Haircut / Weight / Station Eleven / Six Feet Under
Haircut
I was trying to grow my hair out, really, I was. There was a brief period when I was in my early 20s when I let my hair grow out to nearly shoulder length. It was darker then, and redder, and it was just about the only thing about me that I thought looked good in those days. It’s now become distinctly salt-and-pepper in quality, and it sometimes seems to me that all the red has washed out, though medical science assures me that all hair colors turn gray equally, so who knows. Anyway, I wanted to know what I looked like with what I thought might be a distinguished gray mane, especially given that I probably have a limited time left with a reasonably full head of hair. But God damn if it didn’t just end up looking like a mullet. I know that’s the famous “awkward phase” that all out-growing hair goes through, and I had resolved to wait it out, but I just couldn’t. I went into the barber about an hour ago and had her shave it off. What length? she said. I dunno, short. A three? I don’t know numbers, short. So she did it. As the clippers slid across my head and my graying hair was prised away from my scalp, I had a momentary flash of regret — that’s my hair! Give it back! But it was too late. When she finished, I put my glasses back on and looked at myself in the mirror. A crazy side-effect of going gray is that it makes you look balder than you are when your hair is really short, I guess because gray hair is in fact somewhat translucent, and the light filters down to your scalp and renders it visible. Is that still me in the mirror there? When did I come over all angular and gray? Who is that guy?
Weight
Last Wednesday I came back from running and weighed myself and passed a happy milestone — I was back under 200 pounds for the first time in almost two years. It’s a meaningless thing, really, but I still think of 175 as my “fighting weight” — I’ve been 15 pounds lighter and don’t feel too gross at 5 pounds heavier — and getting under 200, after having been as high as 214, felt important. So I was unprepared for what happened when I got on the scale today. I went through my regular ritual of bracing myself for the worst — 205, surely, would be the worst, now that I’d got back below two bills — and then the number came up: 206.6. I had somehow managed to gain 6.6 pounds in just six days! Six days during which I went running three times, including once 12 miles! I know that it has to be almost entirely water weight, which will probably slough off over the next couple of days as my body chemistry fluctuates, but holy shit. I literally yelled, “What?!” Nobody there to hear me, just me howling into the void because I’m fat. I swear to God, every other human on Earth could die and I would go around feeling shitty about the birds and insects seeing me overweight.
Station Eleven
That’s a reasonable transition to Station Eleven, the post-apocalyptic book I’ve been reading. Does it seem to you that we’re overrun with these books anymore? The Road, The Bone Clocks, Seveneves, The Leftovers, Station Eleven. That’s not even to mention the ones I haven’t read (or don’t remember reading), or the horde of mostly zombie-themed movies and video games that take place in a poetically empty post-human space. I think there are probably a lot of reasons for this, but the one that interests me is the idea of story-as-periapt: by writing these books, we believe we can prevent their events from coming to pass. Nearly every subsection of Western culture has an eschatology that seems to be on the wax, be it the bomb, global warming, or literal, religious apocalypse. I guess it’s an old thing, naming the thing you fear in hopes of preventing it from coming to pass. Maybe it’s a product of too much information, and the fact that people who live in media-producing societies have no practical receptacle for the primal fear that we evolved in order to keep from being eaten by lions. THE WORLD IS ENDING, we’re thinking. And so we write stories about it to ward off this end.
Six Feet Under
I’ve been rewatching the first season of HBO’s sex-and-death drama Six Feet Under, and a few things have struck me about it. First among these is how cheap it looks. Six Feet Under premiered in 2001, when this “golden age of television” we’ve all been talking about for a while was just dawning — The West Wing was duking it out with The Sopranos for the title of #1 prestige drama on TV; many people trace this era’s roots to those two shows, though of course the harbingers of this era, shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Larry Sanders Show, debuted before that. I remember at the time being impressed by Six Feet Under’s production values, but watching it now you can see the liberal use of green screen, the weakness of the picture, and the absence of big-name stars. These things stand out when you’re used to seeing Vince Vaughan stalking mopily through artfully composed location shots as he mealy-mouth mumbles lines of shitty dialogue in a second-tier prestige show like True Detective. (That’s to say nothing of the outdoor fuck-romps in the public spaces of Malta and Croatia and other outposts of the ancient and beautiful that you see in Game of Thrones.) Does the show suffer for it? Not really. Its cast is stocked with highly able stage vets like Richard Jenkins and Frances Conroy. Like Breaking Bad many years after, it understood that actors often considered comedians often possess more than enough power to hold a drama together, and found Peter Krause and Jeremy Sisto hanging out in that ghetto. It even pioneered the import of Antipodean accent experts with Rachel Griffiths. These days, at least one of these roles would be played by John Malkovich. Not back then.
