“Scars can heal and reveal just where you are”

Note: this post contains spoilers for Disney’s Moana, which I highly recommend that you watch right away if you’ve never seen it. There will also be very mild references to sexual violence and the #MeToo movement.

As far as I know—relying on that most unreliable of things, narrative memory—Moana is one of the three films I’ve seen the most at the cinema (the other two being Brokeback Mountain and Can You Ever Forgive Me?, so it’s something of an outlier). That, of course, was when it was released in 2016 (and probably into early 2017)—roughly six years ago. It’s hard to believe how much has changed since then, both culturally and in my life. I can’t have seen this film in more than four years, since I’ve never logged it on Letterboxd (which I joined at the beginning of 2019), yet it’s so etched into my memory and my heart that I feel like I last watched it a matter of months ago.

The film was released, crucially I think, before the #MeToo movement. Watching it again now, I was struck by how much it seems to be about female trauma and rage—and yet how easily it imagines that those things can be healed.

I definitely think that Te Fiti’s transformation into Te Kah is multivalent. In fact, I think the most obvious interpretation, at least on this watch, is as a symbol of colonial violence (despite the fact that Maui himself is Polynesian—the metaphor isn’t as direct as that). Interpreting it as sexual violence is a lot dicier, but we can certainly go as far as to say that it’s an act of male violence against a woman (or rather, a goddess). He violates her bodily autonomy; literally steals a part of her.

In either case, the solution presented is simple: restore the heart of Te Fiti to nullify her rage, which has transformed her into something demonic.

On my first several watches of this film, I admired the fact that it really had no villain (apart from Tamatoa, who is only a secondary antagonist). Maui is rehabilitated; Te Kah is revealed not to be a villain at all, but a wronged Te Fiti. On this viewing, though, I felt a bit differently. I spent many years thinking of my anger as something pathological—a character flaw. I thought it was at the root of my depression, and that it was something that it was my duty to overcome. In the last few years, though, I’ve begun to reassess that. Of course, it’s important for me not to let my rage drive me to do harmful things to other people (or to myself), but is it really something to be conquered? Rage, like pain, is an alarm system. Just as a person who can’t feel pain is in danger (shout out to that House episode where the patient had CIPA), anger is there to keep you safe—to let you know when something is wrong. Anger is what tells you that you deserve better. No wonder people who hurt me were so keen to convince me that I was wrong to feel it so deeply.

For Te Fiti, having her heart restored heals her immediately. It is also followed by a genuine apology from Maui: “Look, what I did was… wrong,” he tells her. “I have no excuse. I’m sorry.” There’s no doubt that a genuine, heartfelt apology goes a long way towards helping someone to heal, but healing is never—in my experience—instantaneous. Moreover, an apology that is given on the expectation, even the condition, of immediate forgiveness, as so many seem to be, is not a real apology at all—it’s a bargaining chip. I’ve had people turn on me when I wasn’t ready to forgive them on their terms, at their preferred time; when I wasn’t ready to shed my anger, or rather pretend to shed my anger, since anger doesn’t fall away like a coating of ash and bloom immediately into flowers. Anger, or my anger anyway, is a heat that can bleed away in time, if it’s given the right conditions. A volcanic island can support life in time, but you don’t try to settle it while the lava is still cooling.

To broaden out, then, from my personal rage to female rage (or the rage of the colonised) in general, I am troubled by the idea that healing from rage is as easy as a single act of restoration. Healing, forgiveness, and regaining trust are all processes and not events. An apology, given unconditionally, is a wonderful start, but it’s only a start. It has to be backed up by a genuine change in behaviour. If an apology were enough by itself, people could just keep on hurting you and apologising in an endless cycle.

Another thing I’ve been revisiting and reassessing in the years since I last saw this film is my unprocessed grief at the death of my grandmother when I was a teenager. It happened at a difficult age and at a time when I wasn’t very mentally stable, which I think is part of the reason why it was never fully resolved, but another reason is that my father’s grief was so overpowering that there wasn’t really any room for mine. I felt as if I had to be his support system, and nobody was there to be mine—maybe because I did too good a job at masking the fact that I needed one, but maybe also because I’ve often lacked a support system when I’ve needed one (something I’ve also been grappling with lately).

As on previous watches, I was moved to tears more than once by the portrayal of Moana’s relationship with her grandmother, especially after the grandmother’s death, when she appears as a reincarnated stingray, and then as a spectral presence. But I have to admit that it didn’t exactly resonate with my personal experience of grief, coming to it again. There’s no lingering illness—and, of course, there isn’t always one. But it’s also an easier story. One moment the grandmother is well, the next moment she is fading away—another moment, and she’s back again in a new form. A palatable version of death to serve up for children, but not a very honest one. Nor is Moana’s grief especially present in the rest of the film—we might be forgiven for forgetting about it until grandma shows up again to give her some more guidance. That, I suppose, does resonate more strongly with me. I never dealt with my grief at my grandmother’s death, and instead I dreamed for years that she was still alive, over and over again. It took perhaps ten or more years for the dreams to stop.

I think that part of me felt that grief for a grandparent would be somehow indulgent: grandparents are old. They die. One of my grandfathers died before I was born; the other I only met once and had no relationship with. My mother’s mother is still alive to this day, at over a hundred years old. I don’t know if I really had a model for mourning a grandparent until the grandmother of a friend of mine died a couple of years ago, and I witnessed her profound grief. It made me realise how incomplete I had allowed my own to be.

However much I may still love this film, I do think it’s worth interrogating its portrayals of anger and grief, especially in a narrative primarily written and directed by members of the dominant culture, and made by Disney, which might as well be the avatar of cultural dominance. Is there room for a story where anger and grief persist beyond the neat resolution? That’s the story I’m living.

