kungs confessions (need advice)

[zero]

This is sort of personal but I sort of need advice from the community and one that knows me well. I guess I'm having trouble living down my Kung persona at least locally here in Guelph. It seems like more people than reasonably should, or know me well enough to have an opinion, have this perception that I'm trouble.

The thing that bothers me is that the better and more disciplined I get about writing the worse it gets. I have to take ownership for just being an abrasive asshole from time to time but I think anyone who really knows me knows I'm also passionate, committed and inspired. It's like people act all surprised when I turn out to be a nice guy to hang around because they'd heard all this shit about me. I guess what bothers me is that it precludes the possibility that I can grow and change- which I think I've made measurable strides with (more zero than kung, ya know?).

The other thing is that some of it seems to be directed towards the fact that I dare to be critical and have an opinion. Everyone of course loves being the recipient of a positive review but are unwilling to accept that being a critic is a legitimate and distinguished function in society. I guess I'm saying I can't afford this kind of doubt (hours before deadline no less). I'm pretty comfortable with people thinking they know me or have me figured out, guess again, but I guess not that comfortable

[NewRider]

"love your mama and don't take shit from no one"

[zero]

You know what the Guy Terrifico advice is pretty spot on. Although I'm sort of talking about living down my Terrifico past....

[shainhouse]

Luke,

Just be honest with yourself. Writers make enemies, unfortunately. Your reputation and who you really are is supposed to be different, or you wouldn't be a well-known writer. Just keep staying true to your own thoughts, even if they can lean towards the sadistic bastard type. hehe. I love ya.

[bradm]

You can't change what you've done. You can choose to behave a certain way, and if that's different from how you've behaved in the past, then you might bump into people's perceptions of what you were and be different from those perceptions. People's perceptions of you (based on your past behaviour) doesn't in any way preclude the possibility that you can grow and change (which you have done, admirably so, IMnsHO).

You may hit situations where people's (mis)perceptions of you prevent you from getting access to certain opportunities, and you're going to have to learn to deal with it. Over time, if you stay on the happier/healthier course you're on, those old perceptions will fade (maybe not entirely, but largely), and the more you act in the new manner (and the more largely you act in the new manner), the faster stories about "zero" (as opposed to "kung") will get out, and those stories will help reduce those old perceptions.

Yes, being critical is a legitimate and distinguished function in society (especially given how mass media tend to shove new "idols" at us, ready to be adored without them having done much to deserve the attention), but being a purely negative reviewer gets you labelled as a cranky curmudgeon who doesn't contribute anything. One way to get around this is to criticize constructively: instead of saying just "this sucks", state why it sucks, and also state how it could be better. As well, choosing (where you can) to write articles about what you like instead of writing about stuff you don't like is a good thing; as much as negativity might be fun to read, I'd rather hear about someone's positive experiences (including the "why" reasons; to say a band "is great" isn't really informative).

Aloha,

Brad

P.S. I'm not sure I think I know you or have figured you out. Are you comfortable with that?

[paisley]

can't undo the past... accept yourself, behave how you feel is correct... some will continue to knock (generally the insecure propping themselves up by putting you down) but most will take today's face value... honesty is the right way so long as its main intention isn't to cause upset

any slag falls flat when it generates no emotion... if it does generate emotion then figure out why

then as Bob Newhart used to say to troubled patients seeking therapy for a broad cross section of unfavourable compulsions and behaviors:

"STOP IT!"

[allison]

I don't know you, so I can't comment on the specifics of you as a person.I will say this though-I think(and have felt in my own life) that sometimes people are invested in their perception of you for their own needs-however screwed up they may be.Some people are going to want you to be some over the top persona to animate their own lives-and they will resist versions of you that are different.Others will be invested in that persona as a negativity catalyst-a way to negate everything about you so they don't have to embrace the simple fact that smart people with opinions, and educated ones at that, are not nessecarily society pin ups nor agenda cuddlebunnies.Working to change those people is tiring, defeating, and (i think) ultimately futile.And it has nothing to do with your own growth or change-they are seeing what they want to see.

