Romance. Iron Maiden. Band of Skulls.

Freedom, he sings.

From the grave, that’s all the man wants. Ever wanted.

I’m asked to put together a photogram piece with some semblance of artfulness, some degree of meaning. Rock and roll tends to always say something, I decide, with a little help from my friends. It’s occasionally a shallow something, sure, but even freedom can be won with a raging guitar.

In a technicolor haze brought on by the acid seeping out from the bandana wrapped round his head, freedom becomes a necessity. A way of life.

Out in the audience, beneath a thickening cloud of smoke, a thousand rolling stones uniformly sway. To the ever-wailing cry of a lovingly abused Stratocaster, they sway.

Never mind the flesh and sex and tie-dye rags. Joints in-hand and goodwill in-heart, Coke-bottle shades, Afros and braids, these children of Earth are here to catch a breath of freedom.

You take a sheet of photo paper, far out of reach from lamp- or sunlight, and you arrange a few semitransparent or otherwise photo-reactant objects on it. Squinting in the dark, with only a couple dim red lamps and chemical baths and a ventilation fan to keep you company, these objects are your art.

An iPod with fourteen gigabytes of utilized memory holds 2,177 songs. Of these, forty-five are Hendrix tunes. The rest, if they came after 1971, carry the influence of Jimi’s six reverse-strung strings.

Fresh guitar strings, I think, would make the perfect medium for a photogram.

Instead, I’ve got a glass slide, Dunlop Tortex picks, Jazz IIIs, Eric Johnsons, and XLs. I’ve got an arsenal of stompboxes and expression pedals.

A compact disc is rendered more or less obsolete by flash drives, cyberspace, and folks like Apple, but record companies don’t admit a thing. Sound quality still matters, as does the establishment. This system gives us slight digital compression, but at least albums haven’t yet been made extinct in favor of a pick-and-choose, single-track buffet. Art triumphs, for now.

You take a flashlight or old-school enlarger to photo paper, expose it for five seconds, ten seconds, or a full minute, and you’ve got an invisible image. A ghost of reality, mirrored and negative.

Since you don’t want to tear or scratch your photo paper, you might try laying a sheet of paper underneath the objects you’re going to be tracing with light. You could maybe tear out a page of tablature from the latest Guitar World.

A single word catches my eye: Freedom.

You dip the photo paper in developer mix for two minutes, you’ve got an image.

Words. Some legible, some backwards.

One of them is freedom.

Freedom, Hendrix sings, from the grave.

You dip it in stop bath for thirty seconds.

Go into any department store, any record shop, any Best Buy or Barnes & Noble, you’ll see Jimi Hendrix: Live at Monterey, or Band of Gypsies: Live at the Fillmore East. Live at Woodstock.

Toss it in chemical fixer for five minutes, and it’s the same forever. Nothing will change, except that it might get lost or torn or burnt. The image will be the same when you’re twenty-seven, when you’re sixty-four, when you’re dead.

Take it out, shake it off. Squeegee the hell out of it, it stays the same.

All those damn hippies, they’re mostly all still out there. Their memories merely faded; their faces widened and lined with the occasional crease. Ears still ringing from the tinnitus inflicted by two towering, maxed-out Marshall cabinets and a screaming pair of germanium transistors.

Hendrix aficionados, vintage effects pedal collectors, and museums house a few dusty red footswitches that some would kill for. Their crimson paint flaked, rust and dust caked on so thick as to be permanent, these flightless UFOs all share the same creepy little smiley face. A pair of knobs, for volume and gain, are forever its eyes. A peeling white sticker serves as its unmoving, upturned mouth.

All that acid, all that long-ago sex, all that maddening tinnitus, and the Fuzz Face just keeps smiling.

You take your paper out, and wash it for a good ten minutes or so.

You can turn the lights on, now.

From the center of the print, as it drips dry in the harsh light of the bulbs overhead, Hendrix utters a single word from the other side of the page.

Always loud, never dull; and it will never, ever change.

Taken by Darkness: A Hill to Die Upon

The term black metal is not without logic. Darkness abounds in the lyrics and atmosphere of these seemingly insane grandchildren of rock and roll. Back when I was in a band of my own, I used to joke about writing a death metal song. It had one lyric, which I would occasionally scream in as deep a timbre as my throat could weather: “The darkness takes me!” A year later, when I wrote my first real horror story, I titled it “Taken by Darkness.” It was the most terrifying, awful thing I could think of.

    My bandmates always got a kick out of that one. We were the furthest thing from death metal that you can possibly imagine; we idolized guys like the Beatles, Joy Division, the Police, and Alice in Chains – that was our diverse notion of heavy. Darkness. Atmosphere.

    My cousins, Adam and Michael Cook, call their band A Hill to Die Upon. That’s dark; heavy with a side of thunder and blood and war paint. Their debut record, which was released through a label called Bombworks out of Peoria, Illinois, was recently ranked among the top 100 best Christian Metal albums of all time by Heaven Metal magazine. The album cover is one of the most beautiful artworks I’ve ever seen. It could be a scene right out of a Lord of the Rings knockoff: a sprawling battle scene with an enormous, double-headed eagle soaring overhead; ziggurat temples lining the horizon; a hundred archers’ arrows crisscrossing the blue-black sky.

    It’s incredible how much ground they’ve covered, fucking conquered, in the six years since they formed their enduring metal group. They’ve toured Europe, Mexico; all over the states. A recent Facebook comment notified the people of Monmouth that one of their fans from here saw a guy walking around the streets of Los Angeles with one of their t-shirts on. Their fan base is phenomenal. Something for area bands to aspire to, to say the least.

    A few months back, feeling guilty for having failed to see them live through all the years they’ve been a band, I decided I needed to drop by the local armory basement and observe the scene unfolding around them like wildfire. My friend Rob and I felt utterly misplaced, but there was a strange allure to the environment. Dust hung in the air like fog, and the place was filled to capacity with the area youth. There was a timeless familiarity to the spectacle.

    Probably my favorite film of all time, or at least my favorite rock and roll film of all time, is one I saw for the first time about a year ago: Anton Corbijn’s Control (2007), a biographical picture about the life of Joy Division vocalist Ian Curtis. The film is aptly shot in black and white. In one particular scene, Ian (played by Sam Riley) asks his best friend’s girl out to a rock concert. The Sex Pistols aren’t shown even once on-camera; instead Corbijn opts to pan across the audience throughout the scene – which focuses on Ian’s soon-to-be wife, Debra (portrayed by Samantha Morton), as well as his future Joy Division bandmates – to show their reactions to the performance.

    In the more recent Nowhere Boy, a similar film about the adolescent life of the late John Lennon, his mother asks, “Do you know what rock and roll is?”

    John replies, “What?” A conspiratorial whisper.

    “Sex,” she says, with hushed, girlish joy.

