I pour tremendous time, thought, love, and resources into Brain Pickings, which remains free. If you find any joy and stimulation here, please consider supporting my labor of love with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner:
You can also become a one-time patron with a single donation in any amount:
And if you've already donated, from the bottom of my heart: THANK YOU.
Hello, Larry! If you missed last week's edition â€“ how libraries save lives, the astonishing science of what trees feel and how they communicate, Rilke on how to be a writer, and more â€“ you can catch up right here. If you're enjoying my newsletter, please consider supporting this labor of love with a donation â€“ I spend countless hours and tremendous resources on it, and every little bit of support helps enormously.
â€œIn the wholeheartedness of concentration,â€ the poet Jane Hirshfield wrote in her beautiful inquiry into the effortless effort of creativity, â€œworld and self begin to cohere. With that state comes an enlarging: of what may be known, what may be felt, what may be done.â€ But concentration is indeed a difficult art, artâ€™s art, and its difficulty lies in the constant conciliation of the dissonance between self and world â€” a difficulty hardly singular to the particular conditions of our time. Two hundred years before social media, the great French artist EugÃ¨ne Delacroix lamented the necessary torment of avoiding social distractions in creative work; a century and a half later, Agnes Martin admonished aspiring artists to exercise discernment in the interruptions they allow, or else corrupt the mental, emotional, and spiritual privacy where inspiration arises.
How to hedge against that hazard is what beloved poet Mary Oliver (b. September 10, 1935) explores in a wonderful piece titled â€œOf Power and Time,â€ found in the altogether enchanting Upstream: Selected Essays(public library).
It is a silver morning like any other. I am at my desk. Then the phone rings, or someone raps at the door. I am deep in the machinery of my wits. Reluctantly I rise, I answer the phone or I open the door. And the thought which I had in hand, or almost in hand, is gone. Creative work needs solitude. It needs concentration, without interruptions. It needs the whole sky to fly in, and no eye watching until it comes to that certainty which it aspires to, but does not necessarily have at once. Privacy, then. A place apart â€” to pace, to chew pencils, to scribble and erase and scribble again.
But just as often, if not more often, the interruption comes not from another but from the self itself, or some other self within the self, that whistles and pounds upon the door panels and tosses itself, splashing, into the pond of meditation. And what does it have to say? That you must phone the dentist, that you are out of mustard, that your uncle Stanleyâ€™s birthday is two weeks hence. You react, of course. Then you return to your work, only to find that the imps of idea have fled back into the mist.
Oliver terms this the â€œintimate interrupterâ€ and cautions that it is far more perilous to creative work than any external distraction, adding:
The world sheds, in the energetic way of an open and communal place, its many greetings, as a world should. What quarrel can there be with that? But that the self can interrupt the self â€” and does â€” is a darker and more curious matter.
Echoing Borgesâ€™s puzzlement over our divided personhood, Oliver sets out to excavate the building blocks of the self in order to understand its parallel capacities for focused creative flow and merciless interruption. She identifies three primary selves that she inhabits, and that inhabit her, as they do all of us: the childhood self, which we spend our lives trying to weave into the continuity of our personal identity (â€œThe child I was,â€ she writes, â€œis with me in the present hour. It will be with me in the grave.â€); the social self, â€œfettered to a thousand notions of obligationâ€; and a third self, a sort of otherworldly awareness.
The first two selves, she argues, inhabit the ordinary world and are present in all people; the third is of a different order and comes most easily alive in artists â€” it is where the wellspring of creative energy resides. She writes:
Certainly there is within each of us a self that is neither a child, nor a servant of the hours. It is a third self, occasional in some of us, tyrant in others. This self is out of love with the ordinary; it is out of love with time. It has a hunger for eternity.
Oliver contrasts the existential purpose of the two ordinary selves with that of the creative self:
Say you have bought a ticket on an airplane and you intend to fly from New York to San Francisco. What do you ask of the pilot when you climb aboard and take your seat next to the little window, which you cannot open but through which you see the dizzying heights to which you are lifted from the secure and friendly earth?
Most assuredly you want the pilot to be his regular and ordinary self. You want him to approach and undertake his work with no more than a calm pleasure. You want nothing fancy, nothing new. You ask him to do, routinely, what he knows how to do â€” fly an airplane. You hope he will not daydream. You hope he will not drift into some interesting meander of thought. You want this flight to be ordinary, not extraordinary. So, too, with the surgeon, and the ambulance driver, and the captain of the ship. Let all of them work, as ordinarily they do, in confident familiarity with whatever the work requires, and no more. Their ordinariness is the surety of the world. Their ordinariness makes the world go round.
In creative work â€” creative work of all kinds â€” those who are the worldâ€™s working artists are not trying to help the world go around, but forward. Which is something altogether different from the ordinary. Such work does not refute the ordinary. It is, simply, something else. Its labor requires a different outlook â€” a different set of priorities.
Part of this something-elseness, Oliver argues, is the uncommon integration of the creative self â€” the artistâ€™s work cannot be separated from the artistâ€™s whole life, nor can its wholeness be broken down into the mechanical bits-and-pieces of specific actions and habits. (Elsewhere, Oliver has written beautifully about how habit gives shape to but must not control our inner lives).
