Well, Shit.

For real, I still write things. I’ve written more about cannabis than Melville wrote about that damn whale (click here for proof), I still get my weekly words in The Telegraph, and yesterday, I was tapped to be a regular writer for The Gulch. But I’m still a drug dealer, too, which is fine and dandy, but being a kingpin isn’t as lucrative as you’d think. Hell, my hash is in eighty shops now, but the needle hasn’t moved.

I guess I’m just typing to figure things out. We’re on the Big Island right now, me and the family, and the black sand from that beach I sat on this afternoon has worked its way into my mind, not just my underwear. I want to live here. I never want to go home, and I never want to give back the silver Jeep I rented from Avis. But nothing is going to make those “wants” come true besides a lot of money or an asteroid hitting the mainland before my return flight, and neither is on the radar.

All the futile actions are complete. I stole a Homes and Land from a coffee shop and found all the homes I could afford if the mortgage regulations from the early nineties were still in place. I’ve checked Indeed for any open Kona jobs, and sure as shit, “writing drug dealer” doesn’t net any search results. I can’t stay here, and I can’t crunch a way to get back here permanently with the faculties currently at my disposal.

The only thing that’s left is to write a book.

That’s how to get here amongst all these chickens and slow traffic. That’s how to stay away from Homes and Land and Indeed. I’ve done it once or twice, but I scrambled through and came up short because I’m impatient and impulsive. But I’m going to start anew when I get home, so I can have a new home. I’m warming up right now in this blog, because this is the first place I wrote for strangers, so I’ve come back to the beginning, just like Vizzini told Inigo to do. This is where I am, and this is where I will stay. I will not be moved.



          Some kids in California came up with it, but I didn’t know that the first time I celebrated April twentieth. I lived in Oregon at the time. My balcony overlooked Pine street, and I remember watching from my patio furniture as all the other college kids went to class, exercised on the streets, did all the things college kids are supposed to do. I remember the taste of that west coast weed, I remember the deep bass bleeding from our living room speakers, and I remember laughing with my friends as we smoked our way into oblivion on my first four-twenty.

          Eugene is a verdant place, where the heat is ripe and everyone looks like they belong in an outdoors magazine. It’s a liberal college town, one so quintessential that you’ve seen it in movies, and pot was just a part of life. We got high every day at 4:20 because that’s what you were supposed to do. We had our rituals, we used alarm clocks. But we thought “420” was the call-code cops used to call in a charge for marijuana possession. It made sense: when Snoop Dog said “187 on an undercover cop,” he meant murder; the band 311 chose their name because “311” is the call-code for indecent exposure; “420” obviously had something to do with cops and smoking pot (which is why it was so cool). But I was young and clueless—sometimes, clichés really do fit best—and I didn’t know the truth:

          The Waldos were a real-life troop of Goonies back in the early seventies. San Rafael, California, was their hood. They were athletes and high school kids and best friends. I’m sure they wore sweatbands in their shaggy hair and striped socks pulled all the way up to their knees. I’m sure their music was loud and I’m sure the sixty-six Impala they drove around town still felt modern, new.

          One day, one of the Waldos heard about a military man who lived in the Point Reyes Forest. He was shipping out somewhere, leaving his post on the peninsula, and he wouldn’t be around to guard his pot patch, growing somewhere out in the forest. One of the Waldos even had a treasure map. So, they made a plan: every day after school and after practice, they’d meet at a Louis Pasteur statue next to the wall behind which they usually got stoned (incidentally, this wall put the “wall” in “Waldos”). They’d start smoking immediately, and then they’d drive out into the Point Reyes Forest. They’d get out of that sixty-six Impala and then they’d roam the loamy forest floor, hunting through the dappled sunlight for a hidden glen of unguarded pot plants. They never found what they were looking for, even after two weeks’ worth of searching, but they did find a form of immortality, because the Waldos coined something that’ll live on forever.