    Joy Division was much more than sex; they were darkness, and tragedy, and as Curtis explains in the film, “Some of [the music’s] not supposed to be beautiful.”

    I observed a similar vibe among the crowd at the Hill’s armory show back in December. Girls too young to legally have sex had their hair meticulously folded across their face to draw attention to their eyes, which were uniformly darkened with black and violet mascara; their shirts revealed the skin of their navels, and bore the ink-splash logos of various bands I’d never heard of; and they wore jeans that must have been sewn onto their legs, a permanent second layer of skin. Boys had gauges fixed inside their earlobes, continually stretching the flesh ever outward until the space within is large enough to fit a drumstick, or guitar, or Humvee through it.

    A peculiar, idiotically primal activity took place in the audience throughout much of the experience: what the teens of the black metal scene call “raging.” Stand the hell out of the way when this occurs, lest you receive a friendly kick in the teeth. One mode of raging is an activity that resembles a small, staged riot; individuals basically push each other, or continually run into one another – on purpose, for fun, and not intending to do any real harm. If it sounds like the dumbest thing one could possibly opt to participate in, that’s because it’s a ludicrous method to cultivate fun (although I’d wager there are quite a few things about the globe that are a hell of a lot worse). Another mode of raging is performed by two individuals, who basically lock arms, standing back-to-back, and then proceed to take turns lifting one another into the air so that the other can flail and kick their legs into the air like an utter maniac. It’s terrifying; I quickly opted not to participate.

    The “scene-core” (whatever the hell that means) band that opened the show put on an intriguing, although musically unimpressive performance. They had the look, they had the sound – one guitar player had chops that would have demanded even Slash’s envy – but they did not have the…what is it? Attitude? Something in the blood that seeps out with enough energy?

    When A Hill to Die Upon at last took the stage, the crowd grew suddenly stoic, in awe with anticipation of the performance to come. There was a unanimous expectation: these young audiophiles knew the Hill would only deliver the most satisfactory metal to be found in all the Midwest.

    The band members themselves demanded the eyes of the audience. As they entered the floor, splitting the crowd as they approached the stage, the gaze of mere mortals immediately fell on their towering forms, their long bearded manes, the black war paint smeared haphazardly along the contours of their intense visages over a layer of ghostly white. They wore black sweatbands on their wrists. On the head of the bass drum, a white decal like the gnarled, descending limbs of a dying willow tree cut a scar through the blackness. They strode onto the stage, took up their instruments, and did a short sound check that resembled a melodic, deliberate series of various meteorological phenomena.

    “For those of you who don’t know us,” said Adam, longtime vocalist and current bassist, “we’re A Hill to Die Upon.” The crowd offered roars of enthusiasm, a few chuckles acknowledging the absurdity of his words, and screams of endearment. “This song,” he went on, his voice a monstrous bark, “is called…‘The Season of the Starved Wolf’!

    Michael’s drumming was thunderous, his lyrics a similar cadence of hellish fury. Lead guitarist Elisha’s ominous guitar chimed a winding, serpentine prelude to the coming madness. The vocals themselves were oftentimes unintelligible, but some were unmistakable: “No sleep! No peace!”

    The dank industrial basement suddenly sweltered; sweat accumulated beneath the leather of my jacket. I was terrified at my own fascination. I fell into the spell of the rawness, the sheer electric power of their harnessed chaos. Their amps cried out to be heard; one couldn’t escape the thrust of boxy metallic sound waves upon the sweat- and cement-smelling air.

    At the climax of the show, Elisha played a guitar solo that was entrancing with edgy melody and a borderline virtuoso command of his instrument. Audience members reached out with their hands and clawed ceilingward with twitching fingers, as if to pry the ferocious notes from the air as he fired them off like silenced chaingun rounds.

    Rob and I left with our heartbeats thundering and drunk on adrenaline. We each bought a copy of the Hill’s debut album, Infinite Titanic Immortal, and drove about the chill December night, listening not to the hushed sounds of Monmouth but rather the war songs of angry serpentine gods. We stopped at the local McDonald’s drive-through, picked up a couple of hot black coffees to keep our pulses up and in time with the Kentucky Derby clip-clop of the music.

    After that night, after seeing this quiet, cultureless town so alive with angst and love and hate, so alight with a shared passion for life and the reptilian brain buried deep inside the skull of each and every one of us, I was finally taken by the darkness.

    You can hear a sample of their album on MySpace, and news about upcoming shows are regularly posted to Facebook.

    Something Worth Sharing

    For most of my life, I’ve felt the urge to write. It’s always seemed the ideal path, despite the naysayers and often overwhelming obstacles that plague even the most accomplished writer. Storytelling is probably a desire that occurs as a result of both a specific type of creative personality and the circumstances of youth. Some individuals grow to love a variety of artistic pursuits; others find a certain creative outlet and then stick with it. For instance, I’ve always loved drawing. As far back as I can remember, I’ve loved to imagine my own characters and worlds. But somewhere along the way, I discovered the thrills to be had through reading and writing stories.

    I believe, from the kind of perspective that only two decades’ worth of retrospection can offer, that I came upon the writer’s compulsion at the age of two. The tendency of my fiction has always been to venture into the worlds of the imagination. Some of these worlds are the grand settings found most commonly in space opera and other types of futuristic science fiction; some are all too familiar in their resemblance of our modern-day world; others are rooted in the stuff of nightmares, the stuff one might uncover in an old issue of Weird Tales, or the bibliography of someone like Stephen King or Richard Matheson.

    The soul of my writing has always been in that otherworldly escape, that search for the unknowable that resides outside the realm of mainstream literature. At age two, I caught a case of pneumonia that had me hospitalized for what must have been at least a week. No doubt some of my earliest, most deep-seated fears stem from that experience: fear of the dark, fear of solitude, fear of silence; even the most basic fear of death. It would be foolish to assume that the illness did not affect me in any way. It was the hospital I spent that week in, a gloomy place of dust-gray corridors and linoleum that gleamed like the surface of a frozen lake, that led me into an encounter with my imagination’s lifelong symbol of science fiction: the robot.

    I can’t recall whether I ever got to handle the remote control of the most sophisticated toy I’d ever seen—to this day, I can say honestly that I’ve never encountered another children’s toy quite so marvelous—but I was quite content to watch. The machine tread by way of a set of small rubber wheels, and its face was far from human; yet I got the sense that this creature comprised of twentieth-century plastics and metal was a being with a soul. Although it walked unlike anyone else, it still indeed walked—albeit a bit more gracefully than human legs could manage, and only when commanded. I don’t remember whether it talked, or if perhaps it merely traveled about the hospital playroom, silent save for the whirring of its motors, but I remember thinking that somehow the robot and I would have a lifelong relationship; that such machines would become a part of who I was.

