Chris | Chris Beckett's Fiction

The wrong side of history

I don’t always like Marina Hynde’s column in the Guardian – her heavy sarcasm can get a bit relentless – and, for that matter, I don’t always like the Guardian, but I thought this piece of hers, about the reaction to the movie Emilia Pérez and what it tells us, was right on the nose, so much so that I’m going to quote about half of it right here:

… A few months ago I was chatting to the pollster James Kanagasooriam about something, and he noted that “the left tends to issue-bundle”. Which feels a good way of putting it. Many people will have felt the increasingly illogical strictures of this all-or-nothing deal in recent years of supposed progressivism. It’s as though you can’t consider each subject or cause on what you, personally, judge to be its individual merits. Instead, you must buy the entire suite of opinions off the shelf, and you have to agree with all of them, or you are “on the wrong side of history” with the ones you don’t. This was odd, James pointed out, because outside the small minority of the hyper-politically-engaged, most people in the world are not actually like this. His example was to say that most people in the UK are extremely pro gay rights, but a substantial proportion of this group might also support the non-progressive cause of the death penalty.

Anyway: Emilia Pérez. A trans story! Latin actors! Big-swing cinema! It’s all good, right? Except: no. Apparently Mexicans hate it. Apparently trans people hate it. Now old-skewing liberal Academy voters – who loved it – have seen these controversies and know they have to do a 180 and hate it too… It was pitched as a progressive triumph – now it’s on “the wrong side of history”.

… I can’t stand that infantilising, hectoring phrase, which has spent the past decade being the laziest but most successful way to force someone to agree with you. Ditto the idea that if you share any opinion – at all – with people on the other side of a supposed divide, then you should just consider what that makes you, and fall back into line with your tribe. What bollocks.

In fact, the present political climate in the US seems to have been exacerbated by people performing their endless taxonomy of what is and isn’t on the wrong side of history. It’s enough to make you feel that the left, who bang on about polarisation the whole time, are actually more invested in it than the right…

I agree. I think that particular kind of judgy, conformist, witch-hunting ‘leftism’ must take some share of the blame for the rise of the authoritarian right. In other words, in its own terms, it’s ‘on the wrong side of history’, though, like Marina Hynde, I’ve always hated that phrase, with its smug implication that the speaker’s world view is the one that will ultimately prevail.

Value added (2)

So, just as branding can add value to a manufactured product, so can the ‘brand’ resulting from fame and adulation add value to a cultural artifact: a book, a film, a painting, a piece of music… (I’m avoiding the term ‘work of art’ because that tends to imply something highbrow, and this is equally true for works at every level of ‘brow’)

But it’s possible to flip the comparison right over and argue that these cultural products themselves function as a kind of branding that adds value to everyday life.

For instance, I sometimes like to listen to music when I’m driving. Get the music right and it works with the passing scene like the soundtrack of a movie. Life feels that little bit more interesting and intense, and I feel a bit like I’m a character in a story and not just – you know- little inconsequent me.

There was a time once, I remember, when certain young men would put speakers on the outside of their cars with the idea, or so I imagine, that the rest of us, too, would see them as being like characters in movies, and that this in turn would enhance their own sense of being so – their sense of being someone, in other words, and not just anyone, which is an important thing to have, even if putting speakers outside your car is rather narcissistic.

So a cultural artifact, music, is adding richness to a car journey, and therefore adding value to life itself, in the same way that music, words and images can be used to add value to a product advertised on TV.

It may do this just by being pleasurable to listen to, and evoking various moods and feelings which we find engaging, but it may also function by making us feel like we are inside another cultural artifact, a movie, a story-world, a place where life is more vivid and intense. Advertising does this too. Look at car ads on TV, or perfume ads, and, in pretty much every case, you are being invited to think of the product as something that will admit you to a story world. And this is not even a con, exactly. Products really can make you feel that way for a while.

And so can novels, and paintings, and songs.

