home .. about me .. photo gallery .. drawings .. poetry(1990-1) .. poetry(1992-5) .. poetry(1996 +) .. writing .. rants .. links .. rings .. mail me

  

 Other Writing

 

home .. about me .. photo gallery .. drawings .. poetry(1990-1) .. poetry(1992-5) .. poetry(1996 +) .. writing .. rants .. links .. rings .. mail me

From a discussion on religion

Personally, i'd have to place myself firmly in the agnostic camp.

With all the amazing intricacy (and apparent functional design) of the natural world, i find it hard to believe that there could *not* be some divine or magical force behind it. But i have yet to come across a theological theory of the nature of this divinity that sounds right to me.

As for religions, organised or otherwise, there are aspects of each that i find appealing, but there are also problems that make them unsatisfactory for me.

In my early teens, i was very interested in Buddhism. The ideas of karma and of finding answers and spiritual enlightenment within yourself were very appealing, but eventually i began to find the whole concept of everything in this world being illusory and essentially worthless quite off-putting. It seemed to mean that everything in the world was empty and nothing meant anything and i found it to be a somewhat life-denying and depressing. Also, the idea that all worldly desires were wrong and destructive (which seems to be common to eastern religions like Hinduism and Taoism etc) seemed contrary to nature and also quite life-denying.

Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions all have their appealing features, though the monotheist nature seems to make them prone to intolerance. Christianity is one of my favourite religions as it has a very good humanitarian moral code (if you base it on what's left of the recorded teaching of that Jesus fellow rather than all the shit added on later) but as it is built on such a strict religious code it has a lot of other moral baggage that doesn't relate to people being nice to each other, which is what i see as important. One of my biggest problems with the whole thing is the 'everyone will be punished for being human and only Christians will be saved' angle, which, while i understand the theory behind it, makes no sense on so many moral and logical levels.

Western pagan religions have their appeal because of their nature orientation and their pluralistic outlook and tolerance for different opinions. But i find them to be somewhat lacking when it comes to moral codes (hence the need to import ideas like karma). Perhaps a combination of the better features of all faiths is a better approach. But i guess it's different for everybody, and what's right for one will not suit another and you have to find what fits.

Still, it's hard to pick and choose when it comes to what you truly believe.

For myself, i don't know what i believe. i know what i'd *like* to believe.

i'd like to believe in karma, or some sort of divine justice, that the immoral, selfish pricks who seem to get ahead in this world will one day get what's coming to them. But i don't, or at least i've seen nothing to convince me that it works like that.

i'd like to believe that the world was driven by some benevolent force (but not the death camp commandant god of the born-again xtians), that all the suffering and hardships of the world had some purpose that would come to good in the end, but i fear that's just wishful thinking.

i'd like to believe that there was life after death, but i'll believe it when i see it (and i guess if there isn't, i won't know the difference anyway).

All i do really believe is what i see and what i feel to be right or wrong. If i see cruelty and injustice, then it makes me angry and i want to do something about it. i don't know if there's some god or karmic order to put it right, but if there's something i can do myself to put it right then i believe i should do it. (If only i could practise what i preach!) i guess i am more tuned in to the material world than the spiritual, so the material is where i concentrate my efforts.

i do have some theological theories, though they are just theories and nothing more than irrelevant intellectual exercises. The main one i guess is that if there was a god/goddess/divine-being-thingy who was benevolent and looking to help people, then he/she/it could not be the all-powerful omnipotent being portrayed by most religions. Perhaps what could make sense is that it is only through the actions of people that such an entity can influence the world, and that is what religions are for. But at the end of the day, it is action that counts. Maybe prayer or magic is action, but i don't know much about those things so i choose action on the physical plane. That's what i understand.

back

 

Somebody asked what's this goth thing? Isn't it something to do with germanic tribes?

Well, if we're going to get technical with definitions, here's my 2c:

To really understand what Goth is about, it is best to look at the origins of the term.

'Goth' is short for 'Gothic Punk' and to truly understand it's meaning it is useful to examine the history of these two words.

