Drawing by Rita CurtinIt is a commonplace that a steady diet of the mass media can rot the brain and so fill one’s mind with nonsense that a creative thought becomes impossible. The Internet, television, film, and miniseries addictions are widespread and keep electronic minds flashing in and out and everywhere so as to avoid that much maligned word “boredom,” the feared state where real thinking can germinate. Even when crossing a busy street it has become important to look at your cell phone screen and not the traffic. The cars and trucks are too real, and anyway no one dies anymore, they just pass on.
What is rarely acknowledged, however, is that the supposed antidote for such mental pollution – a steady diet of good reading – can itself prevent a thoughtful, personal encounter with life. Reading books, no matter how great they may be, can be as much a flight from self and one’s unique response to existence as other more blatant forms of escapism.
To booklovers, especially those who read but don’t write books, this is of course heretical. And what I am about to propose is even worse; that from time to time it behooves us to abstain from reading books for an extended period of time. To undergo a literary fast, so to speak. To stop ingesting other people’s thoughts, images, and worlds, and to start dwelling exclusively in our own. Contrary to accepted opinion, this is a rare phenomenon; most people think they are independent thinkers.
To dwell in reverie and discover the silent things that have accumulated within us is the first step in learning to speak freely. It is an act of devotion that leads to one’s own response to things.
As any serious writer or any genuine person will tell you, this is no easy task. In the culture of the copy, copying others is the rule. Devotion takes courage and resolve. And “one’s own” responses to things are far more often than not the responses of unknown others, such as mother or father or an untold number of other voices who have taken up residence in our mental hotels. We do indeed, in the metaphorical sense, see through a glass darkly because we so often respond to experience through the filter of another’s lens.
Great writers have always known this. It is why writing is such a lonely and arduous business. As Ernest Hemingway astutely noted, it is very difficult to know what you truly feel, rather than what you are supposed to feel and been taught to feel. It takes concentration, first to realize your own unique response to life, and then, if you are a writer, to put down in words this truth of yours.
For writers, who are often avid readers, the distorting lens is frequently that of other writers whose books they have read. I am no exception. This can be dangerous and highly destructive of the creative process, as so much of our insidious writing attests. It is why some writers – a serious few intent on expressing their own vision of things – abstain from book reading when writing a book. They wish to dwell in their own imaginative worlds, to tell their stories in their own way, and to be free from the subtle but spiritually corrupting influence books can exert.
And I say this without mentioning AI and the copycat nature of so much slop that passes for writing today, and which time after time appears as “A New York Times Bestseller,” as if many books can be the “best.”
All readers are not of course writers in the strict sense of the word; they don’t put stories in print for others to read. They do, however, live out inwardly and outwardly the stories they weave out of experience. Reading is one of those experiences, one far more powerful and lasting than many would suppose. Believe it or not, there are some people who see all of life through literature as there are others who see it through films or television shows. A woman kills herself and they think of Anna Karenina, and by so doing fail to grasp the truth of the real woman. Or when a small town sexual scandal occurs, they view it through the lens of Flaubert or Hawthorne. And how many readers live out, if “only” in fantasy, the macabre nightmares of Stephen King or the romantic fantasies or crime stories of authors who churn out the same book over and over again? I would think one’s own nightmares would suffice.
Obviously I am not arguing that one should not read. I am suggesting that for everyone, readers and writers alike, there is a time for reading and a time to abstain from reading. Each is good and necessary, while neither is sufficient. As with eating, so with reading, a periodic fast cleanses the mind and body. It is astonishing how difficult and disturbing not reading can be for habitual readers. If one doesn’t substitute an added dose of television or movies, one finds that an important escape route out of one’s own life, away from one’s own response to things, is cut off. One is forced back to the center of oneself, to that place where all true life and great art originates: the individual soul contemplating the real world.
Most people know the saying that “Art imitates life.” The witty Oscar Wilde demurred and said no, “Life imitates art.”
But why all this need for imitation? Why not creation?
