Creative Writing?

This summer I am doing the EXPLO camp program at Yale. It is an interesting experience and I’ve met some cool people from all over the world. To be specific, I made good friends with people from Lebanon, Puerto Rico, Denmark, Oman, Chile and Guatemala to name a few, as well as all over the United States. It is an interesting experience, and I don’t really have anything better to do with my time, except read, write and freak out about college. There are classes with no grades but most of the teachers are damn cool. As I work on an essay on the state of culture now, I would like to publish most of the fruits of period 1 class, Creative Writing 120B. The class was taught by a 20 year-old college student from England via Oregon; let’s call her Gabby. And she’s a smart cookie, having been deferred from Stanford University, and was damn cool, not a nerd like me. The class overall was good, but I wish we had been able to finish more of the ideas we started. There was about fifteen hours of class time, and we experiment with techniques for beginning prose fiction and poetry. I came away having produced three haikus (don’t get jealous, I’m not trying to steal your thunder) and a short story, which I am publishing below. I did not take the haiku exercise seriously, just something to enjoy.


Global Warming

Ice melts into sea;
The water levels rising.
What are we to do?

Seismic Poem

Violently Earth Shakes
People Running Wildly
Oh those damn fault lines!

Screw You Haiku

I don’t like haikus
It is so hard to write them
Stupid, pointless scheme



The Anxiety of Influence

By Brian Hillman


In my former and more productive years, I discovered something that has been deeply distressing me for some time. William Shakespeare is the greatest writer in world history; hands down, no buts about it. He is the apex of literature, with unmatched elegance and creative powers. I am not William Shakespeare.

I am a writer. My name and corpus of works are of little significance now. I have written many a novel, article, story, poem-anything and everything. My works have graced the tops of best-seller lists the world over. But that means nothing.

It all started when I discovered Henry James. I had read the Miltons, Tolstoys, and Heines before, but I did not put much thought into them, and it was before I began having some decent success as a writer myself. Then I found Henry James; titan of the novel, writer extraordinaire. And then it hit me- Henry James was a superior writer than me. There was no getting around it. In the pecking order of great literature, in the pantheon of greatness, James’ works dwarf mine. Then I couldn’t escape him. Whenever I wrote, he could be watching me, judging me. I was forever competing against him, and I would always come in second. That’s when my career as a writer came to an end; sometimes I wish the tragic muse had killed me right then and there.

After James I discovered other greats. All I did was read the masters; Keats, Vergil, Fitzgerald and Hardy; Hemingway, Dostoyevsky, Faulkner and Sophocles. The more I read the less I wrote.

Writing soon became a nightmarish interrogation. Whenever I wrote I could feel Austen and Joyce and Sartre looking at me and laughing. They were ever present spirits, perpetually over my shoulder, getting a sick comedic pleasure out of my inferiority. Every character I ever created, ever plot I ever formulated, every moral I tried to relate was trumped effortlessly by the Gods who were hovering above me, stalking me as I tried to work and get them out of my mind. I tried going to other venues to write. Unfortunately, they followed me wherever I went; to the coffee shop (Ovid loved cappuccino, and he once spilled it on my head!); to the park and especially to the library. So I went back to my study. My Ivy League diplomas were meaningless those ruthless souls- I could not escape them, try as I might.

So I barely wrote anything else. My publisher was furious with me, but I had a clause that allowed me to get out of the two novels left on my contract, granted I never published anything. Needless to say, there were no problems complying with the terms. Writing had become the last thing I wanted to do.

But it was a struggle. I felt compelled to write. I want to go back to the days of oblivion and naivety. Before Kafka, Wharton and Vonnegut. Yet that is impossible. I have eaten the forbidden fruit of greatness, and now I am aware of myself.

The time has come. I have written books, read books, sold books. I have outsold Dante, Yeats and Aristophanes, but I cannot measure up to their enormity.

I must end this struggle. I am done with writing- I quit; I’ve had enough. The fight had been too much to deal with. Am I a writer, or am I not? The answer- I was a writer and I am no longer. Now, as my hands have a date with a power tool, my happy dagger, end with this- scribere vivereque perire est.

