Creativity, Idleness, Amusement, and Bob Dylan

Someone – let’s call him “Ethan” – recommended a book to me, “How to be Idle” by Tom Hodgkinson. It was a great delight! I loved the many, many literary excerpts on the subject that Hodgkinson compiled from the past five plus centuries. Ethan knew I would be interested, as I am an accomplished Master in the discipline of Idleness, and have been for years.

For Ethan, the book’s central insight is the relationship between Creativity and Idleness. Throughout history, the most creative people have been relatively idle, and Ethan’s new objective is to be more idle and hence more creative. And me?

My objective is to explore the literal meaning of amusement, the difference between amusement and Idleness, what all of this has to do wBob Dylan, and to note an even deeper dynamic relating Idleness and Creativity.

The Literal Meanings of Amuse and Amusement

  

To muse generally means to reflect or meditate on something, often with a sense of wonder or awe.

In classical mythology, the Muses were the daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne who presided over the classical Greek arts. And somewhat more recently, a “muse” came to mean any source of artistic or poetic inspiration. 

Given this root, what is the literal meaning of amusement? Just as amoral means without morality; as atheism means without theism (without belief in God); as apathy means without feeling; as atypical means not typical; etc:

“To amuse” then might literally mean to take away one’s muse; one’s inspiration; one’s imagination. And to replace these creative gifts with external distractions.

What does this have to do with Bob Dylan?

Do you remember the lines from Bob Dylan’s great 1965 caustic anthem Like a Rolling Stone: 

 

You never turned around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns


When they all come down and did tricks for you




You never understood that it ain't no good  


You shouldn't let other people get your kicks for you

Who can know Bob Dylan’s mind? But to my mind, these words are about the negative aspect of amusement. Amusement distracts us from deeper creative wellsprings; it stunts our spiritual and creative growth; it diminishes us.

The Difference between Amusement and Idleness

How many times have you heard the phrase “idle amusement?” Driven by our Protestant work ethic, we often confuse Idleness and amusement, but in fact “idle amusement” is a contradiction.

True Idleness, as Hodgkinson explains, generates open, calm space in an otherwise noisy, pressing, preoccupied world … the very space that is necessary for creativity.





Amusement, on the other hand, fills that space with inauthentic noise and activity – Dylan’s “jugglers and clowns.”

Today we are “amused” as never before. Television, radio, movies, CDs, iPods, email, Facebook, Twitter, and the Internet in general - how can anyone be creative when the mind is so jangled?

It is impossible; Creativity requires Idleness.

A Deeper Dynamic between Idleness and Creativity?

Ethan wants to become more idle and hence become more creative. But is this possible? Or does this notion put the cart before the horse?

I believe that some truly creative people are born that way. These people create their own Idle space almost as their lungs create breath: they must be Idle; they crave Idleness and Solitude; the drive is innate; it is in their bones; they cannot and never have been otherwise.

But what about one who has lived his life amused rather than Idle? Can one then become more Idle and consequently more Creative? I do not know … But I suspect yes, at least to some degree. It can’t hurt, and I wish him well.

Stephen Rowe welcomes correspondence of all sort at StephenRowe.OriGraphics@yahoo.com

(watch for the period between Rowe and OriGraphics)

Brave New World!

In the near future, reaching majority (age 21) will occasion a cloning. You may then keep your clone in a spare bedroom or an attic, to insure a convenient source of spare organs, tissues, blood, etc for medical procedures as you age. These organs will be perfect for you – you will not reject them. Once you use a vital organ, the clone (and its un-harvested organs) will be kept on life support.

 

Stephen Rowe at 45 on the right and 60 on the left 

Turning 50 will occasion a second cloning; when you turn 71 (and your newest clone is 21), your head will be transplanted onto the younger body, and a third clone will be created for spare parts as your second body ages; and so on.

 

This will certainly transpire, at least for the wealthy, who will argue that they have a natural right to use their own DNA to for medical purposes. Those with sufficient means may be more likely keep their clones in certified medical facilities rather than at home, at least at first.

 

Ultimately, civil law will accord clones an official (if inferior) status, and they will be grown for both medical and recreational purposes.

 

 

 

 

I actually wrote this in 1997, when the photo was taken, but didn't possess the technical ability to manipulate the graphic, or the more aged face, until recently.

