The other day, 'Knee-Jerk-Reaction Dariush' wrote the following... but he thought twice before clicking on 'Upload'...
-------
Do you think it's right to take a three year old to a salon for a manicure? 'Cause if you don't, you may soon end up in a minority. Apparently several London salons now cater specifically to the under 10s and many more similar venues are going to start touting their wares in other parts of the country before too long. If you'd like to learn more about this intriguing trend, click here to see The Observer's recent report on it.
I was horrified when I first read the article I've just gone and horrified myself all over again by re-reading it now. Such is the degree to which my blood has curdled that I find myself unable to articulate exactly how I feel about this particular 'phenomenon'.
I think all I need to say is this: one of the salons is called Tantrum. We pay good money for little girls (SERIOUSLY little girls) to be made to look like grown women whilst sitting in a place called Tantrum. Someone please call Anton Chigurh and tell him I need help with my cattle gun.
At this point, I am rather curiously reminded of various images I've seen over the last few weeks of Coldplay. Their latest 'look' - put together to promote their new album - frequently sees them covering their faces with sand and grime in an attempt to distance themselves from their squeaky-clean past. Perhaps we should get Chris Martin to stand outside Tantrum and pour mud on his face so that all the little kids streaming into the place start thinking that dirt is cool. Failing that, we could always throw the mud at the parents.
-------
Then 'Marginally-More-Introspective, It-Takes-Him-At-Least-Five-Minutes-To-Answer-A-Question-Because-He-Tries-To-Consider-All-Possible-Responses-Before-Opening-His-Mouth-Dariush' thought, 'Hang on... what about kids from other parts of the world? Some of them have a much easier, more historically-rooted 'relationship' with make-up and jewellery, don't they?'
I'm no expert, but very young girls from the Indian subcontinent have kohl applied to their eyes, right? And they wear earrings from an extremely young age.
A picture of a rather heavily made up Asian girl wearing jewellery is considered appropriate for 'Western' postcards and travel brochures, but a similar image of an English kid receiving a beauty treatment at a salon is meant to elicit outrage. If we write off this little paradox as a case of 'cultural differences' are we being open-minded or hypocritical? Do let me know what you think, 'cause I can't see the answer very clearly... but then I may have applied too much Gaultier eyeliner today...
I wonder if any of you heard the Today programme's recent report on people who believe the UK government should allow assisted suicide. It's a subject I find fascinating, so much so that it's worked its way into my novel. Call it morbid curiosity, but I am drawn to finding out where different individuals draw the line between putting up a fight and deciding their number's up. It's a complex subject and I confess I'm not yet 100% certain where I stand in the debate. But I must say I found the pro-choice arguments in this particular report quite horrifying.
One of the people interviewed is a woman in her nineties who is beginning to show "a certain amount of dementia," is quite frail and requires a great deal of care. At one point she says she would "like to go" because she's "had enough" and "there's no point" living any more. Her daughter states that she recently wondered if her Mum would have "missed" anything important had she died four years ago. The conclusion she comes to is that, no, the last four year's of her mother's life haven't been worthwhile in any way: "She's experienced everything she wants to experience ... it's the end of the story for her."
Another woman (why were no men interviewed?) claims that she has "the right to control" her own life and that she wants "to go out" when she's "fit and well," not when she's suffering from some debilitating disease. She does believe in the sanctity of life but she doesn't see any sanctity in mere existence and doesn't understand why she shouldn't be allowed to decide when her state of being is no longer worthy of being called 'living'.
So far I've been fortunate enough not to have to look after anyone in a truly awful condition. I've been blessed with excellent health and I haven't had to undergo extreme physical pain. I've never felt disconnected from the love and support of people who care about me. So I suppose it's relatively easy for me to be shocked by the decisiveness and confidence of the statements made by the people in the report. But the main thing that struck me about the comments was that they showed yet again that, as a society, we seem to have extended our freakish desire for control over every single aspect of our lives into the realms of death.
I'm sure it's no coincidence that the growth of the assisted suicide movement has corresponded with the growth of secularisation. At some point, any religious faith requires submission to unfathomable truths, an acknowledgement that some other being's plans and intentions must take precedence over our own. But we're becoming an increasingly non-deferential society, so it's not surprising that many people find it difficult (or unnecessary?) to make the proverbial leap of faith. So if people no longer believe that they must defer to some divine force, then it's hardly surprising that they deem it appropriate to decide for themselves when they should leave this earth.
