February 5, 2010

Against Religion and The Berserk Upcoming

The title of the novella has changed to The Berserk. But what my minimal but educational time spent in publishing has taught me is that a title is more likely to change than you’d think.

For instance: HP Lovecraft’s Against Religion was originally titled On Religion, with some subtitle I don’t even remember. And I vaguely remember there being even more titles being tossed about. Finally ST Joshi and I agreed on Against Religion. It was more forceful than On Religion, and I know that it speaks more to its audience than something more general–On Religion was more general. A note about that to those faithful who keep coming back for updates: We are speaking to distributors now, and shooting for a mid-March release. Also–the book will be available for digital purchase at a slight discount as well as in print, which is good news for all of you who’ve taken the step we will all eventually take.

And back to The Berserk, this novella I wrote that damnation books is publishing–I have never been so stumped on a title in my life. I made it clear early on that I wasn’t attached to any title for the book. I’d worked on it so long that my brain was fried, and I was unable to conceive of the book as a whole any more. I was, at the end of editing it for the millionth time, only able to think of the little ripple that every change I made in the process would change the work, and could not title it with confidence.

Thinking back, it may well have been my early detachment from the title that messed me up in the long run. Toward the end of my final edits I sat down with a few friends who’d read the book and we pitched on titles for an hour, coming up with about twenty. My editor and the publisher both had some ideas and feedback about as well. And it occurred to me as I went on worrying that there were too many fingers in the title-pie, or title-cooks in the title-kitchen.

Yet when I shut off the voices of my most trusted advisors and friends there was nothing but the ringing in my ears from going to too many rock concerts. The title was my idea, though–I was pitching titles via text to Amy Lawless and she found it acceptable. So I suppose in the end there was something left for me to say about the book. I didn’t poll all of those I’d spoken to about the title when I came up with The Berserk. I knew I would get a mixed reaction, as everyone had their own title aesthetic, and all of them were artists in their own right, so even at their most mild they would have an opinion, and I’d wind up scrapping the title and starting over.

Anyway–The Berserk is coming out on March 1st. It will be available as an ebook, print book, and all. In fact, damnation has a special deal where the first digital copy purchased is free, and each additional purchase escalates by just a few cents until it reaches its set price. So show up early to damnation on March 1st and you might get the book on the cheap or even free, you rascal, you.

December 30, 2009

The Swimmer

On Religion is still coming–no worries. I will bring more info as soon as we near a final, solid release date. Remember: small publishing could also be considered slow publishing. But soon, soon.

I’m also very excited to announce that my novella, The Swimmer, will be published by Damnation Books in the early spring.

Damnation is an indie publisher of horror and sci-fi and erotic novels. They’ve gotten many books under their belt and managed to survive, staking a claim in the future of information: digital distribution.

I am incredibly proud that they’ve decided to take The Swimmer aboard.

Finally, I have a short story available for purchase and free download in the new issue of Theaker’s Quarterly Fiction.

Thanks for checking in!

August 21, 2009

Superstition and the Inca in Peru

Ask any Western American how one might “jinx” something, and they will list any number of things that might cause a person, place or thing to be jinxed. You and someone else could say the same thing at the same time, bringing a bit of bad luck into your morning coffee. You could walk under a ladder, break a mirror, or admit success or security, to which you might knock on wood to save yourself any bad luck. Bad luck, of course, is an absurd misconception of how reality works. If you break a mirror, there is no one around–including any god–who will actually dedicate the time and attention it would require to make you feel “unlucky” for the next seven years, and knocking on wood won’t save you from cancer, or from having some horrible accident. Depending on where you live, how you live, and your health, your life will carry with it its shares of woes and triumphs–if you are a naturally bitchy person, you may think your luck is worse than others. It’s probably not: it’s just how you view things. How you view things won’t necessarily change your “luck,” but you may keep your friends longer, and generally have a better experience in this, the only life you will live.