We’ve got sales targets

While on the subject of ads, let me admit that there is a copywriter inside me, crying to be let out. I once whiled away an hour on a train by devising in my mind an entire advertising campaign for McCoy’s crisps, including TV ads, posters and merchandise.

I did actually think about being a copywriter when I was a kid, inspired, as I said before, by The Space Merchants – in spite of (or, to be honest, probably because of) that book being about the dangerous power of advertising. Unfortunately for my advertising career, I did also internalise the book’s political message, and by the time I was old enough to need a job, I didn’t feel able to give over my life to helping giant corporations sell harmful things.

But I think I would have been good at copywriting. It certainly would have been a better fit with my skills than being a social worker, and an excellent training for being a writer, at least in the narrow sense of honing my skill with words, because the best advertising copy has something in common with poetry – it has to be as succinct as possible and make every word count – but with the added twist that, unlike poetry, it has to work even when its readers have barely noticed that it’s there.

This ad from a while back seems very simple, but is a small masterpiece of compression.

Oasis soft drink ad: ‘It’s summer. You’re thirsty. We’ve got sales targets.’

The final sentence – ‘We’ve got sales targets’ – is disarming and funny because it frankly admits the real purpose of the ad, and yet it doesn’t in any way reduce the impact of the sequence set up by the previous sentences and the picture of the drink: summer (hot), thirsty (unpleasant), and Oasis (a cool and refreshing release from heat and thirst – and, speaking of release, isn’t that image quite blatantly orgasmic?)

In fact, far from reducing its overall impact – the ‘sales target’ sentence allows the rest of the ad to slide gently into your consciousness (and, more importantly, into your unconscious), like the smooth coating on a pill, without seeming too bald and shouty.

And notice how ‘You’re thirsty’ is in a larger font. So often when we’re busy, we don’t notice our bodily sensations until something draws them to our attention. (When I was a social worker, I would often notice right at the end of the afternoon that I felt quite light-headed, and realise that I’d forgotten to eat my lunch.) Also, though I don’t really know why this should be, ‘thirsty’ is a particularly powerful word with lots of bite. Much more so than, say, ‘hungry’ or ‘tired’.

Brilliantly effective writing. And all done in eight words – or nine including the bottle. I can’t stand those kinds of drinks as it happens, but it would have worked on me otherwise, no question about it. And, if only it wasn’t for my political scruples, I would have loved to have worked on ads like that.

Value added

I once heard an advertising professional making the case that advertising doesn’t just sell products, it adds value to them – we enjoy products more because of the associations that advertising has added to them. I’m quite certain this is true (and not just because, ever since I read The Space Merchants as a kid, I have had a fascination with advertising’s dark arts).

For instance, my youngest daughter and I used to love Hobgoblin Ale’s ‘What’s the matter lager boy?’ ads, and bought the beer accordingly. I have no doubt the ads made the drink seem more fun than it would have been if we had drunk it from an unmarked glass without knowing what it was. We would still have liked it it, no doubt, but it would just have been a beer.

This podcast discusses the possibility that Stradivarius instruments might be a spectacular example of this effect. Many people are convinced that these centuries-old violins and violas, which can sell for tens of millions, make a uniquely beautiful sound. And yet, as the podcast shows, musicians involved in blind tests did not favour the Strads over modern violins, or even correctly identify them more often than you’d expect them to do by chance. In the podcast, a professional musician who actually owns a Strad refuses to accept the validity of this finding, but it is very difficult to separate a product from its branding unless you do a blind test (especially if you’ve spent a fortune on it). And, as that advertising man might ask, why would you even want to separate a product from its branding, when the branding really does make you enjoy the product more?

How much does this branding effect apply in the cultural sphere generally? There can’t be much doubt, for instance, that a simple sketch attributed to Picasso will be worth far more, and receive far more attention and praise, than would be the case if that exact same sketch had been made by an artist no one has heard of. (Duchamp famously showed that, just by signing it, he could turn a urinal into a work of art.) I’m pretty sure that I have often given films, books, paintings etc a much more sympathetic hearing when I’ve known in advance that they are considered to be masterpieces, than I might otherwise have done. In fact, it’s hard to see how our appreciation of books and films could not be affected by their reputations, given that books and films only work at all by triggering associations in our mind, and their reputation will inevitably play a part in those associations. (Being perverse and prone to jealousy, I sometimes dislike books and films more than I otherwise would have done, precisely because of the kind of praise they’ve been given – but that’s still a branding effect. It’s still me being influenced by the book or film’s reputation.)