Read The End of Poverty by Sachs

As a person who has an excessive amount of anxiety over almost everything, some things that do not warrant it and some that do (where I am going to college, my driving test, if I am ever going to be a respected scholar, if I am going to die sooner rather than later, et cetera), I am taken aback by the state of poverty in Africa. I recently read The End of Poverty by Jeffery D. Sachs. The book is brilliant, and must be read by everyone. He is a brilliant economist and scholar, and having worked in Bolivia, Poland and Russia as well as other countries with economic policies, to varying degrees of success. However, he has been more successful than not. Sachs' explanations are lucid to the non-economist (I am clearly not an economist, more of a thinker on world affairs) and he presents plans of action for all countries in extreme poverty. I have written before about what must be done, and shockingly some of our ideas overlap. This is due to a shared idealism, perception qualities, and sheer luck on my part. However, I am somewhat taken aback by this fact. I am a naive idealist, and Sachs has been accused of being one. Some of my ideas are unrealistic (for example I would like to see an international organization of human rights) and it is unsettling that he agrees with me. I urge everyone to read the book, and in referece to my previous post, I am working on Globalization right now, and Sachs' book has influenced me. Lastly, I would love to meet Mr. Sachs and, if by some miracle I get into Columbia where he is head of the Earth Institute, I am more interested in economics due to this book.

Consumerism, Globalization and Technology

I have been reading a lot of periodicals lately, as well as books on current events and I am disturbed by some of the things that I have found. I am going to write my thoughts into three ideas. The three things that I am questioning are the benefits of consumerism, globalization and technology. I am aware that they overlap, but they are very different animals. What I mean by “benefits” is if these things improve society, or would humanity be better without them. I know that these definitions needs some work, but it is what I have now.

Consumerism is something that I have recently found troubling. The fact that I can go buy a Pepsi anywhere that I want is beginning to bother me. I don’t need to go into a museum and have any beverage I want readily available to me, as with a café or a McDonalds. It is highly troubling that some days I eat three meals out of the house. I can drive my Nissan (I don’t have a car but it is for the effect) to Dunkin’ Donuts, then go do some shopping at a mall, eat at the Subway there. Then I can go to a movie and have Pizza Hut for dinner, and if I need some hangers or some juice I can go to Wal-Mart. Is this the picture of the society that I want to live in? Is consumerism beneficial to society?

Next is globalization good for society and the earth? I have no thoughts to expound upon this concept, but I am asking for any ideas. The most complex of these three ideas is if technology is good for society. This is the most complex of the three ideas that I am going to write about and something that philosophers have debated for over two centuries. I am unsure exactly where I stand on these three issues, but I know that I am at least mildly disturbed by them. I plan to write on these topics very soon. Regardless, we as a civilization have to deal with countless social and environmental problems due to these things, and I am unsure what we are to do about this.

In writing this I hoped to present ideas and I am asking for feedback (insulting me is not an option).I want to present the ideas and get anyone who cares enough to read this blog to think about them. I plan to answer these questions when I am more knowledgeable on the subject and have something to contribute.

Nuclear War Scenarios

Recently I have had some discussions with a few souls whom I deem intellectuals about nuclear weapons in the world today. I do not wish to name names, but those, if they read this, know who they are. An interesting point was raised. I do not know if I thought of it, but out of a lack of a recollection who actually raised the point I do not take credit. The idea was raised about what do we do once a country has developed nuclear weapons? In truth, we cannot do anything. The US has not hitherto had a conflict with a nuclear state, and as with Pakistan, China and North Korea, while they were highly discouraged from creating WMDs, Nuclear Weapons, et cetera, once they had them, the USA has not really done anything about it. For the record the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has had no effect on the world. But what if one of these countries, North Korea, went to war with another, say the US of A, for I am a citizen of the latter.

It is obvious that the USA would not nuke North Korea, under any circumstances, for North Korea, if it still existed, would probably nuke the USA right back, thus resulting in a good chance for total annihilation of the human race, and maybe the Earth. So North Korea, if it is to be assumed that Kim Jong-Il is indeed insane (as I believe, but I have heard many a person who vehemently disagrees with me and say that Kim Jong-Il knows exactly what he is doing) then he would obviously bomb the USA again. However, the US would probably nuke Pyongyang and Kim Jong-Il in the process; but if he were to survive, a nuclear retaliation would be very probably. However, what if he didn’t bomb us back? That would mean that the human race would still exist (or what was left of it) and the USA would have gotten away with another nuclear attack.