I traveled to Peru this 09 summer. It was a beautiful, astonishing country, and the people there were kind. They seemed interested and caring enough to humor a US traveler’s terrible Spanish, and most Peruvians I met were proud of their country. I wrote about my experiences in Peru. It is an inspiring country. But I came away with an experience of religion that I thought worth sharing here, away from my other writing.

As for the religious climate in Peru, I encountered nothing especially fierce. I noted a reverence for the Inca from many people I met there–people who were willing to look past the terribly misguided priests and kings who ruled during the height of the Inca to the astonishing accomplishments of this people.

The Inca were savage murderers–we must be careful to note this as we admire them. At any Inca site of religious importance that I visited, it was noted to me that virginal women, children, and young men were often found mummified in nearby caves, or buried on site. The same goes for livestock. The noted illustrator and writer Guaman Poma writes how alpacas were sacrificed based on their color and gender–the differences usually relating to the specific ritual being performed. Imagine staring out at the sunset, where it cuts through the towering white caps of the Andes in the distance, while fifteen virginal women are made silly drunk, then stoned or skulled, followed by a hundred alpacas, then some infants for good measure, and thrown from a cliff into the valley–all in the name of securing fortune and abundance for the coming season.

I sometimes put myself in the shoes of the villagers who watched the priests making these sacrifices in the name of, well, luck. The purpose of knocking on wood and that of killing a baby is very similar in religion–avoiding bad luck. Of course, the Inca often sacrificed a great many livestock in order to ensure this good luck–they were destroying their stores of livestock in order to get more livestock. Another reason why the god-kings and warrior-kings and priest-kings may have sacrificed of all of this livestock was to show control over the people’s resources. No matter the full reasoning, these sacrifices were horrible, and to the Inca they appeared to work, because the Inca were a wealthy people who lived in abundance, and lived like this for a long while. It is believed that many of these Incans truly believed that these sacrificial events were working.

They also believed that celestial events were the gods themselves on the move, and they believed their rulers could speak with these gods. Now, the priests and the kings and the rulers, they may have been a bit more cynical about their religion. It is clear, after all, that they could predict celestial events with great accuracy. So if they could predict the events, why did they need to kill livestock and claim that these sacrifices were all that could change these events? They may have known that the killings had no effect, or been so indoctrinated as not to see beyond the veil. But I believe that the Incan people may not have believed, either. In fact, I think that some of the destruction of livestock and virgins may have horrified these people, but they saw it as an inevitable event, one that could only grow worse if they resisted. But again, these sacrifices mostly seemed to work, and work they did, for hundreds of years.

The Mayans had no such luck. Their collapse is attributed to many factors. It takes more than one disease to dissolve an entire nation, more than one war. But some believe that, while the god-kings and warrior-priests all went on slaughtering virgins, the luck had stopped coming–the virgin-killing wasn’t working. Yes, it is postulated that when the Mayan people stopped believing, when they lost their faith in their religious leaders, they simply walked back into the jungle, assuming a smaller, less brutal rural life.

Some believe that the great Macchu Picchu in Peru–a site of such majestic beauty that’s inspired me to return to the Andes as soon as possible–was not abandoned for the sake of the Spanish, or the collapse of that nation, but because nothing they were doing, no prayer, sacrifice, or quarantine, was stopping the spread of malaria. Indeed, one mass grave was found with un-mummified bodies all dead of malaria, most of them women. It can be difficult to sacrifice a virgin when she is already dying of malaria. The vigor and dynamism of life is gone, and so there is no poetry in the slaughter.

But humans are humans: we go on destroying and building and rising and falling, and have done since the dawn of our time. So as much as I am disappointed by the religion of the Incas, I am far more impressed by the beauty of their lasting architectural and cultural achievements. I do not for a moment forgive them their foolish murderousness, but I admire their greatness.

I also admire the Quetchua people–of whom I met a few on my trip. They again were very proud of their heritage and their country. And I found this not only in the porters and the guides tasked with handling a big sickly American like me, but the middle class who sought out their national treasures on special weekends, and delighted in the quality of their homes, careers, and animals (from guinea pigs to dogs to llamas).