          The rest of the story is easy-cheesy: one of the Waldos had a loose connection to one of the Grateful Dead, and “420” found a carrier, just like the common cold. And it spread through the Waldos’ school, like things do. The virgin-minded freshmen watched with awe as the Waldos got high behind their wall, and after each graduating class, the Waldos lived on, reincarnated in a younger troop. After time, those two weeks’ worth of raiding into the Point Reyes Forest were forgotten, but the time to get high wasn’t; school still ended at the same time, so did practice, and that statue of Pasture still stood watch over the new kids, doing his best to keep their minds from curdling. Those kids grew up and moved and told stories and had children of their own, and the origin story behind four-twenty was diluted with myth and geography until it found me sitting on that balcony in Eugene, smoking my way into oblivion, convinced in totality that my alarm was going off because of a police call-code.


          The simple epiphanies are the most mind-blowing. I was twelve-years-old and reading a fantasy novel when it dawned on me that “breakfast” is just an amalgam of “break” and “fast,” and that when you wake up in the morning, and eat for the first time, you’re breaking the fast from the night before. Of course, thanks to Game of Thrones, everyone watches fantasy novels on TV now, and “break your fast” has been said so many times that the once esoteric etymology has wiggled its way out amongst the memes and LOLs, but I guess that’s a good thing because something lost has been found.

          Personally, I’m the worst sort of etymologist because I don’t fact-check any of my claims. I’ll look at a word and think about it and repeat it in my head ad nauseum until it doesn’t even feel like a word anymore, and I’ll try to figure out where it came from. You know, like is it a word from a different language? Did we steal it from the Germans like we did with doppelganger? Is it Latin? Is it just a weird mashup of prefixes and suffixes? Or is it one of those awesome two-forgotten-words-put-together words like “breakfast.”

          Because those are my favorite.

          Think about “threshold.” A long time ago (back when words were made), people would throw straw all over their floors. It’d make easy the mucking out of a house, just like it does for a stall. But every time someone would walk out, a little straw would go with them. Like toilet paper, I guess, but in the renaissance. So builders added to their houses a raised board in the bottom of their doorframes, to hold in the straw, or “thresh,” as they called it. I was thirteen when I figured that one out, and Game of Thrones hasn’t spoiled it yet.


          I’m a freelance writer now. It’s a strange new nametag to wear in conversations with strangers, but I keep a straight face most of the time. And this morning, I pictured a knight on the field, alone and masterless, like some sort of European Ronin, and I figured it out. I have a lance, these words of mine, but I don’t have an employer. I have no fiefdom to marshal, no kingdom to ply. My lance is free just as I am a freelance writer–George R.R. Martin would’ve used the word “sellsword,” but “sellsword writer” sounds a little superfluous–and the click felt wonderful when it all fell into place.


          I just wanted to write something quick and dirty, straight into this site from whichever thought came first, and I wanted to thank you all for reading still. Those past fifty-thousand scholastic entries must’ve been boring, but the fall semester is here and these classes will live in a bubble elsewhere on this laptop. You made it through. And in December, I’ll graduate, and we’ll talk about something else.



A Female Sublimity

This is the last class-related post you’ll have to read. Thank you for hanging on, and here we go…

The feminine sublime “designates a position of facing the irreducible alterity of the terror instead of controlling the feeling of terror through material obstruction or mental distance.” –Jui-Ch’i Liu

No… No, no, no. There’s no place for gender in sublimity, just as there’s no place for gender in algebra. Any sort of argument to the contrary takes away, leaches from, distracts. Whenever we try to see something as profound as the sublime through some sort of filter like gender, we only see part of the whole, and this week’s reading took a frustrating turn because everything narrowed down; everything started to focus in on a little part instead of the whole and all of it was awash with human fallacy.

