How Do I Say This Nicely?

So there I am, just minding my own business, right? It’s a Saturday morning, I just got out of the shower, so I need a minute to cool off because it’s June in Tucson and it’s already 94 degrees outside, so by the time I finish shaving and brushing my teeth my forehead is slicked with sweat, and I need to sit under the fan to return my temperature to equilibrium before I get one last cup of coffee.

  1. No, I should not drink hot coffee when it is 94 degrees. But I’m going to anyway. Forever.
  2. Yes, I should take cold showers — though I will point out that shaving really should be done with hot water, and that would make me sweat regardless because I am applying said hot water to my face. I do rinse with cold. It doesn’t fix the problem. Only sitting quietly under the fan does.
  3. All of this is beside the point.

I’m looking at my phone, trying to decide whether I want to read (I’m trying to get through four more books before the end of June, because I really want to read at least 52 books this year [and I’m at 22 and if I get to 26 before the first six months of the year are gone that will be meaningful, right?] since I have not done that for the last few years, and I know I shouldn’t worry about how many books I read or whether I’m reading books at all, but I’m not going to start another list) or if I should write, because I have really good ideas for blogs that I want to get to while it is summer and school is not destroying me, or if I maybe want to work on my audiobook (I’m recording myself reading Damnation Kane. It’s going slowly.), or maybe just keep building my ULTIMATE FORTRESS in Minecraft, which is what I’ve been doing to relax for the past week or so, because I spent the past week reading 546 essays about napping for the AP Language and Composition exam. And while looking at my phone, I check my email, and there’s a message from Substack (Which I will maybe start posting these essays to, as per my wife’s suggestion, which is a good one and maybe that would get me more readers — but also, can I handle more readers?), so because I’m considering posting to Substack, I go to check it out and see if it’s easy to put a post on there. So I open the email, and I see this teaser and headline:

“I have never felt very comfortable with the stance that writing, as an undertaking, is both very difficult and emotionally intolerable”

In this edition of the Weekender: vows of silence, teenage idols, and exploring whether writing is actually torture.

So I read it.

Now I need to sit under the fan for a minute.

Here, you can read part of what Monica Heisey wrote.

i have never felt very comfortable with the stance, held by some writers, that writing as an undertaking is both very difficult and emotionally intolerable. while i understand there is plenty about being alone with your thoughts, sharing your ideas in public, and attempting to take something from inside your mind and bring it into the physical realm that is uncomfortable, it is not difficult like digging a ditch. it is not intolerable like having your heart broken, or even like having a sunburn. when people say things like “writing is torture,” i often think, if you really feel this way, why not do something else?

i encountered this line of thinking so frequently in the early days of my career that it occasionally caused me to doubt myself. i loved writing. i couldn’t believe i got to do it for a living, and found it, often, actively fun. did this mean i was doing it wrong, somehow? was there a more arduous and therefore more correct method that would lead me to create stronger work? if suffering for one’s art provided no special benefit, why were writers i admired constantly tweeting or appearing on panels to say their working life was hellish and exhausting?

to this day there is a little voice in the back of my mind that pops up once in a while to suggest i am shirking “real work” by enjoying myself. i was immensely soothed to see ali smith, an objectively wonderful writer with a prolific output, call herself “immensely lazy” in an interview at the hay festival, holding a beer and suggesting she doesn’t really work until she has a deadline and a paycheque scheduled, adding that she “does basically nothing until she has to” and considers staring into space an important part of the creative process. there, i thought watching it, is someone who is enjoying their working life.

WORK: it’s supposed to be fun – by monica heisey

Okay, look. I don’t want to attack this person. To each their own (Which is why I’m also not going to comment on the choice this writer made not to use capital letters), and I understand that, indeed, that is the intended point of this piece: not every writer, not every artist, has the same experience as every other. Valid. In some ways I have a much easier time with writing than a number of my fellow wordsmiths because I have a style and a platform that coheres with single draft composition: I get an idea, I go to my computer, I write something close to stream of consciousness, and I hit “Post” without rewriting. I do not, like many of my fellow writers, suffer from anxiety or depression, or struggle with addiction, or trauma. I’m glad that this writer has a generally good time, a generally pleasant experience, both as a writer and with her professional work. I do not think enjoying herself makes her writing worse, and I do not think that it is necessary to suffer for one’s craft, either as an artist or as a professional of any kind.

But hey lady: writing is fucking hard. It is fucking. Hard.