I heard superstitious talk from our guide in the Andes, Jose. This was an intelligent man, an intellectual, about my age. He had lived in Cuzco but also spent time in the mountains with his father, farmed, taught himself English and Spanish (his native language is Quetchua). He did not merely recite card-like explanations of the sites. Rather, he maintained relationships with the excavators on the sites, read widely and continued to read on the developments historians were making on the Inca. He maintained a diplomatic tone when speaking of the thieves at Yale who hold hundreds if not thousands of Inca artifacts hostage in one of their dreary history departments, in the US, and was willing to share his views on politics and his people after getting to know us a bit better.

He also explained that his dreams were clairvoyant, that he could read them as absolute predictions of certain events, and that depending on how one passed a dish at dinner they either attracted friendship from their fellow diner or a new nemesis. And so much of these superstitions could be life or death–it seemed. I can not remember the specifics, but I remember him saying that in a dream he saw a dog, and afterword became sick with a cold. He surmised that the dog was a sign of illness. It is also bad luck to sell a guinea pig. Each Quetchua acts on their superstitions, but most probably break the rules–Surprise! Like any good religion, the majority of the congregation are the real sinners. Jose used to sell guinea pigs when he was younger for money, and though it was considered very bad mojo to remarry, he had done it himself. Just like, sometimes, when we talk about how well we’re doing, we knock on formica instead of wood, and say, “Oh, that’ll do. It’s the thought that counts.”

Some westerners might be mortified by the superstitions of the Quetchua, but they are actually quite similar to ours…only different. I wish, however, that Jose did not have to feel bad for selling a few guinea pigs in the bad old days, just as none of us should feel too bad about walking under that ladder yesterday. Bad things happen to good people.

Observing superstition as an outsider, I certainly enjoyed a more objective perspective. Where I find superstitious USers to be some of the most annoying people I’ve met, I liked and respected Jose, and found his superstition endearing and much more imaginative and feature-rich than our dull rabbits’ feet. So long as he didn’t read the bones in order to decide which path we’d go down on the mountains, instead of using his years of experience, I would have followed him anywhere.

May 24, 2009

Reading Poems in NYC

I’ll be reading from my book of poems, LUX (Black Maze Books, 09), at Revival in Union Square on Tuesday, June 2nd.

Please come out, introduce yourself-I’d love to meet some readers and supporters of the blog!

Tuesday, June 2nd, 7:00PM (I’ll read around 8.)

In the garden out back, if weather permits.

Revival

www.revivalbarnyc.com

129 E 15th St
New York, NY 10003
(212) 253-8061

May 10, 2009

Lovecraft’s Against Religion’s Cover

Sporting Gentlemen, it is my pleasure to reveal the cover of Mr. Lovecraft’s book, Against Religion. There are a few tweaks upcoming, but, essentially, what you see is what you get. This cover was designed and illustrated by Mr. Mike Force, the newest addition to the Sporting Gentlemen’s core think-team.

againstclouds2

Needless to say, we’re very excited.

April 28, 2009

HP Lovecraft Was An Atheist

As some of you know, I’ve been making sporadic posts about my involvement as the publisher of Against Religion, by HP Lovecraft, edited and introduced by ST Joshi with a foreword by Christopher Hitchens. In order to raise interest in the book, and see that it reaches a proper audience, I will continue to post small pieces of the book I’ve found especially interesting. The following quote reminds me of Dawkins’ argument against indoctrinating children into religion.


We know today, through psychology, that any belief or emotional bias, no matter how untrue or absurd, can be implanted in the brain and nervous system of a human being with tremendous force and firmness if the victim be inoculated with it in infancy. A person thus subjected to indoctrination with some special idea at an age under seven will always have a deeper instinctive predisposition toward that idea—but this has nothing to do with the truth of the idea. There is no natural leaning toward religion. Originally, it merely attempts to explain the unknown through poetic symbolism and crude personification; today it survives among the less analytical majority merely because they lack scientific information, and because their emotional apparatus has been permanently biassed or crippled by religious propaganda hammered into them in childhood, before their mind and emotions had developed beyond the infantile state of helpless and uncritical receptivity. It is really a crime against a child to attempt to influence his intellectual belief in any way. (p. 25)

As I read the book I was inspired to see the many points Lovecraft argues that we see today in the atheist cause. Joshi’s book really highlight’s a single man’s struggle to live as an intellectual and an atheist at a time where atheists were not only in the minority, but were not seeing the opportunity for recognition that we’ve seen today for such figures as Dawkins and Dennet. Although a release date for the book remains uncertain, you can check back here for updates, and expect it on shelves before the 2009 holidays.