2022 in Review

2021 was an extremely mixed year for me: I graduated from my MA programme with a Distinction, but I also experienced a couple of bereavements that hit me very hard. At the very end of the year I adopted my beautiful cat, who continues to be a source of joy, though I’ve never had to deal with this many dead rodents before, so that’s been a fun new challenge.

2022 was, on the whole, quieter; the highs weren’t as high, the lows weren’t as low. A lot of plans fell through. I applied for PhD funding but didn’t get it, so that’s been indefinitely put on hold. I intended to relocate back closer to my family, but the prohibitive rental market put paid to that. I started and then quit a job (technically I had already been doing the job for a while before that, but I accepted a permanent contract at the job and then quit). Still, there have been a few small accomplishments that are worth mentioning, as well as several things I’ve enjoyed a lot over the course of the year which I’d like to talk about.

Writing

I didn’t really have a big writing project last year—in 2021 I had my dissertation, and two years before that I wrote a book, so maybe every other year is fallow for me? That said, I did keep up my regular writing practice, which is usually 500 words a day, six days a week. A bit of quick maths tells me that amounts to 156000+ words in a year*, which is definitely novel-length, and a relatively hefty one at that. A huge amount of those words, though, are film reviews which go up on my Letterboxd page. While of course this “counts” as writing, maybe it’s a distraction from really focusing on a more personal or long-term project which might require a bit more stamina or depth. That’s why, for 2023, I’ve decided to put the film reviews on indefinite hiatus (probably not for the whole year, but that’s TBD) while I work on some other ideas. Since making that decision, I’ve already made significant progress on a long short story which has been patiently waiting among my drafts for a while, and I’m feeling very positive about it… though I kind of miss my film reviews. Maybe I can somehow make time for both!

Of course, I did do NaPo again last year. I can’t remember how many years I’ve now being doing it in a row, but it’s a really enjoyable tradition for me, even if I barely write any poetry for the rest of the year these days

*Nowhere near an exact figure, because in April I usually set a goal of one poem a day rather than the 500 words (and they can vary hugely in length), but also, I often write much more than 500 words. So who knows!

Reading

I took on a big reading project last year, which was to read Ulysses by Bloomsday. I couldn’t find an edition I really liked, that was both readable (decent paper and print size) but also had good annotations, so I actually ended up reading most of it on genius.com—it’s all on there, since it’s out of copyright in the US! There are user-generated annotations of wildly varying quality, and honestly I think that trying to read them all ended up slowing me down and disrupting my flow. I also read two readers’ guides concurrently, and I think that I should have stuck to just focusing on the text and then filling in the gaps with the readers’ guides rather than using the heavily annotated version. Still, I can definitely say that I’ve read Ulysses, which at one point in my life I really never thought I would!

While that took up quite a bit of my reading time in the first half of the year, I did still exceed my reading goal on Goodreads, for the second time in two years. I read 50 in 2021 and 59 in 2022, which is a huge leap from where I was for several years before, when I really lost my mojo for reading for a long time (a combination of factors played into that). I should say that that count included audiobooks, rereads and graphic novels/TPBs, but as far as I’m concerned it’s all essentially reading. I love audiobooks, and some of my favourite “reading” experiences have been listening to an Elizabeth Gaskell audiobook on a long walk. I find that I usually have just as much retention of things I’ve listened to as things I’ve read—sure, it’s possible to get distracted, but I am entirely capable of getting distracted while trying to read too, or of not doing it because I don’t have time, or because the light isn’t good enough in my room (my clip-on lamp broke!), or whatever. I don’t think I listen to audiobooks at the expense of physically reading; I think they just increase the amount of time I can devote to enjoying literature.

Apart from Ulysses, my biggest discovery last year was Theodore Sturgeon. I had previously known the name, but he was just one of many Golden Age or adjacent science fiction writers I’d never read (I think Heinlein was pretty much the only one I had). I vaguely knew that he was the model for Kilgore Trout, which I think gave me a distorted view of him. On looking into it a bit more, I think Vonnegut mostly took the piscine name and the fact that Sturgeon was down on his luck when the two men met—nothing, really, about his writing style or who he was as a person. Thanks, again, to audiobooks, I made my way through most of his bibliography—everything that’s on the Audible Plus catalogue, which includes Some of your Blood (my baptism by fire to his writing), Venus Plus X, More Than Human and To Marry Medusa. I was completely taken aback by how ahead of his time he was, both in his enlightened attitudes towards sex and gender (years before Left Hand of Darkness!) and his ideas.

I review pretty much everything I read/listen to here on Goodreads.

Language learning

As I’ve blogged about a couple of times, I decided to start learning Irish this year. I made a lot of progress! According to Duolingo’s stats, I was in the top 1% of learners for the year. I’ve been in the Diamond league basically forever (can’t ever quite seem to make that top three in the semi-finals or whatever it is). At time of writing I have nearly hit a streak of 365 days!

Of course, Duolingo is all very well, but by itself it’s not the best way to learn. I also completed the Dublin City University online courses (available on FutureLearn) up to 104. I’ve been taking a break from them for the last couple of months because they ended up being quite a significant time commitment, and I was struggling to keep up, but I definitely hope to continue with them in the not-too-distant.

Gaming

I have to admit I didn’t play a ton of games last year, and most of what I did play wasn’t new: I completed The Outer Worlds around the start of the year, which I enjoyed a lot—I’d describe it as Fallout in space, but with more of an overt anti-capitalist message, which ticks a lot of boxes for me. I’d also say that the companion NPCs are better-developed than in Fallout, on the whole (at least in my experience/memory—the only game in the series I actually completed was F:NV). While it obviously did attract an audience, I feel like it flew under the radar more than it deserved, though a sequel has been announced so I’m looking forward to that.

