Welcome to the conversation!

rosepetal, let me chime in with toramenor here in saying that this is a powerful poem, and how good it is that you have a way to process and express all the beauty and sorrow of life. I love the phrase, "when normal blew away" -- it's so true that hurricanes blow away so much more than objects. Sometimes, in a metaphorical sense, having normal blown away from us is, in the long run, a kindness, but it's never easy in the moment and in the case of the kind of disaster you experienced, I think Voltaire was right to chide folks who intone that "all's for the best in this best of all possible worlds" (Candide).

I've also been having some challenges getting here due to RL stuff going on, but trust that a slow conversation can still be a good conversation.

nikki, I'm sorry I took so long to begin responding to your post, but I have been loving your immersion in QAL ... many of the posts you have written about the concerts have been mesmerizing, too. There have also been some great posts in the daily news thread lately, both thoughtful and funny, and I always think it's great when we can keep it all together in one place -- I know lots of people prefer that, and it's just that when it gets busy that we need to reserve the daily thread strictly for news.

nikki said:

At my first concert, I had the pleasure of meeting Roy, and I felt a few pangs of jealousy that he travelled the world following the concerts. I know nothing about him, really, but I felt that longing to be free in that way, just to do as I pleased for an extended time, rather than in short bursts. My life is one of incredible privilege compared to ninety-five percent of the world’s population, and I did feel quite ashamed of myself that enough didn't seem enough. Another reminder of the danger of comparison and looking outward, and another exercise in self-discipline and gratitude. Mindfulness was mentioned later in this thread, so yes, again, constantly.

mirages said:

Oh, man, do I feel you on that one! Constant reminders to be grateful for what I do have and not envy what I don't. Or, better, to just be present in this one completely sufficient and really kind of glorious moment. Oh, and then, if I manage it for any length of time, then I think I'm a hero and deserve a treat for heaven's sake, when the treat is really having delivered myself from the clutches of envy for a minute. Urgh!

nikki said:

If it’s ok, I’d like to go back to my initial conversation with mirages and just finish off a few thoughts before moving on.

mirages said:

Yes, please! I think "After Hours" is a good place for time-lapse conversations.

nikki said:
I think, in part, we are made to feel ridiculous and we have internalised why, and others have done so as well. And unlike Adam, and for women in particular given our socialisation, it can take a long time to master the art of, I don’t care what you think.

The experience of fandom for young and adolescent girls is analysed in patronising terms as primarily a safe psychosexual phase that will and ought to be ‘grown out of’ or normed and controlled into an appropriate expression for adult women. Therefore it is seen as regressive and pathologised in older women, no matter what the basis of attraction is for each individual as young women or as adults.

mirages said:

Oh my goodness, there is almost nothing as okay-to-ridicule in this world as a "woman of a certain age," unless it's being overweight, and if you combine those two with the sin of making yourself Visible, then heaven help you! I remember feeling almost sick watching the stage play of "Mama Mia," which I took my daughter to because she loves Abba music -- the clown of the whole thing was an older, rounder woman who had the temerity to try to MOVE, to dance, to fall in love and enjoy herself right out there in the marketplace ... I don't understand it, shouldn't we be applauding someone who retains or rediscovers the capacity for life in themselves? Doesn't that enlarge us all? Man, but older women are being told in no uncertain terms to stay in the back ground, or better yet, to stay home! Is it because many women that age are mothers/grandmothers and there is a threat in the form of lost care/nurturing if they start living their own lives?

nikki said:

The experience of fandom for young and adolescent girls is analysed in patronising terms as primarily a safe psychosexual phase that will and ought to be ‘grown out of’ or normed and controlled into an appropriate expression for adult women. Therefore it is seen as regressive and pathologised in older women, no matter what the basis of attraction is for each individual as young women or as adults.

Women are also made impassive in this view, being the subject of and (sexually) manipulated by more powerful males both on and off the stage to the point of loss of control – hence all the descriptors and judgement of hysteria, obsession and losing our minds. A more empowering view is that women young and older simply like the exhilaration of being free – to scream if they want, dance, let go and have fun, feel sexually excited in a way that can’t be controlled by others, fantasise.

mirages said:

This reminds me a little of the terror that the old cults of Diana and Dionysus struck into the hearts of men ... rituals which encouraged women to abandon their passivity and become free and joyous, to go out into the forest, to hunt, to dance, to be ecstatic. The cults were ruthlessly persecuted by the early Christian church, but the fear remained and later much of the imagery and verbiage that had been used to demonize the devotees of Diana and Dionysus were also used to demonize other women, usually older widows living on the margins of villages. They, too, were accused of being worshippers of strange gods, lovers of devils, sacrificers of children ...

nikki said:

I have rarely seen fandom analysed so condescendingly for young men in general – their experience is validated simply because it is male, in a way denied to us as the 'other' – identification needs etc are being met if the fandom is for a sport (for older men and women as well) and it is otherwise quite ok for men in any context if it is a pop/rock star or band.