Like I said, I don’t mean to attack, and I don’t mean to judge. The piece does go on to show that the initial stance taken here is not the whole story, because of course it isn’t.

this is not to say that i do not have bad days, or that i am immune from complex feelings about, in particular, the “putting it out into the world” part of writing. in the last week of editing my most recent novel i dreamt every night about dying or being murdered or murdering someone else. one night i physically felt the tip of my nose touch the lid of my own coffin as it closed over me. it was not, let’s say, “chill.” but the actual writing, in the day, sat up in bed and combing through pages, killing only my darlings, was almost pure pleasure.

Okay, that makes more sense. Yes, I agree: writing does feel good when it is flowing, when it is working, when you’re able to see the thing you want to create and you have a path to get there and you can put one metaphorical foot in front of the other on the way towards creating that thing you want. Yes, I do often have fun with my work. I like (sometimes — not lately) reading what I have written in the past. I like laughing at my own jokes: I think I’m funny. I think I have a decent gift for writing the occasional banger of a sentence, and I like reading those when I hit the bullseye. I think that I have sometimes had something valuable to say, and I have said it clearly and well on this blog, and I am proud of that. I am somewhat mystified, but definitely gratified, to see that, despite my lack of production over the last year or two, and despite my constant whinging when I do manage to write something, people are still finding my blog and looking at my old posts. I am equally gratified to have people buy my books from me, and then, as they sometimes do, come back to tell me that they liked reading them. There are many things about writing that are pleasant, and they are certainly part of the reason why I keep doing this.

So I won’t judge you for wanting to focus on similar parts of your own experience. I won’t assume that my writing life is anything like yours, and so I won’t use mine as a standard to lecture you about yours and what you are doing right or what you are doing wrong. As I said: to each their own, and there is no particular reason why someone would have to suffer for their art — but I do understand the cliche that tells us that we should be suffering for our art, and I appreciate the way you question yourself in those terms. No, you are not doing it wrong, and you are not writing inferior art just because you are not suffering.

Oh look, the essay goes on. What else do you have to say on this?

so! four paragraphs of bragging about how i loooove to work and have sooo much fun doing it… this is insufferable, you are probably thinking. i hope this bitch gets back into her own coffin and stays there! give me a minute. i have tips.

Okay. Now. Now you are indeed become insufferable, but not because you have been writing about how much you love work and how much fun you have doing it: now you are insufferable because you have fucking tips.

Let me be clear about a couple of things. One, although I found this piece irksome because it goes some way to invalidating or at least devaluing and minimizing my own experience, I meant what I said: I won’t judge anyone else based on my experience, whether that means thinking they have it better or thinking they have it worse than me. I don’t know enough about another person to even have any opinions about their lives, let alone judge them. Two, I have thus far resisted the temptation to get snotty about the fact that she is young, and talk about how my life as a writer has been harder than hers, because I don’t know her life and because I don’t think it’s fair to use my age and longer lived experience to discredit a younger person’s understanding; and also, as I said, suffering is not a requirement for art, and so the fact that I have had a harder time as a writer than she apparently has doesn’t make me more of a writer. Three, I haven’t wanted to try to flex my writing ability in comparison to hers, nor to humble myself as a writer in comparison to her, because obviously being a good writer doesn’t change someone’s experience of life as a writer, and isn’t necessarily related to one’s process: some artists have the gift of easy production of work, and some of us struggle with every single thing we do; none of that changes good art, and none of it makes any of us less or more of an artist.

But she has tips. She has a newsletter, too. And that means she is not giving anyone else the grace that I am trying to give her: she is specifically telling me (Well, she is speaking to a faceless audience, not to me personally) that I am doing it wrong, and that she knows how to do it better, and if I read her posts — or even better, subscribe to her newsletter — then I can learn to be the same kind of writer that she is. More importantly, this shows that she is not an artist. She’s a hack.

Hold on. Let me sit under the fan for a minute, and cool off.

Nope: it’s not helping.

Okay, it helped a little: I take back the “hack” comment. I’ll explain that first, because I want to be clear about why this angers me so much; and then I want to talk about my own experience of writing. (Right here. Mark this moment. I’ll explain.)

There is a trend in the modern world — maybe an old trend, I don’t know, this is the only world I’ve lived in and been an artist in and been married to another artist in — of people claiming to be artists who are not in fact artists at all. I’m not trying to gatekeep art, by any means; but I think the meanings of words are important, and “artist” is a particularly important word, and therefore the meaning needs to be clear, even while it must be broad enough and inclusive enough to include any and all kinds of art. So here it is:

An artist is someone who defines themselves by their art.

Okay? That’s it, but it’s important, so let me explain — and hold on until the end of this, because I may either confuse you or piss you off, but I’m going somewhere, so come with me until we get there.

Someone who paints or draws for fun is not an artist. Someone who paints or draws for money is not an artist. Someone who teaches painting or drawing is not an artist. Someone who paints houses, or fills in coloring books, or doodles in the margins, is not an artist. Someone who uses drawing and painting as therapy, for themselves or for others, is not an artist.

