Uncategorized

The Art of the Essay – E.B. White

“Only a person who is congenitally self-centered

has the effrontery and the stamina to write essays.”

The question of what makes a great essay is an inexhaustible source of fascination, and there is hardly a greater master virtuoso at it than E.B. White (July 11, 1899–October 1, 1985) — champion of literary style, defender of the writer’s responsibility, custodian of the free press, little-known New Yorker cover artist, lover of New York.

In April of 1977, in the foreword to the indispensable anthology Essays of E. B. White, the beloved author examines the very form he had so mesmerizingly mastered, with equal parts irreverence and love.

White writes:

The essayist is a self-liberated man, sustained by the childish belief that everything he thinks about, everything that happens to him, is of general interest. He is a fellow who thoroughly enjoys his work, just as people who take bird walks enjoy theirs. Each new excursion of the essayist, each new “attempt,” differs from the last and takes him into new country. This delights him. Only a person who is congenitally self-centered has the effrontery and the stamina to write essays.

White offers a morphology of essayistic dispositions:

There are as many kinds of essays as there are human attitudes or poses, as many essay flavors as there are Howard Johnson ice creams. The essayist arises in the morning and, if he has work to do, selects his garb from an unusually extensive wardrobe:he can pull on any sort of shirt, be any sort of person, according to his mood or his subject matter — philosopher, scold, jester, raconteur, confidant, pundit, devil’s advocate, enthusiast. I like the essay, have always liked it, and even as a child was at work, attempting to inflict my young thoughts and experiences on others by putting them on paper.

While he professes to “fall back on the essay form” whenever an idea strikes, White, with the characteristic self-consciousness and self-deprecation of a proper essayist, puts the essay in its place on the literary ladder:

I am not fooled about the place of the essay in twentieth-century American letters — it stands a short distance down the line. The essayist, unlike the novelist, the poet, and the playwright, must be content in his self-imposed role of second-class citizen. A writer who has his sights trained on the Nobel Prize or other earthly triumphs had best write a novel, a poem, or a play, and leave the essayist to ramble about, content with living a free life and enjoying the satisfactions of a somewhat undisciplined existence.

Little did White know that a mere year later, he’d be awarded an honorary Pulitzer Prize for the full body of his work, which consisted — per his self-professed preference — largely of essays.

More so than any other writing form, White argues, the essay requires a unique commitment to truth and discipline:

There is one thing that the essayist cannot do, though — he cannot indulge himself in deceit or in concealment, for he will be found out in no time. Desmond MacCarthy, in his introductory remarks to the 1928 E. P. Dutton & Company edition of Montaigne, observes that Montaigne “had the gift of natural candour. . . .” It is the basic ingredient. And even the essayist’s escape from discipline is only a partial escape: the essay, although a relaxed form, imposes its own disciplines, raises is own problems, and these disciplines and problems soon become apparent and (we all home) act as a deterrent to anyone wielding a pen merely because he entertains random thoughts or is in a happy or wandering mood.

Echoing Joan Didion’s conception of writing as access to one’s self and George Orwell’s contention that the first universal motive for writing is “sheer egotism,”White returns to the solipsism of the essayist:

I think some people find the essay the last resort of the egotist, a much too self-conscious and self-serving form for their taste; they feel that it is presumptuous of a writer to assume that his little excursions or his small observations will interest the reader. There is some justice in their complaint. I have always been aware that I am by nature self-absorbed and egoistical; to write of myself to the extent I have done indicates a too great attention to my own life, not enough to the lives of others. I have worn many shirts, and not all of them have been a good fit. But when I am discouraged or downcast I need only fling open the door of my closet, and there, hidden behind everything else, hangs the mantle of Michel de Montaigne, smelling slightly of camphor.

White goes on to discuss his choice of essays for the anthology and their order, noting of his most famous masterpiece — the exquisite Here Is New York:

Some, like “Here Is New York,” have been seriously affected by the passage of time and now stand as period pieces. I wrote about new York in the summer of 1948, during a hot spell. The city I described has disappeared, and another city has emerged in its place — one that I’ not familiar with. … The last time I visited New York, it seemed to have suffered a personality change, as though it had a brain tumor as yet undetected.