Let’s start with the quote. Just like any other argument, we’d need to asses Liu’s premises before we can figure out if her conclusion is valid, and that’s where things start to fall apart. Seriously, who the hell said that men control “the feeling of terror through material obstruction or mental distance”?  Burke, maybe? And if so, does just that one Irishman who died when this country was thirty years old get to decide what sublimity is for the rest of us? Is Liu honestly saying that there isn’t a woman out there who likes to put a blockade or two in between her mind and danger? Anyone who says “women do this, and men do that” is failing to see that humanity does something entirely different.

It’s super annoying. For this post, we were supposed to “reflect on gender and how it relates to the sublime,” and to that, I’d say that gender-based descriptions of the feeling are nothing more than subsets—little half-truths that don’t do anything other than keep us from looking higher because they distract from the thing that lives above masculine or feminine sublimity: holistic sublimity itself.

But you know what? It’s not Liu’s fault; she just took the bait, and I can’t blame her. Because when you think about it, it really was all those wig-wearing men from Western Europe who set us off on the wrong course with all their misogynistic idiocy. I’ve never liked Kant, and really, he’s to blame. Smart women like Liu can take only so much of that bullshit before the polarization pushes them to the other side, and then they start to see things as if there really were sides. There aren’t. Rage is rage. Woe is woe. And sublimity is sublimity, whether it’s felt by a man or a woman or a Yorkshire terrier. When we start to look at a gender’s take on some sort of emotion that is in and of itself a contradiction, we miss things. And this week, we missed things.

As to the photography in Liu’s essay, I’d argue that there’s just as much “mental distance” in Lee’s Dolphin Court as there was in Herbert Mason’s cathedral picture, and I hate to say it, but I think Liu cherry-picked a woman’s photography to prove a point. Yes, in that last horrid picture of the stacked corpses, Lee definitely faced “the irreducible alterity of the terror,” but so did the countless male photographers who also took pictures of bodies after and during WWII. There just isn’t much logic in the argument, regardless of how beautiful and intelligent it was, and I stick by my guns:

Sublimity persists in as many different ways as there are people who feel it, and it matters not if they’re men or women. Infinite, mind-blowing things happen all the time and everywhere, and if these things are described from a feminine or a masculine point of view, the describer has failed, and they’ve only told half the tale. Good writing, good art, good photography: these things need to be free and unfettered from gender, because if they aren’t, they’re trapped just below where they could be ultimately, and they fail to reach the potential of true sublimity. In the end, you need it all, positive and negative, distance and immersion. That’s where balanced contradiction comes from, and frankly, that’s the definition of sublimity.

On John Muir

Dear readers,

I’m sure these weeks have been confusing for you given that all this gobbledygook is aimed at literature you don’t have access to, but just to keep you interested, I’m going to fill you in on the vagaries of my class’s reading so you have a clue. Basically, we’re trying to study sublime writing so we can produce it, which is a shit-ton harder than it sounds. And the more and more we study it, I’m realizing that the art can be distilled down into a word formula, even though such a thing sounds sacrilegious on the surface, and I’m getting closer and closer to seeing the equation in its entirety.

This week, we read an essay by Christine Oravec written about John Muir’s writing which ultimately led to the preservation of the burgeoning National Parks System way back in the day, and Muir was able to turn people to his cause by capturing sublimity with his written word. His equation was as follows: take the immediate apprehension of a familiar sublime object (like a mountain), add a sense of overwhelming personal insignificance, couple this with the sense of spiritual exaltation, and boom, you’ve written a spell that’ll transport sublimity into the mind of your reader. And here we go…


Metal canoes do odd things in Alaskan rivers. The water is grey like flowing clay, and silver aluminum seems to disappear when it’s floating on top. It’s the silt that does this. It’s the fine rock that’s been ground to a powder by living glaciers, and it trickles down the hills until the water is inundated with it; if you fall in, your clothes take it all in and it feels like you’re wearing concrete. And it’s dangerous. It’ll make you heavy and cold and solid with weight, and you’ll sink to where you’ll stay. It’s like boating on top of death—a childhood game of hot-lava where the stakes are for keeps.