Nevertheless it is still meaningful to ask if it’s the reputation of a work of art, or the associations that would be set up anyway by the work itself, that is the main contributor to the value that’s attributed to it. Watching a particularly good episode of Succession, my wife asked ‘Is Shakespeare really so much better than this?’ I think it’s a good question. If you make up your mind that something’s wonderful, whether it’s Shakespeare or the Beatles, Ulysses or the Bible, then you will find wonderful things in it, and you are much more likely to make up your mind that something’s wonderful if everyone keeps telling you so.

Those four examples all have whole industries devoted to celebrating their wonderfulness. In such cases, it can be almost impossible to separate the product from its branding.

Life isn’t like a novel

I turn 70 at the end of this year. It’s an interesting time of life. In some ways I feel more myself than I ever did. This is perhaps in part because of not having a day job of any kind – I haven’t had one for 9 years- so I don’t have to play a role, or fit into a system in the way I once did, and I have a lot of time when I can think, or write, or see people, or do whatever I want.

(I’ve sometimes noticed in the past when I’ve met up with people who still work in a place I used to work, how intensely involved they are in the politics of that world, the machinery of it. It seems to be so BIG for them, just as it once did to me, yet now, from outside, it seems so small, like an ants nest on the floor of a forest, and it seems almost comical that they should take it so very seriously.)

Another thing is that a lot of options are closed to me. For instance, I’m not going to begin a whole new career at this point, or start a whole new family. I have had most of my life (I’d have to live to 140 for that not to be true!), and I have to recognise that in many ways, this is it – I’ve got as far with this thing or that thing as I’m ever going to get, whether or not I’d hoped to get further. So I’m sort of stuck with being me.

One thing I do a lot of, though it can be painful, is review my life so far, almost as I might look back at a novel when I’ve reached the end: So those were the main characters! So this was the story arc!

But when I do this, I realise that life doesn’t really work like a novel. For example, if, in a novel, there was a character who met with the protagonist regularly for a chat, but didn’t advance the plot in any way – didn’t have an affair with the protagonist, or set up a business with him, or say some wise or devastating thing that changed the course of his life…- you’d either cut that character out, or give them something to do. I think this is true even in a literary novel which likes to think it’s above the vulgarity of plot, but still has to show the protagonist progressing.

This is why characters in novels often seem to have a rather limited number of friends, and we seldom hear much about the conversations they have with their children or grandchildren, even though friends, family, children are probably for most people the main thing that give their life meaning.

Thoughts on America City

I’m thinking about this book because I’ve been asked to join a book club in Alaska by Zoom next month to talk about it. Several things about this are rather out of the ordinary.

First, it’s in Alaska!

Second, the book is set in America, and Alaska is in America, a country where I’ve spent a total of one week, and that week nowhere near any of the places that are the setting of the book. Americans might quite understandably feel I’m writing about something I know very little about. (Luckily I’ve met this book club before, and I know they are very nice).

Thirdly, both I and the members of the book club will be aware that many of the events in the book seem to be beginning to unfold right now, e.g, (a) President Trump making extraordinarily hostile and aggressive statements about his neighbour and ally, Canada, while also stating that the border is an artificial one (which is what Putin says about Ukraine) and that Canada ought to join America as its 51st state. (There is something particularly insulting, I feel, about suggesting that Canada, which is slightly bigger than the whole of America, and has more than 10% of its population, should join as a single state!) (b) Trump threatening the use of military force if another ally, Denmark, does not hand Greenland over to America. I’m not going to spell out exactly how close these things are to what happens in the book, but suffice to say the parallels are striking (and alarming), and I think Trump’s motivation for these threats are quite similar to Slaymaker’s. If you want to get elected you have to give your voters something, and one of the things you can give them is an enemy.

