Tension and evolution (?)
I would request you read the pieces linked when they are presented before continuing for a coherent narrative.
Okay so basically I was the writer who never writes, except when I was drunk and on stims (had to be both) and ranted into the void on twitter. Then I’d get really scared switch profiles and not use the platform for weeks. Then I found this obscure school of psychoanalysis and applied it to myself, designing a system that would allow me to produce without concomitant self-destruction. Then to start I began reading authors who shared my condition for insight on their ability to produce. Then I got to that cocksucker Cioran.
I was enraptured by his Romanian work, hearing the nuance and paradox I thought mine alone articulated so beautifully. ‘A Short History of Decay’ felt like some cosmic punchline, right when I had started to move after a life of paralysis, big C put me down for good. This was the first thing I’ve done longer than a paragraph or two since school, my first structured piece, and was written in honor of Cioran, out of spite. I think he would approve. But what if that was the only reason I could do it? To show him it didn’t work, the void, infinity, death may be of indefinite intrigue to you but they’re fucking boring and you didn’t get me.
Or did he. His target was never lucidity, that was his weapon. I wrote this.
Cioran would certainly approve of this.
:)
-Emil Cioran
:(
But no the void don’t deserve me man FUCK YOU.
Synthesis. This is kinda trash but it doesn’t matter, I happen to like broken things. Lucidity and frenzy, intermixed, or sequential, I don’t know, it’s certainly something.
So that’s where I’m at right now. Three styles, frenzy, lucidity, and the synthesis: Lotus-Spectrum (don’t ask).
Posts will now be labelled as such.
Anyway if observing evolution from the absolute beginning and a genuine meta-narrative at play doesn’t interest you, I’m not a salesman. Subscribe if it does.
It would make me happy but I wont admit it.