I was fourteen the last time I did it with a group of friends, and we were ill-equipped for the rapids we paddled through. There were nine canoes in total, but one of them flipped over (the one caring all the food for our trip), and the two teens inside washed up on an anchored piece of driftwood in the middle of an eddy. They stayed there for two days until they were rescued by a chartered boat—the kid from Poland tried to kill himself with bug spray because it seemed better than drowning, but that’s not where this is going.

The rest of us made it to a sandbar with a half-mile of rapids on each side. We were marooned. Or meatal canoes had fought the water with rigidity instead of bending like the sapling that survives a storm, and rivets had popped. More water was coming in than staying out and our choices turned from plural into singular: we’d have to stay where we were until someone found us. That “someone” turned out to be one of those double-bladed helicopters. It landed and hovered us back to safety—the crew gave us tuna and crackers which felt like a feast after two days’ worth of feeding on multiple vitamins, and the view below was indeed sublime because we would live now, but that’s not the moment in this trip I found to be transitional. I remember sitting in that helicopter, looking out the open door, protected from the raging white-noise by one of the headsets I’d only seen in movies, and thinking back to when I stood on the edge of that sandbar.

I was looking downstream. The river was huge and roaring, and just beyond the island that saved us, the water turned into something that shouldn’t be called a “river.” There were falls and waterlogged trees that’d been ripped from the ground by the rain-fattened flow, and there were rocks waiting to break things. It was all so huge, loud, final. I knew that a boat taken downstream would just be something ferrying me towards an end, but there’s always a chance, especially so if you’re young and invincible. I decided to give it three days, because three is a number we all seem to agree on. That’s how many pigs there were, that’s how many bears there were, that’s how many wishes you get. If that day came, I’d push off and see what happened.

Of course, it didn’t; that helicopter came one day before my deadline, and safety was found. But I remember standing there on the bank, little and young, the opposite of the nature around me, and thinking that somehow, it’s all come to this, whatever “this” was. And I’d found peace in that moment of acceptance, buffeted by the raging torrent on all sides, because there was nothing else to do.


My eyeballs glaze over any time I hear someone use the word “society” in an argument. The word is just so damn played out and superficial that I’ve become allergic to it. Whenever someone tries to focus on society as a cause for anything, he or she does so out of laziness; he or she isn’t going deep enough because society is just a symptom of human nature. If you think about it, looking at society for instances of cause and effect would be like looking at a cough instead of the cold that causes it. That’s a super short-sighted thing to do, and Tim Gorichanaz did exactly that for an entire, peer-reviewed paper.

Simply put, we don’t live in a “commodified world,” but rather, we are a species that strives to commodify life. It isn’t modern society that “seeks to minimize” discomfort, strenuousness, unpredictability, or riskiness, but rather, it’s human nature that shies away from what we see as negative, because from an evolutionary standpoint, minimalizing these states of existence increases the likelihood of reproduction. Every society in recorded history has done this, just as every human in the fossil record has done this individually. Any argument to the contrary is irksome because it just doesn’t go far enough, and it just doesn’t tell the whole truth.

The simple fact is this: for sublimity to be achieved, there must be a paradox, a contradiction, and an extreme runner isn’t finding this enigma by going against the bounds of society; he or she is finding it by going against our atavistic human nature.

To see it in its entirety, you need to render humanity down to what it really is: a group of animals. Quite literally, everything we do is done to increase the likelihood of reproduction. If we conserve energy, we’ll have a better chance of making babies. If we don’t do extreme sports, we’ll be safer, thereby increasing our chances of having babies. That’s why most people only run if they’re being chased (or if they’re chasing something); that’s how it is today in “modern” society, and that’s how it was where we were hunter-gatherers.