    The rest of my childhood, one can trace with some precision, proceeded almost certainly as a direct result of that experience. My parents, no doubt relieved to have me out of the hospital and back home, never seemed to forget my awe at the sight of that remote-controlled robot. My dad, whose library included only nonfiction works by Isaac Asimov, lacked the vast literature of science fiction, except for a modest 1986 paperback edition of Frank Herbert’s Dune that I would eventually swipe from him years down the road. Lacking stories about my favorite machine-beings, I instead relied on the graciousness of my mom during trips to the local video rental place, Hogan’s Video, to acquire such classic 1980s and -90s films as Short Circuit, Batteries Not Included, Transformers: The Movie (and, of course, the many volumes of the television series), and Star Wars.

    One can see the obvious allure of science fiction to a young boy growing up in the Midwest: there’s simply nothing quite so compelling as an Imperial Star Destroyer or a sentient robot like Johnny Number Five to be found among the endless acres of Illinois prairie grass and cornfields. When a child with an aptly nurtured imagination discovers the true vastness of the galaxy, and the possibilities the future might hold for humankind, a chair or a room suddenly becomes a starship; toys and siblings become crew members on an interstellar voyage. There’s something magical about that childlike willingness to accept the impossible. Writers no doubt share a common appreciation for it, and hence we are blessed with the literature of Clarke, Dick, Asimov, and Bradbury.

    Unfortunately, the urge to write coupled with a healthy imagination is merely the foundation for a writing career—they are at best the most basic of prerequisites. Writing is an art form, a craft, and therefore it’s not an inherent gift, but rather something that must be learned, practiced, unlearned and then practiced further. Like any skill, it requires constant discipline. For some, this is a hard truth to face.

    Years ago I found Stephen King’s tremendous memoir, On Writing, on the shelves of the now-defunct Waldenbooks of Galesburg, Illinois, and dipped my nose in it from time to time. Mostly I enjoyed the more indulgent autobiographical parts; I found little use for the advice on craft. Until I rediscovered my love of reading—and, by extension, writing. After punching out one finished novel and several failed attempts at a second, I finally made the decision to take my writing seriously in an attempt to achieve publication. Then I read the On Writing portion of King’s memoir in earnest. I started typing up stories in feverish bouts of creativity and raw, inexplicable energy.

    In February 2010, I sent my first short story submission to Weird Tales. It wasn’t quite what they were looking for, Ms. VanderMeer said politely; so I sent another. I sent stories to Strange Horizons, Clarkesworld, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and dozens of other wonderful markets. I collected over one hundred rejection slips, and came to terms with the reality of my situation: the learning isn’t over. Will never be over. I’ve got work to do if I’m to have any real success with my writing.

    Myths abound in the world of fiction writing. There are notions of commercial marketability; there are notions of literary merit. Some favor obscure artistry over effective communication; some favor close examination of the mundane over a tale of warring intergalactic civilizations. The truth of the matter is that, like any art, quality in fiction is subjective. You know it when you see it. You look for more. The publishing industry has functioned this way for centuries; writers have resisted the cycle for at least as long. Whether one’s fiction is written for the sake of opposing the status quo or for gaining a wide readership (like it or not, the latter seems to be far more profitable), reading widely and regularly, and then consistently producing new works of fiction, is the only way to develop any measure of style or the fundamentals of storytelling.

    There are countless books on the subject of writing—on craft, on the publishing industry, on how to write for a specific genre—but without practice and a thorough grasp of the fiction that people are reading, no such book is going to be of any use to anyone. Another unfortunate fact is that the more you learn about the craft, especially from books about the craft authored by working professionals, the less you truly know about writing. It’s all a balancing act: you have to synthesize your own “rules” of writing, because if you read enough books on craft, you’ll quickly realize that no one agrees entirely on any one aspect of the business (this is becoming more and more true as the industry continues to evolve through the advent of electronic books). Maybe that’s why I think of writing as literary art; there are critics, and there are those who create. Both can benefit from understanding the other’s point of view, but the two will almost certainly never come to an agreement over what constitutes quality. That’s a task best left to readers; it’s a writer’s job to write—and if he or she hopes to be read, to never stop. There will always be some weakness to overcome, rejection to be faced, and staggering competition. Perseverance, along with a firm grasp of proper submission etiquette, is everything.

    There is hope to be found in three modest fiction sales to three different science fiction and horror anthologies, but there is also the desire for more. There is the desire for professional-level writing, and stories that reflect such a skill. And in the desire to write, of course, is also the desire for escape, for making a return to the worlds in which I spent so much time as a boy. I long, perhaps, to one day meet my robot friend once again. Therefore, it isn’t enough to simply write; one has to continue exploring, searching for more, reading as much as possible. In books one might stumble upon truth, and thereby strengthen the imagination. Through that imagination, and the constant practice that is the requisite of the truly competent writer, one might eventually tell one’s own truth.

    And truth, I believe, is something worth sharing.

    Finding the Cure

    Writing is an art I stumbled into by accident. It’s a kind of illness, one might argue—it fights you, you do your best to retaliate; but somehow the desire always returns. That little glimmer of an idea, that tiny flicker of inspiration, sets you back toward the page. But who that is entirely sane ever wishes such insanity upon himself? It would doubtless be a thousand times simpler, more profitable, to study finance or business. Few seem to ever actually choose writing as their ideal profession. Again, it is at its core a kind of affliction; the subconscious will not let go its clasp until the words are expunged. Only then can the mind return to its rightful place among the people of Earth. And that’s really what one expects of a decent human being, isn’t it? A proper grounding in the sturdy terrain of reality?

    I believe, from the kind of perspective that only two decades’ worth of retrospection can offer, that I came upon the writer’s illness at the extreme early age of two. The tendency of my fiction—the bulk of my prose—has always been to venture into the worlds of the imagination. Some of these worlds are the grand settings found most commonly in space opera and other types of futuristic science fiction; some are all too familiar in their resemblance of our modern-day world; others are rooted in the stuff of nightmares, the stuff one might uncover in an old issue of Weird Tales or the bibliography of someone like Stephen King. This, perhaps, signifies a doubling of my illness’s severity: Not only do I spend my time creating imaginary people to populate imaginary worlds, but I occasionally lead them astray, into the heart of shadowy blackness that lurks only in the imaginations of the most ill-spent minds.

    The soul of my writing has surely always been in that otherworldly escape, that search for the unknowable that resides outside the realm of proper society. At age two, I found the horror genre in the form of death’s foul breath wafting in my general direction. Although I was too young to recognize such things as pain and weakness, I caught a case of pneumonia that had me hospitalized for what must have been at least a week. No doubt some of my earliest, most deep-seated fears stem from that experience: fear of the dark, fear of solitude, fear of silence; even the most basic fear of death. It would be foolish to assume that the illness did not affect me in any way. It was the hospital I spent that week in, a gloomy place of dust-gray corridors and linoleum that gleamed like the surface of a frozen lake, that tossed the young child whose eyes were mine in 1991 into an encounter with my mind’s lifelong symbol of science fiction: the robot.