Another thing that’s obvious is just how different the sexual politics were when the show was released, a mere 14 years ago. Peter Krause’s character, Nate, is one I can identify with — a highly intelligent, self-involved, 35-year-old chronic fuckup from a big coastal city — but when his younger brother, David (a highly intelligent, self-involved, 31-year-old goody-two-shoes from a big coastal city), starts getting ready to come out of the closet, there’s a lot of anxiety about how Nate will take it. Nate’s largely mellow response, one which would be pretty much assumed in any person of similar background these days, is played with a weird tension that reads mostly as uncomfortable humor. He spends a lot of the first season assuring David that yes, really, it truly is cool with him if he’s gay. Not that the element of anxiety has been removed from the life of even affluent, educated, white gays these days, but the storyline feels very of its time. If it weren’t for the fact that David is devoutly Catholic, a similar character remaining in the closet into his 30s would read as a total anachronism in 2015. Jesus, David’s sex-and-gender life is fairly vanilla, by modern standards: he’s uncomplicatedly male, spends most of the show in a committed (if not always monogamous) relationship, and on the whole lives a conservative life that qualifies him as one of those “establishment gays” I was reading about the other day.*
*Writing these sentences, it suddenly dawns on me that Six Feet Under was probably a huge influence on my own writing, as the main character of my novel is very much a personally conservative “establishment gay” who mostly seeks to live a life that’s conventional outside the gender of his partner: he wants commitment, security, and stability, and is embarrassed by people who exaggerate or flaunt their difference. Hrm.
What was the last thing? I spent more time on the first two things than I thought I was going to. I guess I could say some stuff about its portrayal of bipolar disorder (Jeremy Sisto’s character is bipolar, and later a character played by James Cromwell displays several symptoms of the disorder as well), but I’m not sure that I know enough about it — despite a fair amount of direct experience — to have anything that worthwhile to say. The Jeremy Sisto character, Billy, is simultaneously true to my experience of the disease, and a bit of a wild cliché: oh, yes, the disease of creativity, the disease of van Gogh and Hemingway; Billy is a bit of a van Gogh, a self-destructive visual artist who mutilates himself with a knife. The depiction of the paranoia, the fits of hypergraphia and creativity, and the long periods of tenuous stability, usually mediated through meds: this, Six Feet Under gets right. But the idea that every manic-depressive is a creative genius? That’s a myth. My foster brother, who was bipolar and committed suicide a little more than a year ago, was a man of parts, but his artistic impulses distinctly lacked in genius: when he was running a million miles a minute, firing off new ideas with a speed and obsessiveness that could be shocking and bizarre, he was also at his most trite and predictable: the alleged genius of the bipolar mind came out mostly as incoherent rantings about God and physics, tempered with bad poetry and terrifying glimpses of his impending death.
I guess I’m objecting to this portrayal (tentatively) for a couple of reasons, one altruistic, and one totally selfish. The altruistic one: the myth of bipolar-as-medium-of-genius is what feeds a lot of bipolar people and their enablers, allows them to remain ill, because people insist that this is how they find their highest expression, this is how they touch the supernatural, this is where Starry Night and “Hills like White Elephants” come from. The selfish one: making art is fucking work, and you don’t just get to be a great artist because you’re mentally ill. This feels weak and venal and gross to say, but it’s also true. Van Gogh and Hemingway weren’t geniuses because they were bipolar, or at least not only. These were people whose fires were stoked with hours upon hours of careful study and practice. That never shows up on the screen, not in Six Feet Under.