Place has played an important role in White’s relationship with the written word, as becomes evident in the selected essays. He notes:

I spent a large part of the first half of my life as a city dweller, a large part of the second half as a countryman. In between, there were periods when nobody, including myself, quite knew (or cared) where I was: I thrashed back and forth between Maine and New York for reasons that seemed compelling at the time. Money entered into it, affection for The New Yorker entered in. And affection for the city.

I have finally come to rest.

White spent the remaining years of his life at his home in North Brooklin, Maine.

Essays of E. B. White is required reading, a pinnacle of the form from one of its greatest masters. Complement it with White on the role and responsibility of the writer and why brevity isn’t the gold standard for style.

Originally published on Brain Pickings, by Maria Popova, April 18, 2013.   All Rights Reserved

Advertisements
Uncategorized

25 Life Lessons Learned From an Abusive Childhood

Childhood should be carefree, playing in the sun; not living a nightmare in the darkness of the soul.” ― Dave Pelzer, A Child Called “It”

It’s no secret that early life in our parents’ house was dark, dangerous and often deadly. Father was  institutionalized when I was seven as paranoid/schizophrenic. After he got out, a robot had replaced the man we’d known – the angry, hurtful man who spoke loudest with his fists – because medications kept him numb, took his spirit from him. Eventually, he ceased to exist in our lives. Mother was worse, for she refused to allow anyone to look inside her head for fear of having to face herself. And so she was allowed to exact the most horrific abuses onto us; pain that sculpted our lives like powerful winds will warp the trunk of a tree as it grows.

The first thing I learned as a boy was that mother wanted me dead. I spent nearly thirty years trying to fulfill that wish. After my first drug overdose, subsequent death, and then revival, I realized that even though she had long passed from this world, I had allowed her to live on within me. I saw that I had taken ownership of her hate, saw how I had allowed her power to warp me in so many ways. And on that day – September 2, 1992 – I knew that I was meant to live. And I set about relearning how to be a kind, compassionate man. How to love myself. These are some of the lessons learned during that long, difficult journey back to self-love, redemption and hope.

1. I am not responsible for others’ mistakes, flaws, or lack of empathy or compassion.

2. No one can make me feel bad about myself. Only I can do that, and I choose not to.

3. It only takes one person to forgive.

4. The things other’s say reflects wholly on them, and not on me. (“I am a mirror; look at me and see yourself.”)

5. No one else gets to jeopardize my life or my well-being. Ever.

6. My adult relationships don’t have to echo those of my childhood.

7. I am capable of loving myself, even when I think no one else will.

8. External wounds fade and are forgotten; internal wounds rarely fade. Don’t cause internal wounds in others less strong than you.

9. Don’t perpetuate the pain you feel.

10. Educate yourself in the ways of life so as never to be taken advantage of or victimized.

11. People lie. That doesn’t make them bad people…it only makes them wounded. Give them room to heal or to figure out that lying hurts no one but themselves.

12. We are all survivors. We survive because we love ourselves and choose life over death.

13. Help where you can. Don’t force assistance or guidance on those still trapped in their pain.

14. Give yourself permission to love, to feel, and to acknowledge that you are not perfect, nor should you be.

15. Mistakes are not bad. They are lessons on how to do better next time.

16. It’s possible to surround yourself with authentic, loving, compassionate people. Don’t align yourself with those who cause you pain or heartbreak. They’re no longer worthy of you.

17. Don’t inflict the same pain on yourself as an adult. It’s okay to leave your childhood behind and grow.

18. To forgive is healthy. To forget disregards the lesson you learned when you forgave. Always heed the lesson.

19. There will always be those who aim to make victims of others, or exploit their pain. Learn to recognize those types so as not to give them power over you.

20. No one and no-thing has power over you. You are responsible for everything you do, say, and think. Always take responsibility for yourself.