So, it’s easy to see where the contradiction leading to sublimity for extreme runners comes from. If we run when we’re not being chased, a contradiction is being created on a basal level. If we push ourselves past the point of endurance when it isn’t necessary, our subconscious minds get confused because they have no frickin’ clue why we’re doing what we’re doing. And if you combine that point of contradiction with the heady runner’s high that comes from a lack of oxygen and a depleted caloric intake, all of a sudden, boom, you’ll feel the emotion of sublimity. You’ll find that certain something special that is both confounding and elevating, and if you possess rhetorical skills, you’ll be able to write about the expectance adequately. There’s no magic involved. There’s nothing special or spiritual when it comes to running, and contradicting paradigms are formed by people who don’t dig deep enough into the objective truth.   

Secondly, not only is Gorichanaz one of these people who didn’t go deep enough, but his paper is full of citations pointing back to other people who didn’t go deep enough either. Granted, running recreationally is on the rise in this country, but healthism, which Gorichanaz dismissed as only part of the reason, is in fact one-hundred percent of why running is on the rise. You see, herds of animals always find ways to achieve balance (again, because it leads to more babies). This country of ours is fatter than ever, so of course nature is going to step in and spur a few of us to run more. And a few of those few will encounter sublimity, and then they’ll spend the rest of their lives chasing that feeling by doing stupid things like running twenty-seven miles through the desert. One of Gorichanaz’s cited references (Jones) came close to this realization, but then the logic stopped for some reason even though healthism is in fact the seminal and root cause of extreme running.

Third, Baumeister got it all wrong too (for the record, my spellcheck seems to despise these names just as much as I loathe the outdated references). It’s true that humans seek purpose or efficacy or value because we see these tenets as integral parts to an autonomous nature, but we don’t look for these tenets thanks to a higher calling—we don’t care about these things because we’re looking for purpose. In truth, we try to tie to ourselves these values because doing so gives each of us a more unique identity, and… yup, you guessed it, a unique identity increases our chances of making babies. It’s just hard for scholars to admit things like this because doing so is admitting that we aren’t special, and I’ve never met a smarty-pants scholar who was willing to admit that he or she is nothing more than an animal preprogramed to reproduce and then die.

Fourth, if you think about it, isn’t extreme running just a way to ramp up one’s identity? Picture this: A fit and lithe man is standing in a bar, nursing one of those trendy, low-calorie beers. He just finished a marathon, and he “forgot” to take off the number pinned to the back of his shirt. He sees himself as different than the other men in the bar; he sees himself as above and lofty because he found a sublime emotion today thanks to my aforementioned reasons. And when that man walks up to the woman across the way, his opening line is inevitable. The identity he purports to that woman is predictable. For him, finding the sublime has given him confidence and an edge—he thinks it’s spiritual, but really, it’s evolutional. It’s just a leg up on the competition, and all of his sublime ultra-running is nothing more than an intentional contradiction he’s too shallow to see, and it’s just a means to an end: a way to have more babies.

Lastly, no, the sublime is not a byproduct of activities because it isn’t that simple; doing stupid things is just one way to stumble upon the paradox that leads to sublimity. But at least Gorichanaz looked at this side of things because Burke and Longinus looked only at things that happened to us, things that happened around us, and Gorichanaz’s piece to the argument brings us closer to a codified and complete answer to the question as to where the sublime comes from. Personally, I’d say this contribution, albeit incomplete, was the most salient part of Gorichanaz’s paper.

Sublime Balance

          Hybrid sensations are always better because you get the best of both worlds. Seriously, sweet and sour sauce is superior to a condiment containing just one of the two flavors because balance is always best. And sublimity is exactly the same. If you think about it, the mind-blowing sensation of simultaneous exultation and elation always comes from a paradox because confusion is a key element to the feeling—that’s why we need to include the terror with the comfort, the low with the high.