I believe that Andre Gide in The Immoralist said it beautifully:
If it’s one thing each of them claims not to resemble it’s … himself. Instead he sets up a model, then imitates it; he doesn’t even choose the model – he accepts it ready made. Yet I’m sure there is something more to be read in a man. People dare not – they dare not turn the page. The laws of mimicry – I call them the laws of fear. People are afraid to find themselves alone, and don’t find themselves at all. I hate all the moral agoraphobia – it’s the worst form of cowardice. You can’t create something without being alone. But who’s trying to create here? What seems different is your self: that’s the one rare thing you possess, the one thing that gives each of us his worth; and that’s just what we try to suppress. We imitate. And claim to love life
Edward Curtin: Sociologist, researcher, poet, essayist, journalist, novelist….writer – beyond a cage of categories. His latest book is AT THE LOST AND FOUND: Personal & Political Dispatches of Resistance and Hope (Clarity Press) website: edwarcurtin.com
Thank you, Ed. What you write is very true. There’s a journey through the desert that one must undertake to find one’s own voice, but the pain of those who venture on it often leads to a swift return to the previous state of guidance, support, or philosophical counsel, if you will. Deep down, it’s the difference between creating and consuming. Creating comes from within us; consuming comes from our pockets. And, yes, the idea of loneliness is one of the highest peaks of fear. It’s becoming increasingly clear to me — though this isn’t my own idea 🙂 — that if, as if by magic, all of us were stripped of the paraphernalia of technological devices for information or entertainment, the general reaction, after the initial shock, would be one of satisfaction. What we don’t want is to be the only ones — that’s the point — who make the decision. The ones who create the rupture. The ones who create. It’s the fear of creation. The fear of risk. The fear of having (and listening to) our own voice.
Mr. Curtin grants much latitude to the commenters here, I’ve noticed, for which he deserves to be commended. Nevertheless, there is often a merely tenuous connection between the ‘replies’ by a certain feller and the pith of the essay. Though the lengthy and incontinent ‘reply’ may or may not contain observations that are worthy of attention, I believe that a verbose ‘reply’ that seems to treat Mr. Curtin’s essay in a perfunctory manner, as a mere jumping-off point for the exposition of matters that are not germane to the essay, shows a lack of respect or regard for the gentleman who runs this blog.
I am not bidding to engage in a dispute with anyone else here, it would be tedious. I’ve been itching to have my say and that’s the end of it.
Hello Volt-Voort….I think this site needs to be viewed as a discussion between everyone however lengthy some expressions are.
The idea ‘freedom of expression’ is often heard in other circles, political groups. I too can experience listener fatigue.
I also agree with what Johnny says….to just be….to see what occurs that might matter more than reading another’s thoughts and feelings and statistics.
I think humans need to express what they are ‘feeling’ more often, whether it is fear of war, fear of a crazy, violent neighbor, fear of not being accepted or loved, fear of rejection, accumulative fear of years-long repressed expressions of various fears and Hurt Feelings. I’ve had all those fears over my 79 years on this violent planet and I forget to simply look and observe a beautiful tree and the healing effects this has on the mind of an individual. Some people would say we read to much and we talk too much or we read the wrong things and express irrelevant thoughts.
Dear Edward and friends: You’re right that there’s an overload of information, with so many great alternative progressive podcasts on YouTube from people like Chris Hedges, Scott Ritter, Max Blumenthal, Glenn Diesen, Professor John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Alastair Crooke, Larry Johnson, Richard Wolff, and others, all of whom are anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, critical of the U.S. government, and in favor of change. But the issue is that immersing ourselves in so much negative news—spending excessive time on what Trump is doing, what Israel is doing, how the U.S. government has become an oligarchic, corrupt kleptocracy like those in Latin America, Africa, and other developing nations, plus climate change and global heating—while informative, won’t necessarily lead to lasting revolutions aimed at overthrowing the oligarchic classes and governments worldwide.
That can really lead to political nihilism, physical and mental weakness among the masses, and ultimately no revolutions or change. The human body and mind just aren’t built to handle a constant barrage of negative news. That’s why I’ve changed my approach toward what’s happening in the world—I’ve become a political nihilist. I’d love to see change, but I think the best stance is to avoid political activism and protests, as they rarely lead to overthrowing oligarchic, corrupt, oppressive states. In the end, protests and revolutions haven’t truly changed the world; they just replace one oppressor with another. So I believe political nihilism is the most effective perspective for change. According to this view, the only real way the world might change is if, for example, Americans addicted to food and a comfortable life lose the buying power to shop for their preferred goods at Walmart, Kroger, Publix, or Aldi to meet their basic needs. That’s the only way we might see change in the USA.
I believe the global political and revolutionary anti-Zionist left should rethink their tactics so the masses can grow into stronger individuals, both mentally and physically, and be ready to dismantle all dictatorships of the bourgeoisie worldwide.
