Writer's Block and Depression

I’ve been struggling to write recently.

This happens sometimes, bouts of writer’s block that can last weeks or months.

I’ve had a couple of people ask me why I haven’t posted anything in a while. Surely the presidential debates are prime subject for me to write about, aren’t they?

It’s true: the debacle that is the current presidential race provides a lot of juicy material, from Trump’s comments about sexual assault to the fact that people somehow still manage to bitch about Hillary Clinton. I have many thoughts on this subject and others.

Why don’t I write them?

People assume I have not tried. I’ve articulated many of my thoughts to friends and family, and I’ve started if not finished several pieces on various topics.

But then, that’s the problem with writer’s block, as anyone who practices writing or other creative exploits: it’s often not the lack of ideas that hinders the process, rather a difficulty in transmitting those ideas onto the page.

The mental stymie extends beyond my writing. My schoolwork has suffered, and I’ve been finding it harder and harder to motivate myself to do simple tasks such as exercise or do my laundry. I find myself questioning the purpose in a lot of my actions. What’s the point in reading this book? Why do I need to go to class today? It’s like a constant existential crisis. Why? Why put any effort into anything? I haven’t been sleeping well. Somehow my late night thoughts consistently wander until I find myself contemplating the inevitable heat death of the universe.

A short while back, Mary Robinette Kowal wrote a really good piece on the relation between writer’s block and depression. I highly recommend everyone give it a read. I don’t often talk about my struggles with depression, but I did write about it in a piece for Beautiful Minds Magazine a while back, and those closest to me are familiar with my situation.

Intellectually speaking, I find the situation quite interesting. Is the writer’s block a product of how I’ve been feeling the last few weeks, or is this bout of depression a product of the creative wall I’ve struck?

I don’t want this blog to get stuck on lengthy ruminations about my state of mind. I have a journal for that. I want the pieces I post here to be productive, stimulating conversation on meaningful and interesting topics.

However, I feel that a bit of an explanation as to why I’ve been quiet the last few weeks is in order. I appreciate the people that read my posts and who stick by me. To those of you reading this right now, you have no idea how much your support means.

Sometimes, the act of self-reflection and confession can be cathartic. I’m hoping I’ll get out of this slump soon. Until then, I really do appreciate everyone’s support and encouragement.

The Hat Incident: the issue that never should have been

By now I’m sure everyone has heard of the notorious hat incident that occurred on the Mount Royal Campus a few days ago. If you haven’t, it basically went like this: a student (Matt) wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat around campus was confronted by another student (Zoe) for promoting “hate speech.” The two got into a conflict, the argument escalated, and someone placed a video of the incident on Facebook to go viral.

From there, it spiralled rapidly out of control, with coverage on a local, national, and international level. The scale of the conflict has escalated exponentially with the video going viral and anger being stirred up on both sides. The relatively innocuous incident has resulted in bad blood and vicious attacks on both sides. Zoe, in particular, has received a lot of backlash (up to the point of violent threats) for an action she was arguably justified in taking.

The issue being pedalled by the media is the debate about free speech this video prompts. In a supposedly safe space like a university campus, can the slogan of a racist political candidate be called “hate speech?” I’m not going to get bogged down in that argument, as I know smarter people than me are already doing that.

What strikes me as the biggest issue is the polarized reactions to the video. People don’t seem to be considering why each person acted as they did, only how they did it. Little of the media coverage considers the individuals in question beyond the small scope of the video posted.

Zoe’s argument rested on the fact that the hat’s slogan supports the campaign of a sexist, sociopathic narcissist who regularly stokes the fires of racial tension while obliviously inciting violence. Her motivation came from the desire to ensure that the campus is a place in which everyone can feel safe and secure. She was standing up for those who might justifiably feel uncomfortable at the sight of a politician like Trump being promoted.

Zoe’s actions were largely selfless, which is something few people seem to be considering. The creation of safe spaces is an incredibly important endeavour, and all individuals should feel free to express themselves in whatever manner they wish. She is now facing continual backlash for attempting to support this ideal.

But don’t Trump supporters get the same privilege, many would argue?