          There’s nothing more trite than a yen-yang (they always remind me of regrettable tattoos from the nineties) but sometimes clichés fit too perfectly to ignore. That circular, swirly little symbol sums it all up by mixing the dark and light just as it’s supposed to be; that’s why this John Dennis fellow seems to understand the sublime better than Longinus. If you have just a monstrous peak without the balancing valley, you’re talking about bliss, not the sublime, and if you have only the negative without the equaling positive, it’s just abysmal black. Zoltan Cora might not write interesting papers (even though he has the coolest name of all time), but his point is valid: Dennis took an objective look at the genre and realized that the romantic focus on positive feelings was half-assed at best, and a disservice was being done to the notion by focusing on it so myopically. And it was important for all those smart people from the seventeen-hundreds to move away from literature and rhetoric to look at “the lightning itself” because in so doing, they focused on the source of the sublime as opposed to just the written descriptions of it; that’s how something is truly understood.

          Secondly, as per the discussion prompt, the value of a lofty idea is its staying power. Simple things and concepts are dismissed as trivial because our brains figure them out and discard them as meaningless, regardless of how clever they might be. But the confusion feels like a loose end, or some sort of weird, esoteric little key that needs to be found so we can move on. And when we find it, the confusion remains for a moment, mixing a little with the satisfaction of solving something, and the heady balance of both feelings leads to the sublime. It’s pretty perfect stuff, and I love it.


          Bob Dylan’s Nobel Prize win is infuriating given the reality that writers like Margaret Atwood are still walking around. I saw that man in concert a few years back and he stood at the mic to mumble the same stuff that made him famous decades ago, back when that type of stuff was new, relevant, less cliché. A huge owl, grey and real, flew in while Dylan was “singing” and landed up in the eaves; the crowd applauded for that bird more earnestly than they did for Dylan because the original vagabond, the unwashed phenomenon, looked so lackluster after all these years. And his tired words are the same, when written on paper, because they mattered once but don’t fit in now. That man missed the change he was looking for but we’re still giving him awards for it; awards he cherishes so much that he no-shows to the ceremony and plagiarizes the speech he sends in after the fact.  

          How dare we treat relevant art—art like Atwood’s—that way? Frankly, we did the same thing for Obama. For the record, I voted for that man twice and I’m a huge fan, but given the countless drone strikes and civilian casualties that came as collateral damage during his tenure, I wonder occasionally at the impetus behind his own Nobel win. That medal is being strung around necks to send messages now instead of awarding artistic contributions, and it cheapens the recipients’ work that came before, the work that was worthy of award. Hell, I’d hate to put words in Atwood’s mouth because hers are already so much better than my own, but she seems to agree with me in this video. So, given my task this week to write about contemporary works of sublimity, I’m choosing to write about Atwood because if people don’t stand up and point at her writing, she might pass before most of us realize that we’re living in the same time as one of this world’s most sublime artists.

          True, people are noticing her work nowadays thanks to those creepy women in little-red-riding-hood cloaks on Hulu, but that’s just not good enough because she has given us more than that. I don’t want this to sound hyperbolic, but when it comes to dystopian works that can teach us about our mistakes before we make them, Atwood’s “Oryx and Crake” belongs at the top of the list, right above both Huxley and Orwell; her prescient work really is that good. And the reason for this is Atwood’s mastery of the sublime. Her passages are overwhelming and exalting simultaneously and that’s what defines the tenet. Here, read this:

           “What did his father look like? Snowman can’t get a fix on it. Jimmy’s mother persists as a clear image, full colour, with a glossy white paper frame around her like a Polaroid, but he can recall his father only in details: the Adam’s apple going up and down when he swallowed, the ears backlit against the kitchen window, the left hand lying on the table, cut off by the shirt cuff. His father is a sort of pastiche. Maybe Jimmy could never get far enough away from him to see all the parts at once.”

          Get it? Do you see the sublimity? I’m not going to comment on Atwood’s stylistic qualities because her ability to transcend pedestrian prose has nothing to do with her mechanics—Atwood is sublime because she writes about truth and emotion and deep things that don’t usually dawn on laypeople. Her words are profound and simple at once, and that’s where the explosion comes from. If you’re too close to a person, of course they’ll look like a pastiche because your piecemeal perception of him or her is nothing more than an imitation of who he or she really is. We build in our minds portraits of the people around us by piecing together events and images and perceptions clouded by our own bias, and then those people stop looking real because our rendering of them is anything but real. That’s some deep, sublime shit, and Atwood threw it into her book like a backhanded afterthought; that’s the sort of sublimity a master can engender. That’s the type of perfection that deserves a Nobel Prize.