I wrote about the origins of this book here, and also here, but here are a few more thoughts.

Sola fide and the ‘internet Left’

In an earlier post, I talked about the disadvantages of ‘belief’ but also its necessity in a world where so much can’t be known for certain. However I didn’t even mention the utility of ‘belief’ as a marker of belonging, as when a religious person explains their faith by saying ‘we believe X’, where it is the belief that makes possible that ‘we’ – and therefore also an excluded ‘them’. In many religions, notably in Protestant Christianity, belief in the correct dogma is, or at least has been, seen as far more important than moral behaviour. Only faith – sola fide – can save you from the fires of hell. And of course many religions, including Islam and most branches of Christianity, have not even waited for the afterlife, but have had people tortured and killed in this one for not subscribing to the correct dogma.

There are all kinds of advantages to sola fide. It’s easier to conform to a set of beliefs than it is to change your way of life. It’s also helpful for the wealthy and powerful who might otherwise have to take seriously moral teachings such as, in Christianity, Matthew 5.5 (‘blessed are the meek’), or Matthew 19:24 (‘ it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God’). At my primary school – a famous fee-paying school, and therefore only accessible to well-off people- the ‘eye of the needle’ was explained away by the chaplain as the name of a gate in the walls of Jerusalem through which a camel could actually pass, though it might be a bit of a squeeze, which makes the whole saying rather lame, and is quite funny when you consider all the other sayings which religions have insisted should be taken completely literally. Many people have been burned alive, for instance, for denying that communion bread and wine are literally the blood and flesh of Christ.

But this takes us back to importance of belief as a marker of belonging, the means by which a virtuous ‘us’ is separated from a ‘them’ which at best is ignorant and in need of enlightenment, and at worst does not deserve to be treated as part of the moral community at all. This is very handy. It makes priesthood important, for one thing (because priests are the ones who let you know what you have to believe in). It gives even the lowliest of believers the comfort of feeling superior to somebody (which is useful for elites who want to keep them in their place). And it provides a rationale for treating unbelievers badly, which is great if you want to conquer their country, or make them into slaves, or even just dismiss them as of no account.

The thing about this kind of belief, though, is that it’s no good just asking people to believe something obvious. You can’t build an ‘us’ and a them’ on the back of, say, ‘the sun rises every day’ or ‘on the whole, it’s good to treat people nicely’. It has to be something that isn’t obvious and that wouldn’t normally occur to you. In fact, more than that, it needs to be something which everyday experience would suggest there is no evidence for. Even ‘there is a god’ isn’t really sufficient, because that’s a pretty widespread idea which isn’t associated with any particular belief system, but ‘God consists of three persons – not two, mind you, or four, but three – who are all distinct, but are still somehow only one god’ – now, that’s more like it, no way is anyone going to come up with that empirically! And ‘bread and wine are literally blood and flesh’ is perfect.

Sorry to pick on Christianity by the way -I know many good people who are Christians, and who don’t use their religion in this kind of way- but it just happens to be the religious tradition I was brought up in, and therefore the one I feel best qualified to criticise. The point I am actually coming to is that sola fide is not confined to religions. In particular, I am struck by the way that politics has degenerated into competing belief systems of this kind. Hence the so-called culture wars, the internet-fuelled tendency to separate into competing tribes, each with its own priesthood and its own rigid and often arbitrary beliefs which you have to subscribe to in order to belong, even when your head is secretly saying to you ‘it’s really not as simple as that.’

Since my own politics, cloudy as they are, are on the left (which is to say, it seems to me that the people at the bottom of society get a lousy deal, and the people higher up are obscenely privileged) my particular concern is this tendency on the left. If being on the left is reduced to expressing the latest ‘correct’ views on social media in the latest approved language, with the aim of demonstrating your loyalty to your faction, and your superiority to that other lot, it has ceased to really be politics in the sense of a practical attempt to make things different, and has just become a way of feeling superior.