    I can’t recall whether I ever got to handle the remote control of the most sophisticated toy I’d ever seen—to this day, I can say honestly that I’ve never encountered another children’s toy quite so marvelous—but I was quite content to watch. The machine tread by way of a set of small rubber wheels, and its face was far from human; yet I got the sense, at age two, that this creature comprised of twentieth-century plastics and metal was a being with a soul. Although it walked unlike anyone else, it still indeed walked—albeit a bit more gracefully than human legs can manage, and only when commanded. I don’t remember whether it talked, or if perhaps it merely traveled about the hospital playroom, but I remember thinking that somehow the robot and I would have a lifelong relationship; such machines would become a part of who I was.

    The rest of my childhood, one can trace with some precision, proceeded almost certainly as a direct result of that experience. My parents, no doubt relieved to have me out of the hospital and back home, never seemed to forget my awe at the sight of that remote-controlled robot. My dad, whose library included only nonfiction works by Isaac Asimov, lacked the vast literature of science fiction, save for a modest 1986 paperback edition of Frank Herbert’s Dune that I would eventually borrow from him years down the road (“borrow” used in place of the more precise term, which is considered by most to be a wicked crime). Lacking stories about my favorite machine-beings, I instead relied on the graciousness of my mom on trips to the local video rental place, Hogan’s Video, to acquire such classic 1980s and -90s films as Short Circuit, Batteries Not Included, Transformers: The Movie (and, of course, the many volumes of the television series), and Star Wars.

    Johnny Number Five, the real star of the film Short Circuit, asserted numerous times that he was, indeed, alive; this just reaffirmed the wondrous suspicions of that two-year-old boy who’d spent a week coughing up phlegm and unwittingly making his parents a wreck with worry. The tiny extraterrestrials machines that sputtered about and chittered to Martin Landau in Batteries Not Included, moreover, could even fall ill the way I had during my first encounter with the robotic species; they could even die! But thankfully, as Transformers: The Movie failed to acknowledge, they could be resurrected with the help of their human counterparts.

    Which, of course, R2-D2 was glad to discover by the end of that 1977 George Lucas film one Fox executive had faith in, despite the overwhelming risk involved in such a grandiose production. I don’t recall the first time I saw the original Star Wars, but I do recall one particularly nightmarish daydream. One night, while my two sisters and I (my brother was not yet born) were slumbering over at my grandparents’ house, I was allowed to shower unaided and unattended for perhaps the first time in my short life. It wasn’t the cold trickle of water on my bare back that alarmed me; it is almost certainly the shower curtain I have to blame for my fear. When I stepped in, showered, and then dried myself, I did so with the courage and ease that is the luxury of every oblivious four- or five-year-old boy. Only when it came time to draw back the shower curtain and emerge did I bristle with gooseflesh, with the creeping of fear of uncertainty. What might be waiting for me on the other side? I wondered. A monster of some sort? Why, it was possible—but the monster I envisioned was none other than the haunting visage of Darth Vader; that half-man, half-machine monstrosity who is surely the most fascinating fictional villain of the twentieth century. He represents, as Lucas later acknowledged in his 2005 concluding chapter to the story, the ungodly other; he represents Mary Shelley’s horrid monster.

    Except, as I learned at the Rivoli theater amid the equally potent aromas of butter-soaked popcorn and stagnant urine in 1997, sipping the icy nectar of a fountain Coke and utterly lost in space, there was an even greater tragedy to this dark, enigmatic figure: he’d done this all to himself. The Empire Strikes Back revealed that Vader had been made a monster by way of his own wayward actions, and now I shuddered at the implications this brought to my young mind. Would Luke Skywalker succumb to the same lure, and grow into an evil, and moreover soulless machine, the way his father had? I had to know; I informed my father that he simply must take me, next month, to see the Special Edition release of Return of the Jedi.

    Suddenly my entire outlook on humankind had changed, all thanks to a simple adventure film trilogy set among the stars. Human beings were not born evil, the way the Decepticons and their leader, Megatron, seemed to have been. Human beings were required to make difficult choices, which would have consequences—potentially disastrous consequences. I was fascinated; half in love, half horrified.

    My family must’ve seen the early stages of the lifelong illness in me, then, because it was henceforth a constant path; no one ever questioned it, and no one asked me if I approved. I was allowed access to a television in my bedroom, with all the channels to be found on basic cable. Over the course of three years, between 1995 to 1998, I’d seen late-night airings of Pet Sematary, Aliens, The Lost Boys, The Abyss, and the occasional glimpse of softcore pornography. Needless to say, this didn’t help to cure my sickness in the slightest. Instead, it introduced me to a whole slew of new creatures of the night: aliens, vampires, naked women; it was all a bit much for my frightened, innocent eyes to grasp.

    Credit is almost certainly due to my grade school, Willits Elementary, who made some efforts, even if unknowingly, to fix my tainted imagination. They read us Ray Bradbury stories—to this day, “All Summer in a Day” remains one of my all-time favorite works of short fiction, alongside “The Pedestrian,” which I didn’t get around to discovering until my sophomore year of high school. Surely even the science fiction of Ray Bradbury is an improvement over the acid-belching monsters in James Cameron’s bloody, fiery sequel to Alien; and surely the nice, kid-approved books that lined the library shelves at Willits Elementary were above the devilish gore I witnessed in the film adaptation of Pet Sematary. Except, of course, that even this proved untrue: the first novel I ever read was titled Fright Night, a morality-tinged Christmastime ghost tale about a boy who misbehaved…and then finally got the pants-soiling scares the author seemed to think he deserved.

    Most people tend to think of the fantastic genres as separate categories: fantasy, science fiction, and horror. The truth of the matter is, I never believed this; I still don’t. It’s a publisher’s marketing device. It’s a way to classify and describe—and lazily, at that. But as a child, I saw that the lines one might draw between such various types of film and fiction are utterly blurred by true artistry. You can’t call a film like Aliens science fiction without acknowledging the horror that is the real focus of the story. You can’t call Ray Bradbury’s work science fiction without acknowledging that it’s really just a fantastical reexamining of contemporary society.

    Let’s get back, though, to that great influence on my creative life: Star Wars. The now-defunct Waldenbooks, probably the longest-lived retailer of books to ever grace the people of Galesburg, Illinois, was a regular destination for my dad in my early years. We couldn’t visit the Carl Sandburg Mall without taking the hour or more necessary to explore the endless sea of freshly-printed pages. Here, I found, more worlds were waiting for me: folks like Timothy Zahn, Kevin J. Anderson, and Alan Dean Foster had been sitting there for the past few years waiting to show me that there was an entire universe left to be discovered. Chewbacca had a nephew; Han Solo and Leia Organa eventually gave birth to children.