The Sublime

          I lied to you. I told you that I was done using this blog for classwork and I said that I’d go back to posting my usual nonsense once the heady summer months arrived. Yet hear I am, writing for a rhetorical analysis class centered on the sublime, hoping that these assignments don’t shun your wishes. But before I get into it, I have an update: a New York based literary agency actually requested the complete manuscript I completed over the winter break. Now, I’m writing professionally for two different companies and someone in New York took my query seriously enough to shoot me an email asking for more—this is the furthest I’ve come on this odd quest to write for a living and the purgatory of it all is crushing.

          You see, I don’t want to jinx it. I don’t want to tell people that an agency is reading my book because the odds of making the next cut are too comical to mention; I don’t want to face all the hypothetical people I’ve told about this breakthrough if that agency tells me “no” because the failure in my words and the empathy on their faces might be too much to take. I’ve known a few women who waited to tell family and friends about a pregnancy because the possibility of a miscarriage loomed in their mind like a dark fear—I know a book is nothing compared to a new life, but I can relate. I only want people to know if I’ve made it; I don’t want people to know that I might make it just so they can find out I didn’t. And in the interim, I want to curl up on my closet floor in the fetal position; I want to rock back and forth while humming the National Anthem; I want to distract myself until the answer comes in so I can know what’s real and what’s delusional. But what I want doesn’t matter, so I’ll just do this assignment and wait for the news like a grownup.

          For this week, my professor wants me to reflect on my “first impressions about the sublime as a concept” as it relates to the introduction in Robert Doran’s most recent book, The Theory of the Sublime from Longinus to Kant. So, here we go…


          I understand what “sublime” means just like I know what “cheese” is. It’s pretty simple stuff. To sublimate matter, you use science (or wizardry, I guess) to turn a solid into a gas and then back into a solid. Hell, with a frying pan and a freezer, you could sublimate water if you wanted to. But figuratively, the sublime deals with exhalation and elevation as it relates to our minds. Every time you’ve seen something or thought of something that “blew your mind,” you were dealing with the sublime. Doran sums this up as “the paradoxical experience of being at once overwhelmed and exalted.”

          However, I have two issues with Doran’s quote. First, there’s nothing paradoxical about it. Humans are small things, stupid things, when juxtaposed against existence, and it’s exactly this feeling of being small that feels so wondrous when we encounter that which we can’t comprehend mentally. That’s what wonder is made out of. So of course the humbling sublimity of mind-blowing experiences is going to overwhelm and exult us simultaneously because that’s the way things work. It’s only paradoxical if you don’t get it.

          Secondly, given that I’m a writer McWriterton from Writerville, my next issue should be pretty axiomatic: Doran should’ve said “exulted” instead of “exalted.” The former is a verb and Doran’s choice is an adjective. The sublime does something to us when we see it. There’s action involved. It puts us down where we belong because we’re insignificant when compared to the sublime. Granted, it makes us feel exalted, but only because the sublime exults us via its overwhelming nature; focusing on the way something makes us feel is arrogant because it detracts from the thing itself. We’ll never understand the sublime if we focus on ourselves or our narrow interpretation of that wondrous external force because doing so shoves subjectivity where it doesn’t belong. Sublimity really is “one of the most important and consequential concepts in modern thought,” as Doran puts it, and we need to treat it that way.

          Something sublime is simply something too incredible to understand or imagine with our primate brains, and it’s shocking when we see it with our eyes. Basically, sublime things are things that’re greater than us, plain and simple, and we can’t quantify these things because our minds aren’t powerful enough to crunch the numbers. The only way we can comprehend these things is through a feeling and an emotion: sublimity. Get it?