Intellectual work sometimes, spiritual work certainly, artistic work always â€” these are forces that fall within its grasp, forces that must travel beyond the realm of the hour and the restraint of the habit. Nor can the actual work be well separated from the entire life. Like the knights of the Middle Ages, there is little the creatively inclined person can do but to prepare himself, body and spirit, for the labor to come â€” for his adventures are all unknown. In truth, the work itself is the adventure. And no artist could go about this work, or would want to, with less than extraordinary energy and concentration. The extraordinary is what art is about.
No one yet has made a list of places where the extraordinary may happen and where it may not. Still, there are indications. Among crowds, in drawing rooms, among easements and comforts and pleasures, it is seldom seen. It likes the out-of-doors. It likes the concentrating mind. It likes solitude. It is more likely to stick to the risk-taker than the ticket-taker. It isnâ€™t that it would disparage comforts, or the set routines of the world, but that its concern is directed to another place. Its concern is the edge, and the making of a form out of the formlessness that is beyond the edge.
Above all, Oliver observes from the â€œfortunate platformâ€of a long, purposeful, and creatively fertile life, the artistâ€™s task is one of steadfast commitment to the art:
Of this there can be no question â€” creative work requires a loyalty as complete as the loyalty of water to the force of gravity. A person trudging through the wilderness of creation who does not know this â€” who does not swallow this â€” is lost. He who does not crave that roofless place eternity should stay at home. Such a person is perfectly worthy, and useful, and even beautiful, but is not an artist. Such a person had better live with timely ambitions and finished work formed for the sparkle of the moment only. Such a person had better go off and fly an airplane.
She returns to the problem of concentration, which for the artist is a form, perhaps the ultimate form, of consecration:
The working, concentrating artist is an adult who refuses interruption from himself, who remains absorbed and energized in and by the work â€” who is thus responsible to the workâ€¦ Serious interruptions to work, therefore, are never the inopportune, cheerful, even loving interruptions which come to us from another.
It is six A.M., and I am working. I am absentminded, reckless, heedless of social obligations, etc. It is as it must be. The tire goes flat, the tooth falls out, there will be a hundred meals without mustard. The poem gets written. I have wrestled with the angel and I am stained with light and I have no shame. Neither do I have guilt. My responsibility is not to the ordinary, or the timely. It does not include mustard, or teeth. It does not extend to the lost button, or the beans in the pot. My loyalty is to the inner vision, whenever and howsoever it may arrive. If I have a meeting with you at three oâ€™clock, rejoice if I am late. Rejoice even more if I do not arrive at all.
There is no other way work of artistic worth can be done. And the occasional success, to the striver, is worth everything. The most regretful people on earth are those who felt the call to creative work, who felt their own creative power restive and uprising, and gave to it neither power nor time.
For as long as Iâ€™ve lived in Brooklyn, Iâ€™ve had an abiding self-consolation ritual. In troubled times, I would head to Prospect Park on my bike and ride along the loop until I felt better. And I always did, largely thanks to an old lopsided tree that stood atop the formidable uphill crowning the final segment of the loop.
This greeter after the lung-splitting climb, its own crown the shape of a lung, became my beloved friend through lifeâ€™s trials and triumphs. For years, the tree saw me through every heartbreak, every bout of ill health, every kind of psychic tumult. I was comforted by its constancy â€” the quiet certitude with which its barren branches clawed at life as they reached into the leaden winter sky, assured of springâ€™s eventual arrival; and when spring did come, the unselfconscious jubilation of its new leaves, just born yet animated by the wisdom of the treeâ€™s many decades.
Even when the grimmest day of my adult life arrived, I knew what to do â€” I mounted my bike, put on Patti Smith talking about William Blake and death at the New York Public Library, and headed for the park. I circled the loop for hours on end, resting by the tree after each closing climb to savor its silent solace.
I turned to the tree again and again over the years, and took many portraits of its various seasonal guises. Recently, in the midst of a particularly trying stretch of life, I once again sought this steadfast friend. I pedaled to the park hungry for its comfort, restless to reach the end of the loop. But when I climbed that final hill, my pounding heart sank with heavy stillness.
Where my tree once stood, there was now a shallow stump, its rings of life bleeding into the open air with the incomprehensible finality of a beheading.