'Gothic' had a traditional meaning of 'uncouth, uncivilised and barbaric', as this was how the ancient Goth tribes were viewed by the more 'civilised' Roman Empire. The word was used as an insult by the Renaissance artists and architects of Southern Europe to describe the art and architecture of Northern Europe, which they saw as uncouth and barbaric by comparison. The term stuck, particularly to the architectural styles, and to this day the Northern buildings of this time - castles, cathedrals and abbeys with towering ceilings and high-arched windows - are described as 'gothic' in style. In later centuries, when many of these buildings were in ruin and were often believed haunted, they became the ideal setting for the ghost and horror novels of the day, a genre which came to be known as 'gothic horror'. Thus the word 'gothic' came to have yet another meaning, that of the 'eerily macabre and sinister', which remains its primary meaning today.

'Punk', on the other hand, traditionally means 'scum'. The oldest reference i've seen traces it back to a word that specifically meant the rotten underside of a tree or log. In time, the word came to be applied to various classes of people considered to be human 'scum' - paupers, prostitutes, ruffians etc. By the 20th century, the word had come mainly to mean young ruffians or unruly youth (eg "some damn punk kid"). Thus it was the natural choice for a name to identify the rebellious youth culture that emerged in the 1970's.

From this movement of unruly youth known as 'Punks' there emerged a fringe group who took a more artistic, bohemian attitude. These became known as 'Gothic Punks', due to their taste for gloomy music and macabre fashion styles. This soon became a subculture in its own right, as a youth culture replacing the unruly rebellion of the Punk movement with a more macabre, gloomy sense of style. This grew into the culture of Goth that we know today.

So, to put it in a nutshell, 'Gothic' simply means 'macabre and eerie', 'Punk' refers to a movement of 'unruly youth', whereas 'Gothic Punk' is a splinter movement that replaces the unruly aspect of Punk with a more macabre, funereal style. Thus, the literal meaning of a 'Goth', or more correctly a 'Gothic Punk', is a 'Macabre Youth' or, in plain language, a 'Spooky Kid'.

It is very important to remember this if you wish to make a good impression in the Gothic scene. It would be a serious social faux pas to go about referring to Goths as 'Uncivilised Scum'. If you really want to break the ice with a bunch of Goths, i recommend you walk up to them and announce boldly that they are all 'Spooky Kids'. They will all be suitably impressed with the depth of your understanding of the history and meaning of the subculture and its origins.

Any questions?

:)

back

 

Are humans meant to be carnivores or herbivores?

A recent documentary on the evolution of the human race observed that our immediate ancestors were the most successful of the hominids because they had a shorter digestive tract which allowed them to eat meat and migrate through different terrain and spread out across the planet. The advantage was being able to adapt and move about by just eating whatever was available in given location, rather than having to feed on the vegatation of a specific area .

The fact is that we are omnivores. We have a short enough digestive tract that we can get away with eating meat if we have to, but long enough that we can live off selected vegetable matter if we have to also. Our teeth suit both meat and vegetable feeding. Billions of people have lived long lives on vegetarian diets, billions have lived long lives on diets with lots of meat. We are *adaptable*. This we have used to our advantage.

For myself, i simply choose to not eat meat because i don't like the idea of defenceless beasties being killed for my pleasure. Simple as that. If i needed to eat meat to survive, i would. If i needed to kill animals with my own hands to survive i would, though i probably wouldn't like it much. But in this time and place i have the luxury of not needing to, and so i choose to do without.

This is not a logical choice, but an emotive one, and one i am not inclined to make for anyone else.

back

 

How did i get into this goth thing?

Thinking back (waaaaay back) to when i was a teenager, i always found the punk look fascinating (especially the girls) (see, it's all about sexxy deth chyx) and in particular those strange, deathly punks dressed all in black with pale faces and long, tuby hobble skirts etc. But i didn't identify myself with it then, and had quite different tastes in music and clothes.

It was only after i left high school and was exploring all manner of 'trendy' things that i became more and more fascinated with the alternative scene. At first it was just because it was so different to the Michael Jackson type stuff i'd been into as a kid, and it was all new and exciting and even a bit scary (i still remember getting goosebumps hearing that funny bird-noise thingy at the start of the Cure's 'The Exploding Boy', my first 'alternative' record). i was particularly attracted to the creativity and outrageousness of the fashion, especially the do-it-yourself fashion of the punks, as well as the artistic, bohemian attitude and rebellious hedonism of the artier types.