I don’t know Matt personally, but we are in the same program and have shared some classes. Having seen him both with and without the hat, before and after the incident, I can’t say I have ever seen any indication of prejudices along the lines that Trump espouses. My understanding is that Matt supports Mr. Trump’s economic policies rather than his social ones.

This raises the question: when a politician so actively promotes the marginalization of specific religious and ethnic groups, is it possible to promote that politician without promoting those prejudices?

As this incident illustrates, there are no clear answers.

Because of this, it is all the more important that level heads prevail. People need to think rationally about the incident and try to understand the motivations of both sides: one was standing up for marginalized minorities while the other was idly promoting a candidate with specific policies he supports. Neither of them did anything terribly wrong. Zoe’s confrontational method was not the correct way of addressing the issue, yet the concerns themselves were completely valid. Likewise, it is completely fair for Matt to promote a political candidate he supports, but it was unreasonable of him not to expect some kind of backlash.

These “mistakes” do not define either of these individuals.

Once the media picked up on the story, anger spread like wildfire, with Zoe generally portrayed as the villain. To me, this is a big problem.

While the media is happy to highlight Zoe’s insistence that Matt remove his hat, there seems to be little mention of her background as a leading member of the Students’ Association of Mount Royal University (SAMRU). As a member of SAMRU, it is her job to act as a leader among students and protect the interests of everyone on campus. Naturally, it would be fair for her to take the responsibility of standing up for those who have an issue with the hat in question.

Whether or not the slogan counts as hate speech, people feel uncomfortable at the presence of Matt’s hat. Given Trump’s background, this seems reasonable. Did Zoe go about the right way in bringing up these concerns? No. Was she justified in attempting to address them? Absolutely.

Zoe’s actions came from a good place. Her role as student leader makes her the natural voice for expressing concerns. The fact that she has been continually vilified for doing this is pathetic and ignorant. Zoe is not the villain here any more than Matt is for wearing his hat. Remember Zoe’s background and motivation the next time the media labels her a “bully”, accuses her of “attacking” anyone, or mocks her for being “frightened.”

If you find yourself agreeing with these terms, you are part of the problem.

Consider the fact that without online exposure the incident would have received little to no attention. If any blame is to be placed, it should be placed upon the idiot who decided to post a video of the conflict online. In the digital age such hot topic videos are not ignored, and the cameraman was incredibly irresponsible (if not plain stupid) to think it would go unnoticed. Indeed, the fact that he posted the video on a community page as well as his personal one suggests he was specifically going out of his way to defame Zoe.

Even so, sharing the video could easily have been a simple lapse in judgement. My point is that the amount of controversy this video has caused is unnecessary, and the amount of anger it has stirred up is neither fair nor warranted. Nobody involved should be attacked so viciously for their actions. Relatively minor mistakes have been blown out of proportion, and it sickens me to see the sort of threats and attacks Zoe has received in the wake of this video.

I don’t know Zoe, but I wish I did. I can’t imagine what she’s going through right now. Whatever her actions and whatever opinion people may have about those actions, there is no excuse for the derogatory, threatening, and sexist response the video has received.

I hope Zoe understands that for every asshole on the internet hailing abuse, there are a dozen people who understand that her actions came from the best of places. The world needs more people like her who are willing to stand up for the rights of others.

Why Jared Leto’s Joker exemplifies everything wrong with Suicide Squad

In light of underwhelming critical reception, the performances of a few talented individuals are Suicide Squad’s only saving grace. Jared Leto’s portrayal of the Joker, in particular, has been the subject of much praise, with many fans complaining that he was not given enough screen time. This complaint is surprisingly apt, given that the film’s mishandling of the character represents many problems originating from a case of too-many-cooks-in-the-kitchen.

Just as the film failed to determine a consistent tone, the writers seemed unable to decide whether the Joker was a sub-plot character or a primary villain. This confusion led a sense of pointlessness to the character, especially in light of the previous two years of promotion. Furthermore, despite all the hype surrounding the intensity of Leto’s performance, the end result is rather underwhelming, leaning heavily on Heath Ledger’s previous incarnation of the character.

Throughout the film, we see the Joker attempting to rescue Harley Quinn, the object of his twisted desire… and that’s about it. His plotline is secondary, a tangent that doesn’t really fit with the film’s storyline. Certainly, Leto’s villain is engaging while he’s on camera, yet one feels like they are watching different movies as the story jumps back and forth between the Joker’s pursuit and the Suicide Squad’s mission.