For most of the year, most of my gaming hours were sunk into Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey. While I enjoyed the experience of playing it at the time, I have to say that the story hasn’t really stuck with me that much. It was my first time playing an AC game (apart from once attempting to play the first one on a janky PC, years ago, and giving up), and I know it was a bit of a departure for the series, moving closer to an RPG format than previous entries. Still, it’s ridiculously overstuffed with sidequests, sometimes tiresome procedurally generated ones, which makes it start to feel a bit repetitive after a while. I couldn’t help but compare it unfavourably to HZD, which I nearly platinumed (everything except a couple of dummies I didn’t knock over) and which I think has an excellent storyline and compelling gameplay. That said, there were some subplots and relationships I really liked, especially the Silver Islands storyline with Kyra, and anything involving Alcibiades. The voice acting is very variable, though—it feels like some of the actors barely understand the lines they’re delivering, and the emphasis is pretty consistently off.

To bookend the year (I think I started this right at the end of 2022, anyway—maybe it was right at the beginning of 2023? Oh well), another Fallout-adjacent game, Pentiment (which shares a director, Josh Sawyer, with F:NV). This game is clearly an immense labour of love, heavily researched and steeped in literary references; it only exists because of the opportunities afforded by digital distribution and a service like GamePass, which allows for niche projects like this to be funded.

Viewing

I won’t go into too much detail here, as I’m planning a podcast episode or two about my favourites of 2022 in the near future. I’ve already blogged about House of the Dragon and The Bastard Son & The Devil Himself, but other discoveries this year for me included The Orville, which I never expected to like but found myself totally won over by (I should say I skipped season one, which is supposedly the weakest). Another was Hacks, which had somehow flown under my radar but has rapidly become a favourite. I also binged pretty much all of Work In Progress late in the year, as well as finally watching The Comeback. The TV standout, though, was probably Severance—I can’t say enough good things about it: it functions as a compelling drama, an inspired sci-fi and a commentary on workplace culture and exploitation.

I have a list on Letterboxd ranking all the 2022 movies I’ve watched so far, as well as pretty in-depth reviews for almost everything I watch (plus that podcast episode I mentioned), so I won’t repeat myself here. I’ll just say that it was a great year for animation: The House, Turning Red and The Sea Beast were all standouts this year. Like everyone else, I really enjoyed Everything Everywhere All At Once (though maybe not as much as everyone else); I enjoyed 3000 Years of Longing and Blonde much more than most people.

I’m going to wrap this post up now so I can publish it while it’s still January (honestly, I forgot about it for a little while and it sat half-finished in my drafts—whoops!). 2023 looks set to be a year full of changes, and I’m excited to see what’s around the corner. Have a good one!

The Panickiad: a Bloomsday blog (part 2)

This is the second of my blog posts for Bloomsday. The third and final will go up tomorrow. Check out the Bloomsday 2022 tag for the others.

This year marks the centenary of Ulysses‘ publication, but it was set eighteen years earlier. The actual date of publication was the 2nd of February, Joyce’s birthday (also Groundhog Day!), so perhaps that should technically have been the focal point of celebration; Joyce mentions a “Bloom’s day” in his letters as early as 1924, but the first famous one was in 1954, fifty years after the events of the novel, led by Flann O’Brien and others. So perhaps the 16th of June, 2022—which is not exactly a hundred years since the date of publication, nor anything close to a hundred years since the date of Leopold Bloom’s odyssey, nor a round number of years since 1954—is a bit of an uncertain anniversary (though it does, like the one in the novel, fall on a Thursday). Still, it’s the first Bloomsday I’ve ever celebrated, and I wanted to do something. I couldn’t really make the pilgrimage to Dublin—it’s a bit too far for me to travel under current circumstances. I did think of dressing up in Edwardian costume, but that would have required more of a financial outlay than I was willing to make. I could have stayed in bed all day like Molly Bloom, but that’s not much of a novelty. I also had no funerals to go to, ads to sell, or Hamlet theories to expound, and I’d rather not go to a brothel or lock myself out of the house.

I did find my own way, though, to mark Bloomsday. Here I present to you my own Bloomian journey, with additional commentary from a renowned Panicky scholar.

9.30am: Mrkgnao! I feed my cat. Mr Kelly eats with relish the biscuits of fowls.

Commentary: There is more than one reversal at play here. While Mr Bloom’s cat remains unnamed in the text, “Mr Kelly” is only one of several names Panicky’s cat can boast; he is variously referred to as Kellas, Kit Kelly and Kit Kat. Bloom, meanwhile, goes variously by Leopold, Mr Bloom, Henry Flower, and even Miss Bloom; there are also references to his father’s original Hungarian name of ‘Virag’, before he changed it by deed poll. By contrast, Panicky refuses to reveal her (to use the pronoun of least resistance) legal name, going instead by a handle.

There is also a reversal of sex: Mr Bloom’s cat is female, and Panicky’s cat is male (though castrated). The fact that Panicky does not strictly identify as a woman does not negate this reversal, since Bloom himself is an androgynous figure, as brought out most strongly in the ‘Circe’ chapter. Indeed, there is scope for contemporary readings of both Bloom and Molly as in some way genderqueer or genderfluid.

The transformation of “innards” into “biscuits” could be read as showing an increasing reliance on processed food in the intervening century, though processed foods are in fact a feature of Joyce’s text.

10am: I eat with relish the ovum of fowl.

Commentary: Unlike Bloom, Panicky does not eat meat. While Bloom does have some misgivings about his meat consumption, he is ultimately driven by corporeal desires. The same is not true of Panicky, who fastidiously abstains from all meat and dairy products, in addition to other lifestyle choices made in deference to environmental concerns. While she and Bloom are alike in not having had penetrative sex for many years, they have different motivations for this.

