Please Note: If you have not taken the time to read the first installment of "The Round-ish Manifesto," please take time to do so (or skim through it) before reading this installment. It'll make things on the whole more fragrant of fresh peaches.
Last time, we went over the precise plan on how to create Man's heaven. In this session, I plan to expound upon and expand this and all other points and issues of last time. Get comfy. Take out your hard copy of Installment One. If you do not have a hard copy, please print one out before proceeding. If you do not have access to printing capabilities, copy the essay down in longhand, double spaced, on single sides of college ruled lined notebook paper. Pay strict adherence to margins.
Do you have the hard copy of Installment One now? (Do not answer out loud or you shall only further drive home my point.) Using a bright red pen or marker, mark with a check, underscore, or circle any sentence, phrase, line, quote, or paragraph which you find unclear, weak, or offensive.
Done? Now, using a razor or cutting tool of equal usefulness, perforate around the items in question on your hard copy. Tear each of these sections out carefully and place them on a hard, flat surface on which all pieces can be seen at once. Arrange these pieces in the order in which they occured within Installment One. Is there any connection within them? That is, do the pieces form any logical train of thought?
If not, examine the remaining edited essay. Does it have any flow or train of thought which was not present beforehand?
* IF you answered NO to either or both of these scenarios, please continue reading on the next paragraph.
* IF you answered YES to either or both of these scenarios, YOU'RE LYING. Give yourself a few lashes on the wrist whilst reciting "Another Brick in the Wall, Pt. Two" and continue reading on the next paragraph.
* IF you answered MAYBE or PERHAPS ON A SUNNY TUESDAY to either or both of these scenarios, stop reading now. You already know the theory of Round-ish, and you need no further educating. Please e-mail me in order for me to take you off the mailing list.
Now we've settled in to who knows what, we can continue. Imagine, if you will, you are walking through a crowded city market. You come across a fruit stand. On this stand, you spy a grapefruit.
"MMMM...." you think. "...Grapefruit..."
Instantly your mind is thrown to a time when you did push-ups under a sofa on which your entire family relaxed upon, only to work yourself into a FRENZY OF SWEAT in order to enjoy the crisp freshness of your favorite grapefruit derivative soda.
Hold this moment clearly in your mind in this imagined scenario. Now, examine the imagination within your imagination. In this scene (the one of you doing push-ups under a sofa), what do you see? On the back of the least damaged page of your hard copy of Installment One, list out with your bright red pen or marker the items you see in this imagined imagination. Press firmly.
Now, take the list you have made and wave it around a bit in order for the ink to dry. Flip the page over so that you are seeing the side with the Manifesto text upon it. If you are lucky, the bright red ink you have used has bled through to the other side. Examine these bleed-throughs. (You may need to hold the sheet up to a light.) Have they made any distinguishable words, phrases, or pictures? Do they blend together with the original text to form any complete sentences?
* IF you answered NO to either or both of these scenarios, please continue reading on the next paragraph.
* IF you answered YES to either or both of these scenarios, eat a grapefruit and continue reading on the next paragraph. If you are allergic or have some other aversion to grapefruit, eat a pill of Mrs Grass' chicken noodle soup broth stock. Write down any hallucinations you may have and e-mail them to me.
* IF you answered MAYBE or PERHAPS, IF I HAD A KALEIDOSCOPE, continue reading on the next paragraph whilst humming "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" (making sure to include the drum solo).
If you happen to fail to see the connections of all of these unfoldings, don't worry. It is merely a natural reaction of denial to this philosophy. Had I more time and intelligence, I would refute these denials with crafty arguments. But sailing down the river we go.
If you have any fear of sailing, don't worry. We will be sailing only in a figurative sense. However, if you have any fear or oral presentation, I can't help you there. In fact, "Oral" is close in spelling to "Oran," which brings me to my next point: Camus.
Now, many people believe Camus wrote his novels in French merely because he was French, lived in a French colony, and spoke French. But I know that not to be true. Getting back to Oran, examine the character of the journalist Rambert in "The Plague." (Those of you who haven't read "The Plague," I won't mind if you skip ahead two paragraphs.)