In an entry from October 23, 1855 â€” four years before Darwin forever changed our understanding of the interconnectedness of the natural world â€” Thoreau writes beautifully about our kinship with trees:
Now is the time for chestnuts. A stone cast against the trees shakes them down in showers upon oneâ€™s head and shoulders. But I cannot excuse myself for using the stone. It is not innocent, it is not just, so to maltreat the tree that feeds us. I am not disturbed by considering that if I thus shorten its life I shall not enjoy its fruit so long, but am prompted to a more innocent course by motives purely of humanity. I sympathize with the tree, yet I heaved a big stone against the trunks like a robber, â€” not too good to commit murder. I trust that I shall never do it again. These gifts should be accepted, not merely with gentleness, but with a certain humble gratitude. The tree whose fruit we would obtain should not be too rudely shaken even. It is not a time of distress, when a little haste and violence even might be pardoned. It is worse than boorish, it is criminal, to inflict an unnecessary injury on the tree that feeds or shadows us. Old trees are our parents, and our parentsâ€™ parents, perchance. If you would learn the secrets of Nature, you must practice more humanity than others. The thought that I was robbing myself by injuring the tree did not occur to me, but I was affected as if I had cast a rock at a sentient being, â€” with a duller sense than my own, it is true, but yet a distant relation. Behold a man cutting down a tree to come at the fruit! What is the moral of such an act?
The richness of that otherness is what Belgian artist and author Anne Herbauts came to see in a surprising and profound question from a blind child. During a bookmaking workshop she was leading, a little boy asked her whether she, as an artist, could tell him what color the wind was â€” a notion of the same trans-sensory, synesthetic quality as Helen Kellerâ€™s electrifying account of â€œhearingâ€ Beethoven.
The storyâ€™s protagonist, whom Herbauts affectionately calls â€œthe little giant,â€ goes in search of an answer to his synesthetic question. Every piece of nature he encounters gives him a different answer â€” to the bee, the wind is the warm color of the sun; the old dog, who perceives the world through smell, experiences it as â€œpink, flowery, pale whiteâ€; to the wolf, it smells of the forest; for the mountain, the wind is a bird; for the window, it is the color of time.
Herbauts paints the sensory landscape with extraordinarily inventive bookmaking techniques to which this screen can do no justice â€” appleseeds peek through a die-cut hole, raindrops gleam embossed on a laminated page, debossed grooves invite the touch of tree bark. What emerges is a parallel invitation to empathy and self-expansion in imagining the world as the unsighted experience it and exploring a different sensorial space than the one we sighted humans ordinarily inhabit. Just as the universe of smell unlocks hidden layers of reality, so does the universe of touch.
The little giant asks the bird, What colorâ€¦
But the bird has flown away.
And the enormous giant, with a slow gesture says: The color of the wind?
It is everything at once. This whole book.
Then he takes the book and, thumb against its edge, he lets the pages fly.
Art by Aleksandr Zinoviev, 1921 (New York Public Library public domain archive)
One such perfect insight came to mind in light of the recent parasitic paparazzoâ€™s alleged unmasking of Elena Ferrante. Nearly a century earlier, Woolf addressed the question at the heart of this egregious violation of artistic choice and integrity by juxtaposing the rewards of fame with those of anonymity, or what she called â€œobscurity,â€ in the original sense of the word â€” the state of being not-known, of having oneâ€™s identity concealed, of being hidden from view in the public eye.
While fame impedes and constricts, obscurity wraps about a man like a mist; obscurity is dark, ample, and free; obscurity lets the mind take its way unimpeded. Over the obscure man is poured the merciful suffusion of darkness. None knows where he goes or comes. He may seek the truth and speak it; he alone is free; he alone is truthful; he alone is at peace.
Extolling the value of obscurity as â€œthe delight of having no name, but being like a wave which returns to the deep body of the sea,â€ Woolf adds:
Obscurity rids the mind of the irk of envy and spite; [it] sets running in the veins the free waters of generosity and magnanimity; and allows giving and taking without thanks offered or praise given.
Woolfâ€™s words offer the perfect affirmation of Ferranteâ€™s artistic choice to use a pseudonym, which she herself had articulated to her Italian publisher in a beautiful letter penned on September 21, 1991, shortly before the publication of her debut novel, Troubling Love. The letter was later included in the Ferrante anthology Frantumaglia. She writes:
You asked me what I intend to do for the promotion of Troubling Loveâ€¦ You asked the question ironically, with one of your bemused expressionsâ€¦ I do not intend to do anything for Troubling Love, anything that might involve the public engagement of me personally. Iâ€™ve already done enough for this long story: I wrote it. If the book is worth anything, that should be sufficient. I wonâ€™t participate in discussions and conferences, if Iâ€™m invited. I wonâ€™t go and accept prizes, if any are awarded to me. I will never promote the book, especially on television, not in Italy or, as the case may be, abroad. I will be interviewed only in writing, but I would prefer to limit even that to the indispensable minimum. I am absolutely committed in this sense to myself and my family. I hope not to be forced to change my mind.
I believe that books, once they are written, have no need of their authors. If they have something to say, they will sooner or later find readers; if not, they wonâ€™t. There are plenty of examples. I very much love those mysterious volumes, both ancient and modern, that have no definite author but have had and continue to have an intense life of their own. They seem to me a sort of nighttime miracle, like the gifts of the Befana [a fairy-like character of Italian folklore], which I waited for as a child. I went to bed in great excitement and in the morning I woke up and the gifts were there, but no one had seen the Befana. True miracles are the ones whose makers will never be known; they are the very small miracles of the secret spirits of the home or the great miracles that leave us truly astonished. I still have this childish wish for marvels, large or small, I still believe in them.