    I picked up an attractive Star Wars paperback, the first volume of Kevin J. Anderson and Rebecca Moesta’s Young Jedi Knights series, and asked my father if he’d be kind enough to buy it for me. He agreed with a shrug and a nod. As I wandered the aisles, I felt the gravity of names pulling at me—names like Stephen King, particularly, as well as Tom Clancy, John Grisham, and Clive Cussler. Surely these were storytellers, I decided, that people wanted to listen to. These were guys who could keep folks’ attention for lifetimes’ worth of reading.

    I made a silent challenge to myself, right then and there, that I would one day be such a name. It’s easy to have an oversized ego when you’re seven years old. Rather than practice writing, though, I instead turned my attention to drawing pictures—of robots, spaceships, and fictional icons like Batman and Darth Vader.

    It wasn’t until I was given an assignment for school, two years later, that I actually started practicing for the career I’d chosen for myself. I wrote a five- or six-page short story, and illustrated it, with the help of two of my childhood friends. I spent the next couple years trying to expand that dreadful work into what in my naive mind was a novel; I still have the handwritten manuscript, for whenever I need a good nostalgic laugh.

    At age thirteen, I got serious. My last year to enter the regional Young Authors competition meant it was my last chance to win: I’d have to bring my best ammunition to the table if I was to have any hope of success. So I spent three months writing a two-hundred-page science fiction novel. Oh yeah…and it won. I suspect, now, that its victory had nothing to do, truthfully, with quality; it’s a terrible goddamn story. But how many other eighth-graders put in the hours and days necessary to draft an entire novel? The answer, quite reasonably, is none. No other kid my age was quite so insane, so full of passion-stoked illness. In truth, I knew even then that what would separate me from the rest of the contest’s entrants, what would give me a fair amount of hope that I might win, was my drive. After all, I’d made a promise to myself; and to my dad, who was an avid reader (granted, he prefers nonfiction, but not everyone suffers from the same incurable sickness as this lifelong lover of all things strange and spacebound—and I never actually voiced my promise aloud), and who had been kind enough to treat me to two nights in a galaxy far, far away. I feel a similar fondness toward later memories of progressive rock concerts and Coca-Cola, also shared with my dad; although no doubt he thinks Styx beats the hell out of the Rebel Alliance or a tribe of Ewoks any day. Maybe he’s right.

    After my stellar conquest of the dreaded first novel, a feat that to this day baffles the twenty-one-year-old me far more than it ever did the eighth-grader who wrote it, I chilled out for a while. I was starting to grow hair in strange places, and attending church for reasons that had nothing to do with God or anything He would’ve approved of (there were some real lookers in that congregation, truth be told); writing about and drawing pictures of aliens and otherworldly machines was no longer cool. Perhaps it never was, and I’d been oblivious the whole time—the trickery, surely, of that remote-controlled robot I met so many years ago. I watched all kinds of movies with my dad, learned that my grandfather (my dad’s father; we’ll get to my Grandpa Cole later) shared my love of science fiction and horror, even if the man won’t admit it, and attended the aforementioned rock concerts. Can you guess what my favorite Styx tune was back then?

    High school brought with it a number of completely new, more adult challenges. Writing science fiction simply wouldn’t do; I needed to start thinking about a real career. But I read—discovered the likes of Dune, its prequels and sequels (all of which I haven’t gotten to; I mainly reread the original, along with Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson’s Dune: The Battle of Corrin), Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club, and Stephen King’s novels, namely The Stand, Dreamcatcher, and The Green Mile. I never stopped loving fiction, or the act of reading, but the way my outlook on the craft of writing was received by my high school English teachers gave me doubts about my chosen path. They hated my writing, my wordiness, and my decidedly deviant ideas about what constitutes great literature. I suppose Palahniuk is partly to blame for that misdeed. Fight Club did nothing if not forever alter my disposition regarding the flavorless society that I found suddenly enveloping me in those years; Tyler Durden saw past the bullshit in which so many swam day in and day out, slowly drowning in consumerism and complacency. One can imagine how delighted I was, that closet geek of sixteen years, to discover that it wasn’t me that was off-kilter, a little insane; there was something wrong with the whole world.

    Which, let’s be honest, is really the primary function of fiction. Why read when we can watch movies, play Xbox, or whack golf balls toward the roaring highway traffic? Well, seriously, reading is an illuminating thing. You don’t go into a story asking much more than the author’s willingness to entertain, but what you come out with—from the books you remember, anyway—is a sense that, somehow, the world isn’t quite what it seemed going into the novel. Fiction is a clever arrangement of events that conceals the greater fruit of the subconscious mind: truth. Palahniuk wasn’t trying to be some whiny kid any more than Arthur C. Clarke was trying to preach about the necessity of space exploration: that just occurred while they were fumbling about in the shadows of their minds in search of truth. Truth, in those days, was something elusive, something I relied on my high school teachers to endow me with.

    Outside of school, and later in college, I found truth; not from better-educated professors, as one might assume. Instead, I found truth in the universal pains of heartbreak and tragedy. In 2005, my mom’s dad—my Grandpa Cole—unexpectedly suffered a fatal heart attack. It was a jarring, shocking reminder that we’re all mortal, and that despite the time I spent at the gym in those days, even I might some day find my own heartbeat bidding the world adieu. It’s said that tragedies of this sort often give birth to writers, or even specific novels; this is perhaps a fair assessment of general human tendency. In my case, however, I never finished the hundred-page manuscript I began that year. I found solace, instead, in reading; Lucas’s final Star Wars film was nearing its release, and so I sought refuge in the pages of Matthew Stover’s novelization of Revenge of the Sith. The writing changed everything. There was an immediacy to the characters’ fears, thoughts, and reactions; there was a pace no slower than a horse’s gallop that Stover sustained throughout the book; and most importantly, there was a really great story that served as an important closer chapter in one facet of my life. The characters I’d grown up with, had come to truly love, finally had their fates sealed; and a man whom I’d had limited time with, in whose face I saw myself reflected back, was gone from my life forever.

    There were heartbreaks, there were loves—the intense, life-altering loves that are the stinging sores upon every foolish young man’s soul—and there were friendships, jobs, and new discoveries. I found the world I’d been looking for my whole life. I discovered that the people in my own world were every bit as interesting—doubtless even more so—than those in books like The Stand or films like The Good, and the Bad, and the Ugly that are forever in my imagination. I found loves greater than any to be read about, or watched on the silver screen. I found support in a wonderful young woman who is also my best friend. I came to terms with the fact that I am a man with a best friend, and parents who love and support his endeavors despite the illness that forever persits. I found Stephen King’s tremendous memoir, On Writing, and I began typing up stories in feverish bouts of creativity and raw, inexplicable energy. In February 2010, I sent my first short story submission to Weird Tales. It wasn’t what they were looking for, Ms. VanderMeer said; so I sent another. I sent stories to Strange Horizons, Clarkesworld, The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, and others. I collected over one hundred rejection slips, and came to terms with the reality of my situation: the learning isn’t over. I’ve got work to do if I’m to have any real success with my writing. There is hope to be found in three modest fiction sales to three different horror and science fiction anthologies; but, then, there is also the desire for more. There is the desire for professional-level writing, and stories that reflect such a skill. In the desire to write is also the desire for escape, for making a return to the worlds in which I spent so much time as a child. I long, perhaps, to one day meet my robot friend once again. Therefore, it isn’t enough simply to write; one has to continue exploring, searching for more, reading as much as possible. In books one might stumble upon truth, and thereby strengthen the imagination. Through that imagination, and the constant practice that is the requisite of the truly competent writer, one might eventually tell one’s own truth.