And this at a time when oligarchy is on the rise and oligarchs are managing to persuade a lot of people who would normally be your natural allies, that you belong to a haughty self-righteous elite who don’t even like them, and that they should throw in their lot with them, the oligarchs.

The New Barons

I’m not really a joiner at heart, but back in the late seventies I was a member of the Labour Party, and I helped as a canvasser and teller in the 1979 election, (which famously Labour lost).

One thing stayed with me from that experience. As a teller outside the polling station, checking off people’s names as they turned up to vote, I was sitting with the tellers of the other parties, Tory and Liberal, and we chatted to each other, and even occasionally helped one another out if one of us had somehow missed a voter’s name. It occurred to me that this was pretty remarkable. We didn’t agree with each other but we accepted each other’s humanity and right to be there, when for most of history, and in most countries in the world, factions resorted to violence to get their way, and, if they succeeded in taking power, used torture, murder, imprisonment and censorship to suppress their rivals. This struck me as something precious, and much more important than the actual outcome of the election, important though that also was: a system of government that relied on consent.

I should not delude myself. What now, looking back, can seem like a golden age, really wasn’t. In the middle of the twentieth century, industrialised nations like Britain were still taking advantage of a massive head start in the world economy resulting in large part from the imperial system, in which most of Asia and Africa was run by European powers, or America, in a way that was rigged for their own benefit.

India had only been independent for 31 years at the time of that election, many African countries for considerably less, and in some cases only after brutal wars. (Algeria, for instance, had only won its independence 15 years previously after an ugly war with France that may have killed up to a million people.) In fact Britain had only been a democracy at all for less than twenty years unless you chose to discount all the subject peoples, outnumbering its own population, that Britain ruled over whether they wanted it or not, imprisoning those who challenged its rule. (‘The overwhelming bulk of the British proletariat,’ George Orwell had pointed out in 1939, ‘resides not in Britain but in Africa and Asia’).

And even in 1979, when Britain had shed most of its empire, its democracy was still bolstered by the prosperity that the empire had brought. Democracy is much easier when there’s prosperity -it’s hard to win people’s consent when most of them are living in poverty- and our prosperity been built on top of a tower of tyranny, from which we were still benefitting, and still do benefit now, though progressively less and less.

So that peaceful tolerant scene outside the ballot box wasn’t quite what it seemed. But still, what a lovely dream it was! A world that didn’t work by violence.

These days, polls show increasing numbers of people saying that liberal democracy doesn’t work and they’d prefer a strong leader who doesn’t need to answer to an electorate. America has effectively said so through the ballot box and many other countries are heading the same way. Across the world, large numbers of countries have never had democracy, or have had it and lost it already.

Democracy is disappointing if things aren’t going well. When we were children, my sisters and I used to discuss elaborate games of let’s pretend – we were a family of explorers in the Amazon, I was the dad, one of my sisters was the mum, another was the dog, another was a deaf-blind child etc etc – but once we’d set up the game, it was kind of done, and we never actually played it. Democracy can end up being a bit like that. One party lays out a set of policies and ideas which it says are going to solve our problems, but they never really happen (think of David Cameron’s Big Society) -or if they do happen, they don’t work in the way they were supposed to, or don’t happen quickly enough to fit into the electoral cycle – and then we chuck that party out, and the other party discards whatever’s left of its set of ideas and introduces its own, which also do not happen, or don’t work, or don’t work quickly enough.

And meanwhile things keep chuntering on in much the same way regardless, except that these days they seem for most people to be steadily getting just a bit more shitty all the time. You just lose interest after a while. You get cynical. You start wondering about alternatives. And there’s no denying that there are some advantages in a system where a single regime can carry out its programme over a long period of time without always having to think about short-term popularity.