21. It’s possible to trust others. It’s possible to trust yourself.

22. Emotions do not define you. Learn to understand that they are like weather gauges for how you feel, and know that there will always be sunny days, and stormy days. All emotions are useful in life.

23. Learn compassion.

24. Being of service to others goes a long way toward feeling better about yourself. Volunteer your time to help those who may not be able to help themselves.

25. You will always be your own worst judge. Go easy on yourself. Life is hard enough without making it harder because of perceived flaws, mistakes, or misjudgments.

essay

What Is Love? A Deeper Look

“Once upon a time there was a boy who loved a girl, and her laughter was a question he wanted to spend his whole life answering.”

Nicole Krauss, The History of Love

___

In the early part of the 2000s, I wrote a screenplay that briefly made the Hollywood rounds about a neurosurgeon who didn’t believe love, as it’s currently defined, actually existed. He was a clinical sort, and fell back on science and history to justify his beliefs. That’s not to say that he was unfeeling or uncaring. Quite the opposite. But he believed that what we call “love” was really just a chemical reaction in the deeply mammalian part of the brain that once stimulated our fight-or-flight response. Love, as he understood it, was a function to keep human beings together against menaces and to facilitate the continuation of the species. It was a survival instinct and nothing more. Sex was merely a reproductive exercise.

“Love” is a variety of different feelings and emotions, chemical brain states, and attitudes that ranges from interpersonal affection (“I love my mother”) to pleasure (“I loved that meal”). It can refer to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment. It can also be a virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection—”the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another.” It may also describe compassionate and affectionate actions towards other humans, one’s self or animals. Primarily, “love” is a social function that we’ve come to believe represents a mystical form of deep emotion for another. In short, the concept of “love” is supposed to make us feel good. And it does, as the emotion triggers brain regions similar to those that cause addiction and obsessive/compulsive disorders.  It either satisfies that part of our biology, or triggers a negative reaction.

A study published in 2012 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, analyzed 20 studies related to the effects of sex and love on the body. The research included brain scans of people who viewed erotic photos, photos of their significant others, food, and other pleasure triggers.

“Love” is a variety of different feelings and emotions, chemical brain states, and attitudes that ranges from interpersonal affection (“I love my mother”) to pleasure (“I loved that meal”). It can refer to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment.

Two parts of the brain, the insula and the striatum, are responsible for tracking the way in which sexual desire develops into feelings of love, researchers said. Lust triggers parts of the brain that control pleasurable feelings, associated with sex and food, but love triggers parts of the brain associated with habits.

“The brain treats love like a habit that has been formed over time. So, after lust may come love, and those feelings of love move to different parts of the brain that processes habits and reward patterns. The same brain pattern occurs when people become drug addicts.”

Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships and, owing to its central psychological importance, is one of the most common themes in the creative arts.

Ancient Greeks identified four forms of love: kinship or familiarity (in Greek, storge), friendship (philia), sexual and/or romantic desire (eros), and self-emptying or divine love (agape). Modern authors have distinguished further varieties of romantic love. Non-Western traditions have also distinguished variants or symbioses of these states. This diversity of uses and meanings combined with the complexity of the feelings involved makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, compared to other emotional states.

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst. Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist and leading expert on the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment.

Lust is the feeling of sexual desire; romantic attraction determines what partners mates find attractive and pursue, conserving time and energy by choosing; and attachment involves sharing a home, parental duties, mutual defense, and in humans involves feelings of safety and security. Three distinct neural circuitries, including neurotransmitters, and three behavioral patterns, are associated with these three romantic styles.

Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including the neurotransmitter hormones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, the same compounds released by amphetamine, stimulating the brain’s pleasure center and leading to side effects such as increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst.

Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding that promotes relationships lasting for many years and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin to a greater degree than short-term relationships have. Enzo Emanuele and coworkers reported the protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these return to previous levels after one year.

The Psychological Basis

Psychology depicts love as a cognitive and social phenomenon. Psychologist Robert Sternberg formulated a triangular theory of love and argued that love has three different components: intimacy, commitment, and passion.