    And truth, I believe, is something worth sharing.

    On Homosexuality: A Question of Love, the Role of Sex in Society, and Morality

    The present generation, and likely many to follow, faces one of history’s profound instances of moral uncertainty: the issue of homosexuality and its implications for human rights. Arguments over the legality of gay and lesbian marriages seem unending, and the ethical concerns underlying such arguments are a matter of constant conflict. One might see it as a question of the morality of such relationships; others might see it as a purely sociopolitical struggle, not unlike those of the past. It is difficult not to view the issue as yet another battle for equality by an oppressed people who have faced discrimination for centuries—no different, perhaps, than the abolitionist movement or the protests for women’s suffrage. Like any such strife toward civil liberty, however, the issue is complicated. The moral dimensions of the homosexual lifestyle are widely diverse. The nature of love and its relationship to sex, for example, is a core element of the debate; definitions and opinions regarding their importance vary. Because of this, the different conceptions of love, as well as the purpose and value of sex, come under constant examination by the conflicted parties. Moreover, if homosexuality is ultimately determined by the majority of a society to be immoral, should the law directly reflect that? In order to near a conclusion regarding the matter, one must first determine the role love plays in the moral individual’s life; and if the sexual component to same-sex relationships must also be evaluated, then one must question the social and ethical repercussions of such lifestyles.

    In Marsilio Ficino’s Commentary on Plato’s Symposium on Love, the author explains that, according to the platonic conception of the formation of our universe, “Love accompanies chaos, precedes the world, wakens the sleeping, lights the dark, gives life to the dead, gives form to the formless, perfects the imperfect” (40). Ficino defines love as “the desire for beauty” (40). By this conception, which he explains is the one most common among philosophers, love requires only the intellect and the more sophisticated forms of perception—those of sight and sound—and therefore, a desire for anything more—that which requires touching, for instance—must be no quest for beauty (and so, not love), but rather sexual lust (41). Platonic love, then, which has long been held to be the ultimate form of love, requires nothing of the exchange of touches, kisses, or sexual acts. It is quite reasonable to assume that platonic love between two individuals of the same sex occurs all the time—it need not be a taboo thing at all. Two men or women may develop a deep, intimate admiration for one another that ultimately transcends the need for sex. According to Plato’s definition of love, then, sexual relationships are set apart from love entirely. They neither require love to occur nor collapse under its existence; the two are simply parallel desires. Therefore, the question of whether or not homosexuality is a morality acceptable lifestyle cannot be solved by relying on the essence of love.

    Mortimer J. Adler, in his book Desires: Right & Wrong, poses a slightly different conception of love. He argues that one is not wrong in associating love with lust or sex, because love in the traditional sense generally stems from an erotic feeling of attraction toward another. Adler explains that the difference between love and a merely sexual relationship lies in the intent of each participant. A sexual relationship, according to Adler, may be considered one of love if its participants desire to give mutual pleasure to one another, rather than merely seek to use one another as a means to satisfy one’s own selfish sexual needs (74-5). This need not have a negative connotation, as it so often does. If earthly love is the penultimate goal of all moral persons (before death, in other words), then sex can be understood as a basic component of human life. The desire for its pleasures is as natural as the drive to seek out food, or shelter from a torrent, and therefore should be understood as a socially acceptable relationship between individuals, despite what privacy norms dominate a given culture. Adler also adds, however, that there is yet another conception of love: divine love. This, he explains, is what the Greeks initially referred to as a kind of altruistic recognition of love for God and the charity of others (75). One might argue that sex cannot possibly be associated with this higher, selfless form of love. That seems incongruous with various other Christian teachings. If God indeed loves all of Creation, as well as all his children—and as a result, the unique talents of the world’s many individuals are to be praised—then is sex not simply another one of the gifts God has bestowed upon humanity? Religions the world over regard various practices one might view as unusual as means to reach either God or similar deities: the use of drugs, the enactment of rituals, the literal or figurative display of cannibalizing God Incarnate, meditative mysticism, et cetera. Almost all of these practices rely on a belief in the purely supernatural. Meditation as a vehicle to reach the realm of the divine implies that God or some other deity must exist, at least in part, within ourselves—our mental, spiritual selves, if not our physical forms. Might sexual relationships be seen as another legitimate path toward God? If one declares the act of homosexual intercourse to be unnatural, as is the common argument, then such claims might be easily refuted on the basis that there is more to love than sex, and platonic love is therefore independent of the perceived necessity of procreation. One might then reply that any sexual act beyond the primary “intended” use of human genitalia (sexual reproduction) is immoral in the eyes of God, but then what of drug use in spirituality? The sodomy and various oral sex acts that are performed by homosexual lovers of either gender are surely no less natural than the harvesting, processing, and ingestion of substances known to chemically alter the function of the human brain—not excluding the wine consumed in the ritual of communion to signify the blood of Christ. It is, of course, dubious that one could effectively argue that there is anything even remotely natural about the act of cannibalism within the so-called “developing world.”

    According to Rachels, author of The Elements of Moral Philosophy, the Gallup Poll questions the American public on their position regarding homosexuality. When asked whether the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable social alternative to heterosexual partnerships, 57% of the poll’s participants in 2008 agreed that it was. When asked about the morality of homosexual relations, the nation was divided almost precisely in half (32). This perhaps indicates that the United States feels there ought to be a separation between personal beliefs regarding morality and the legality of others’ relationships; a sign that democracy may be praised for its inclusiveness and allowance of ethical subjectivity.