10.30am: I make myself a cup of coffee and sit in my hammock to drink it, but fumble and spill hot coffee all over my genitals. I change out of my now-soaked underwear and sleep trousers and into a pair of yellow silk boxer shorts with little elephants on them which I bought secondhand several years ago from ‘White Rose’, a secondhand shop in Nottingham.

Commentary: This episode is rich in symbolism. The burning of the genitals recalls the “burnt offering” Bloom refers to in ‘Ithaca’—the burnt kidney of the ‘Calypso’ chapter; it also brings to mind Buck Mulligan’s epithet for God, “the collector of prepuces”. However, the multivalence of associations and allusions does not stop there. Think of Bloom’s symbolic castration, literalised in the ‘Circe’ episode, or of Molly Bloom’s memory of “sitting in a swamp” in ‘Penelope’.

The first-time reader may miss a more obscure correspondence. In ‘Telemachus’, it is Haines who is seen rising from a hammock. Like Bloom, Panicky has Irish citizenship, but is of mixed provenance; unlike Bloom, however, she is primarily of British descent. The blood of the coloniser occupies her person, much as the Martello tower is occupied by Haines. Might this act of self-harm, subconscious though it is, reflect the internal conflict between the Irish and British aspects of herself?

One last note is the yellow silk boxer shorts. Panicky would not normally wear silk, given that the production process necessitates the death of silkworms; however, these are secondhand, or “left off”—note the correspondence to Molly Bloom, who “has left off clothes of all descriptions”. Yellow is Buck Mulligan’s signature colour, and the elephants recall Bloom’s orientalist musings. The reference to Nottingham is also interesting: Nottingham is Panicky’s home town, just as Dublin is Stephen’s and Joyce’s; she was often unhappy there, as were Stephen and Joyce, but is currently planning to return, at least temporarily, just as Stephen has. Indeed, in this respect she is closer to Stephen, the uncertain graduate, than she is to Bloom. It is worth remembering that Joyce was writing about Dublin while in self-imposed exile, and never physically returned there, despite never leaving it in his writing. Panicky’s reference to the city, though offhand, may reflect its primacy in her subconscious.

11.30am: I try to finish reading ‘Penelope’, but keep getting distracted.

Commentary: While, of the novel’s three main protagonists, Panicky is closest in age and sex to Molly Bloom, correspondences between the two are scant. Here, we see what is probably the nearest allusion to Molly; Molly also gets distracted from her reading on the morning of June the 16th. If Molly stumbles over a long word (“metempsychosis”) in her smutty book, Panicky is also reading a book with both smut and stumbling blocks galore.

1pm: I set off to Blyth South Beach on my bike, passing several Union flags still displayed for the Jubilee. I’m listening to ‘Blind Date With Bloomsday’ on BBC Sounds, and the segment of the latest TLS podcast which concerns Bloomsday.

Commentary: The Union flags are, of course, a development of the theme of British imperialism already hinted at in the coffee episode.

Also of interest is the bicycle. The safety bicycle, though invented two decades or so before the action of Ulysses, does not feature prominently in the novel, except for a brief mention in the ‘Nausicaa’ chapter; most of the characters locomote via the means of perambulation. The bicycle was, in Joyce’s time, associated with increased mobility for women; in Panicky’s time, though, it is more associated with environmentalism. In either case, it may be considered a forward-thinking vehicle, perhaps marking Panicky as a progressive in Bloom’s mould. Of course, it may also simply signify that she cannot afford a car.

Podcasts would not have been available in 1904; indeed, sound recording in itself was a very new invention. Sound and music, however, are of great importance to Ulysses.

1.30pm: I walk along the strand listening to the RTE dramatisation of the ‘Proteus’ chapter. At one point I mutter “ineluctable modality of the visible” to myself. I also try closing my eyes as I walk along the strand, but open them just in time to see a small crab almost being washed over my bare feet.

Commentary: While Panicky is explicitly linking herself with Stephen Dedalus here, a cynical reader might be tempted to point out that—in filtering her identity through her reading material—Panicky is closer to Gerty MacDowell. That said, the same accusation could really be levelled at Stephen himself; while the literature he has access to is wider, more obscure and academic, his identity is obviously strongly shaped by those influences. Even his poem in the ‘Proteus’ chapter is almost entirely plagiarised from a passage of Douglas Hyde’s; he has yet to establish a singular voice.

2.30pm: I get chips and a coffee. At first I eat them at one of the outside tables, but I’m put off by the number of people coughing around me, so I move to one of the benches overlooking the sea. I participate in a twitter discussion about animal personhood and the ethics of eating meat.

Commentary: Another episode very rich with symbolism. The obvious allusions are to the ‘Lestrygonians’ chapter: like Bloom, Panicky retreats from one eating establishment after being disgusted by the clientele, though in her case, this is due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic (Joyce was also writing in the wake of a similar pandemic, though there are of course no textual references to it given the book’s setting eighteen years earlier). Her continued caution, in contrast to the other patrons, further marks her as an outsider or nonconformist, like Joyce’s two principal characters (Stephen by design, Bloom by accident of birth).

Also in ‘Lestrygonians’, Bloom ponders the ethics of meat-eating; the theme of animal cruelty and his attitude towards it will recur in ‘Circe’. This is externalised to twitter in Panicky’s case, which brings up another interesting point: the polyphony of Dublin’s streets and pubs has been transferred to social media.

There is also a tenuous link to ‘Eumeaus’ here, in which Stephen and Bloom buy coffee and a bun in a cabman’s shelter. However, the ‘Lestrygonians’ parallels are much stronger.

5pm: I have a bath, washing with lemon soap.