Centuries ago astronomers shocked the world by revealing that our planet is not at the centre of the Universe. Isn't it strange that as we're learning more about how microscopic we are in relation to everything else that's out there, we're trying to convince ourselves that we're entitled to have ultimate control of all that happens to us?
I should have known better. Writing a two-part post at a point in the calendar when I have almost no free time wasn't a great idea. But even though I've been busier than usual, the question raised below hasn't been far from my thoughts: whilst I've been driving around or walking or cooking or pretending to pay attention to other people talking, I have genuinely tried to come up with an answer. But no, despite several covert brain-racking sessions, I'm not really much nearer to a resolution than I was a few weeks ago. Sure, I've come up with a few more PAFSOPs, but none of them hit the nail on the head.
Take PAFSOP #5 for instance: Because I enjoy it.
This is the one others find hardest to swallow. I do not - repeat: DO NOT - enjoy the process of writing. I don't get excited by staring at a blank screen or page for hours on end. When I do scribble a few words, I don't gain any satisfaction from reading them. I don't find the solitude restful. I don't consider the introversion to be healthy. And I don't like the effect the whole thing has on my relationships with those closest to me. I can see why other people find all this impossible to believe: "Why do you keep doing something you don't actually have to do if you don't enjoy it at all?" But maybe their arguments are based on a false premise: maybe writing IS something I simply HAVE to do... but I'm not allowed to say that, am I, because then I start sounding pseud-y, right?
Then again, doing the actual writing is just one aspect of being a writer. Another one is showing your work to other people and asking them what they think of it, which I do quite enjoy, if I'm being honest. I also love the euphoric rush of getting An Idea. One minute you're in your kitchen chopping onions whilst listening to Radio 4 and the next you're... well, absolutely wherever you want to be... and then the idea pushes you one step further and shouts, "Write me down!", which can also be fun... until you actually obey the command and do write it down, which is when everything starts going down the drain again, because you immediately realise that nothing - no matter how elegantly written - will be as wonderful and perfect as the initial thought that popped into your head totally unbidden.
So, no, the process of writing is a drag, but not everything about being a writer is devoid of enjoyment.
I could probably think of more PAFSOPs, but maybe I should just bring this post to a close and spare you from any more of these inconsequential musings. The only complete (and non-pseud-y) truth I can come up with at this point in my life is: I don't really know why I write. It's something I've done since I was about 7 and I suspect it's something I will do forever. Maybe that brings us to the scariest PAFSOP of all...
#6: Because if I didn't write I'd have to think of something else to do.
Why do I write? The question came up again recently and, in my inability to answer it, I suspect I came across as more than a little pseudy, pretentious and evasive. The truth is that I genuinely find it difficult to come up with an honest, wholly satisfying reply. Sometimes a few possible responses offer themselves up, but before I get a chance to spit them out of my mouth, they're silenced by countless variations of 'Yeah, except that it all kind of sort of depends on this that and the other.' But surely I should be able to do better than that... shouldn't I?
Most of my days are spent trying to convince people that you don't know if you can do something until you try, so perhaps I need to take my own advice. Here goes:
Why do I write?
Past Answer From Some Other Person #1: Because I want to publish a bestseller and make loads of money.
Well, sure, that'd be nice and I certainly wouldn't say No to it, but that's not the actual reason why I write. If my aim was to make a fortune, I'd probably devote my time to some slightly less uncertain way of achieving it.
PAFSOP #2: Because I want to publish a book which would earn me just enough money to be able to spend all my time writing.
Yes, okay, that'd be grand and peachy too, but again, it doesn't resonate with me as the real reason why I write.
PAFSOP #3: Because I want to become famous and/or I crave the recognition and acknowledgement of others.
We're often told we live in a celebrity-obsessed culture and I'd be lying if I said I haven't wondered what it would be like to be famous. But then, there's famous and there's famous, right? Toni Morrison, Michael Ondaatje and Kazuo Ishiguro are famous. Would I want to be famous for the same reasons they're famous? Well, I suspect I wouldn't mind... although, again, the little bell of recognition doesn't chime when I try to tell myself that I write purely because I want to be as well-known as Ishiguro. Having said that, I know it would be thrilling to walk into a bookshop and see a novel with my name on the cover. In fact, I've been trying to write one for the last two years and, yes, I would very much like to see it published... although I'm not sure that equates to seeking fame. Anyway, putting fame aside, on some simplistic level, I think we've found at least one true statement: I write because I'd like to see my work in print... but hang on: doesn't that smack of circular logic? And besides, it still doesn't feel like a real, fundamental answer. And as for recognition and acknowledgement... sure, certain aspects of my ego are colossal enough to suggest that maybe some part of me does want recognition on a megalomaniacal scale... but again, this feels like a side-line, an incidental issue. We're not near the core.