These were all the superficial things that attracted me, but i found other things which appealed to me on a deeper level as well. On the punk side, i found the political aspect inspiring. Initially it was just a relief to find some intelligent thought amongst the mindless yobbery of Exploited style posturing, but the drive to reject and change the fucked up things in society struck a chord in me and soon changed my entire outlook. Also, the bohemian extravagence of the artier side (i had yet to hear the term 'goth') seemed to embrace an idea of stepping outside of the mundane, boring everyday humdrum and adopting a different outlook on life, with an attitude of free expression far beyond the "i have taken this many designer drugs, tried this many sexual perversions and my shirt cost this many hundred dollars" fake hedonism of the trendy/yuppie crowd i was briefly exploring at the same time. And above all, the alternative scene was also a place for misfits and wierdos (like me) where it was not only ok to be a bit different, but where it was almost fashionable, to the point where people would effect airs of eccentricity just for the hell of it (pretentious yes, but much better than pretending *not* to be wierd just to fit in somewhere boring). Even though there were still cliques and in-crowds and beautiful people, there were also plenty of other misfits drifting around the fringes who seemed to fit into the picture quite naturally and to belong in their (our) own way. That sense of belonging was very important, and i never really got that any other place.

These were all the things that appealed to me about the artier, bohemian aspects of the alternative/punk scene, those aspects that i later learnt had been grouped and named under the term 'gothic'. These are still the things that i love and value about the scene, beyond the aesthetics that also still excite and move me, although sometimes i worry that a lot of it is being lost (or was never there in the first place). That's why i'm always getting into these colon-gazing 'what is goth?' discussions, keep bleating about there being 'deeper' philosophical aspects to the scene, and feel uneasy every time i hear people mocking other people for their appearance and fashion mistakes. i may be too lazy to be creative with my dress sense any more, and have settled in the same orthodox rut for the last decade, but i still enjoy other people's creativity. Fashion wise, i can deal with there being expensive, designer gothic clothes about the place (and quite enjoy looking at them) but i'd hate for that to become what the scene's all about.

My greatest fear for the subculture is that it would become a replica of that shallow, skin-deep yuppie scene i fled so many years ago, though hopefully that hasn't and won't happen.

back

 

What happened to punk rock?

Punk as i knew it (ie the boots'n'all UK style as opposed to the skatery US version) seemed to atrophy around here in the wake of the grunge explosion of the early 90's, as practically overnight people seemed to trade in their army boots and leather jackets for sneakers and board shorts. Without wishing to reduce it to a fashion thing, it just seemed to be part of an overall sense of Americanisation of the scene, and all the punkish bands (and fans) about the place seemed to be firmly in either that New York speedcore vein or the Seattle Uber Alles grunge camp. There were of course punk elements in everything from L7 to NIN, but it seemed a rarity for anyone to explicitly march under the banner of Punk.

i don't know how much of the old school style continued on in the background or when punk began to rebuild its popularity (maybe in early Oxide days?) but it seemed to be about the time that Rancid took off in a big way that the old fashioned punk style seemed to have a very visible renaissance. Ironic that an American band trying hard to be an English band could herald the return of UK style in Australia. Or not so ironic perhaps.

It was probably going on long before Rancid hit Video Hits (i think Offspring were already sneaking skate punk in through grunge's back door) but that seems to be about the time that punk in its various guises overtook the already faltering grunge beast and became the new rallying point for the alternakids.

The one symbolic moment that i remember as heralding the resurgence of punk and the passing of grunge was at the 1997 (i think) Big Day Out, sitting on the grass by the 3RRR stage where Billy Bragg had just finished and Rancid were about to come on, watching a large pile of two foot long, freshly cropped hair scattering gently in the breeze. Not necessarily the exact relevant point in time, but a nice symbolic image nonetheless.

Of course popularity has a price, as the commodity traders moved in to turn the new fad into fast food and the market flooded with 1001 pretty boy bands being moulded into The Next Offspring by those that had exhausted the fiscal possibilities of their Next Nirvana collection.