An artist can be a person who does any of those things. I would assume that most artists do most of those things — certainly making work for fun should be part of the experience of being an artist no matter what the art is. I would hope that everyone who is an artist has the opportunity to make money with their art; it is magical when it happens. As a teacher, married to a former teacher, I think every artist who has the chance to teach their art is doing a good thing both for themselves and for the world. Hopefully we all experiment with various related tasks somehow connected to our art — I would certainly include reading AP Lang essays about napping as connected to my art as a writer, and my wife makes amazing doodles and also is goddamn good at painting houses. And hell yes, my art is therapeutic: why do you think I’m writing this, so I can make money from it? So I can get you to subscribe to my newsletter?

But to be an artist, your identity has to be tied to your art. It has to mean so much to you that it means you. If it doesn’t, it can be a lot of good things, and you can do a lot of good things with it — but it’s not art and you’re not an artist. I will add one caveat to that last comment, which is that art can come from surprising places, so people who are not artists can absolutely produce art, and even great art; and also that people’s identities change, so someone can be an artist for a time, and then change how they identify themselves, how they define themselves, and cease being an artist; that temporary condition is no more or less valid than my lifelong condition (Now it sounds like a disease — Ooo, did you hear? Dusty caught art. Oh man, poor guy.). But during that time, for you to be an artist, you have to see yourself as defined by that art.

I’m not going to get into what is art here; it’s any creative endeavor that, as I’ve been saying, defines the person who pursues it. Art is defined as much by the artist as the artist is defined by the art. It’s the self-definition that matters.

So the trend that is prevalent in the digital world and might have always been present is people who want to make money by calling themselves artists — not people who want to make a living with their art, and not someone who defines themselves as an artist also calling themselves an artist: but someone who is posing as an artist in order to make money. And what these people do is they create a program: a guide, some kind of how-to instruction manual, that tells other people who want to make money by calling themselves an artist, how to do that. And the number one way to do that is to create a program, a guide, some kind of how-to instruction manual on how to make money pretending to be an artist, and then sell it to other people who want to make money by pretending to be an artist.

I see it constantly: any forum, any interaction that connects writing to money, has at least one shmuck trying to shill their system by which they made some remarkable amount of money, and if you pay them money they will tell you the secret how they did it: and that’s the secret. They made a sales pitch to get people to pay them money to find out how to make money “with art.” But, as should be abundantly clear, these people are not artists: they are marketers. They are salespeople. They are, in my own colloquial lexicon, hacks. So now, when I see someone trying to tell me how to be an artist, how to be either successful or happy as an artist, especially someone who has a newsletter, I think, Hack.

Looking through this woman’s tips, I think she may not be a hack. I think she may actually be a writer: one of her tips is to read, and another is to write, and she has some points about not being too hard on yourself, which is all genuinely good advice for other writers. Sharing your own experience as an artist, even selling your own experience as an artist or using your experience as an artist in order to gain a following, are all valid things to do. As I have no experience of this woman’s work other than this one piece, I will try not to judge her too harshly for what seems to me like hackery but might not be. If she is an artist, then my problem is not with her, it is only with what she said here; so we’ll assume that, and let it go for now.

Now let me tell you why she is wrong.

Let me tell you why writing is fucking hard.

Because I never know. Never.

I never know if I should be writing, or not. Sometimes I try, and it doesn’t work, and I get incredibly frustrated and also caustically self-critical — because why the fuck can’t I write? Am I not smart? Am I not wordly (Should I use that word which is not a word? Will people even see that word, or will they just think I wrote “worldly” and skip past it? Have I made this point too obvious by adding this parenthetical?)? Am I not literate? Am I not creative? Do I not have good ideas? At my most generous, I will think I guess this just isn’t the time to write, and at my least I will think: Because I am not a writer. And when I think that — which is fairly frequently — it hurts. I do not want to be not a writer. I define myself as a writer. It matters to me.

But even though I am a writer, I never know if my writing is good. I never know if it is done, which is why I tend towards one-draft posting; because if I write it fast and then publish it fast, I push it away from me, and that way I don’t have to think about it any more, it’s already out there, it’s already published, I can’t make it any better, it has to be good enough. I never finish: I only surrender. And as I said, I sometimes like reading what I have written; but I don’t like how I always find flaws, or at least things I could have improved. Because then I know that I gave up too soon, that I should have kept working; and maybe that’s why I’m not successful, because I give up too soon, because I don’t revise and polish my work enough.

Because I am not a writer.