The thing is though, that there has to be some way to determine who gets to be in charge, and if it’s not a ballot, what is it? If you look at dictatorships around the world, the mechanism is always some combination of violence and bribery. You eliminate rivals, you buy the acquiesence of as many people as you can, either with money and material assets or with non-material benefits such as enemies they can hate- and you repress the others. The most ruthless player wins.

We are heading back to the brutal world of rule by competing barons, by powerful thugs, jockeying with each other for position. Many countries never left it. But this time it’s barons with the internet, AI, satellites, drones and nuclear weapons.

Woke

Exhibit A: In the early seventies there was a programme on ITV called The Comedians, in which a number of stand-up comedians stood in a row and took it in turns to tell jokes. I can only remember one joke. The comedian – it may have been Bernard Manning – said that he’d met a Pakistani in the street, walking a pet duck on a lead. ‘I didn’t know you had a monkey,’ the comedian said. ‘It’s not a monkey, it’s a duck,’ replied the Pakistani, to which the comedian responded -and this was the punchline- ‘I was talking to the duck.’

The reason this has stuck in my mind is that, even at 14 or so, and even in those times when racist jokes were commonplace even among liberal middle-class kids like me, I could see this was vile, a joke that doesn’t even work unless you think it’s funny to describe a stranger, to his face, as non-human, because he has brown skin and a different culture. It seemed vile to me then, and it seems, if anything, even more vile now when two of my own grandchildren – two of the people I love best in the world – have brown skin. The thought of those two cheerful little girls being exposed to stuff like that and realising they’re the target of it, quite literally keeps me awake at night.

In the culture wars, the accusation of being woke – it used to be called politically correct – is constantly being thrown at those who object to inappropriate language being directed at people because of their skin colour, ethnicity, gender etc. ‘So what exactly is wrong with objecting to offensive language?’ the defenders of wokeness reply. ‘What you call wokeness is just common courtesy and basic human decency.’ And of course in many cases this is true, as it would be if someone raised objections to the ‘joke’ above. (Presumably the reason filth like that is no longer heard on on national TV is because of the many objections to it people have raised over the past 50 years – and good for them.)

But the trouble with the whole yah-boo culture wars phenomenon is that it obliterates nuance. There is another side to wokeness, I don’t find it hard to see why it raises people’s hackles, and I find it a little disingenuous when the defenders of wokeness claim not to see it.

Exhibit B: Some years ago, in the late nineties, when I was still involved in social work, another incident occurred which also stuck in my mind. A colleague (white) expressed horror at the fact that some foster-parents had used the term ‘coloured people’, which was seen at that time as derogatory. (Indeed, another white colleague, I now remember, had actually posted a sign in the office with a quotation from somewhere which objected to the word ‘coloured’ in terms something like this: ‘How dare white people call us coloured, when they are the ones that come in all sorts of different colours, and change colour when they’re angry or cold or embarassed.’)

This is different from Exhibit A, because there was no reason to believe the foster parents were intentionally using the term in a derogatory way. In fact, they very probably thought that ‘coloured people’, as opposed to, say, ‘black people’ or ‘Asian people’, was the polite and respectful expression to use, as it had indeed once been – hence the name of the American civil rights organisation, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. And of course nowadays, the term ‘people of colour’ (POC) is widely used by the wokest folk, and no one, as far as I know, suggests it is derogatory, or objects to the association of the word ‘colour’ with people who are not white.

Terms not intended to be offensive do acquite offensive connotations over time -I get that: look at the word ‘spastic’ for example- but someone not keeping up with the currently acceptable language is not even vaguely in the same category as someone telling a Pakistani man he is a monkey. And it seems to me that to affect outrage when someone uses outmoded language is something more akin to the cool kids at school mocking some poor schmuck who still listens to music that’s now uncool, or wears clothes that are no longer in fashion. In other words, it’s about proving your own superiority.

It’s often not clear who decides when words become unacceptable, or who chooses their replacements. Sometimes, as in the case of ‘spastic’, I guess it just becomes obvious to everyone in the field that what was once a neutral term has now become a term of abuse. (Was this ever the case with ‘coloured people’?) But I do think there are self-appointed mindguards out there – assertive, educated, social-media-savvy people- who actually enjoy catching other people out and feeling superior to them, and having a following of herd animals who join in.

