3 thoughts on “Hey, are you talking about me?”

1. Yes, John, your blog is a searing, agonal walk through the fiery pit. My eyes melt every time I visit. My skin burns; my soul corrodes.

   But I’m wondering what Waits is actually saying. He says that bad writing “[destroys] the quality of our suffering.” If the suffering’s quality– its purity and intensity– is destroyed… isn’t the suffering being reduced, somehow, such that there’s less suffering? If my migraine degrades into a dull throb, isn’t that actually an improvement of my situation? And if a pill destroys the quality of my migraine-pain, that’s a good thing, yes?

   So maybe Waits is really saying that bad writing will save us all… in which case you’re not helping humanity’s lot, since you’re actually a much better writer than you give yourself credit for. Further, it means that Waits’s overly ambiguous quote is an example of bad writing, which makes Waits more of a savior than you.

   Can’t win ’em all, eh?

2. It’s a bit like the paradox that occurs whenever we have this exchange:

   Bill: How’s your cold?
   Sam: Better, thanks.

   Sam’s intention is to say that his cold is actually worse, i.e., Sam is getting better, but his cold is on the wane. Taken literally, though, Sam is mistakenly saying that his cold is what’s improving, i.e., strengthening.

   Upshot: maybe we shouldn’t take Tom Waits too literally. But if that’s so, then why believe Tom Waits at all?

3. My tired old brain is gonna require two doctors to resolve this conundrum. Yep, I need a paradox.