I have a thousand ideas. I never know which one is the right one to be working on. I never know which one is the right idea, and I never know what is the right time, and I never know what is the right thing to say, and I never know if I have said it or if I have said it well enough. I never know who my audience is or will be, and I never know how they will accept my writing, whether it will seem good to them or not, whether it will be meaningful or not, whether it will be right or not. That’s why I told you to mark that spot, up above: that was the moment when I thought, Ahhh, nobody wants to read that. Nobody wants to know what your experience of being a writer is. They don’t care. They won’t understand. I think that, or some version of it, every single time I write. Am I right about that? Am I wrong? I never know. And if somebody reads my work, and they tell me it was good and meaningful and right, I don’t know why, and I don’t know how to do it again. I never know. I’m always guessing, always taking a chance, especially when I publish my work; because there’s always the chance that I’m wrong, that I did it wrong, that the work is bad or ineffective: that it is not the art I wanted to produce. And that matters to me, it matters to me if the work is not what it should have been, what it could have been if I had worked harder, or if I had thought more, or if I had greater innate skill or more training or more practice or — I don’t know what. I never know what is lacking. But I know that something always is.

Because I am not a writer.

That’s what I end up telling myself. If I were a writer, then I would know. Then I would be sure. Sometimes I think that’s a matter of innate skill or intelligence, because I didn’t do the thing that great writers do, and create THE GREAT AMERICAN NOVEL when I was in my 20s; sometimes I think it’s a matter of the choices I have made, and the choices I have not been able to make, in my life. I became a teacher because I didn’t think I could write successful novels fast enough to make a living with them right out of college, and I wanted to make a living, so I chose to do something other than writing: and for the last three decades, I have thought that maybe that was the wrong choice. Maybe I could have been a writer if I had tried to do that and nothing else.

But also, I know there are other factors. I couldn’t be a journalist, for instance, because I’m an introvert, so I suck at interviewing people and finding sources and networking and all the rest of that; I didn’t go into film or television writing because I grew up loving books even more than movies or TV. I don’t know if there’s any reason for that, but that’s been my experience, so my writing career has been slow, because I write novels. I have written six, and started several more. And I am still a teacher.

I tried to make a living out of my writing. I tried submitting stories to magazines, and I tried submitting my novels to agents and to publishers. I have never gotten anything other than rejection. Once — once — an agent liked the first six pages I sent them, and asked to see the first 50 pages of my novel; I sent them 50 pages… and they rejected it. (I first wrote “They rejected me.” Which should I say, here? Should I show the self-confidence to recognize that rejection of my work is not rejection of me as a person or as an artist? Or should I say what it felt like, what it always feels like? I know that everyone’s advice is to keep submitting, to never give up, to always send your work in and never take rejection personally. I know that. And I still wrote “They rejected me.” Because that’s how I feel. Should I not feel that way? Maybe I’m doing it all wrong. I guess it’s because I am not a writer.)

I don’t regret becoming a teacher; I am incredibly proud of what I have accomplished as a teacher, the difference I have made in the lives of my students, the ways I have had a positive impact on the world; if I had gone directly into writing and made a career of it, I think I would struggle with not having given back to the world in the way I think I have as a teacher. By the same token, I’m never sorry that I made the life I have: I do not regret moving to the places I have moved, even though I never moved to New York City so I could immerse myself in the writing life. I do not regret the time and energy I have put into being a pet parent, and I am absolutely and always happy with my choice of life partner, because my wife is the best thing in my world, followed by my pets.

But see, maybe if I didn’t have those things, I would be a better writer. Maybe I would have been able to focus more, or been more driven; maybe I would have spent more time, when I was younger and more energetic or more confident or didn’t sometimes struggle with words or didn’t have so many doubts or so many obligations or so many difficult things to deal with — maybe I could have succeeded. Maybe that’s why I am not a writer.

I never know. I never know what I am, or what I am not, or why I got to be this way, or how to change it. I have ideas, and I have feelings, and I have inspirations, and I have despairs: but I never know.

But I still keep trying to write. To be a writer.

That’s why I AM a writer.

That’s why I am an artist. I define myself by my art, by my work, by my ambitions to keep making work, to make better work, to make more work. But because I never know what I’m doing, it’s so goddamn hard to keep coming back to it and trying. I mean, if I had all the time and money in the world, maybe it wouldn’t be hard; and if I knew that a million people would read my work and love it no matter what I wrote, then it wouldn’t be hard; and if I didn’t fucking care, then it wouldn’t be hard.

But none of those things are true. What is always true is: I never know. So it’s always hard. It’s always hard to make myself do this. Even when it’s fun, which it often is, and even when I’m proud of my work, which I often am, and even when I have had some success, which I have had, at least a little, it is still hard to make myself write. Because I never know.