Stephen Rowe welcomes correspondence of all sort at StephenRowe.OriGraphics@yahoo.com

(watch for the period between Rowe and OriGraphics)

Frankenstein at Age 196: A Sublime Tragedy and Monstrous Film

Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, born August 30, 1797 began writing Frankenstein at age 18 and completed her masterpiece the following year… How time flies! 

  

And how time has mutated the essence of the story. Unless you have read the unabridged text you probably have no idea whatsoever, not a clue, of the tragedy, sweep, depth, power, and genius of this work!

At least I had no clue before reading the book in 2013. Of course I read the “Classic Comic” version roundabout age 11, have seen the famous 1931 Boris Karloff movie, and at least a hundred clips from scores of Hollywood derivatives. Many of these are great fun in their own right, some even scary, yet none begin to intimate the book’s depth, sweep, psychological horror, and tragedy.

The book’s horror is at least 90% psychological, nearly independent of the iconic, cinematic “horror” characterizing the derivative works. Yes, the Monster’s hideous aspect and crimes pervade the narrative mood, but the most profound horrors lay in the choices its Creator Victor Frankenstein must make, and in the unfolding of their inevitable, tragic consequences.

Indeed, the book is a classic tragedy, and doubly so - Victor Frankenstein and his Monster are classic tragic heroes as defined by Aristotle two thousand years ago: figures of noble character who are undone by hubris (usually over-reaching pride or ambition); whose punishments exceed their faults; who discover self-knowledge through their suffering; and whose fates arouse pity, fear, awe, and ultimately catharsis in the audience. In less elevated, more contemporary language, I was simply “blown away.”

What especially surprised me in the book was the Monster’s deep humanity. Excepting size and appearance, the Monster was, in mind, sensibility, and longing for connection, every bit his creator’s equal. Both figures, possessed of noble if different characters, are entangled and conflicted within a Creator/Creation relationship which drives the terrifying, inexorable demise of both, each demise magnified by the fundamental nobility of the fallen.

The excruciating drama plays against backdrops of city and nature, which adds to the story’s telling, but the moral backdrop creates far more power. The Monster calls himself (in relation to Frankenstein) “thy Adam,” and the work is informed by references to Milton’s Paradise Lost and to Lucifer’s rebellion against his Creator. In this regard, the Monster makes an astonishing but valid complaint: Lucifer had at least fellow rebel angels, while the Monster, despised by all men, is utterly alone, his Creator having created no Eve, no “Other” at all.

Illustration by Theodor von Holst from the frontispiece of the 1831 edition: Victor Frankenstein (standing)  becoming disgusted at his creation.

  

Comparing the 1931 movie to the 1817 book:

·         Shelley’s Monster is noble and supremely articulate, his Creator’s equal, but the film’s Monster can only grunt; incapable of speech, demented, and the accidental recipient of a criminal’s brain.

·         Shelley’s horror is 90% psychological, driven by the enormity of tragic consequences, while the film’s horror is primarily driven by the Monster’s appearance and rampage.

·         Shelley’s story is about ideas: what makes us human, what duties do the Creator and the Creation owe each other, and what are the consequences when these duties are denied; while the film explores no idea at all.

·         Shelley’s work is a doubly classic tragedy, while the film has a sappy-happy ending: the Monster destroyed, the interrupted wedding will proceed, with winks and grins.

·         One sole comparison favors the film: Shelley gives practically no hint as to how the Monster was animated, while the film’s iconic electrical storm animation was, and remains to this day, terrific, wonderful, and awesome cinema.

Copies of the book reside in both the adult and “YA” (young adult/teen) sections, and it is interesting to consider its readability for contemporary readers:

First, the book’s language is fundamentally modern, though some word usage is somewhat archaic; such as “terrific,” “wonderful,” and “awesome,” words I used just three lines above. Terrific means “having the power to terrify” and not “great, wonderful, etc”; “wonderful” means “having the power to inspire wonder,” and not just “really good”; and “awesome” means having the power to inspire awe, while today “awesome” means nothing at all, as far as I can tell; any statement these days might trigger “Awesome!” from a listener. Frankly I enjoy “archaic” usage. Modernity, and especially pop culture, have ravaged the expressive power of language over the past hundred years … a holocaust of meaning.

Somewhat more challenging are long sentences and somewhat complex sentence structure. But this challenge should not be too severe; it is nothing like reading some of Poe’s more convoluted stories.