While some of the dodgy pseudo-punk stuff of today is laughably lame, some of the more authentic sounding stuff still has some of that same feel of the sounds i discovered in the 80's, and i still find it wierd to hear those punky riffs soundtracking the opening credits of Poor Little Rich Shits 90210 or Dork's Creek.

i can remember when all manner of Real Punks (TM), thrashers and headbangers would queue up to see the Hard-ons, who could be as cheesy as the cheesiest piece of Blink 182 cheese, and it's hard to get my head around the fact that bands making that sort of sound now are more the present day equivalent of Bon Jovi than the Hard-ons.

back

 

Why does everyone have to be into bondage and other fetishes?

All goths are kinky, gay, poly, bi and/or transgenered. Punks don't get married or have kids. All alternative types are eccentric social misfits who don't fit in to normal society. Etc etc.

We all know that these statements are bollocks, but we hear them all the time, often from within the subcultures. A lot of us get pissed off about it, but is it really such a bad thing? Does it really matter if stereotypes exist that don't represent everyone, or even the majority of people, who choose to identify with alternative subcultures?

To my way of thinking, sure these stereotypes are a bit of a myth, and only represent a small segment of the tribe, but i honestly think that as long as you remember that it's a myth, it can be useful for making a bit of space for something different from what's on the menu elsewhere.

While there's a lot of tacky commercialising of sexual oddities etc in the media these days, we still live in a society where alternative sexualities are generally stigmatised and looked down upon, where career and marriage are a given, where sex is vanilla by default, sport and tv the main cultural pursuits and where beauty means looking like a 90210 actor. Isn't challenging what's expected of us what alternative subcultures are all about, *even* if it means creating a new set of conflicting expectations to give a bit of breathing room for people to decide for themselves?

Personally, i'd rather be in a culture offering something different, where weird and interesting stuff is going on, even if i don't feel the need to partake in it myself. i would rather be in a scene where it's considered the norm to be of non-vanilla sexual orientation, instead of one that condemns it as aberrant and perverted. One where being 'straight' was a choice you made for yourself instead of an automatic assumption. One where things as important as getting married or having children were decisions you made *despite* what was expected of you, not because of it. Where being eccentric or socially weird was seen as a *good* thing.

To look at it on a more serious level, i don't remember ever hearing of someone killing themselves at the horror of discovering they *weren't* gay, being imprisoned for *not* engaging in kinky sex or being beaten to death on the street for refusing to cross-dress.

Of course it has a downside. People can sometimes feel they have something to live up to, feel inadequate or like they don't belong if they don't measure up to all these wacky stereotypes, or worse, that if they want to do things like get married and have kids, they have to give up on the whole alternative thing. Some years ago, i remember reading with bemusement an article by a writer in a goth magazine about how she no longer wanted to be a goth because she wanted to be able to go skiing. i didn't understand the logic of that then and i don't understand it now. That really is taking the stereotype too seriously - if some part of the stereotype doesn't fit, don't wear it. But all of this can be gotten around by remembering that the myths are just that, and let's face it, it's not like people don't have to live up to preconceived expectations in every other part of society as well.

In a perfect world there would be no preconceived expectations. In the real world i'd rather be in a group where the expectations are at odds with the most banal and stifling of those from elsewhere. Where the expectations and norms give more room for expression, not less.

To put it simply, i'd rather be in a scene where ordinary people pretend to be weird and unusual than one where the weird and unusual have to pretend to be ordinary.

back

 

What's my age again?

i often think i would kill to be 19 or 20 again, if only i didn't have to be as much of an idiot as i was then, if i could take back with me every lesson i've learned and every bit of maturity and perspective (relatively speaking) that i've gained since then.

Then i wonder to myself just why it is that i would want to be that age again in the first place.

If i want to keep the smarts i've gained since that age, then what is it that i miss about being nineteen? Certainly the youthful naivete and the excitement of everything being new and unexplored was nice, but to a certain extent that's what you trade off for experience and perspective. So the very thing that i would want to change about the 19 year old me is probably the root of what it is that i miss about it.