Commentary: Note the time jump here, which elides the journey home. These lacunae do appear in Joyce’s text, often—but not always—masking a traumatic event. For example, we are not privy to either Stephen’s fight with Buck Mulligan in which he hurts his hand, or Bloom’s visit to the widow Dignam’s house. At other times, as in the time elapsed between the ‘Nestor’ and ‘Proteus’ episodes, we are given no reason to infer that any significant event has happened. The same is true here. If Panicky were attempting a novel-length work over a period of years, as was Joyce, she might be able to develop these non-events into stream of consciousness passages, but she is prohibited by limitations of time and scope.

Bloom buys lemon soap and ponders a Turkish bath in ‘Lotus Eaters’; it is later confirmed that he did bathe, but it happens off-page.

6pm: I work on this blog post.

Commentary: An interesting piece of metatextuality, recalling the “Jamesy” moment in ‘Penelope’. Given that subsequent events are alluded to within the blog post itself, it can be assumed that she does not finish writing it here, and continues to add to it throughout the rest of the evening.

7pm: I finish Ulysses.

Commentary: Curious that Panicky finishes the novel so late in the day, having already performed a number of Bloomsday-related activities. It might be wondered why she didn’t finish the novel beforehand, cycling to the coast later when she could have avoided some of the day’s heat, especially since it is nearly midsummer and the days are exceptionally long. This may have been an oversight.

7.30pm: I go to the shops, since I seem to remember that a few things I saw in M&S the other day are due to expire, so they might be reduced. The selection doesn’t turn out to be as good as I thought, but I pick up a couple of things, then go to ASDA and buy some plums.

Commentary: Unlike Bloom, Panicky visits the shops at the end of the day, not the beginning—for pecuniary reasons. This would seem to confirm her perilous financial status, or at least that she—like Bloom—is prudent with money.

Plums are something of a motif in Ulysses; it’s likely that Panicky bought them precisely for this reason.

10.30pm: I get up to take my pill.

Commentary: An episode which is sparse in details, though it does recall ‘Oxen of the Sun’ in its reference to contraceptives (though Panicky does not use them for contraceptive purposes but rather to prevent painful menstruation, something Molly Bloom could only dream of). Note another ellipsis (it seems unlikely that Panicky has been shopping all this time).

10.45pm: I practice Irish on Duolingo.

Most of the Gaelophones in Joyce are not depicted very sympathetically, from the English appropriator Haines to the antisemitic Irish nationalists. However, it would be a mistake to interpret this too simplistically, since some of the nationalist arguments employed by the novel’s villains—particularly concerning Ireland’s reforestation—can also be found in Joyce’s lectures. Additionally, the recovery of the Irish language over recent years has been dramatic, and its current status is very different than it was in Joyce’s day, though it may have comparable nationalist and post-colonial resonances.

11.30pm: I make myself a hot chocolate, avoiding the mug that burnt me this morning.

Commentary: An amusing bit of humanisation here, with Panicky imagining that the mug is at fault for burning her. Again, Panicky’s behaviour echoes Bloom’s, but her motivations are distinct: in ‘Ithaca’, he chooses not to use his favourite moustache cup, bought for him by his daughter Milly, out of deference to his guest.

There is, perhaps, a poignancy here. While Bloom and Stephen both have outsider status, they have spent most of the day in company of some kind. Their sharing of cocoa has been read by some as a form of communion; regardless, it is a moment of connection. Panicky is alone. However, we should do her the honour of not assuming that she is therefore lonely. If her story, unlike that of the Blooms, does not end in a marital bed, perhaps, like Stephen’s, it continues with a leap into the dark, while the heaventree of stars is hung with humid nightblue fruit. We leave Panicky contemplating a return to familial, landlocked territory, but that does not mean that her story is at an end. In Tennyson’s Ulysses, the errant king is not satisfied on his homecoming, and ventures off again.

I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: All times I have enjoy'd
Greatly, have suffer'd greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone, on shore, and when
Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea.

For those who long to sail, the sea is always there.

Is fearr Gaeilge briste, ná Béarla clíste

Lá Fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh!

Terrifying as this is, it’s been four years since my last St. Patrick’s Day post, when I was looking forward to securing my Irish citizenship (which I did get!). At the time, I claimed that St. Patrick’s Day was an Irish-American invention. I was sort of right (more by luck than judgement)—the revelry now associated with the day did originate in the US. But I’ve realised, or acknowledged, in the years since just how shamefully ignorant I am when it comes to Irish history and culture. I think this is something that a lot of people living in a diaspora can relate to: the ambivalent relationship with the concept of “authenticity”, as if your own hybrid identity is inherently inauthentic. These days I constantly worry about being a Plastic Paddy; about how much of my heritage it’s my right to claim. After all, I’m more English than Irish, in all sorts of ways, much as it pains me to admit. Not that my English heritage exactly makes my forebears complicit in the atrocities of the British Empire: my father’s peasant ancestors were victims of the British ruling class, too.

I think this anxiety is compounded by a sentiment which is very prevalent in the US (though much less so here) that Irish heritage somehow doesn’t “count”; that Irish Americans are assimilated into whiteness to a degree that Irish identity shouldn’t be acknowledged as separate from it. I think this is down to a couple of factors: one is that anti-Irish racism is sometimes used to downplay or justify anti-Black racism, and to argue for the existence of anti-white racism. Another is that many Black Americans, because of the enslavement of their ancestors, don’t know their lineage, and so for white people to loudly proclaim that they are one-quarter this and one-eighth the other is considered gauche at best. While I understand the thinking behind these sentiments, I think there are a few problems with allowing these issues to make a sense of pride or connection with Irish (or any other European) heritage taboo. First of all, it reinforces the idea of homogeneous “whiteness” and white identity, which have always been used as tools of white supremacy (particularly in the US). Secondly, while it’s obviously racist to compare anti-Irish racism to the atrocities experienced by Black Americans, it would be ahistorical to ignore the fact that many populations of European descent have also experienced discrimination to some degree. Finally, the fact that any of this—which is fairly specific to American culture and history—is even something that I have to factor in to my own relationship with my Irish identity is down to cultural imperialism, pure and simple; while it’s worth being aware of, it’s not really relevant to my own situation, and the sense that I feel the need to include this disclaimer for a presumed American audience is a problem in itself.