April 15, 2009

Countdown to AGAINST RELIGION

As Against Religion: The Atheist Writings of HP Lovecraft, edited and introduced by ST Joshi with a Foreword by Christopher Hitchens nears release, I will begin posting tidbits of the book within here.

All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world, or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don’t regard them as arrant and negligible moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of radical evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chances of theism’s truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else. (from Section I of Against Religion)

Although we do not have a proper release date yet, we are pleased to announce a partnership with SOTA Toys. A group of magnificent sculptors are crafting some excellent imaginings of Lovecraft’s Elder Gods. Below is an image of the Nylarhotep resin statue:

They will be helping us with the cover production. Also, we will be working with many atheist blogs and websites to promote the book. If there are any blogs, podcasts, radio shows, reviewers, etc, who want to help us with this part of the campaign, feel free to contact us.

January 16, 2009

Working with Christopher Hitchens

Allow me to start with the news: I will be publishing:

WHAT I HAVE AGAINST RELIGION: THE ATHEIST WRITINGS OF HP LOVECRAFT
Edited with an Introduction by S.T. Joshi, with a foreword by Christopher Hitchens.

It was a fast process, arranging this book with these mighty intellectual atheists. Both have their own books on God and religion, both have edited readers on atheism and religion, and both are highly visible in this small world. Both men have been extremely helpful in guiding me through this process. Mr. Joshi enthusiastically told me about the project when I asked him whether he would be interested in working with me on a book. Hitchens quickly agreed to write a foreword. It would have been hard to imagine, as a meager blogger quoting Hitchens, that such a coup would be possible.

The book is slated to be published in Winter, 2009 (a ways, away, I know), but I’ve read it, of course, and it is amazing to read Lovecraft taking up major points in religion and science. Joshi’s introduction is enlightening re: Lovecraft’s life in atheism. I am pleased to say, that is, that although this blog may not have seen in update in a year, there are big news on the horizon.

FURTHER:

No, I’m not dead.

About a month ago last year, I posted a last post regarding AA, and moved forward. I knew this blog wouldn’t last forever: maintaining and updating a blog (a blog without research, let alone one that attempts some responsibility to outside sources) is a time-consuming, life-consuming affair.

Around December I began my second semester as a professor of literature. I started another blog exclusively for the class. With that blog, my blog-count was up to three active and running blogs. One, or three for that matter, was destined to get out from under me.

Believe it or not, I didn’t feel too much blog-guilt. I really enjoyed collecting my thoughts, I found a measure of success in being recognized by other atheists and theists, and it was more productive than talking others’ ears off, reading, and doing nothing else. Any thinking, doubting man or woman is on a spiritual journey, but not all step out to try their hand at communicating with others about their ideas. It felt good, and I commend those who continue pressing on in raising consciousness. I want to thank all of those who have bothered to read these essays, and especially thank all of those who took up the gauntlet and argued with me.

But, it should be said, I’ve changed in this past year. When I reflect upon ritual and religion, I tend to think it almost moot, and I meditate more on issues now a bit challenging to me: civil rights and constitutional freedoms. Also, I began refocusing on my creative work. I self-published a book of poems, and founded a small press to publish others.

My life thusfar has been one more focused on books- it seems, and I have returned to this blog to let all of you know that I have not finished contributing to this on-going debate re: religion. WHAT I HAVE AGAINST RELIGION will be another massive contribution to the growing literature on atheism. Look for it in Winter, 09. Check back here in a few months. Maybe I’ll update!

I probably won’t, but I’ll be sure to post when this great book sees print.