Really i should be happy to be the age i am. Right now, i've got more self-confidence than i've ever had in my life, my social life is the best it's ever been, i know more or less what i want out of life and how i can do things with it that make some difference, and am generally more centred and comfortable with who i am than i've ever been. Yet something in me still says that i want to have all this and also still have my 20s in front of me. Something bothers me to realise that a quarter of my 30s is already gone, even though i don't feel my age and don't care about what i'm 'supposed' to be doing at this stage of life.

Maybe that's it - that i don't feel my age, that i still feel emotionally and mentally in my early 20s, and that somehow the chronology should match up with that. That's kinda scary, as it suggests that there's still a part of me that does give a shit about all the things you're 'supposed' to do and be at a given age, a part that is not immune to the pressures to drop the peter pan bit and 'act my age'.

Ah sod it. Life's too short for mid-life crises.

Maybe i'll worry about all that in another decade.

back

Thoughts on ANZAC Day


i've always had mixed feelings about Anzac Day, and just recently i finally managed to work out just what it was that made me feel uneasy.

A friend of mine was musing on the people complaining long and loud about parking at the football, and was fed up with the pettiness of whining about minor inconveniences in the face of reminders of utter tragedy and sacrifice. She made a comment that 'maybe the conservatives are right and we do need another war', which really bothered me. i gave her some grief about how that showed how little we have learned from the lessons of wars past and so on, which i later had to apologise for as i knew she didn't really mean it the way i took it. But it did get me thinking about what was bothering me at the back of my mind about the whole thing, and why those eleven words touched such a nerve.

My feelings on Anzac Day in general are that it's a day of sadness and regret for what these people had to go through, as well as recognition that they were willing to make that sacrifice, regardless of whether that sacrifice was necessary (they believed it was, and put their lives on the line for the sake of their people).

But that's sort of what my problem is, and where some of my ambivalence toward Anzac Day lies. One thing that disturbed me was seeing on national television a misty eyed teenager reminding us that "we wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them". Nice sentiment but, unless she meant the WW2 veterans in particular, then it's a somewhat misguided comment (as in all the other wars we basically fought to support the interests of some foreign power, in the expectation of a return favour if need be). Broadcasting that soundbite nationally seemed somehow dishonest, as if it was being presented as literal truth (it was a news program after all). It seemed to imply that every war our veterans had been sent to was fought to defend Australia and preserve our 'freedom' (another term i heard tossed about on tv).

Why it bothers me is that, while the day is quite rightly about the sacrifice and, yes, courage of the people who served, what little coverage i saw seemed to imply that we were right to send these people off to suffer and die, which of course means we would be right to do it again. That is so far off what i understand this day to be about, especially since it is based around commemorating a senseless disaster of a battle in a political war that we really had no place being in in the first place. To me, the fact that Anzac Day is centred on Gallipoli, one of our most terrible defeats, instead of some great victory, is meant to remind us of the tragedy of war, not as an excuse for smug nationalism and to celebrate the fact that we're always willing to send our children off like lambs to the slaughter. (i swear if had heard one more person quoted about it making them "proud to be an Australian" i would have puked).

Then there is the renewed tossing about of the term "unAustralian", in regard to the petrol companies' usual price hike for the public holiday. While i deplore the petrol companies as much as anyone, it makes me really uncomfortable to hear that term bandied about. It has wider implications than just condemnation of cynical business practices - it implies that anyone who doesn't mark the day with the proper respect is unpatriotic and unAustralian. While i applaud everyone who marked Wednesday's remembrance, bought an Anzac badge or spared a thought for the sacrifice that so many have made, i will not agree with any suggestion that this attitude should be considered compulsory and anyone who didn't mark the day should be ashamed. (i still remember copping a half-serious "you call yourself an Aussie?" comment from a co-worker once for getting the dates of Anzac Day and Australia Day mixed up - that is exactly the attitude that bothers me).

So, these are some of the things that were bothering me and made me uneasy with what is otherwise a touching tradition of remembering the sacrifice of so many in years past.

At least now i'm a little clearer on just what my feelings are about the whole thing.

back

home .. about me .. photo gallery .. drawings .. poetry(1990-1) .. poetry(1992-5) .. poetry(1996 +) .. writing .. rants .. links .. rings .. mail me