Anyway, I’ve been trying to address my ignorance and engage more with Irish culture and history. Back in Nottingham, I went to some Irish events at Five Leaves bookshop, which I loved; then I moved up to the North East, which seems to be a real hotspot for Irish and Irish-descended people. Between study, work and, y’know, an plá, though, I haven’t really engaged with the Irish community here in any meaningful way. Online, I’ve been able to do a bit more. A year or so ago I learned about hedge schools, where children from non-conforming faiths, who were banned from official schools, were educated by their communities*. I think it really brought home to me the cultural violence that was enacted by the British. It wasn’t as if that idea was new to me, but that it had always been more abstract before. This year I decided to learn Irish: I started on Duolingo, though I’ve found it less than ideal. It seems that a lot of Irish learners and speakers are also critics of the Duolingo course, but it’s not too easy to find other free and accessible resources. I’ve found a few books available on Kindle Unlimited (I know, I know, but there was an offer and I’m poor!). I’ve been using https://www.teanglann.ie/en/ a little bit. I’ve also found some other recommendations—I can’t vouch for any of them yet, but will link to them below in case anyone’s interested.

https://www.focloir.ie/en/page/education.html
Irish 101 on FutureLearn
Bitesize Irish
Teach Yourself Irish
User-submitted Irish courses on Memrise

The response to my attempts to learn Irish have tended to be positive, but one of my more irritating colleagues seemed mystified about why I would bother, seeing as it’s not “useful” to me. I think he’s just someone who likes to annoy people as a hobby, but I do also think this is a by-product of productivity culture. Why do anything when it doesn’t benefit you—when it can’t earn you money or help you with networking? I think one of the tragedies of Irish is that, though British Imperialism failed to wipe it out, cultural imperialism just might. It seems that many younger Irish people are put off by the way it’s taught in school, don’t feel a connection to the language, and (like young people the world over) are more interested in American cultural imports. I’m not exactly a “young person” per se anymore, but I’m certainly not innocent of this myself. There are signs, though, that it might be on the rise—let’s hope so.

If any other Irish learners, or Irish speakers, have further recommendations I’d love to hear them!

*I came across this concept due to somehow stumbling across the wonderful Queer Hedge School, which I highly recommend.

Kidney Stones

A few days ago, I logged onto twitter to find that nearly everyone was talking about the same thing, and I had no idea what it was. That’s not an entirely unusual occurrence, but in this case it seemed to be even more ubiquitous than usual. “Yes, I read it,” a tweet might start, with the implication that we all knew what “it” was. People were already speculating about the Netflix adaptation, which made me assume that it was another cause celebre short story in the vein of ‘Cat Person’. I gathered that it involved a kidney—a woman who had donated a kidney to somebody and then blackmailed that person into being friends with her? Later it seemed as though it had something to do with a writing group. The plot thickened.

I held out as long as I could, but finally I couldn’t stand it anymore. I read the kidney story. If you haven’t read it yet, you probably won’t get much out of this, but I’ll try to recap the most important points, as presented in the NYT article by Robert Kolker:

  1. It wasn’t a short story (at least, it wasn’t supposed to be—more on this later), though it did involve one: this was a factual (at least, it was supposed to be) New York Times article about a literary feud between a woman called Dawn Dorland and another called Sonya Larson.
  2. The background: Dorland and Larson are acquaintances in the literary scene. Neither is especially successful, though Larson is more so. They have both taught creative writing at GrubStreet and belong to a writing group known as the “Chunky Monkeys”. Dorland recently made a non-directed kidney donation and posted about it on social media.
  3. The inciting incident: Dorland discovers that Larson is working on a kidney donation story, without having discussed it with her. Dorland is upset, but Larson denies anything but the vaguest influence of Dorland’s real-life experience on her piece.
  4. Dorland becomes increasingly obsessed with Larson’s story, particularly as it gains success, and feels that something is owed to her.
  5. Dorland discovers than an earlier draft of Larson’s story, released on Audible, used a letter that Dorland has posted to facebook almost verbatim.
  6. Dorland sues Larson for plagiarism.
  7. In a late twist, the subpoenaed group chats from Larson and the other Chunky Monkeys reveal that Larson had made disparaging comments about Dorland on multiple occasions, particularly in relation to her kidney donation, and was open about using Dorland’s letter. She was also, apparently, open about this with one of the organisations to which she submitted the short story, which may be useful to her defence on the plagiarism case. However, it seems she was never open about it to Dorland, steadfastly denying Dorland’s major influence on the story to Dorland herself until it was no longer deniable.

There are also any number of thinkpieces and explainers a quick DuckDuckGo search away, if you want more details without reading the whole thing.

In many ways, the story reads like an extended post to the ‘Am I the Asshole?’ subreddit, only written in the third person. Even the title—”Who Is the Bad Art Friend?”—shares something of that tone. In the language of the subreddit, my reaction to the piece was “Everyone Sucks Here”. My exact words, in a tweet on the 6th of October, were “The kidney story is excruciating because everyone involved fucking sucks. Like, do I sympathise with the off-putting narcissist or the person who made someone else’s kidney donation into burn book fodder and also somehow tried to make it seem racist” (I won’t bother linking to my tweets, since my account is locked). It was clear to me that Dorland’s behaviour was obsessive, and that she was self-serving and difficult to like. On the other hand, Larson’s mean-spiritedness on the group chat about someone who was obviously an emotionally vulnerable outsider to the group was repellent to me, and I felt that her refusal to admit to Dorland that she had been the inspiration for the story was telling. There was also, I felt, something about Larson’s own behaviour which smacked of narcissism. She had taken Dorland’s facebook posts, gauche and self-aggrandising as they might have been, unnecessarily personally; in her story, she made Dorland’s altruistic act into the behaviour of a clueless and patronising white saviour, and the recipient of the kidney an Asian-American woman who might plausibly be read as something of an authorial insert. To be clear, there is no indication that Larson had any connection to the real-life kidney’s recipient, who was an Orthodox Jewish man not identified in the article. She had felt that Dorland’s voluntary organ donation was something that required, in the words of one of the Chunky Monkeys, “a takedown”.