What’s also interesting is the reaction of my friends to my ‘fandom’ over time. When it first began, my sister absolutely understood and validated me – to the point of encouragement. Like you mentioned, she was happy to see more fun in my life, rather than such a focus on fulfilling responsibilities.

My other very close friends were also initially very supportive, but not to the point of encouragement. I’ve never had a habit of discussing Adam very frequently with them, but they pretty much shut down my excitement over the recent concerts, probably because they thought I would have/should have outgrown such ‘adolescent’ displays by now. And it was the women, rather than the men. It hurt, because I thought they understood better.

mirages said:

I'm sorry to hear that the folks you wanted to share your joy with just didn't know how to hold and return it to you. I've gotten a lot of bemused glances from friends, and some grumbling because I went to TWO QAL concerts. HEY! there were two in my home province, only three hours apart by car, and I've Never Seen Adam Live Ever!!!  I considered telling them that many people on a board I read regularly were seeing many more concerts than that, but decided it wouldn't really improve matters

nikki said:

I really appreciate comedians – the modern court jesters who won’t lose their heads for telling the truth. I also loved Russell's choice of heroes – they would all have been included on my list. I saw Chris Rock a few years ago and two of his major themes are racism and sexual politics. I can remember sitting there thinking, “You’re not going to say that, you’re not going to say that!” and yes, he did and it was thrilling, just as thrilling as when Adam speaks without his ‘filter’ sometimes.

mirages said:

I haven't listened to much of his stuff, but I'll definitely check him out on your recommendation -- thanks!


nikki said:

The hero’s journey is a powerful inspiration. So too is the power of the muse. I relate to Adam more from a muse perspective; there is something about marvelling at some unattainable heroic characteristic that ought to be worshipped that doesn't ring true for me with Adam. The muse, like Adam himself is about inspiration as a vehicle to attaining our own inner mastery and expression; it is a statement of fundamental equality and I believe he very consciously wants to interact with people in this way.

mirages said:

Yes -- as I was saying to toramenor above, there is a lank of blank space in Adam that makes it hard to project ourselves onto him, quite apart from his very explicit preference that we please do our own thing. "Muse" is a better positive formulation ... I keep thinking of Joseph Campbell's "follow your bliss" because it feels like an inexplicable sort of bliss to me to follow this young gay guy I never intend to meet. And in the Campbell sense, bliss is also a sign pointing the way, as a muse inspires you to move or paint or write or sing. Bliss is the lithmus test for authenticity, in a way.

nikki said:
I have worked in roles in very large and profitable companies where I’ve sat round the table, often with organisation psychologists and listened to debates centred on increasing customer and employee ‘engagement’. Really, it is all about overtly manipulating the best aspects of human nature and I couldn’t stomach it in the end.

mirages said:
What did you choose to do instead? I've been a communications specialist for a couple of decades and mostly that involves finding ways to tell my client's story in the best light possible, in the way that will most appeal and make sense to a particular audience. I love to learn and love to write, so for the most part it's been fun. But recently I found myself having trouble believing my own copy and had to stop, at least for a while. I'm fortunate to be able to take a short hiatus and try to reinvent myself, and it's good maybe to get shaken out of the "But I've always done this" rut and look over the edge at the wide world of possibilities out there.

nikki said:
I’ve also met Adam twice. The first time he was rushing and running behind time after doing a TV interview before his concert. He was lovely and he made the experience lovely, but he was in business mode, even though he still genuinely seems to like to meet new people. He's not a saint and did nothing wrong. The second time, there were no time pressures, he was very relaxed, his eyes and gaze were relaxed and you knew you were talking to an intensely sweet and astonishingly open human being for a couple of minutes.

I’m not naïve about business and I understand that he needs to flourish on this level as well, but I am idealistic about him and I simply want to quarantine the artist and human being because that is what is so precious to me.

mirages said:
I think Adam is a very canny businessman, and that his very high EQ may have been both a blessing and a curse for him in terms of his own authenticity -- I think he has to work at that "realness" thing, but that's good because it means it's important to him. Being able to "code-switch" to adopt a communication style customized to your current interlocutor/audience is a great asset, but I sometimes wonder how much of the "real" Adam we see ... which is a silly question, really, because the "real" Adam is someone with highly developed communication and interpersonal skills and so NOT to use those strengths to be the most persuasive or attractive you you can be would be inauthentic, in a way. Plus, he is comfortable with the many Adams inside him, of various genders. Look at the difference between Adam the nice-guy-next-door-with-a-smile-and-an-edge during packages on Idol, the fierce and erotic Adam onstage in "Ring of Fire" or "WLL" and the Adam on his way into RuPaul's drag race -- the guy with the hair extensions wearing his drag mother's fringed poncho.  Oh, yeah, and the guy stomping from the limo to the QAL backstage like a stevedore, and the one workin' the catwalk like a supermodel 30 minutes later. Well, and Miss Thang, of course.