Yes, you have identified many of the best American pundits and analysts. And yes, there will be no revolt ’til things become unsupportable, as they will become, once the climate casino and Gaia regain control of the daily agenda everywhere. We humans will just look on in amazement. We are gawkers as a species. We are slow to evolve, and as Fr. Thomas Berry was wont to say, unless we reimagine ourselves at the species level, the 6th mass extinction will proceed according to schedule, an extinction event that never left stage right despite not being focused upon by legacy media.
Thank you John Gabriel Otvos for your thoughts, comments and bringing Thomas Berry into the discussion.
Here is a quote by someone….., “What is wisdom? Where can it be found? Here we come to the crux of the matter: it can be read about in numerous publications but it can be found only inside oneself. To be able to find it, one has first to liberate oneself from such masters as greed and envy. The stillness following liberation – even if only momentary – produces the insights of wisdom which are obtainable in no other way.”
We all have heard/read the phrase, ‘in silence is the answer’….however, perhaps we have become so disturbed by the disturbed society/authorities, we cannot grasp anything that is not dictated by authorities of so many forms. So why read anything? I think it is finding the ‘correct’ things to read while using our small brain less frequently. What can be discussed? I thought of expanding this idea, but decided it would become bullshit and we’re too deep into that anyway.
I read too much and not enough. It does help to take some time off reading entirely. It also helps to have not too many friends — look what that did for J.D. Salinger
Does a newborn baby read?
It doesn’t need
It just looks and sees
A baby, perfectly at peace
Just has to Be.
Dear Edward and friends: You’re absolutely right that having too many books doesn’t necessarily lead to true wisdom. For example, progressive liberal writer, political activist, and YouTube influencer Thom Hartmann has said he inherited 20,000 books from his father and has read most of them. Yet, despite this, he seems unaware of what I see as the fascist nature of Ukraine’s government. I don’t understand why he supports Zelensky and Ukraine, who I believe are the villains in the conflict with Russia. In my view, Russia and Putin are the lesser evil, proving that reading countless books doesn’t always result in a sharper mind or clearer perception.
One of the main reasons I prefer this blog over most other anti-war progressive websites, and more than many YouTube anti-war, anti-Zionism influencers, is that it does a great job of informing people about U.S. imperialism, Zionism, the Israel lobby’s influence over the U.S. government, and the concentration of wealth among a few. However, they don’t really dig into the deeper, underlying roots and causes of these problems in America and around the world. At least you address the root causes, unlike many leftist news sources, including Trotskyists, Marxists, and anti-Zionist alternative sites, which focus on the roots of so much personal pain for most Americans, while only a few enjoy lives of comfort and happiness.
You mentioned how most Americans feel the need to stay hyper-active and work all day, and as Karl Marx and Engels pointed out, even domestic chores are still considered labor. Nietzsche, in his book “Beyond Good and Evil,” argued that all work destroys both the body and the soul. Similarly, the anarchist Bob Black claimed that all the misery in the world comes from a life devoted to working.
“No one should ever work. Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.” Bob Black, The Abolition of Work
The situationist anarchist philosopher Raoul Vaneigem said that people in consumerist capitalist societies live a slow death, devoting their lives to torturing themselves with very few pleasures.
Jean Baudrillard has a great book about everything that’s wrong with America. The book, titled *America*, offers a deep criticism of the McDonaldized society of the USA.
“The long dark night of trade is all the illumination our inhuman history has ever known. It will lift as life dawns. Death stares at our passions and we mute them; we mesh our desires with what is inimical to life; and we base the greater part o f existence on the bloody search for profit and power. We have been doing it for centuries and we have had enough. We have had enough of revolutions dyed in blood by intellectuals. Violence too is changing sides.” -Raoul Vanegeim, The Book of Pleasures
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/raoul-vaneigem-the-book-of-pleasures
In today’s hedonistic society, much like in Aldous Huxley’s *Brave New World*, there seems to be a drive for Americans to avoid pain, sadness, and seek happiness by any means possible. I believe this mindset is flawed, as a certain amount of pain, depression, stress, and suffering is essential for a society to progress.
Henry Miller was right when he said, “The task of thinkers and philosophers is to make other people feel depressed, worried, and sad.” I believe Kennedy made a similar point in a speech about newspapers, the media, and the press, where he remarked that the role of news corporations is to make people feel aroused, alarmed, and concerned.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was also right when he suggested that the digital and technological revolution is turning male Americans into “girly boys” with lower testosterone and less physical strength—traits he believes are essential for any society to achieve liberty and progress.