In all honesty, I might feel uncomfortable at being encouraged to donate a kidney myself. I can’t even give blood—I’m a fainter—and when friends posts pictures of themselves at the blood bank, needle in arm, I feel very phobic and vaguely sick (though I think they’re doing something wonderful, and I’d certainly never feel the need to “take them down” for it). Still, I recognised something in Larson’s reaction. It’s a reaction I’ve been on the receiving end of a number of times from people who eat meat. No matter how casually I mention that I’m a vegetarian, no matter how naturally it comes up in conversation, there is a certain type of meat eater who will take it as a personal affront to them. Often, they’ll try to twist it into me being problematic: “OH, so you’re saying that people who are STARVING in the YEMEN are EVIL if they eat meat?”. No, I’ll say; what a strange interpretation. Or they’ll tell me that, actually, soya milk is bad for the environment (yes, but most of it is grown as animal feed for the meat industry), or that I’m a hypocrite because of something I have neglected to cut out of my diet/wardrobe, and their moral purity for doing absolutely nothing at all is therefore spotless. Or they’ll start talking about protein (usually the ones with no muscle mass to speak of are the most interested in protein). It’s an intensely boring conversation which I have had countless times; I’m thinking of printing out a leaflet, something like “So you’re thinking of picking a fight with me because you think I give a shit whether you like burgers or not”. It’s a defensive response which is, I think, born out of cognitive dissonance and displaced guilt. I think these people, deep down, don’t really think they should at meat either (the ones who feel no guilt are capable of minding their own business). I think Larson recognises, deep down, that donating a kidney to someone you don’t even know is an intensely altruistic act; she can’t compute that someone she doesn’t respect, even actively dislikes, might be more capable of it than she herself is.

To me, the plagiarism aspect is a bit of a red herring; while copying Dorland’s letter almost verbatim certainly seems like crossing a line, I agree with the points of view that writers draw inspiration from real life all the time. Snippets of conversations I’ve had have certainly made their way into my own projects, and I’ve sometimes made the character who says them unsympathetic, if I found the conversation especially annoying (though I’ve never made fun of them to my friends in the guise of workshopping). I’ve also been on the other side of the equation: a friend once showed me a short story he had written in which, he freely admitted, one of the characters was based on me, or more specifically an encounter we’d once had outside a bar. In real life, we’re peers, with him slightly younger than me; in the story, he had made himself a professor and me a student. I found this amusing, telling, irritating; it didn’t ruin our friendship. What may, many years later, have ruined our friendship—at least, we seemed to lose touch soon after this—was professional jealousy. I got published before him (by a small, specialist press which closed down about a year later; no great shakes), and our friendship seemed to cool off even more than the natural drifting apart which had already happened by then. So on a small scale, some of this feels like familiar ground to me.

The fallout from the article has been something of a Rorschach test. The article mentions Larson comparing experiences of racism to the white-and-gold/black-and-blue dress debacle which set the internet aflame several years ago, and this seems like another such phenomenon. I was surprised, though, at just how many of the respondents were squarely in Larson’s corner. It appeared to be a truth universally acknowledged that “group chats get catty”—phrasing I saw again and again. Another variation on the theme went something along the lines of “let they who have never been bitchy in the group chat throw the first stone”.

Hmm. I have to admit I’m not much of a “group chat” person, and I’ve certainly been bitchy. But I can’t imagine belittling someone I know personally to this degree because I found their facebook posts annoying. That’s a level of juvenile pettiness even I haven’t stooped to as a full-grown adult, and I’m petty in the extreme. Sure, I might pick apart some political statement an acquaintance had made, or carp on a perceived slight or insult directed at myself or a friend, but making fun of someone at this level, for something that didn’t directly affect me at all? I don’t think I have.

But it seemed that, among the twitterati, this was accepted as perfectly normal behaviour. The more I read the responses defending Larson, the more I felt myself getting in Dorland’s corner. Reflecting on all of this, I tweeted that “I think something people need to reckon with is that whether behaviour is something they personally have done or can sympathise with has no bearing on whether or not it’s ethical. Also this projection that if they and their friends do it, that makes it normal/universal”. Speaking of projection, I was starting to project myself more and more onto the figure of Dorland, who evoked a deep pathos in me. I’m, let’s say, not everyone’s cup of tea; some people find me off-putting. I have what I describe as “Lisa Simpson energy”. I was bullied, extensively, as a child. I’d like to think I have a little more self-awareness than Dorland, as Kolker presents her, seems to; I’d like to think I’m not as obsessive as the Dorland in the article comes across. But of the two women, Dorland is the one I can see myself in more. The outsider. The weirdo. The perennial loser. I was starting to feel as if my fears were being confirmed: everybody (except me) was part of a “catty group chat”; most likely, they were being catty about me. So many people seemed to be singing this gospel that it was hard to doubt, even though my own experience, my own knowledge of my actual friends, seemed to go against it.