The relationship between Harley Quinn and the Joker is analyzed through clunky flashbacks that do not give either character the depth needed to fully shine. Though the pair are not the only characters introduced in such rushed exposition, they do provide the most prominent example of the writers’ failure to follow the basic “show and don’t tell” rule. Shots of the Joker seducing Dr. Harleen Quinzel are too rushed for the viewer to empathize with the truly appalling nature of their relationship, and the end result is far more unsatisfying than if their backstory had been left a mystery.

Through this twisted relationship, the writers had a perfect opportunity to portray the depth of the Joker’s depravity, the horrifyingly seductive nature of his madness. Instead, they opted to use the Joker as a promotional piece and Harley Quinn as a fetishized sex object. Given that Margot Robbie’s performance was, perhaps, the film’s greatest aspect, it was disappointing to see her constantly tied down to a tangent plotline. The scenes in which the Joker was not mentioned were her strongest by far.

Margot Robbie's performance was the highlight of the film,
but she was continually tied down to a pointless plotline

Suicide Squad reeks of studio meddling, best seen in the handing of the Joker, right down to the casting of Jared Leto. The character seems to serve no purpose other than to create cool shots for the trailers and increase the film’s marketability.

Given how soon Suicide Squad comes after Christopher Nolan’s masterpiece The Dark Knight, comparisons to Heath Ledger’s previous incarnation were inescapable. As Ledger’s Joker was easily one of the greatest cinematic performances in recent memory, any actor taking up the mantle so soon would inevitably do so in his shadow. Viewers wanted to see how Leto would fair, and the studio knew this. Thus, they continually manipulated the Joker’s promotion and portrayal in order to increase hype around him.

Indeed, Leto’s reputation for method acting was probably the reason he was cast in the role. Consider the stories circulating of his intensity on set. According to the reports, Leto was so into character that he terrorized cast and crew with gifts of anal beads, used condoms, and dead animals. Will Smith even went so far as to say that he never met Jared Leto, just the Joker.

This echoes the stories that circulated back in 2008 about Heath Ledger’s method acting and the circumstances of his death. Reportedly, Ledger spent a month locked in his apartment preparing for the role and emerged fully in character, presenting an on-set intensity that few actors could match. Shortly afterwards, he died under initially unclear circumstances. All this led an air of mystery to the film and to the villain, and farther deepened the film’s themes of madness and power.

Unfortunately, intense acting does not always equal a good performance, something Suicide Squad doesn’t seem to realize. Such intensity of acting has to be combined with effective writing and direction, as well as a purpose. In The Dark Knight, Ledger’s performance was used to enhance Nolan’s themes and ideas; in Suicide Squad, a generic summer blockbuster with little substance to it, Leto’s performance seems empty and pretentious.

In scenes like this one, Leto's intensity could have been
used to elevate the film somewhat

Suicide Squad’s Joker owes a lot to his predecessor. The attempted realism, his mobster-like stylization, and the on-set stories of the actors all echo back to Heath Ledger. Regardless of the film’s (many) writing errors around the character, this heavy reliance on his predecessor gives the character a sense of familiarity that doesn’t mesh with the praise Leto has gotten.

Indeed, I found the performance to be quite underwhelming. Was it good? Sure, especially when compared with the rest of the film. Was it amazing? No, not really. If you take away the hype, Jared Leto’s Joker is an unoriginal version of the character with very little to distinguish him from his predecessor. Or any other psychopathic film villain for that matter.

Simply put, Jared Leto’s performance is not as ground-breaking as he would like to imagine.

Suicide Squad was a (sometimes enjoyable) mess. The film couldn’t figure out what it wanted to be, and it relied too heavily on the hype surrounding a single secondary character. Despite being one of the film’s better performances, the writing of Leto’s Joker hindered the development of Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn (the film’s strongest asset), and caused an already confusing plot to become even more jumbled. All told, Leto's Joker represents a squandered element in a film with so much wasted potential.

A review of Neil Gaiman’s The View from the Cheap Seats

As someone who occasionally dabbles in words, I appreciate good writers.