Shelley’s vocabulary is relatively easy. At least I did not have to look up too many words. Not at all like some Poe tales, salted with words like apothegm, hermeneutics, and genuflect (just a few I had to look up last Halloween eve). Yet looking up words is one of the pleasures of reading, or it can be. So if “young adults” or “teens” or even “old adults” have to look up a few words that cannot be divined per context, so much the better.

Finally, the language is quite overwrought by contemporary standards; people just don’t talk like that anymore, if they ever did. This does require some patience, and by page 130 I was less patient than at page 100. But page 131 began chapter 10, wherein Frankenstein meets his Monster for the first time since having created him several months earlier. Finally the Monster speaks, and from that point on I was utterly captivated.

In defense of Shelley, the overwrought language can be, and in this case is, an effective device when dealing with “high-minded” themes. Moby Dick is another case in point: Melville’s masterpiece was initially panned by critics for that very reason: “Sea captains don’t talk like that! It lacks verisimilitude!” Ah, but it worked!

In summary, Frankenstein (the book) is a complex, sophisticated, astonishing tragedy of imaginative genius, written 196 years ago and entirely readable today. Furthermore, today’s reading offers something beyond what Mary Shelley could have imagined: a profoundly sad commentary on Hollywood’s artistic values and pop culture’s relentless desecration of meaning in language. It is simply monstrous.

Stephen Rowe welcomes correspondence of all sort at StephenRowe.OriGraphics@yahoo.com

(watch for the period between Rowe and OriGraphics)

High School Memories ... Bathroom Physics

 

Circa 1966, thinking 8^th grade but maybe later, reading a graffiti physics lesson etched into the old paint of a school bathroom stall:

 

     Heat of the Meat  X  Mass of the Ass = Angle of the Dangle

  

Graphic detail from “Nymphs and Satyr,” 1873
Analysis by unknown GHS student, circa 1966

I’ve often wondered what GHS genius imagined this astonishing equation? Or if not a genius, then at least someone possessed of far more esoteric knowledge than I at the time … Someone we can never know with certainty, as surely more than one lesser mind would happily steal the credit!

 

I loved math and science at the time ... is that why I thought it was so funny and remembered it so well? Something else I'll never know - how many others appreciated it as much as I did?

 

 

In any case, here is a “thanks” to someone for an adolescent "GHS Memory" that has stayed with me, now into my sixties.

Stephen Rowe welcomes correspondence of all sort at StephenRowe.OriGraphics@yahoo.com

(watch for the period between Rowe and OriGraphics)

 

Click herefor an overview of my blogs

 

 

The Exquisite Corpse

How to Play the Famous Surrealistic Game

This game and its connection to Surrealism is widely credited to Andre Breton, the founder of Surrealism. I created a text example (below) so that you might get the idea ... It can be great fun.

 

 

Andre Breton, 1927

Surrealism explores the unconscious, often by juxtaposing images that don’t usually occur together. The human mind always attempts to ‘understand’ what it sees, hence will find or create some kind of meaning in the strange juxtapositions. So The Exquisite Corpse is a way to generate surreal text or art.



The example below illustrates how and why it works:

 

Person A writes a few words, say 6 or less, that have or suggest some meaning, such as

Sunset gives way to night

 

Person B sees Person A’s words, and adding to this limited text, writes his/her 6 or less words:

Realm of moon and stars

 

Person C sees only Person B’s words, and adds:

Worlds beyond our knowing

 

Person D sees only Person C’s words, and adds:

Past and future both

 

At this point we have:

Sunset gives way to night

Realm of moon and stars

Worlds beyond our knowing

Past and future both

 

Note how the poem suggests that “sunset” generates “past and future” … and so it does, in a sense, but Person A writing “Sunset gives way to night” probably had no such direct thought at all. The thought was conjured only by a sequence of minds influenced but indirectly by Person A’s initial mindscape.

 

In this example the composite text is fairly coherent, but you can imagine how the technique will often generate more discordant text - and when your mind tries to create coherence out of the discordant images, it forges new associations, insights, etc.  This is how the technique generates surreal text.

 

Surreal graphical art can be generated by the same technique.

 

          Person A begins with an arbitrary sketch in the middle of a “canvas” (or page).

          Person B adds to the first sketch, then covers A’s contribution before passing the evolving work on to Person C …

          And so on. Each succeeding participant adds just the immediately preceding sketch, all prior contributions being covered.