As far as critiscism....

Never, ever pull your artistic punches.

[zero]

I have no idea who you are but you ROCK. I think that's what I'm dealing with. Cuddlebunnies! It's important I accept criticism but it is weird to realize the harder I work, the more committed I become to the community and forwarding OTHER PEOPLE'S AGENDAS the worse it seems to get. It's not like me to care, well it is but it's not like me to show it.

The thing I'm wanting to get my head around is overcoming solipsism:

The notion that it is impossible ever to know another person, so why bother? This ends up in an absolute egotism a refusal to acknowledge the needs or even existence of others.

This is what my idol David Foster Wallace thinks is wrong with modern fiction (see Great Male Narcissists like John Updike). Somehow DFW manages to exalt his own ideas without exalting his self-regard- a very neat trick at that.

[zero]

MarcO sent me a nice private response I'm making public.

MarcO said

well, the way I see it is, you (generalized, I mean 'we') set your own parameters and rules, and you can re-set them anytime you like. I can be a belligerant person today and a teddybear tomorrow. There's no inconsistencies there, people are complex beings. They have a range of reactions available to them to any given impetus. Trouble is, when it comes to fundamental aspects of the human condition like social issues, politics, ethics, art, people like to generalize towards simplicity, they want to winnow those complexities down to a black and white conclusion: ie. "I like jambands but I don’t like indie rock".

Nonsense, it's nothing to apologize for, being critical, analytical, skeptical. People don’t like these things, it makes them nervous. Well, who gets a free pass from being nervous, uncomfortable? No-one, unless you're a self-denying pussy. People give themselves a free pass but that doesn't mean they'll get one from anyone else.

So, you're a human being, in flux, in motion, becoming, always becoming, never arriving. No wonder that must intimidate some people. If they recognize that in you, they would have to recognize it in themselves, and that's too much for many people. They want to be something they are not, a beacon of agreeability and agreement, something they see in other people and want to emulate, desperately. I note that bradm responded to your thread by trying to accentuate the ways in which a critic can make what he calls a "positive" contribution. I hate that approach. It presupposes that there is a deficiency in looking at things as they really are, instead it places "positivity" as a desired filter to accessing things. It's nicer, fluffier, hippie-er and a total cop-out.

Being a writer, a critic isn't easy. Everyone wants, deep down, validation of their biases and tastes and when they don’t get it, they shoot the messenger.

[MarcO]

well that was a PM, and while I don't really mind it being posted, I do hope bradm doesn't react badly to the language I used within, responding to his post. He's entitled to his take on criticism.

If I had gone public, I would have made my points a little more delicately. Respect to bradm.

[zero]

Sorry I didn't think that was too personal. I just thought you disagreed with Brad's sentiment but not disparagingly so. Sorry about that. Much respect to both Brad and MarcO.

[bradm]

Respect to bradm.

Right back at you; no slight was felt on my part (and I see where you're coming from).

Aloha,

Brad

[Alexis]

If I had gone public, I would have made my points a little more delicately.

So you're saying you wouldn't have followed your own advice? Don't cop out Marco!

[zero]

Thanks for the advice guys. I just killed on a couple of articles, one a general music column and a general politics piece both evidencing the extent of my commitment to the community. Shain told me that from an economic standpoint he sometimes spends less than an hour on an article (which unfortunately sometimes shows but not my point)- I guess I take comfort in the fact that I am not nearly compensated for the amount of a) time I spend actually writing and copious amount of background that's almost uncalculatable.

The former NDP candidate Phil Allt let me off the hook once and explained that I was like Antonio Gramsci, a feared cultural critic killed by Mussolini (thanks Phil!), in that what really matters is that you're a good person. It's little consolation sometimes but I realize I've got a bit of a Gramsci thing going on.