Introspection
Nov. 2nd, 2009 09:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dolorosa_12While I was talking on Skype with my mother on Sunday, we had a minor disagreement about something we've argued about in the past. After a day of reflection, I can see why we argued: she misunderstood something which I had said.
I said that one reason why I thought I struggled so badly with original writing (be it fiction or my academic work) and found reviewing (whether it be on my blogs, for the paper or reviewing academic scholarship) so much fun was because I'm a rather passive, reactive person. I want to absorb other people's ideas, mull of them for a while, and then spew out my reaction for all the world to see.
My mother took this to mean that I preferred to wait for someone to rescue me, viewing myself as a passive victim of circumstances. This is just about the worst crime in her book, and she is justified in interpreting my statement in that way. I was like this, to a certain extent, in the past.
I used to get incredibly angry when circumstances didn't go my way, or when people behaved in a way that didn't suit my temperament and tastes. A classic example is that I dislike spontaneity intensely, and would get extremely angry at my friends if they called me up and invited me out for something on the day. 'Why couldn't they have organised it in advance?' I would fume. 'I've already planned what I wanted and expected to do this evening, and now I've got to do something different.' But I would never tell my friends that I found this extremely annoying, and instead would go to the events and have a miserable time, or I would make an excuse to avoid the events and sit at home being angry.
At some point, however, I realised that I was being ridiculous. Clearly, I liked my friends. And clearly, I enjoyed spending time with them, as demonstrated by the numerous, non-spontaneous times we would hang out and would have fun.
This is when I learned one of my most important life lessons. The world is an annoying place. People don't always behave how you would like them to behave. Circumstances don't always suit you, and in some cases circumstances change from something that suits you to something that you find vile, irritating and enraging. But you cannot change people, and you cannot change most circumstances: the most you can do is remove yourself or avoid things that irritate you. All you can change is yourself, and if you do not want to do so, that clearly means that circumstances aren't as annoying as you imagined. If you can avoid or endure things which you find unpleasant, they're clearly not that bad.
(I should note that I'm talking here about the 'annoying' things from a privileged position: unpleasant jobs, people talking loudly in the library, 'spontaneous' friends. I am certainly not suggesting that truly horrific circumstances are endurable, or should be endured.)
So when I talk about 'passivity', I'm not talking about being a victim. I'm not even talking about stoicism. In fact, my 'passivity' is pretty active. React to your circumstances by changing the only thing you can: yourself. People are not going to change for you. It's unpleasant, but it's the truth.
I said that one reason why I thought I struggled so badly with original writing (be it fiction or my academic work) and found reviewing (whether it be on my blogs, for the paper or reviewing academic scholarship) so much fun was because I'm a rather passive, reactive person. I want to absorb other people's ideas, mull of them for a while, and then spew out my reaction for all the world to see.
My mother took this to mean that I preferred to wait for someone to rescue me, viewing myself as a passive victim of circumstances. This is just about the worst crime in her book, and she is justified in interpreting my statement in that way. I was like this, to a certain extent, in the past.
I used to get incredibly angry when circumstances didn't go my way, or when people behaved in a way that didn't suit my temperament and tastes. A classic example is that I dislike spontaneity intensely, and would get extremely angry at my friends if they called me up and invited me out for something on the day. 'Why couldn't they have organised it in advance?' I would fume. 'I've already planned what I wanted and expected to do this evening, and now I've got to do something different.' But I would never tell my friends that I found this extremely annoying, and instead would go to the events and have a miserable time, or I would make an excuse to avoid the events and sit at home being angry.
At some point, however, I realised that I was being ridiculous. Clearly, I liked my friends. And clearly, I enjoyed spending time with them, as demonstrated by the numerous, non-spontaneous times we would hang out and would have fun.
This is when I learned one of my most important life lessons. The world is an annoying place. People don't always behave how you would like them to behave. Circumstances don't always suit you, and in some cases circumstances change from something that suits you to something that you find vile, irritating and enraging. But you cannot change people, and you cannot change most circumstances: the most you can do is remove yourself or avoid things that irritate you. All you can change is yourself, and if you do not want to do so, that clearly means that circumstances aren't as annoying as you imagined. If you can avoid or endure things which you find unpleasant, they're clearly not that bad.
(I should note that I'm talking here about the 'annoying' things from a privileged position: unpleasant jobs, people talking loudly in the library, 'spontaneous' friends. I am certainly not suggesting that truly horrific circumstances are endurable, or should be endured.)
So when I talk about 'passivity', I'm not talking about being a victim. I'm not even talking about stoicism. In fact, my 'passivity' is pretty active. React to your circumstances by changing the only thing you can: yourself. People are not going to change for you. It's unpleasant, but it's the truth.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Introspection
Date: 2009-11-03 08:33 am (UTC)Let's not forget that criticism, well done criticism, that is, is a creative act in its own right. The degree of analysis and understanding required to write a good review, together with the self-confidence needed to state a contrary position and stick to it, shouldn't be underestimated.
Re: Introspection
Date: 2009-11-03 11:11 am (UTC)But that's precisely the point I was making! Other people are not going to change to suit you. Therefore, you have two options: either to do as you please and dare people to accept you, or you can adapt yourself to fit in with other people (which one you choose probably depends on your personality, and also on the specific situation - I find myself doing one other the other depending on the circumstances). If you do neither - that is, if you sit fuming, wondering why people won't just accept you - it's pointless.
I think we all have our personal lines in the sand, the ones we simply will not cross, the things we will not change about ourselves, the accommodations we simply will not make. Where those particular lines lie depends, again, upon our personalities. Does that make sense?
Also, thank you for your kind words about the humble art of reviewing! :)
Re: Introspection
Date: 2009-11-03 11:41 am (UTC)I think there's a third option - the one where you do set out to change the world by direct action. For example, Brian Eno could have tried to become the leader of Roxy Music or Derek Jarman could have tried to take over MGM. One point of view sees their withdrawal into themselves as a failure. BE stopped being a member of a chart-topping band, DJ made tiny films for small audiences. Neither stayed and fought, you might say, and both could be accused of going off in a sulk.
In retrospect we can see that they both did the right thing.
I'm a terrible critic - I fear the response "OK - so what can you do?" too much :)
Re: Introspection
Date: 2009-11-03 11:44 am (UTC)Re: Introspection
Date: 2009-11-03 02:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 11:41 am (UTC)"I want to absorb other people's ideas, mull of them for a while, and then spew out my reaction for all the world to see." I'm like that as well, although I need to start being more active about sharing my reactions - sharing more of myself, as it were.
I also really like your points about getting annoyed with things that really aren't that bad. I sometimes feel a little smothered by my best friend, but then I actually think about it, and realise that I'm truly lucky to have her.
Learning from the past and realising that sometimes the best solution is to try to change yourself for the better is a great life lesson - it's so true, and I wish I'd learnt that sooner as well. Sadly I think that I'm still learning to adapt to things that really aren't so bad, but I believe I'm better at it than I used to be.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:04 pm (UTC)I think working out that changing yourself is the only way to change your circumstances is the best, and most difficult life lesson to learn. It took me 23 years, and some people never learn it.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 11:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-03 02:22 pm (UTC)