So spare me, Ms. Heisey. I don’t want to attack you, because all this means is that I wasn’t the right audience for your post. I hope the right audience finds it, and I hope it is good and meaningful and right to them. It was not, to me. And I would leave it at that, let your work fly past me to where it belongs — except you tried to tell me how I could live more like you, you tried to give me advice. But you don’t have any idea what this experience of being a writer is like to me, even though you presume to know, and I find that annoying. So spare me.

Let me also stick in here the part that really makes me angry about this, and the reason why I’m not just letting this go: it’s the privilege. I’m glad that this person doesn’t go through what so many artists go through: so many of us deal with depression and anxiety, with mental health issues, with trauma, with addictions; I have none of those, and my life as an artist is still hard. The simple fact of the stress in my life, which is not inconsiderable, makes everything to do with my art even more difficult on top of the difficulties of being an artist that I have tried to show here; I haven’t mentioned all the shit going on right now, which is making everything hard. To go through everything that I go through, AND to suffer as mental illness or trauma make us suffer? Those people, those artists, who deal with that are the strongest fucking people in the world. Everyone who has mental illness or trauma or both, and who nonetheless pursue their life’s goals, are the strongest fucking people in the world. And while that’s certainly not exclusive to artists, it is prevalent among artists, largely because artists are frequently more sensitive and observant and contemplative of the world and our place in it (Is that because we are artists, or are we artists because of that? Egg or chicken?), and I assume also because art is in fact excellent therapy, and because one of the most therapeutic aspects of art is the way it helps us to understand and to connect with our fellow humans so that we can feel less alone, which is so very necessary for someone struggling with mental health or trauma or both. So yeah, a lot of artists have trauma and mental health issues; a lot of people with trauma and mental health issues become artists. And for you to fucking sit there and pull out this, “Ummm, you guys, art is supposed to be fun! If it’s not fun you’re doing it wrong!” That makes me mad. That makes me want to say things to you, and about you, that are not nice. But all I will say directly is this: check your privilege.

Maybe when you have collected more experiences like mine, you will understand more why those of us who say that art is hard keep saying that; maybe when you do, if you do, you will want to read something written by someone who knows why art is hard, why it is always hard. Maybe you’ll even read this. Maybe it will be interesting, and meaningful, and right.

I’ll never know.

The Deprogrammer

I was (Still am, actually) listening to a Spotify playlist of music by The Bobs. No, you haven’t heard of them unless I have mentioned them to you in the past; this a cappella group is one of my longest-lasting musical obsessions, surpassed only by the Living Legend Weird Al Yankovic. The Bobs were great singers — especially their bass, who is amazing — but their real gift was for songwriting: they were strange, oftentimes, and they were sometimes overly cheesy or too experimental — but there are a huge number of beautiful songs, catchy songs, clever songs, impressive songs, and, most importantly, meaningful songs in their catalog.

This is one of my first favorite songs by them. And no, it is not a coincidence that one of my formative memories was having a winter hat that my mother made for me, which I wore throughout elementary school, which was fashioned to look like a space helmet. I wore that thing every cold winter day in Massachusetts; and I was mocked for it pretty much every cold winter day in Massachusetts.

I love that: first because it talks about both living as your authentic self with gusto, even when people (your own mother, for instance) think you’re strange just because you put a colander on your head; and also about being protected from the exigencies of the world, how common it is for us to put on armor — which is, of course, the opposite thing from being your true self, because armor is how we hide ourselves. The song is about someone being weird: but it is also about how so many people do the same thing in so many ways; and it asks the question — which is the path to serenity? Is it safety, partly represented by fitting in with the crowd (and the image of rows of shining hairdryers at the beauty parlor as a sort of helmet is fantastic for showing us this) and partly represented by the fact of a literal helmet, which protects your head? Or is it being who you want to be, represented by the main character’s desire to wear a helmet because his heroes were firemen and astronauts? It’s a great question, honestly; and it’s interesting (especially because it creates a theme that continues into the main song I want to discuss, below) that a possible solution the song offers is to ask other people to join in with your particular weirdness: because if other people try it, and find that they like it, then it’s not weird — and then there’s nothing wrong with wearing a helmet.

And the whole time, it’s just so freakin’ jaunty! How do you not love that??

I know, I know; not everybody loves that. But I do, so — come try it on, nothing can do you wrong.