Intimacy is a form in which two people share confidences and various details of their personal lives, and is usually shown in friendships and romantic love affairs. Commitment, on the other hand, is the expectation that the relationship is permanent. The last and most common form of love is sexual attraction and passion. Passionate love is shown in infatuation as well as romantic love. All forms of love are viewed as varying combinations of these three components.

Non-love does not include any of these components. Liking only includes intimacy. Infatuated love only includes passion. Empty love only includes commitment. Romantic love includes both intimacy and passion. Companionate love includes intimacy and commitment. Fatuous love includes passion and commitment. Lastly, consummate love includes all three.

Psychologist Erich Fromm maintained in his book The Art of Loving that love is not merely a feeling but is also actions, and that in fact, the “feeling” of love is superficial in comparison to one’s commitment to love via a series of loving actions over time. In this sense, Fromm held that love is ultimately not a feeling at all, but rather is a commitment to, and adherence to, loving actions towards another, oneself, or many others, over a sustained duration. Fromm also described love as a conscious choice that in its early stages might originate as an involuntary feeling, but which then later no longer depends on those feelings, but rather depends only on conscious commitment.

The Evolutionary Basis

Evolutionary psychology has attempted to provide various reasons for love as a survival tool. Humans are dependent on parental help for a large portion of their lifespans compared to other mammals. Love has therefore been seen as a mechanism to promote parental support of children for this extended time period. Another factor may be that sexually transmitted diseases can cause, among other effects, permanently reduced fertility, injury to the fetus, and increase complications during childbirth. This would favor monogamous relationships over polygamy.

Many different theories attempt to explain the nature and function of love. Explaining love to a person who had not himself or herself experienced love or being loved would be quite difficult because to such a person love would appear to be quite strange, if not outright irrational, behavior. Among the prevailing types of theories that attempt to account for the existence of love are: psychological theories, the vast majority of which consider love to be very healthy behavior; evolutionary theories which hold that love is part of the process of natural selection; spiritual theories which may, for instance consider love to be a gift from a god; and theories that consider love to be an unexplainable mystery, very much like a mystical experience.

So, in the centuries since humankind has attempted to define love, it comes down to this:

It’s all in our heads.

In the 21st century, we have assigned many romantic and theoretical ideologies to the word love. This may be the evolutionary equivalent of keeping the species together, procreating, and alive. After all, we are biological beings, and at the mercy of what our minds and bodies dictate. So the next time you feel “love at first sight,” stop and think about what it is you’re really feeling.

Photo: Lies Through A Lens/Flickr

References: 

  • Wikipedia, Love
  • C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves, 1960.
  • Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1980). Renaissance Thought and the Arts: Collected Essays. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-02010-8.
  • Stendhal, in his book On Love (“De l’amour”; Paris, 1822), distinguished carnal love, passionate love, a kind of uncommitted love that he called “taste-love”, and love of vanity. Denis de Rougemont in his book Love in the Western World traced the story of passionate love (l’amour-passion) from its courtly to its romantic forms. Benjamin Péret, in the introduction to his Anthology of Sublime Love (Paris, 1956), further distinguished “sublime love”, a state of realized idealisation perhaps equatable with the romantic form of passionate love.
  • Mascaró, Juan (2003). The Bhagavad Gita. Penguin Classics. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-044918-3. (J. Mascaró, translator)
  • Winston, Robert (2004). Human. Smithsonian Institution.ISBN 0-03-093780-9.
  • Emanuele, E.; Polliti, P.; Bianchi, M.; Minoretti, P.; Bertona, M.; Geroldi, D (2005). “Raised plasma nerve growth factor levels associated with early-stage romantic love”Psychoneuroendocrinology. Sept. 05 (3): 288–94.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1986). “A triangular theory of love”.Psychological Review 93 (2): 119–135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2
  • Fromm, Erich; The Art of Loving, Harper Perennial (5 September 2000), Original English Version, ISBN 978-0-06-095828-2
  • The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by David M. Buss, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005. Chapter 14, Commitment, Love, and Mate Retention by Lorne Campbell and Bruce J. Ellis.