I hope you enjoy our new President.

December 6, 2007

Is AA a Cult?

Will argued against my statement that AA was a cult in the following comment:

will
November 27, 2007 at 4:18 am

I disagree with your assessment of AA as a cult. According to your link “Three ideas seem essential to the concept of a cult. One is thinking in terms of us versus them with total alienation from ‘them.’ The second is the intense, though often subtle, indoctrination techniques used to recruit and hold members. The third is the charismatic cult leader.”

In my experience with AA, there was no central figurehead, no emphasis on alienation (although we were encouraged not to hang out with old drinking buddies in bars – duh), and apparently the indoctrination techniques weren’t too effective – I haven’t been to a meeting in years.

I expect there ARE AA groups that fit this description, and they should be driven before the whip as all cults should. But it is a disservice to drunks everywhere to so inappropriately describe AA in general.

Will, I think that in AA, there certainly is doctrine, and their certainly is indoctrination, and that, as a social network, AA can be very exclusive, and exclusionary.

Yes, it does not go as far as other cults or religions. But sponsors often encourage disconnection from people who may be suppressive persons (old drinking buddies, past lovers, even family members) who may encourage or remind the person in recovery of drinking or other substance abuse.

Often a person in AA recovery supplants entire support networks of old friends, family, loved ones and business friends in favor of newer, less reliable friends who run the risk of defaulting and returning to alcohol themselves. Note that I used the word “disconnect” above. To those of us who know a little of Scientiology, this is a term often used by Scientologists in terms of excluding members of Scientology who move away from the religion, or those who may influence current members to move away from the religion themselves. These people are often called suppressive persons or “SP’s”, and when labeled this are henceforth considered direct threats to the religion and its members.

AA does have several figureheads: Bill Wilson and Bob Smith among them (both founders of the organization). AA administrators run their groups in varying ways, and there are even agnostic groups common among AA. But I think that in general AA works very much like a religion. A higher power is necessary, and I hate to say it, but reasonable AA members tend to cherry-pick their way around the original idea of the supernatural and exchange it for the idea of a “higher power”–but this is more often than not meant to be a power that engenders spiritual transcendence, which is at its root a religious idea.

In my experience with AA– you are correct–many AA members find after two or three years in the program, that they do not need to attend daily meetings, or even monthly meetings, in order to stay sober. My opinion of AA has changed a little since this post, but I maintain that AA is very much a religion, and it certainly has “sects” that are very much like operating religions (or “cults”–which are, as far as I’m concerned for the sake of this argument, one in the same)– they require intense, life-changing beliefs and behaviors, they are rife with chants and rituals, and they are incredibly insulated and isolated social networks that locate their lifestyles within supernatural foundations.

This fits the bill for me, and perhaps not you.

*

BUT, I do not intend to do a disservice to drunks. I have the utmost regard for alcoholics and other addicts attempting to “take the cure.” I do not drink–I plan, eventually, to drink again–but I used to, and I drank a lot, and found it difficult to stop. I attended an AA meeting with an open mind, and could not take part in their ritual-system (religion), because it seemed unnecessary to me, and I do not find solace or guidance in religion. I respect those in AA’s privacy, so will respect their wish that I do not speak of that meeting outside of the church.

But I will say that a lot of very brave people combat a serious problem in their lives with AA, and I wish them the best of luck with it. Just like with “the golden rule” in Christianity, there are certain nuggets of good ol’ kindness and reason with AA. I just don’t think that a supernatural, god-based organization is necessary to combat such demons, so to speak.

December 6, 2007

Jen4 On Circumcision

A couple of days ago, a woman expecting a child posted a comment on the lengthy (and seemingly eternal) discussion between myself and a few others on the blog (see here for a start, and thanks for reading).

I think that Jen4 eloquently extends an argument against circumcision, and Jen’s authority is, when it boils down, that of a mother about to make that decision for her child.