Serious Nonfiction #7

This is it. To all of my regular readers who come here for ridiculous nonsense, wherein I rhapsodize about white trash with super powers or use this blog to apply as a spy to the C.I.A., I’d like to say thank you for sticking around. As I’ve said before, these seven posts have been for a class assignment centered on a hypothetical book—one that I might write someday, thereby rescuing it from the purgatory of hypothetic discourse—for a course centered on nonfiction, and this is the final post I’m required to write.

Now, to the twenty-something people who’ve followed recently, thinking that my blog might be some sort of serious page dedicated to the art of writing, I would also like to say thank you, but I should warn you that my next post will be a tad… different from what you’re used to. Cheers.


Part 1:

1.) Introduction

This is obviously going to be a narrative-heavy exploration into why I’m writing this book, and my introduction will be full of first-person narration that discusses my experiences vis-à-vis living with a cellphone-addicted teenager.

2.) Catelynn

This chapter will be a liminal thing, living somewhere between a narrative and a contextual chapter, wherein I switch my writing subtly to something that’ll fell like a third-person omniscient perspective, and I’ll focus all the content specifically on my daughter, and I’ll discuss the changes she’s gone through mentally and socially since that first moment wherein she peeled the transparent, plastic protector off her first iPhone screen.

Part 2:

3.) From Printing Press to Snapchat

This will be a break-narrative chapter wherein I’ll rocket back in time. I’ll discuss briefly the birth of modern media, starting with the printing press, and I’ll work my way through the ages to the invention of television. One I get to the 1980’s, I’ll cite experts who prove that modern media is detrimental culturally (such as Neil Postman, who wrote “Amusing Ourselves to Death”), and once I get to modern times, I’ll cite experts (such as Nicholas Carr who wrote “The Shallows”) who prove that the internet and modern connectivity (through smartphones) is corrosive to linear thought, and it leavens our flagging ability to intentionally focus our attention.

4.) iCrack

This chapter will be a research-heavy, narrative chapter that proves cellphones can be addictive. First, I’ll discuss the tenets of chemical addiction, and I’ll discuss their behavioral signs. Then, in an attempt to make a “scope-widening,” “cross-disciplinary” connection, I’ll tie traditional addictions to cellphone addiction in a novel way.

5.) Death and Nudes

This will be a break-narrative chapter that will discuss the extraneous consequences of teenaged cellphone usage. I’ll prove that cellphone-related auto accidents cause more fatalities than drunk driving, and I’ll discuss the repercussions that come from a lack of forethought. Namely, most teens who use smartphones will eventually send nude pictures to someone else—and of course, they do so without thinking about the consequences because that’s what it means to be “teenaged”—and in many cases, the repercussions of these pictures can include suicide, social annexation, extreme depression, and criminal charges.

Part 3:

6.) 20/20

This will be a contextual chapter with a narrative feel that’ll discuss what I should’ve done, and I’ll write it with the feel of a newspaper advice column. I’ll direct my narration directly to parent readers, switching momentarily into second-person narration, and I’ll stand on my soapbox to tell people what they should and should not do regarding adolescent cellphone usage. I’ll make plenty of retrospective references back to research cited previously, and back to points I’ve already made. In this chapter, I’ll wed the two concurrent stories that Rabiner stresses as important.

7.) Nvr 2 L8

This penultimate chapter will address the concerns of parents who’ve already made the mistake of buying a cellphone for their child, and I’ll discuss ways to mitigate the fallout associated with reining in their child’s cellphone addiction (there won’t be many citations in this chapter because I’ll relate most of my advice to personal experience).

8.) Conclusion

I’ll wrap it up.


The sample chapter I’ll be writing for my submission package will be chapter four, “iCrack.” I’ve chosen this chapter because it’ll display the strength of my research and my narration. I’ll keep a “human story” centered throughout this chapter, and I’ll make sure to form a thesis by highlighting “what I’m talking about, and what I have to say.”