Anyway, I was listening to a playlist (Which also let me enjoy several of their covers, which are AMAZING: here they are doing a Jimmy Cliff song, “Sitting in Limbo:” Sitting in Limbo) and their song The Deprogrammer came on. Here it is:

So this is an interesting story song, which is one of The Bobs’ specialties, and for the same reason why “Helmet” is interesting: it starts with an unusual situation — a deprogrammer, a guy who kidnaps cult members and un-brainwashes them, which is a pretty wild concept, but also it was something of a fad in the 80s when the song was written (I remember a storyline from my favorite 80s comic strip, Bloom County, in which Milo tried to deprogram — I think it was Opus?); people at the time were understandably terrified by the mass suicide of the People’s Temple, ordered by their cult leader Jim Jones, and they wanted a way to save their family members from a similar fate — but then the story takes a surprising twist. Just like “Helmet” beginning as a celebration of being strange and quirky, and then turning to an insightful criticism of society in general, “The Deprogrammer” turns into the brainwashing/kidnapper building a sort of grudging respect for the cultist he is trying to “save,” and the interesting choice of words when he says, “Maybe this time, I’ve met my Master.” Does this mean the deprogrammer is now being drawn into the brainwashing? Since he joins into the repeated chorus that closes the song, it seems so. And that repeated chorus becomes a celebration of the cult’s mantra and the power of it, and the attraction of being part of a group, which seems to be what defeats the deprogrammer. The cultist he kidnapped, whom he can’t deprogram, just keeps saying “We are the light of a beautiful world,” and the song turns into a singalong, with a crowd joining in on that refrain, along with the alternating lines “The mindless words you are repeating” and “Logical thoughts are self-defeating.” The song adds echo effects and fades out on that repetition, turning into something of a hymn, repeating what is actually a lovely thought: We are the light of a beautiful world.

Who would want to be deprogrammed of that belief? Wouldn’t we be better off with that understanding of the world implanted deep in our psyches, so deep that nothing could pull it out? And too, as “Helmet” maybe indicates, if we can get people to try, to join in and recognize the pleasure and goodness of our subjective experience, then we can all be as one, and no one will have to feel left out or ostracized or marginalized. The world could be a utopia.

Except. Except there’s not a practice, not a worldview or paradigm, with which everyone can agree. Not one. Which means there has to be conflict, when we think like this. There will always be an In-group and an Out-group, even if the Grinch does decide to join in with the Whos’ Christmas celebration. And not only because the Grinch can never be a Who, but also because sometimes the In-group, the common majority mindset, decides to cut down all of the trees: and then not only does that choice necessitate conflict with the Lorax, it needs the Lorax, to speak for the trees.

Not sure why I went full Seuss there, since I was talking about the Bobs. Mainly because most of you don’t know the Bobs: but everyone knows Seuss, especially the ones that have been movified.

But we also have all seen, firsthand, the intentional creation of an In-group and an Out-group: and it has been accompanied by incessant, and profoundly obnoxious, invitations to those of us in the Out-group (One of them; there are actually several Out-groups, with differing levels of ostracism, hatred, or persecution attached to each) to just join the In-Group, and then everything would be fine. Except the In-group was created as a means of consolidating and wielding power, apparently mainly for the prosaic but profoundly insidious goal of stealing as much wealth as possible. Donald Trump chose his In-group, his Star-Bellied Sneetches, and he has been telling them for more than ten years now that they are the bestest: that they are the real Americans, the true patriots, the good people, the only ones who use common sense. And for ten years, I have listened to those same people turn around and tell me that I should want to be a real American, a true patriot, a good person, and a person who uses common sense, and they tell me that all I have to do is: follow Donald Trump. They say it in various ways, depending on the context of the actual conversation: they tell me I should “accept” that Donald Trump is my president, which actually means I should join their group and act exactly like them, including focusing all of my fear and anger and hatred on the Out-groups; they don’t say that I am only given this opportunity because I am a white cis-het man who speaks English and possesses legal American citizenship, but we all know that that is true. I have been told that I should “support” Trump and his actions because he “wants what is best for our country;” though he actually wants to take what is best in our country, and destroy everything good that he can’t take. And, of course, we’ve all been told that we must comply with the those who use force to impose obedience on us, or else we will somehow earn the violence that will be inflicted on us, and which will get no more sympathy than a shrug and a smirk and some variation of “Fuck Around and Find Out!” from the members of Donald Trump’s gang.