PAFSOP #4: Because I feel a need to express myself.
What does that actually mean? If anyone said, "No, I feel no need to express myself," wouldn't that sound churlish and dishonest? Isn't expressing ourselves what we do all the time? Isn't every single word, thought and deed an 'expression' of our selves? Granted, perhaps for many people the need is unconscious, but surely self-expression is the basic way in which we all relate to every one and every thing around us. It's inescapable.
PAFSOP #4: Let me rephrase that: Because I feel a need to express myself in writing.
Okay, at least that's slightly more specific. As an assertion, it certainly isn't untrue. Yes, like everyone else, I feel the need to reflect my personality in the world around me and I seem to choose to do so by making up stories and writing them down. But then, on the other hand, I have never, ever thought something like: 'I feel very strongly about how parents treat their children these days. I know! I'll try to weave a story around my worries so that everyone can read my views on this pressing contemporary issue.' That is never the motivation that drags me back to the blank page. Then again, it's undeniable that all my work is full of indicators of how I feel and what I think of all the things that I see and hear around me, but that doesn't mean I created the work because I wanted to draw everyone's attention to those indicators. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here. Maybe I should concede that I can probably mutter a tentative Yes to PAFSOP4, but I don't think we're touching the real truth yet.
To be continued... (Anyone care to offer any other PAFSOPs whilst I put together the next post?)
Bad news first. I didn't get through to the short list of the HappenStance Short Story Competition. But never mind, getting into the Top 25 ain't too bad.
More importantly, I have completed Draft Number 1 of The Novel. I'm not allowing myself to get manically excited about this, because I know how much more I've got to do to get to Draft Number 2... but I frequently disobey myself, so yes, a frisson of mild excitement was experienced when the final word was typed.
As this is turning into a general round-up post, I ought to mention that my children's book, The Pumpkin Seed, has also undergone a major reworking, which means it'll soon start getting shoved under people's noses. And I also got a letter from the BBC the other day about The Unchangeable Features Of Troy, a screenplay I sent to their Writersroom department. In short, they liked it, but not enough to want to take it further. However, they have asked me to send them other examples of my work, so that's something about which to come over all frisson-like too.
I'm not a fan of bloggy glames, but I recently came across a tempting one on two highlyentertaining sites I try to visit as often as possible. So as I've reached a certain milestone with the first draft of my novel, I'm feeling sufficiently frivolous to indulge in a bit of fun. In short, I've allowed myself to be tagged. The rule: I have to answer the following questions using song titles from only one artist. If you know me quite well, your jaw may crash right through the floor when you discover that I've eschewed the obvious choice, but I thought it might be more interesting to search elsewhere in my CD collection. So here goes:
1.) Are you a male or female? Big Time Sensuality
2.) Describe yourself: Who Is It
3.) Describe your day: Alarm Call
4.) Describe where you currently live: Desired Constellation
5.) If you could go anywhere, where would you go? Oceania
6.) Your best friend is: Isobel
7.) Your favorite color is: All Neon Like
8.) You know that: All Is Full Of Love
9.) What's the weather like? Frosti
10.) If your life was a television show, what would it be called? It's Not Up To You
11.) What is life to you? Generous Palmstroke
12.) What is the best advice you have to give? Undo
13.) Describe your ex: Possibly Maybe
14.) Your current relationship status: Unison
15.) What's your favorite hobby? The Modern Things
16.) When you think of your friends: I Miss You
17.) What do your friends think of you? Cocoon
18.) What does your current love interest think of you? Venus As A Boy
19.) You always travel with: Wanderlust
20.) The best way to end a long day: Like Someone In Love
21.) Your occupation is: Heirloom
22.) When you grow up, you want to: Enjoy
23.) What does your family think of you? Aeroplane
24.) Your favorite food is: Hope
25.) You want to be remembered as: Human Behaviour
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")