Not just people who understands word choice and syntax (an important and often undervalued skill) or the mechanics of plot, but individuals who understand the unique power that words and stories can hold. In just a few marks on the page, writers have the power to change lives and alter realities, create worlds from nothing. Worlds that are very much real.

While many mediums achieve this goal, writing is uniquely collaborative in the way it does so. Without the input of the reader, writing does not work. The reader is imperative to the creation of a written story, and, as such, each reader’s experience with that work will be different. Middle-Earth would not exist without Tolkien, but neither would it exist without readers to interpret his words and bring his world to life in their minds.

No two readings of a novel, short story, or poem are the same.

When a reader engages a piece of literature, they bring to it their own experiences, their own biases, their own preconceptions. The reader cannot divorce themselves from the context in which they are reading, just as the words themselves cannot be divorced from the context in which they were written. The written work, as it exists in the writer’s head, is not the same as it exists in the reader’s head.

The true nature of the written word, any writing, is in constant flux, existing somewhere between the intentions of the author, the interpretation of the reader, and the context in which the words are written and read.

Neil Gaiman understands this fact better than most.

The View from the Cheap Seats is like an extended conversation with Gaiman, one of those discussions that ranges far from the original point, but from which both parties emerge with a far deeper understanding of one another.

In these essays, introductions, and speeches one is given the impression of knowing Gaiman intimately. He ruminates on all aspects of life, from writing and art, to the power of love and death. Rarely does he state his opinions and beliefs outright, yet they come through loud and clear. Gaiman does not condescend to his reader by assuming that they will share these beliefs; he is an observer, merely explaining the world as he sees it.

Incredibly astute in these observations, Gaiman puts things in terms that are often startlingly simple, yet all the more profound for that simplicity. What shines through in all these pieces is an incredible compassion for and insight into the world around him. Gaiman understands people, what drives them, and the profound power of art and writing.

Gaiman understands the potential of story, and he understands the power of words. Indeed, his particular love of writing, driven by a passion for art in all forms, is the message behind all these works. His understanding of art and life’s intimate love affair is unrivalled.

For those wishing to understand the creative mind, this book is perfect. For those wishing to know that they are not alone the world, this book is perfect. In many ways, this book is perfect, one that everyone should read.

Read Gaiman, and be inspired.

A Review of Requiem for the American Dream

I recently watched Noam Chomsky’s Requiem for the American Dream. In true Chomsky fashion, the film dismantles the mechanisms of our capitalist society, illustrating clearly exactly how the current economic system serves to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Some of the ideas in the film are typical Chomsky, but in a world where inequality is a political buzzword, the film could not be any timelier.

For those who aren’t familiar with his work, Noam Chomsky is often regarded as one of the greatest intellectuals of our time. Originally a linguist, he has written over a hundred books in a broad range of fields including history, politics, and philosophy. Chomsky’s views are not for everyone (he is very much a socialist and an anarchist), but even his critics cannot argue against the fact that he is one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century.

In Requiem for the American Dream, Chomsky illustrates the “10 Principles of Concentration of Wealth and Power,” including rules like “Run the Regulators,” “Attack Solidarity,” and “Manufacture Consent.” It is through these methods, Chomsky argues, that America’s so called “one percenters” maintain their own exclusive place among the economic stratosphere. By running the government and manipulating the masses, big business continually marginalizes the working class. Chomsky illustrates here why the American Dream is truly just that: a dream.

The timing of this film is especially fitting, given the current state of American economics and politics. Inequality is at an all-time high, with even the IMF admitting the failure of neoliberalism, breeding a political climate in which candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump can ride the wave of frustration on both ends of the political spectrum. The increasing polarization of politics is not limited to the United States (as we can see from events like Brexit, or the increasing popularity of nationalist parties); however, as the capitalist standard bearer and the cultural heart of the western world, this phenomenon is, unsurprisingly, most visible in America.

With all this in mind, Chomsky’s diagnosis seems all the more poignant. For those acquainted with Chomsky’s work (a claim that I can only partially make), the film will seem familiar. It’s the classic critique of capitalism laid out in fairly simplistic terms.

