Jesse Baron: The Journalist and the Suicide
I swear: I have no idea how to measure the amounts of weirdness in my daily life. Maybe this theory about black holes collapsing into white holes? Then again, I consider time & space & scientific theories & universal dynamics often, so maybe not.
My perception of the word “weird” can be well explained via this essay: 'Weird Shit,' via Boing Boing.
"Weirdness, in this sense, stands for experiences or events that seriously challenge the norm without leaving the empirical plane of immanence. The weird twists, but does not transcend. It doesn’t rupture reality but refers, enigmatically, to its perverse core."
Thank you very much! I find I am just becoming properly acquainted with my voice now, and the process may take all my life, and at the end of it, I’ll find that “my” means everything, means nothing, the universal paradox. And it will be okay.
That said, I feel I am improving as a writer, and it feels good. I evolve, the voice evolves.
Yes, every project requires a different space and energy. It asks for it, in some cases so thoroughly that it finds a way into my life before I even realize it’s a project.
It’s a combination of a lot of factors, and it changes with every project. Research often involves specific music, film, comics, any other form of art, psychotherapy aimed at conscious/subconscious/unconscious mountains, oceans, deserts that feel ripe for exploring or just staying in, empty houses, past memories, memories of the future, anything.
When writing Wild Children I fashioned myself a tribal skirt out of the pages of Morrison’s and Bond’s ‘Kill Your Boyfriend’ and ‘Hellblazer: Shoot’ by Ellis and Jimenez. When writing Change I found myself executing certain scenes that happen inside the comic.
So: a voice. I am not so sure it is a voice as much as it is a cross-section between the story being channeled from the “outside” and a voice that is “inside,” both of which are ostensibly the same thing manifesting through different channels.
I am delighted that we’re bringing you a good time. I sometimes deal with anxiety issues and I choose to live in the world as it is, therefore I must strive to perceive it as it is, and inevitably my writing becomes a reflection of what is alive in me, and what is alive in me is alive in the world. If the external mirrors the internal, and I believe in no suppression of elements unless they bring direct harm to others (the first, I believe it does, the second, I do) it is my duty to let the world speak through me.
Considering the comics and film/TV projects I am working on this year — Zero, Secret Avengers, Winter Soldier, The Surface, Antistar, Gentrification, Wolf, the Zero TV package and two movies I won’t talk about because they are not ready yet — 6 out of these 10 projects have LGBTQ+ characters, often main protagonists, and the other 4 are not nearly formed enough yet for me to tell. Sometimes I don’t spell out that a character is LGBTQ+ because the story doesn’t need it — sometimes I focus on it because the story does.
Same goes for the traditional predominance of white male main characters — the Zero comic, the Zero TV show and Winter Soldier have one and I usually dig in and consciously work with the archetype and examine it instead of just letting it lie there unacknowledged and perpetuating the vicious cycle of white male privilege. Then there’s Secret Avengers, which is a very diverse group, Antistar is about a transgender Iranian pop star, Gentrification is predominantly Mexican, and the rest…goes places.
So yes. We live in a diverse world. Unless I decide to make a point about that by employing hyperbolic storytelling, my fiction will reflect it. And even then — the point will still be made.
You said that the crisis is going to be intensified by globalization, but you are not pessimistic. What are the reasons for not being pessimistic?
Baudrillard: It’s not because I described or analyzed a state of things this way, the order of things is nihilistic, it’s the place for the exchange of nothing. I describe it but I take a distance from it. The form in the discourse, it’s not only an analytic discourse, the theoretical discourse also is a form which is never pessimistic or optimistic, it’s just a form. The salvation is in the form, not the content, even when you say even the most pessimistic things. The content maybe pessimistic or nihilistic, but the form, if it succeeds, is never either one, it is a transfiguration of the content. You do that in the writing. It’s always a challenge between content and form, and that’s the difference between a rational, discursive discourse and a theoretical approach. I, for my part, say the most nihilistic things, yes, but the resolution of this pessimistic content is in a very glorious form. Then the writing is not an innocent act, it is a transmutation of the content. That’s why language is something very singular, it is always more than what it signifies and you must take into account this transfiguration of language. It’s always a challenge, you can describe the most apocalyptic system, but you can do it in a way that is not at all apocalyptic. The form can retain the singularity at the same time that it says something which is not singular but describes a non-singularity. It’s always a duel.