    The arguments in favor of and against homosexuality vary, especially depending on the ethical theory applied therein. Ethical subjectivism almost immediately favors homosexual individuals, because it cannot allow for them to be rightly condemned if they feel there is nothing immoral about their desires. As Rachels points out, homosexuals are only pursuing happiness through their relationships. Sex is a powerful drive in human individuals, just as it is in all sexual animals, and to deny homosexuals a right to the sex they desire would be to deliberately obstruct their path toward happiness. He also reasserts the claim of many homosexuals that the homosexual lifestyle, like our common conception of heterosexuality, is not about sex but rather about the quest for love that may either precede or accompany a sexual relationship. Just as heterosexuals at no point choose to lead heterosexual lifestyles, homosexuals are also born with their own set of earthly desires; one’s sexual orientation, with perhaps a few rare exceptions, is destined from (or even before) the moment of birth (44). If morality is premised upon the ideas that human beings have a capacity for reason, and some modicum of free will, then how can one justifiably be persecuted for that which they had no part in choosing? If anyone, notwithstanding any future prospect for designer children via gene-splicing, has any part in the decision of one individual to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, then certainly it must God Himself. What sort of God, one must then ask, would condemn His own creation? The only reasonable response to such a question would be to presume He would not; that in truth it is humankind who exacts such judgments.

    In his book, Sex, Money & Power: An Essay in Christian Social Ethics, Philip Turner calls upon the Church to radically revise its moral thinking in regard to sexual relationships in order to suit the reality of the present normative values of our society. He explains that the Church, and the Christian hard right, puts undue emphasis on a need to return to the ethical ideas of the past. Instead, he argues in favor of acknowledging the commonplace nature, and value of, certain sexual acts as necessary social exchanges. Turner goes on to explain the ethical view of relationships termed self-actualizationism, which is based largely upon the premise that most relationships, including those of sexual nature, are God-given gifts, and contribute to one’s personal growth and self-discovery. Under this view of relationship ethics, oft-condemned acts such as adultery, polyandry, and homosexuality are seen as acts which might positively contribute to one’s individual growth. He asserts his belief that allowing for more inclusiveness in the criteria for what is morally acceptable in the realm of sex (for example, celebrating homosexuality) would better reflect the Church’s teaching that God loves all his diverse children equally. However, acts which are seen by normative social beliefs as abhorrent, such as pornography and bestiality, are still considered immoral in the study of self-actualizationism (32-5). This idea of religious revisionism is evidence that not all clergy, particularly among varying denominations, are necessarily in agreement with one another regarding the subject of open sexuality as moral or immoral. Moreover, the idea that including homosexuality as a practice accepted by the Church would allow for a variety of positive, foreseeable results: It would add religious value to existing homosexual relationships, which might improve the lives of those effected in terms of love and the quality of their relationship with God; and similarly, it would open the possibility for homosexual couples to receive the blessing of their churches and a sense of social belonging.

    If the Church were, by such persuasion, to change their policy toward homosexuality, it would not necessarily have to revise their views regarding other presently condemned acts. If the Church were unwilling, for example, to allow the rising social trend of pre-marital, live-in sexual relationships to become an acceptable practice, homosexuality need not suffer such dismissal. For one, allowing homosexual partnerships and related sex acts would draw such individuals at least toward an appreciation of the Church, if not to become actual members of a particular faith. Also, by allowing legal unions to be given the blessing of God (and what privilege, one might ask, is it of humankind’s to deliver His blessing?) and the Church, there can be little doubt that in time there would be an observable decline in other acts Christianity feels to be immoral: Adultery, along with other forms of pre-marital sex, would potentially grow less common among homosexuals in a world where the marriage of same is granted society’s blessing; and promiscuity, similarly, would decline in favor of more fulfilling, perhaps everlasting unions.

    Faced with conflicted beliefs from within, the Church might understandably turn to the teachings of its Bible for answers. They would be sure to find, then—or at least interpret as such—that God considers homosexuality (or so-called sodomy, a term with irrevocably negative connotations) to be a sin. What of sin, then? If God’s regard for a particular practice can only be known through the Bible, believed by the Church to be the very word of God Himself, then one might propose that the Bible be interpreted with caution. While those who place their faith in Christianity may assert that the Bible was penned by human beings as God acted through them, one cannot dismiss the sheer power that this idea affords the Church. Such power corrupts, and leaves the validity of the Bible’s teachings uncertain. One must consider the possibility that what God views as sin, and what the Church claims to be sin, are not necessarily the same. For instance, as John Portmann mentions in his introduction to In Defense of Sin, the Ten Commandments make no mention of homosexuality (5). Richard Wasserstrom, in his essay, “Is Adultery Immoral?,” calls attention to the great error of recent philosophical literature: The focus of arguments against such things as homosexuality, adultery, and prostitution is scarcely on whether or not the act is immoral; instead, it is simply taken for granted that it is, and the discussion proceeds to argue for the legality of the act in question on the basis of its presumed immorality (59). This implies a certain closed-mindedness about our society’s approach to ethics. If something may be declared immoral arbitrarily, or because of its taboo, non-majority status, then does this not indicate a fundamental failure in society’s ethical process? A willingness to rethink issues, solve problems in creative new ways, and be open-minded is certainly the groundwork for any mindful, moral individual. To assign the status of sin to any act initially perceived as existing outside the social norm is to fail to think ethically, because it blatantly ignores the role of reason.

    But what of the arguments that homosexuality is absolutely wrong, no matter its perceived merits? Can reason be used to conclude that homosexual relationships are immoral? When Kantian ethics—which is heavily rooted in the presumption of certain moral absolutes—is used as an approach to the issue of whether or not homosexuality is immoral, its core ideas are rendered extreme, impractical, and unjust, from a realistically modern, humanitarian perspective. Under Kant’s formula of the categorical imperative, one can reason that homosexuality is immoral because its implications would point to the utter, eventual extinction of the human race. If homosexuality was made universal law, going along with the categorical imperative’s template for moral reasoning, then (presumably, since homosexuality by definition implies an attraction only toward members of the same sex) no heterosexual relationships would hypothetically occur. Under this extrapolation, humanity would cease to procreate, and the species would eventually die off entirely, unless some miraculous evolutionary mutation occurred that enabled females to reproduce by parthenogenesis. Because no one would readily submit their favor to the annihilation of the human race over the uniformity of sexual preference, then homosexuality can be deemed immoral under Kantian ethics. However, this illustrates the logical flaws in Kant’s premise: If reason is so greatly valued simply because it is within human capacity, why, then, would homosexuality not be valued by the same rationale? Would it not be another of God’s many unique gifts to be cherished? Similarly, if morality is governed by reason, which implies the ability to make rational, mindful choices by exercising free will, then how is homosexuality truly a moral issue, as moral thinkers claim it to be? It is a biological impulse, the way hunger, thirst, or a desire for survival—or even intellectual thought, creativity, or emotion—exists within every capable human being. Sexual preference is a matter of genetic determinants, much like the human capacity for intellect or a particular predisposition to a given talent or skill. It is not, in accordance with the natural processes by which the human capacity for reason is fostered, a choice at all, and is therefore an example of how Kantian ethics fails to successfully guide one to absolute moral truth regarding homosexuality.