It’s this simplicity that makes the film so effective. If one wants an in depth analysis of the problems with capitalism, one reads in-depth works of economic and political theory by Chomsky and others. A seventy minute documentary makes the arguments appealing to a lay audience for whom it is not necessary to understand the intricacies of microeconomics. Indeed, I’d count myself closer to this audience.

The filmmakers do an excellent job of accompanying Chomsky’s analysis with effective and poignant imagery. Chomsky’s words are interspersed with shots of Wall Street juxtaposed against images of the homeless and countless other representations of economic inequality.

One scene in particular stuck with me long after the film ended. When discussing the principle of “Manufacturing Consent,” Chomsky highlights the engineering of society to prioritize material wealth so as to discourage meaningful thought. Accompanying this analysis, we see a shot of perhaps the most appropriate symbol of consumerism, Walmart, overplayed by the words: “A group of teenagers with a free afternoon will go to the shopping mall rather than the library.”

I found this point in the film particularly haunting. By looking around on any given day, one can see the prominence of rampant consumerism. As a society, we, in general, have prioritized frivolous materialism above all else.

As an example, just look at the recent prominence of Pokémon Go. Sure, many of today’s youth are getting outdoors more than ever before. But what is the point of going outside if we never look up from our phones? A plugged in population is far more likely to consent. By focussing on such, ultimately, trivial things (video games, the newest smartphone, or other material possessions), our attention is taken away from meaningful causes. Consumerism, as Chomsky puts it, has become the measure of a good life.

Requiem for the American Dream is filled with such poignant moments, and I hope it will encourage some people to reflect on their lives and their role in society. I don’t hold myself above anyone – I realize I am just as complicit in the system as all those around me. However, I believe it is important for people to think critically and consider their own role in society, something I continually attempt to do.

The film isn’t perfect. It isn’t ground breaking by any means. It relies highly on rhetoric, and recycles some old criticisms of capitalism. But it is this simplicity that makes it accessible for the average viewer. I would highly recommend that everyone go watch it. The film is only seventy minutes long and available on Netflix, so put it on in the background while you’re doing homework or chores. You never know. It might change your perspective a little.

7/10

Published Work

So for everyone who is interested in reading my creative writing, I recently had my first piece published (by an actual magazine, not just my blog!). This is a personal essay I originally wrote for a creative nonfiction class that I decided to submit for publication in Beautiful Minds Magazine. The piece is an incredibly personal recounting of my struggles with mental health, depicting a particularly dark moment. It was quite difficult to write about, and even more difficult to share.

You can read the piece here:
https://beautifulmindsmagazine.org/2016/07/17/i-cannot-repair/

Let me know what you think! I also want to take this moment to say that I really appreciate everyone who takes the time to read these rambling thoughts I write down. I do harbor dreams of someday making a living as a writer, so it's quite encouraging to know that people are interested in reading what I have to say. I appreciate the support.

As always, thank you for reading.

Cam

Standing up to Intolerance

I recently got into an argument on Facebook.

Yes, I know: pointless, right?

Actually, no. I’m going to suggest that arguing on Facebook is not pointless, at least in some circumstances.

The argument in question began with a response I made to a misquotation of Vladimir Putin shared by this particular person. The quote in question suggested that “minorities need the state but the state does not need minorities,” but after a little research I found that Putin never actually said the statement in question (though he has echoed similar sentiments at other times). The page that originally posted the quote was an American far right group.

Ah, the irony.

Usually I refrain from commenting on such things, as I do not think Facebook or any other social media is the medium for an informed debate. With my comment, I did not intend to change this person’s mind. I think this is a mistake people often make. I am not one to shy away from debates and arguments, particularly about certain subjects, and many people take this readiness as a constant desire to change the opinions of those I disagree with. This is not my intention. While I may not agree with certain views, I respect the right to hold them.

My intention is to foster conversation. I wish to understand why people hold their views and, moreover, I wish for them to understand why they hold their views. I understand that I am young, and I find that many dismiss my opinions out of hand as brash or naïve. In some cases, they are even correct. However, I have thought long and hard about most of my beliefs, and there are concrete reasons why I argue certain ones so vehemently. When I argue them, my goal is to challenge people to question their own biases, even if I do not change their stance.