This was where my mind went when I heard “The Deprogrammer” again for the first time in probably a decade. (Now I’m listening to “Dictator in a Polo Shirt,” and I want to make a Trump reference about that, but I’ll hold off until I finish my current point. I’m trying to quit tangents, and though I can’t go cold turkey, I can lower my daily consumption.) I’ve been listening to the national conversation revolve around what it will take to turn Trump’s followers against him at last — I mean, it seems like it’s been the conversation for the same ten-plus years that Trump has been in power, largely owing to his iron grip on his base, and the utter spinelessness of the Republican party when it comes to disobeying him. And I admit that I try to kick that football every single time the Lucy of the media hold it for me: they tell me that Trump’s popularity is waning, that it’s lower than it’s ever been before, that his most recent actions or policies are unpopular according to national polling, and every single time, I get excited by the possibility that, this time, at last, Trump will lose his power, and we’ll be able to rein him in, and maybe even achieve the ultimate dream of impeaching him (for a third time) and this time, removing him from office — and maybe even putting him on fucking trial for his goddamn crimes. I don’t even care if the Supreme Court voids his conviction on appeal (That’s not true, I care enormously, but there’s nothing I can do about it, so I’m trying not to care. I can’t go cold turkey on caring: but I’m trying to reduce my daily consumption of caring.), I just want him to face a jury that tells him he’s guilty, and a judge that sentences him to fucking jail time. That’s what I want. Actually, I think that’s what the country needs: because if Trump can go through that process and be held accountable to that extent, given the real and actual punishment of prison time, then it will help to show his would-be imitators and replacements that they can’t just get away with literally everything they want to do, as he has done. We need to go back to having norms, and following them, and that requires Trump to pay,

But it’s never true. Trump won his primaries just this last month: he wanted Thomas Massie out, and Massie is out; he wanted Ken Paxton to run against the Democrat, and Ken Paxton is running against the Democrat. This is terrible strategically for Trump, because he is making enemies among the current Congress (NPR is, adorably, calling them the YOLO Caucus, the ones who are leaving Congress at the end of this term and so don’t have to fear Trump ending their political careers) — but also, the courts are giving him all of the gerrymandered maps he could possibly want, and his voters are still supporting him. And I go flying and land on my back, as the football is pulled away from me. I did it again with the Anti-Weaponization fund, and the news reports that Republicans in Congress “weren’t happy” with Trump’s attempt to steal $1.776 billion in order to pay off his brownshirts from January 6th (I’m sure most of that money would go directly to the Trump family, but that’s a different conversation: all of the bribes for his violent minions would be just as bad as the direct theft of more taxpayer money by Trump himself, and maybe worse depending on how much it would embolden the next crop of rioters before the next election), because the Senate passed his fucking ICE funding without any amendments even limiting how that stolen money can be spent. Even the YOLO caucus failed to vote on amendments in alignment with the Democrats: they gave Trump the bill he wanted. 1.776 billion dollar bills. And 70 billion more dollar bills for ICE. Still no investigations of the killings of Renee Good or Alex Pretti, by the way. Because Trump doesn’t want them, and his government does what he wants.

The reason I keep thinking Trump’s control is ending is because it doesn’t make any sense to me. Not even a little bit. But see, that’s because I’m not in the In-group: I’m not in the cult. I have not been taught to obey the Master in all things, to surrender my will to the Leader. I have been given multiple offers to join, just by accepting that Trump is my master and that everything he says is true, just as I have been told many times that I can save my life if I just comply with the gun-toting thugs in masks who enforce Trump’s control. I recognize that if everyone — everyone allowed to, at least, which would not include trans people or immigrants or those who have incurred Trump’s childish, violent wrath — just joined the In-group, and if we all helped to eliminate the presence of the Out-groups within the US, then we’d all be happier, especially Trump, as he would have both the adoring fans he craves, and the opportunity to steal even more money even more openly (Though I don’t know what would be more obvious than settling a lawsuit with yourself, using your own personal attorney as the currently-un-Senate-approved Attorney General as the one “making the decision” to hand you $1.776 billion, but I’m sure there is more money that Trump could steal, and he would: and he will, because while courts are currently trying to put a stop to the “Anti-Weaponization Fund”, the Supreme Court will surely overturn those lower court decisions and let Trump have anything he wants. Because they’re in the cult, too. At least six of them.); and as long as we don’t mind our world being destroyed by this worthless sack of shit, then we could all be happy together, cheering while we comply, thanking Big Daddy Trump while we do whatever he wants.

Nope. Don’t understand it. Doesn’t make any sense to me. But it doesn’t need to: just like particle physics, which I don’t understand either, the Trump cult is a fact of our world, whether we understand it or not. And even though I won’t be joining it, I also recognize that no deprogrammer is going to be able to save us from them. I think we’ll be partly saved by the unavoidable, and likely imminent, death of Donald Trump (I’m still going to hope that it will come after his trial and conviction and sentencing, even if he never serves a day in prison: escaping a prison sentence by dying would not reassure his imitators that they could get away with the same shit he did: and that might make our country a better place. Not as good as if we managed to pass laws that prevented this from happening again, no matter who tries to do the same shit; but it’s a start.), but I don’t doubt that this madness that happened once could happen again. I don’t believe Donald Trump’s ability to create a cult was due to his unique and unmatchable skills at manipulating people; I think Trump is the result of a perfect storm of events that created a political base hungry to become a cult, and he stepped right into that role: but if that perfect storm happened once, it can happen again. [Keep an eye on Spencer Pratt.]