A few comments in response follow her statement which appears her in toto:

Jen4
November 28, 2007 at 4:29 pm

I have read this entire thread. I am eight months pregnant with our son. I wish he was a daughter. Then we could have a baby naming celebration and celebrate birth without bloodletting. I am the child’s mother, I am the only person who is supposed to experience pain associated with childbirth.

My husband wants to circumcise our son so he will “look the same.” He is a secular Jew and could care less about having a ceremonial bris. But it matters whether his son will feel alien among other Jewish boys. Or whether he as a father will feel alienated from an uncut son. I can’t even begin to understand this and it is clearly a deeper irrational need than my husband can articulate.

He hated Hebrew school, is perfectly willing to forgo any religious approach in his daily life, he doesn’t keep kosher, he regards Shabbat dinner with relatives as an annoyance rather than a pleasure. But the most violent vestigial blood sacrifice of Judaism is the one he can’t question and can’t reject.

As my girlfriend says, “you just can’t question men and their penises.”

I agree with Alex and Tony.

I think there is no rational justification for consenting to my son’s circumcision. The medical benefits are vastly overstated. I am not concerned so much about the infintesimal risks, and I think my son will more likely than not be as accepting as circumcision as his dad– but I am deeply concerned about inflicting pain on a defenseless baby for no good reason other than cosmetics. (And yes, I have put my daughter through routine vaccinations and significantly more painful lead blood tests because these are medically warranted, and because vaccines strengthen (rather than weaken) an immune system against deadly diseases in most cases).

Joshua’s arguments are weak and unconvincing. Sorry, Josh, you put up a good effort but I think that your defense of routine infant circumsion is essentially: “Everybody’s doing it, you can’t stop it, therefore, everybody should continue doing it.”

It’s stupid, circular and irrational and I think Joshua just wants to have his own sons circumcized and be able to rationalize it as “AIDS prevention” as opposed to unthinkingly, witlessly, unquestioningly perpetuating a collective and sanctioned pattern of child abuse.

My husband wishes I would stop thinking about this issue. It is easier to circumcise your child when you don’t think and don’t ask questions, and don’t admit to or examine your true reasons and motivations.

He just wants his son to “look like him” and avoid bucking the group (cattle) mindset that advocates circumcision.

If your first impulse as a parent is to protect your child, than you have to stop thinking or asking questions in order to consent to routine circumcision.

I will not be signing any consent forms. However, I will not stand in the way of my husband’s circumcising our son because on a deep visceral level, I think I will be putting my marriage at stake if I do and otherwise, my husband has proven himself with his daughter to be a deeply caring and loving father & person with whom I want to maintain a good relationship.

That being said, I hope that in the excitement & confusion of my son’s delivery and birth, my husband develops a case of amnesia and forgets to request a circumcision. I certainly won’t be reminding him.

I have to say that it takes a lot of courage to express such a personal conflict, and I applaud you, Jen, on sharing this with the readership here.  But I must take issue with something at play: There are two distinct issues here, the first being that of your love and respect of your husband as both a father and a companion, and the second your acceptance (albeit with disgust), of the status quo.

You’re right: fathering itself (support, both emotional and financial, etc) is gigantically more important than circumcision, but you are in a unique position to defend your child from the status quo. You’re reasonable enough to see the fatal flaw in circumcision, and it sounds like your husband has accepted this ritual (because that is exactly what it is: a dry husk that used to be a Jewish ritual), mainly because he’s worried that his dick won’t look like his son’s.

I suppose that all I can say in response is that I feel your pain (and moreso your child’s). No, I don’ t think you son will be forever scarred psychologically by the circumcision. He’ll probably forget the pain and brutality of the act quickly. But on the same token, I must ask of people who are intelligent as you: When will it end? If we’re intelligent enough to understand that it’s a medieval act of no consequence save some old tradition, then why can’t we–of all people–stop it in our own children?

I feel a bit sick with guilt for pushing you further on this, as I already admire you for your intelligence, reason, and bravery, and your consideration and compassion alone separate you from a lot of parents who just do this kind of stuff unthinkingly, and it seems like you and your husband have had some weird, important conversations about stuff like this, because you’re reasonable, loving people, who want to do best by their children.