And what does all that have to do with the high price of ginger snaps?
And during the Lockdown, Schwarzenegger told us to “Fuck Your Freedoms”.
Good thoughts Ed and simply ‘being’. I’m presently reading ‘Small is Beautiful’ – Economics as if People Mattered’ by E.F. Schumacher.
As if people mattered…yes, the masses who slave and make the billions for the criminal battalion!
I think Nietzsche wrote something similar to what Edward mentioned in this article about how too much reading and knowledge can harm both individuals and society. Nietzsche valued fiction, like religion and art, because living too close to the truth all the time could drain power, lead to passive nihilism, and create weakness. In contrast, things like religion and art could act as an antidepressant and a motivator to enhance life. That’s why the ancient Greeks created their mythological world of gods like Dionysus, Apollo, and Zeus—to help them cope with the truth and the constant pain of life.
Baudelaire also expressed a similar idea, suggesting that people should be drunk all day, every day, to cope with the pain of reality. Schopenhauer argued that happiness doesn’t truly exist, claiming that no one is ever really happy, and that the only way to experience it is through being drunk.
That’s why sometimes I avoid all the news about the war in Russia and Ukraine, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or the misconduct and authoritarianism of Trump. At the end of the day, knowing what’s happening in Washington, D.C., in the U.S. imperialist, capitalist government, or how corrupt and oppressive other governments are, like Venezuela’s, or the new Colombian president allegedly winning through fraud, doesn’t help. Or thinking Kamala Harris should be president instead of Trump because, according to Greg Palast, Trump essentially bought the 2024 election, just like the 2000 election where Al Gore actually won. Or hearing claims that Nancy Guthrie was kidnapped by someone tied to the Epstein cartel. Or realizing that even anti-imperialist governments like Iran, China, and Russia can be just as corrupt and oppressive as Israel and the U.S. government. Knowing all that doesn’t lead to the liberation or strengthening of humanity—it just fuels a loss of motivation, depression, and political pessimism and nihilism.
Another ugly painful depressive truth is that there will no freedom in this world as long as rulers and governments exist
That’s why Edward is right in saying that too much book-reading and knowledge doesn’t necessarily make the world a better place.
In what universe are Iran, China and Russia “anti-imperialist”? China literally is an empire that has already subsumed numerous territories, ethnicities and cultures, and is pushing at the land and maritime borders of every one of its neighbors. Believing a state where one man has ultimate authority is “anti-imperialist” is like believing Donald Trump wants to distribute his fortune among the poor and champion socialist causes. It has no relationship to reality.
Putin’s motivation is the reestablishment of the Russian empire in its Soviet form. He has openly admitted it. To attribute anti-imperialist beliefs to a man who has launched an offensive war of choice against a neighbor that has repeatedly fought Russian attempts at control is a choice that defies logic. It is the precise opposite of anti-imperialism.
And the idea that Iran is anti-imperialist is so far from anything resembling reality, I don’t know where to begin. The Iranian government is first and foremost dedicated to regime survival, and to attribute a western thought framework onto a Middle Eastern theocracy says everything about the person making the claim and nothing about Iran.
What it says is that some people are gullible enough to believe propaganda by Iranians who were educated in the west and understand it well enough to push exactly the right buttons, so people who practice perverse forms of moral equivalency see decency and honor in a regime that slaughters its own people for protesting government brutality and employs vice police, religious thugs without training, sensitivity or any real purpose other than to terrorize people on behalf of the regime and make sure fear of the government is stronger than desire for reform.
It is literally written into the Iranian constitution that the government is the highest authority on everything, including Islam, and every major decision by the Iranian government is aimed at extending, consolidating or keeping power via regime survival. That fits no definition of anti-imperialism.
And no, that doesn’t mean the American government is righteous or moral. It has absolutely no bearing on the US is. Two governments can be awful. They’re not mutually exclusive.
That’s why I’m an anarchist, I’ve come to the conclusion that the real problem in this world is the existence of the state, of governments, and of people being ruled by them.
Iran, China and Russia are anti imperialist in that they are currently the only real opposition to the wannabe world empire that is the US. That none of these nations are very nice or liberal has nothing to do with them being anti-empire.
A great book.