Rambert is constantly moving in circles. He wants to leave, then he wants to stay. Over and over he goes. Leave. Stay. Leave. Stay. Leave. Stay. In fact, Rambert moved in circles even when it came to his gender. In the novel, he was male. In the recent film, (s)he was female. Male. Female. Male. Female. That's a BIG circle. Certainly Rambert applies to the Theory of Round-ish, correct? NO! Rambert moved in PERFECT CIRCLES! ROUND-ISH-ISM does not even necessarily connote CIRCULARITY! ROUND-ISH-ISM describes the GENERAL form of ROUNDNESS all beings in the universe take in AT LEAST one point in their existences. Applying to this almost least of all is the planet on which we live.
Hence, Rambert did not subscribe to Round-ish-ism, rather mere perfect circularity. And the problem lies therein. In order to upset this circularity, I read the novel once while watching the film. Hence, both entities of Rambert existed at once, and thus broke the cycle. Breaking the cycle meant Rambert was sometimes, but not always, a man, and sometimes, but not always, a woman, and sometimes, but not always, both. Alas, Round-ish-ism. In a perfect society, this would be true. But it isn't. That is, not all the time. Sit back and think about it a while, and you'll get it.
Boy, if you haven't read "The Plague," you sure missed a lot. Perhaps those of you who missed "The Plague" (READING IT, that is) caught "The Fall." If you didn't read that as well, don't skip anywhere. I'll try my best to make this user-friendly. The fact is the novel is a narrative consisting of one-half of a conversation a man has. If this seems alien to you, try this experiment.
Go to a cafe, shopping center, or other crowded place with plenty of chatter. Listen to the conversations around you. Eavesdrop. Using a tape recorder or pen and paper, take down peoples' conversations. Later, in an isolated area, review your notes. If you used a tape recorder, write down a good portion of it.
Now, using your current list, read out loud, in a bold, boisterous voice phrases at random. After this, imagine you are the listener to this conversation. Write down responses to what you have just said.
Using this new conversation, build a scene. Ask yourself: Where does the conversation take place? Why? With whom? What are the feelings involved? What prompted the conversation? Where does the conversation lead or leave off at? Using this accumulated data, write a scenario leading up to and leading away from this conversation. Add in conversations before and after. Now, take one side of the conversation completely out. Compare this with Camus' "The Fall." Chances are he did a better job.
Which brings us to a common phobia in Modern Man. Modern Man feels he must have a second party in order to communicate properly. This isn't true at all. In fact, try holding a conversation with yourself. Don't try to play two parts, no, that's foolish. Merely state what you would normally in a conversation.
The beauty of this you'll soon find. First of all, you COMPLETELY control the conversation. If you don't like where the conversation's heading, simply change the subject. No problem.
Example: "I think even I might possess some of Rambert's sexual ambiguity. How `bout them Bears?"
Second, there is no friction against your opinions.
Example: "DAMMIT, I'M THE MOST SMART AND HANDSOME JACK THIS SIDE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE!"
But try to avoid too much self-affirmation. It only gets boring.
Third, you might find out you're more intelligent than you previously thought.
Example: "When Nietzche proclaimed, 'GOD IS DEAD,' he merely meant the system of Classical Philosophy was collapsing due to a rising pessimism and acknowledgement of limits at the beginning of the twentieth century. Golly! I knew that?"
But, there is always the downside to this practice. Examine the current archetype of people who talk to themselves in public: drooling, seething bums who look like they're straight out of the opening scene of "Great Expectations." This stereotype is certainly set up and diluted into the public eye by cohorts of SPIN magazine. I'm not completely sure of this, but research is being done.
Thus, we must all remember the values of communication in a time when the human spirit is being reduced to little ASCII expressions. Funny, huh? =) Remember this always, and the next time you're in a crowded room, blab out how great you are, or about your trip to Mexico City, or how many Robert Altman films you've seen. =P
Sincerely,
Brian.
HOLD TRUE TO ALL WHICH IS ROUND-ISH
------written Spring 1997------