          So any two sketches in the sequence are naturally related, but the composite assembly may be surreal indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

This can be great fun. The words don't have to be poetic, and you may start out with any phrase (or sketch) whatsoever.

 

 

When is the last time you did something this cool?

 

 

Stephen Rowe welcomes correspondence of all sort at StephenRowe.OriGraphics@yahoo.com

(watch for the period between Rowe and OriGraphics)

 

Click here for an overview of myblogs

A Memorial Tribute to Gloria Filiault Rowe

 

 



Gloria Filiault Rowe


September 23, 1932

to

January 23, 2011

 

My mother’s religious conversion (circa 1974) was, throughout her last thirty-six years, radically transformative. By 1978 she was the least worldly person I had ever known. Frankly, I (and many others) thought her fringe beliefs were entirely delusional, yet within a few more years I came to respect and greatly admire her life of spirit and devotion, despite her peculiar theology.

 My objective then, for her 2011 memorial service, was to present testimony that would reach two distinct audiences: those who shared her beliefs, and those who continued to believe her religion was simply delusional.

The fact is, a transformative, positive, spiritual practice is not necessarily compromised or diminished just because the encompassing theology or metaphysics are not ‘true.’ Even dogmatic, uncompromising, ‘this is the only way’ theology can still be a vehicle for genuine, authentic, spiritual experience and growth.

 
How do I know? The proof is documented in my mother’s Bible and in her life, as related below:

  

A Perspective from Gloria Rowe’s Bible

 (Memorial tribute by Stephen Rowe, January 27, 2011)

 

I want to share a special perspective with you – the perspective provided by Gloria Rowe’s personal Bible. Everyone here knows something of my Mother’s Christian aspect – that is, the Christian virtues she reflected to the world: her faith, humility, charity, loving-kindness and such - and the joy and grace that radiated from her. This is familiar. What I want to share now is a glimpse into the spiritual journey that brought her to this conclusion, as reflected in the duct taped Bible which her old friend Lillian Meyers gave to her on February 25, 1978, just one month shy of thirty-three years ago. [Hold Bible up and ask Lillian Meyers to wave her hand]

 

The first thing you notice is the duct tape spine needs more duct tape. There is not a page that hasn’t been turned multiple times. Then look at the white-space pages typically in the front and back of books … there is no white space – it is entirely filled with handwritten notes, spiritual reminders, scriptural references, etc. And after the white space was swallowed she continued in the same vein with numerous post-it notes, writing on book-marks, notepad sheets, bank-deposit envelopes … anything she had close at hand became a note between some pages. Then there are hundreds of chapter-verse highlights, underlines, additional references, comments, etc. … and then there are hundreds more … multiple such on nearly every New Testament page and well more than half the Old Testament pages. [Show Bible while speaking - the duct tape, filled-in white space; open to random pages and show highlights, underlines, etc]

These are the footsteps and mile-marks of her journey – and their contents reveal that her journey was in fact an intense and arduous quest. Christianity was not an easy path. She struggled with pride, acceptance, submission, and even faith. And she suffered. And learned along the way, and would write things such as “God often does not remove obstacles, but rather uses our trials to work on us.” And yes, all things are supposed to work together for them that love the Lord, but the interim evidence can seem otherwise at times, and even faith could be hard. But she struggled earnestly, and with Grace prevailed.

 

The most poignant notes in her Bible, at least to me, are those focused on reflecting Christ to others here in this world – the ones where she says “Help me be like Jesus to others” or “Let others see Jesus through me.” What makes these notes especially poignant is that they usually occur in contexts where she is experiencing deep personal suffering … and her prayer is not “Please take these burdens from me” but rather “Give me the strength so that others may see Jesus through me.”

 

So her religion was not all happy-talk about Heaven. The reality is that she lived a deep and profound spiritual life right here on earth, in our own time, and in our very midst. And she succeeded in her quest: I can indeed see Jesus Christ in her life, and I know so can many of you. And this spiritual path - or rather the questing and seeking that shaped that path -  is very much reflected in this Bible with the duct-tape spine.

 

 

Links to two of her favorite hymns:

This is my Father’s World

I Cometo the Garden Alone

Gloria Filiault at age 16

Gloria Filiault Rowe at age 54, approximately

12 years after her religious conversion

Click here for an overview of my blogs

Stephen Rowe welcomes correspondence of all sort at StephenRowe.OriGraphics@yahoo.com