The people most likely to be caught out -apart from those who actively pride themselves on being ‘anti-woke’, or who simply don’t agree with what the mindguards have decreed to be correct- are those who are less educated (like those foster-parents) and less social-media-savvy, and therefore less up to date. In this way ‘wokeness’, which is supposed to be (and often is) about challenging exclusion, can itself become a tool for excluding people, a form of classism, hiding in the guise of being anti-isms – and of course the people so excluded notice this and resent it. More generally, it just makes it harder to express an opinion that is genuinely your own.

(Meanwhile, on the other side, the ‘anti-woke’ have their own mindguards, and their own herd animals, and their own stubborn refusal to see the game they are playing.)

Words

Looking back at the time in 2023 when I receiving chemotherapy, I can remember it felt horrible. I have a sense of what that horribleness felt like, and I’d know the feeling instantly if I felt it again, but I can’t describe it in words, because it was unlike any other sensation I have experienced. To myself I call it the ‘chemo feeling’, and I know what I mean by it, but there are many different kinds of chemo, and people react to each kind in many different ways, so what I call the chemo feeling is not necessarily the same as anyone else’s, and most people haven’t experienced chemo at all. At the time I sometimes said that it was a bit like nausea, but only in the sense that they were both sensations that, while not painful, were nevertheless pervasive, unpleasant, debilitating, poisonous. The ‘chemo feeling’ was actually something quite distinct from nausea. (Sometimes I felt nausea as well, but that’s another story.)

There is a school of thought which says that reality is entirely mediated by language, that a thing is brought into existence by words. But actually surprisingly little of our experience can be named. Take actual nausea for instance. If you say ‘I feel nauseous’ people know what you mean because everyone has felt nauseous at some point. But suppose you had to describe the sensation of nausea to someone who’d never experienced it. It would be impossible, like describing the colour red to a person born blind. Words only work by pointing at things that our listener or reader already knows about. (This is presumably why we tend to talk about character traits and internal states, which can’t be pointed at, by analogy with things that can be: I feel trapped, he couldn’t contain himself, she was a bottled-up sort of person…) Trying to describe the ‘chemo feeling’, I had nothing to point to.

This can be true also of pleasant feelings. Sometimes I wake from a vivid dream. I remember the dream’s events and characters, but I also remember a powerful mood or feeling, which was different from anything I’ve experienced in real life. If I try to tell others about the dream, I can describe the events and characters, but the mood is impossible to name because there is absolutely nothing I can point to which is comparable. I think this is why other people’s accounts of dreams usually seem so tedious. They can’t tell you the one thing that made it powerful to them.

This limitation of language makes being a writer difficult. It’s one of the reasons you are always being forced to compromise, giving up what you ideally wanted to convey, and settling for a rough approximation. (This post, for instance, will end up saying something rather simpler than I had in my mind when I started writing it.) But I love the process, the challenge of capturing as much as possible of what I meant to say, in spite of the constraints. (Describing the planet Eden through the eyes of people who’d never seen Earth was a particularly interesting challenge, because I’d forbidden myself all sorts of obvious reference points that would be familiar to the reader.)

Visual images do sometimes seem to convey more than words, I think. You can pack a lot of things into an image which it would be too cumbersome to put into words. I discussed a picture by Tintoretto in a post here once, but I couldn’t begin to name the mood that picture was able to almost instantly evoke in me, any more than I can pin down the feeling of a dream. (Whether that mood was the one that Tintoretto intended to evoke, is of course another question.)

Below is an image I generated some time ago, when I was playing with the Wombo Dream art app and gave it the prompt word ‘nausea’. Weirdly, seeing as it is made by a machine, it really does seem to capture something of the feeling (I suppose it has adapted a human-made image from somewhere). But I don’t know if it would do so for a person who had never experienced nausea themselves.

‘Nausea’ generated by Wombo Dream AI.