Celeste Ng is the most famous name directly involved in the story, though she’s very much a bit player in it. Ng, who frankly comes across much better in the article than she has subsequently in her attempts at damage limitation (or, less charitably, shit-stirring), tweeted on the 6th of October—the day after the article came out—that Dorland had pitched it to the Times herself. This sparked a new round of dunks on Dorland, to the tune of “how could she think this would reflect well on her?”. To me, it didn’t seem so strange. Dorland reached out to an advice podcast, but got no response; she’s socially excluded from the Chunky Monkeys; she’s looking for vindication. She’s also, most likely, looking for a book deal. Honestly, I admire the hustle and I hope she gets one, far more than I hope Larson gets to keep circulating her spiteful kidney story.

Anyway, I think that a fundamental source of dissension here is to do with attitudes towards privacy and etiquette, particularly online, where people can have very strong opinions about the “correct” way to comport oneself on social media which are not necessarily universal. In the article, the divide seems to be thus: Dorland is “public”, sharing her kidney donation news with the whole world and wanting praise; Larson is “private”, keeping everything on a group chat; the subpoena, then, is an invasion of her privacy.

More information has since emerged which complicates matters. As it turns out, Dorland is not as “public” as all that—she created a private facebook group to share information and updates about her donation, and invited Larson, whom she considered a close friend. Larson remained in the group, reading the posts but not reacting, even after Dorland reached out and asked whether she wanted to remain in the group (Larson didn’t respond). All the while, Larson was screenshotting the posts to share them with the Chunky Monkey friends, make fun of them, and use them as “literary” fodder without acknowledging any of this to Dorland, even after Dorland flat-out asked her about it. Many critics of Larson have called this gaslighting, and I’m inclined to agree. Not to mention that the group texts were made discoverable, not by any subpoena on Dorland’s part, but because of legal action that Larson herself initiated!

Still, whether this public/private divide really exists in the story itself, it certainly exists in perceptions of the story. I let myself get dragged into a little microcosm of this conflict myself. I QT’d a tweet from someone (a verified stranger whose tweet was RT’d into my feed) who was repeating the “Larson’s behaviour is normal and universal” line. I disagreed and… well… called them a psychopath. I did this from my main twitter account, which I keep locked so I don’t get dragged into beef with strangers, like, for example, in this case. Of course, when you QT from a locked account, the original tweeter gets a “ghost QT”—they can tell they’ve been QT’d, but not by whom or what has been said. The original poster replied to their tweet with “lol @ whoever QTed this from behind a locked account, it’s fine if you said something mean!”. I replied from a more or less defunct alt, which is public, explaining that I keep my main account locked for mental health reasons. “I understand it makes some people uncomfortable”, I added, “but that’s how I make twitter work for me, and QTs are the only way I can interact with tweets from accounts that don’t follow me.” Four days later, I still haven’t received a response (but OP has subsequently admitted that “normal people don’t” behave like Larson).

Of course, I’m being a little (or a lot) disingenuous, passing off my QT as harmless when, in fact, I called them a psychopath. In a way (a very small way), I’ve cast myself in the Larson role here, criticising someone in private and then lying about it. And the other, Team Larson person is pulling a bit of a Dorland move, noting a ghost QT and responding with (justified) paranoia. And, as in the Dorland and Larson story, I don’t think either of us comes out of the exchange particularly well. I’m even now using it as fodder for… whatever the hell this is supposed to be. Of course, there the similarities end. We don’t have any personal history together, I hope and trust our paths don’t cross again, and as far as I’m aware they’ve never donated a kidney.

I thought that my neat little public vs. private theory went some way to explaining how differently people were interpreting the story, but then I saw a tweet from Heidi N Moore which opened up a new and intriguing possibility: are all these people hanging out together? Is the weird sameness of all their tweets, the “throw the first stone”/”group chats get catty” refrain, something that was being workshopped in a Slack or in yet another group chat? This, to me, is even more convincing. The parroting of strangely similar viewpoints I noticed definitely seems like something which could emerge from insidery groupthink; it’s a rabbit hole I found myself falling down myself several years ago, during a period of mental health problems and social media addiction (I mean, I still have those, but it used to be worse). Moore and Dan Nguyen have been doing really excellent reporting and analysis of the story on twitter (see also kidneygate), which I won’t try to encapsulate here as if you care enough about any of this to have read this far then you should really just read it, but it seems clear that the NYT article left out some important context and that its framing was misleading (though nobody can deny that it was a good yarn). It seems like Larson wasn’t the only person who wrote fiction inspired by Dorland’s life which unfairly twisted her into a villain. In many ways, Kolker did too. And if he hadn’t done such a good job—if so many people hadn’t become so obsessed with the story (like me, but more so) that they read the actual court documents for the straight dope—then the tide of public opinion wouldn’t have so radically shifted to Dorland’s benefit in the past couple of days. Take Ng, who comes out of Kolker’s article very well—he stresses her “nuanced” response to the situation. As it turns out, thanks to the tireless twitter investigators, she seems to have coined the nickname “Dawn Fucking Dorland” in the group chat, and once texted Larson “DAWN DORLAND AND HER ONE KIDNEY CAN GO AND FUCK THEMSELVES” (caps hers). Kolker may not have intended it, but his article—misleading as it was—overturned this nasty little rock, and exposed all the squirming Chunky Monkeys to the sunshine. Ng may have intended her revelation that Dorland pitched the story to the NYT herself to undermine her, but in a roundabout way the story has done what Dorland must have wanted: it’s vindicated her, and made the Chunky Monkeys look as foolish as their name (it still amazes me that these people were the “cool kids” of the story, and goes to show how terminally uncool the literary world really is).

Maybe Dorland isn’t as obsessive or narcissistic as she comes across after all. Maybe she’s a nice lady who gave a stranger a kidney, and then was dragged mercilessly for it by a bunch of vindictive scolds. Or maybe, if that behaviour—as so many claim—is “normal” and “universal”, we could all stand to be a little more weird.