    Of course, one might reach a radically different conclusion about homosexuality if one takes a utilitarian approach to the moral question. In many respects, utilitarianism is the opposite of Kantian ethics; it leaves no room for moral absolutes, and almost anything can be deemed permissible if done so for the sake of generating optimal happiness in the affected parties. Rachels describes utilitarianism as the conception of morality put forth by Jeremy Bentham, which states that morality is simply a matter of following the Principle of Utility; that in all instances, we ought to do only that which produces the most happiness possible (97). The value of happiness as the ultimate goal of the moral individual is questionable, to say the least—but happiness is certainly a valuable component of the fulfilling, moral life. Hedonism need not be the only path toward granting homosexuality society’s tolerance (or, if true justice may be achieved, society’s blessing); however, the popularity of the utilitarian conception of ethics certainly raises further moral dissonance regarding homosexuality. It is difficult to conceive of a world in which allowing homosexuality would not generate more happiness than existed previously. If one is to perform the calculus of utilitarianism with the hope of declaring the morality of homosexuality, one must take into account which portions of society will truly be affected. Those individuals who face discrimination on a daily basis simply because of their status as gay, lesbian, or bisexual would be the most obvious variable. While such individuals are a minority among society, they are certainly the ones with the most to be gained from either the legalization of gay marriage or the Church’s blessing of homosexual lifestyles. Heterosexual or celibate individuals, on the other hand, have no concrete stake in the matter; any loss or prevention of happiness in such persons would be purely superficial—a slight moral disapproval, a mere revulsion toward the alien “other”; perhaps a loss of faith in the religion or judicial system that deemed homosexuality to be morally permissible. Ultimately, one would be ill-suited to argue against the morality of homosexual relationships from a utilitarian perspective.

    The debate regarding homosexuality and its morality will likely persist for years to come. If it is proven to be yet another instance of illogical discrimination, like so many similar social problems throughout our imperfect world, then perhaps there is hope for the liberty of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals. If society begins to acknowledge the role various sexual relationships play in our society, as Turner suggests in Sex, Money & Power, then we may eventually see a societal openness regarding sex develop that would doubtless generate an atmosphere more accepting to alternative sexual lifestyles. Society at large, however, is not necessarily homosexuality’s greatest opponent. One may reason that it is the Church, so heavily steeped in ancient tradition, that is the final obstruction to the liberty of non-heterosexual lifestyles; and that it is, ironically, the Church who might potentially benefit the most from the acceptance and blessing of alternative sexual relationships.

    Works Cited

    Adler, Mortimer J. Desires: Right & Wrong. New York: Macmillan, 1991. Print.

    Ficino, Marsilio. “Speech I.” Commentary on Plato’s Symposium on Love. Ed. Sears Jayne. Dallas: Spring, 1985. 45-69. Print.

    Portmann, John. “The Half-Life of Sin.” In Defense of Sin. Ed. John Portmann. New York: St. Martin’s, 2001. 1-11. Print.

    Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Ed. Stuart Rachels. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.

    Turner, Philip. “Revisionist Sex.” Sex, Money & Power: An Essay in Christian Social Ethics. Cambridge: Cowley, 1985. 29-44. Print.

    Wasserstrom, Richard. “Is Adultury Immoral?” In Defense of Sin. Ed. John Portmann. New York: St. Martin’s, 2001. 59-76. Print.

    On the Ethics of Care

    The rise of Feminist thinking in the twentieth century brought a great deal of subjects under careful scrutiny, and philosophy was no exception. Given that the previous eras of intellectual thought were guided by the ideas and writings of men, women in the contemporary era are rightfully wary of accepting a structure of society and philosophical thinking that has been dominated for millennia by the opposite sex. Rachels implies that the ethics of care is, in large part, a reactionary rejection of ethical reasoning that stems from the principle- and reason-dominated methodology of ethics. Female intellectuals instead propose that men and women conceivably understand and approach various issues in different ways, and therefore assert that one view is neither better nor worse than the other — simply different, and equally important if one is to fairly credit the thinking of both sexes (146-57).

    Early philosophical thinking was largely founded on the writings of Aristotle (and of course Plato and Socrates, from whom Aristotle developed his ideas), who declared women to be of inferior rational capacity (146). To have such a great, endeared thinker make this claim doubtless both reinforced and perpetuated the fallacy for many centuries. The intellectual failure of philosophers throughout the ages, then, is not necessarily that they spread the ideas of Aristotle and built upon them — indeed, most would agree his ideas were profound, given their time of origin — but that no one had the courage to question this assumption of female capacity for intellect. Not until women gained any modicum of equal human rights or power did this claim finally fall under critical examination. It is inexcusable that no male figurehead of intellectual thought made an effort to disprove this falsehood. One might ask, then: Was Aristotle right?

    Doubtful. Most would argue that he was simply conforming to the deeply-conditioned social hierarchy long established at the time he lived. It is, however, a philosophical failure worth pondering; if Aristotle possessed such profound vision and reason, why did he not attempt to argue this point? According to Rachels, Carol Gilligan proposed the idea that men construct their ethical thinking on the basis of firm, unquestionable principles, which are better suited for constructing concrete, logical arguments in favor of dealing a particular judgment. Women, on the other hand, have a greater concern for the small details of a given situation, which “give [it] its special flavor” (149). This observation is perhaps the most valuable insight into the value of care-based ethics. First of all, it comes from a woman, so therefore the claim of female thinking is coming from the source, rather than being an unfounded claim like Aristotle’s proposition. Moreover, it provides a basic framework for evaluating the two different viewpoints. Rather than seeing male and female thinking as in opposition, one can recognize that they both offer different valuable ways to approach the same issue. If one makes the essentialist argument for men and women having intellectual differences of any kind, then it might be acceptable by using Gilligan’s observation as a starting point. In other words, the biology of women lends itself to an eye for detail, whereas male biology has some sort of masculine tendency toward concrete, absolute methods of thinking.

    If this sort of thing is true, and biology plays a greater role than social conditioning in the different thinking of men and women, then this poses a useful question: Why is there a difference? Well, of course, nature is full of wondrous engineering. Little in the course of evolution happens through triviality; it all serves a purpose. The difference, then, is most likely to capacitate a full, multifaceted approach to thinking. While women might have one concern, men can offer another — and this makes for better reasoning.

    Almost all theories of moral, ethical, or philosophical thinking is proposed in pursuit of a common goal: creating a better quality of human existence. What, then, is a philosophy of ethics with no regard for the idea of care? If humanity exists solely on the basis of systematic thinking and firm principles, then where is the regard for human life, comfort, happiness? A system of principles that interact with one another on the basis of interconnected ideas, concepts, and procedure seems to lack any truly human qualities at all. In fact, such a world sounds more akin to a machine than a civilization. No society would exist without the individual, and certainly all who might serve to damage or bring the collapse of society are examples of neglectful treatment. Care, one might reason, is what holds one individual firmly in place within the greater framework of society. Without love, happiness, or quality relationships, that individual would seem a sorrowful, purposeless — perhaps even threatening — component of the larger society.