So, back to the argument at hand. I made a comment on the original post pointing out the apparent nonexistence of the exact quote and the irony of a heavily right wing page quoting modern Russia’s throwback to the Soviet Union. The conversation quickly spiralled out of control expanding from the original issue of “minorities” to cover Islam, Sharia Law, immigration, and what exactly constitutes “racism.”

At times, the debate became somewhat heated. It didn’t exactly end well.

The next day, people asked me why I bothered to argue, especially over Facebook. Some people found it amusing and laughed at the two of us. Mutual friends would tell me that’s “just how she is,” and that I was “wasting my time.”

Sorry, but that is bullshit.

I’m not naïve enough to believe I will change the opinion of this person, or anyone else I might argue with, over the internet or otherwise. As I said earlier, I debate to make people think. Not just the person I am arguing with, but also the people who may be watching.

It’s easy, particularly on the internet, to sit back and ignore things that have no direct effect on us. We might not agree with certain opinions (racist or otherwise), but to actively argue against them takes a lot of effort and causes a lot of unnecessary friction. Best just to remain silent.

I dispute that notion.

Silence desensitizes us. When we remain silent, we are accepting their behaviour in our own mind. If we constantly see bigotry and do nothing but shake our heads and sigh, even that response becomes too much effort. Next, we don’t even notice the bigotry, and soon we are complying without even a thought of opposing, often actively engaging in it without realizing.

This is history and psychology. How do you think Hitler was so successful at getting an entire country to ignore the atrocities he committed?

Silence is acceptance. When one hears a bigoted remark and says nothing, the bigots are told that hatred and intolerance are socially acceptable attitudes. Do these people have a right to hold their beliefs? Yes. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are the cornerstone of all democracy. But having the right to a belief does not make it right. This is why it is crucial that we rally to dispute intolerant opinions: every time we remain silent, those voices become that much louder.

I’ve found that social media perpetuates this phenomenon. When information is easily packaged within a few lines of text with a flashy image next to it, few people go to the effort of fact checking or disputing negative opinions. The internet appeals to quick and easy answers, with little effort or thought.

Which brings me back to my original point: why I stand up against bigotry and intolerance even if I know I am never going to change the mind of the person I’m arguing with. Simply put, I don’t want to be another person who accepts that which I know is wrong. I want people to see me arguing, and see that opinions of ignorance and intolerance are not acceptable. It’s through silence and capitulation that we end up with Presidential candidates like Donald Trump, or geopolitical disasters such as Brexit.

Standing up for my beliefs isn’t easy. Often, I feel like I’m standing alone against a roomful of individuals. As a liberal living in Alberta, I often am.

But the issues I am talking about are not everyday politics, though we might like to think they are. I am not talking about taxes or fiscal policy, or even whether the government has the right to spy on us and monitor our communications.

I’m discussing issues that are, fundamentally, about human rights. I’m discussing discrimination based on race, sexuality, or countless other such excuses. All too often, many of us have a tendency to lump these issues into the humdrum of everyday politics, tying stances to political parties and speaking in abstractions. We forget that the discussion is about real people, many of whom have their very lives at stake.

I have no experience as the victim of discrimination. I do not understand what it is like to be profiled, judged, and hated based on the colour of my skin; I have never been forced to hold my tongue about my religious beliefs for fear of verbal or physical abuse. Many people are not so lucky.

The way I see it, that makes it all the more important that I stand up to intolerance. Yes, my life would be easier if I stood by quietly, shaking my head and doing little more. But the victims of discrimination, the people whose lives are destroyed by bigotry and intolerance, have no choice in the matter. Why should I have the option to remain silent?

We are all human. We all deserve a chance. I just happened to luck out as to which arbitrary borders I was born in and which particular pigments colour my skin. The same goes for just about anyone reading this piece. It is our responsibility to stand with those who don’t have the luxury of choosing their battles.

To those of you who tell me I shouldn’t bother arguing because “that’s just how they are,” I say no. As long as I see people supporting opinions that actively encourage discrimination and inequality, I will not stand idle. I will not sit silently when real people with real lives are at stake. If I can encourage even one person to reflect on their own views and maybe, just maybe, encourage them to stand with me, I will consider myself successful.

As always, thanks for reading!