I don’t know how we can prevent this from happening in the future. I’m not even sure how we can change the situation from becoming as dire in the future as it is now: that is, there are a hundred ways we can fix the American political system in order to keep a future Trump-imitator from doing the same things, but I have lost pretty much all faith in our political system to solve these problems. Our political system could have, and should have, solved this problem in 2021, when they should have convicted Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors, found him responsible for participating in an insurrection, and banned him from ever running for office again: and our political system chose not to do that. Our political system chose to continue participating in this madness, presumably for the same reason the Republican senators voted to pass ICE funding without limiting the theft of $1.776 billion: because this way they can retain their power, and maybe steal some of the money themselves. I have been shocked, but not really surprised, that not a single principled Republican remains in Washington; the last principled Republicans were primaried in 2024 (I’d say it was Massie, who does stand on at least two principles in opposition to Donald Trump, but as he does agree with Trump on every other point, he is not in fact a principled man. Just like anyone who has actually turned on Trump — and I know there are voters who have, genuinely, recognized what Trump is — because of the war in Iran and the economic apocalypse he is building for us: because that means nothing before now was sufficient to turn you against him, and that makes you unprincipled. I’m glad for people who manage to break free of the cult, but their participation in the cult until now is hard to forgive, because again, I don’t think it is Trump’s genius manipulations that created this cult: I think people put themselves in it, and he took advantage. Same with Thomas Massie, who’s a MAGA asshole who just doesn’t like the war in Iran or the Epstein coverup.) I still want to think about and talk about reforms to our political system which would help make the situation better in the future; but I don’t think that’s the answer to the Trump cult, unfortunately.

But this is what I want to say: this is why I wanted to write this post, why I wanted to share the Bobs’ song. Because another way to hear “The Deprogrammer” — not one that fits in the original story the song is presenting, but a way to think of it translated into our context — is as a refrain focused in two different directions: if we imagine the song describing our attempts, as the actual rational people in this country, trying to break the Trump cult free of their absurd willful ignorance, I think the story the song tells is accurate, because I don’t think we can deprogram them. We have met our masters, in the sense that we have met a challenge we cannot overcome — one we cannot master, and which therefore might master us. Hard to say that is not the situation we have been in for the last ten years: we could not overcome the first Trump campaign, and so it took us over; and then we couldn’t actually end Trump’s threat while he was out of office, and so he has mastered this country since January of 2025. I don’t think we are falling under his spell, as I think the song depicts: but picture the ending refrain this way. Imagine it is us saying to the Trump cultists: “The mindless words you are repeating!” just as an expression of outrage and disbelief: how could anyone keep repeating this mindless nonsense? How could anyone still think that Trump is good for this country, that he is fixing our economy, that the tariffs are going to bring back American manufacturing, that the rest of the world respects Trump’s strength and therefore the country is safer with him in charge — and so on, and on and on and on. Mindless words! They are repeating! And we say this to them, and they — deny, or refuse, or curse and spit at us. Even after a concerted effort, with everything at our disposal, to deprogram them. So we take a breath, remind ourselves of who we are and what we are doing, why we are there and working to save these people from the cult that has swallowed them: We are the light of a beautiful world, we whisper to ourselves. Then we grit our teeth and try again: “Logical thoughts are self-defeating,” we say to the cultist, quoting them (Because these are the mindless words they keep repeating) and how they have responded to the clear evidence and logic we have presented to them, over and over again: but it doesn’t work this time, as it hasn’t worked before, as it won’t work the next thousand times we say it, even if we manage to continue finding the energy and the optimism to keep trying, to keep talking to them. What keeps us going, in the face of that obstinacy, that unshakeable grip that the Trump cult has on its members, even today, when he has done everything he said he wouldn’t, and nothing he said he would? We whisper the refrain again, and again, it is lovely, and inspiring, and calming.

We are the light of a beautiful world.

Even if we can’t win this fight, even if we can’t change the cultists, even if they will always be the enemy, will always be a threat.

We are the light of a beautiful world.

Even if the Republican party keeps trying to push the same agenda, in some way or other, for the next generation, because it worked this time and politicians have no actual ideas to create positive change (at least not establishment politicians), and the establishment Democrats keep letting them, because establishment politicians have no actual ideas to create positive change.

We are the light of a beautiful world.

Even if JD Vance, or Marco Rubio, or Donald Trump Jr., or Spencer Pratt, or someone we have not even thought of — like Trump himself in 2014 — manages to recapture power. Even if the Supreme Court remains controlled by rabid ideologues for the next generation.

We are the light of a beautiful world.

We are the light of a beautiful world.

We are the light of a beautiful world.