This presents a startling scenario. Any country that uses nukes first may have the luxury of not being nuked back, in order to save the human race. So that would give the power into the country which has the fortitude to attack first. What a scary thought that is. One country gets to nuke the other, and then there aren’t any more nuclear attacks for a generation or so, as the scenario goes (this is similar to game theory, I am told). The scenario is startling.

These hypothetical situations present a few striking notions. First of all, a country with nukes can do essentially whatever it wants to do; human right violations, drug trade, even nuke another country! However, no one knows who will be the next idiot (actually I am painfully undecided about what I think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to pull the trigger on a WMD. Could it be Kim Jong-Il? Maybe it will be whoever the leader of Pakistan is in the next few years? Maybe China will go for it. Or could it be George W. Bush? Maybe even Ehud Olmert. The fact is no one has any clue who will be the unfortunate leader who goes down in history as dropping the third nuclear/atomic bomb in history. Regardless, countries with WMDs are afforded a luxury those without them are not, and they instill the fear in other countries that those with nukes do not.

For the record I have not raised any new/unique points, but I wanted to present the hypothetical situations in this way, as I am sure others have. Thank you.

Pointless Rant on the Sad and Sorry Saga of Yale and Lack of Productivity

This summer I have been attending the Yale “EXPLO” program. It is decent. However, I feel a staunch lack of intellectualism, considering it is YALE UNIVERSITY; one of the top five universities in the country! Granted, my expectations may have been too high, but still, at a hub of intellectualism, all people want to do is go to Starbucks or Au Bon Pain and get coffee, and then go to sleep. Granted, I do not speak for everyone, but an overwhelming majority of people do not share the same desire for intellectual “exploration” that I do, and it is distressing. Take this example. The choices for structured activities were, among others, Discussion on Nationalism, Smoothies, or Water Balloon Capture the Flag. Which two do you think were he most popular. I went to the Nationalism one, and it was just the sad soul (who went to PENN and is going to Harvard Law) who had to run it. Half way though another teenager joined, but only because he literally had nothing better to do at the time.

Along with feeling a lack of desire for learning among a majority of the student body, there are also the pressures of college. I have grown up with Yale looking at me, judging me, and waiting for January of 2007 when I send in my application (with the communist $60 application fee) and they laugh and throw it in the trash. When I meet people who are among the elect who go to Princeton, Yale, Harvard, et cetera, and have the ability to smile and mean it for their lives have not been a pathetic sorry waste of good tax dollars and oxygen, it only increases the anxiety and the enormity of the decision. I figure I have about twice to three times the normal person’s chances of getting into the top schools. This means that at a minimum, 3 out of 4 times I am getting rejected, and my application is going in the heap with the other wastes of lives’. It is not desirable by any stretch of the imagination to ask people where they want to/went to college. ‘Tis a lose/lose situation. Either they got into a worthy school (Harvard, Yale, I don’t need to list the other few) and that makes me nervous, for they have more right to oxygen than I do, or they didn’t, and I will soon be joining them among life’s rejects- you went to UConn, great. This sounds very elitist and arrogant, and I am just as much of a loser as those who do not get accepted; maybe more because I spend 80% of my time, thinking, writing, or talking about college. On that topic, I have found that I have been reading and writing less; just worrying about college. At this present time, I am still basing the success of my life on whether or not Harvard and the like accept me, but I am still applying to less worthy schools. A month ago I thought I had a shot at Chicago, but at my confidence level now it looks like Rutgers (about 50% acceptance rate and a top philosophy school) is so far in the clouds I might as well keep my money. My confidence is never consistent, and I may take back this entire rant at some time. The worst of this is college occupies a lot of my time, and most of my decision making. I have found I am painfully less productive than usual, and haven’t finished a book in a week to date! I usually end on a quote from Shakespeare, Nietzsche or the Bible, but I have nothing. I could quote Matthew 6.27, but it would be the antithesis of this piece.