I have no idea who or how Adam "really" is when he's home alone with nobody to play to, but his close family and community of long-term friends convince me that it's someone good, and I'm glad for that.  Now that he's established himself financially and in terms of his vocal prowess with the Queen gig and the huge respect Brian and Roger show him, I'm very much looking forward to seeing and hearing who shows up on A3.

Ohh, I love Dostoyevsky. Solzhenitsyn, too.

And, like your dad, I'm not normally drawn to scifi/fantasy work, but whenever a friend has recommended a book or series in that genre, I've really enjoyed it and come away with images that, as you say, speak just as truly (and often more vividly) than those of the more realist writers I do gravitate to. I love Tolkien, and still think "Narnia Chronicles" are the best theology CS Lewis ever wrote (well, I'd throw "The Screwtape Letters" in there, too). I'm a fan of Philip K. Dick, too ... I remember he wrote an introduction to one of his books in which he said that he'd had to become a scifi writer because he was the sort of person who "regarded the crabgrass with suspicion", expecting it to at any moment strip off its green exterior and reveal itself as the invading alien force it really was.

I like your description of the fantasy writer holding up a prism that reveals colours that were always there, but not perceptible. I remember once thinking how perplexing and paradoxical metaphors are, because in a sense they direct our attention away from the thing we're trying to describe, pointing to something else entirely. But they actually usually do a way better job of evoking what we're trying to describe than expository language (and usually briefer, too, like poetry) ... for example, you could say, "My dad is grumpy, slow-moving and taciturn in the morning," or you could say, "Man, but my dad is a bear in the morning!"  Referencing a bear really has nothing to do with your dad and so in that sense seems to direct attention elsewhere, but it really does give us a much better and more experiential sense of what your dad (well, not YOUR dad -- I'm sure he's lovely in the morning) is like. A case of backing up a few steps in order to see a thing more clearly, but also of finding a path that sidesteps words and concepts in favour of experience adn image.

This is a tough one to explain. I don't really know how myself. I was always different, even from my family, not to mention other people. I was also lucky to have parents who instilled in my brother and me the love of reading since the moment we were born. Books were certainly my first window into what existed beyond the home, which is what affects a child the most during those early formative years. Books were my teachers alongside my parents since I was 4, which is when I learned to read--two alphabets, because I first learned to read a language[Serbian] which uses 2 different scripts: the latin script and the cyrillic [not mixed, you can use either one or the other in a text]. I also acquired another language [English] between the ages of 7-8, which made me bilingual, and bilingualism has been proven to increase the ability of children to understand abstract concepts. What I mean to say is, these things can open your mind perhaps faster or wider than it would usually take. Couple that with a very self-sufficient disposition, which does not require constant attention or constant companionship, but can easily look within for sources of entertainment; a curious mind, which craves information and exploration; and an imaginative spirit, which always seeks to shed new light upon everything it comes into contact with; and I guess therein lies part of the answer.

Need I add that I didn't have many friends as a child? Children are smarter in some things than adults: they still possess certain instincts that are later usually lost, probably through the influence of the environment. I'm sure they don't know how to express what they "sense" through those instincts, but they still react, and through their reactions you may sometimes glimpse the truth. I wasn't rejected by other children, but they certainly sensed I was different and they sometimes reacted negatively towards me. There are several ways our peers' negative reactions can affect us: we can change our behaviour so that we no longer provoke a negative reaction; we can avoid our peers so that we are spared the hurt that their negative reactions cause us; we can fight our peers and try to hurt them as a kind of revenge for their negative reactions... The first one is conformism, the second one is self-isolation, the third one is bullying. I don't think any of the three are good, but I probably did have a slight case of the second one - not complete, because it went along with a fourth method of dealing with it, which is: hiding, acting, pretending, being a chameleon- in other words, laying low, not letting all of your colours shine through. It didn't always work, and I didn't always hide or run away (in a metaphorical sense, I mean). The truth is I always stood out, and sometimes I would decide I wanted to. But I should also add that I was never tortured as some children are, so I was lucky in that respect: I grew up in a rather safe environment overall.

I did wish to escape that environment, though, since I realised that it was not for me, that I could not really grow there, and thinking that I could not really be myself openly, because I would not be understood. So, I left after high school and went away to university (I read English language and literature and later got a master's in linguistics). You may ask, but did going away, changing the environment, improve my social life? Not really, not greatly. As an adult, people generally like me: I'm nice, polite, easy to talk to, a good listener, I don't engage in gossiping or doing bad things to other people... but I still don't have many friends. I'm still just as different and stand out as much as I ever did, I don't conform, I don't care what other people think of me, I will sometimes voice my opinions even if they are "not the norm", and I require solitude every day: a time to think, a time which is only my own and which I don't want to or haven't learned how to share with others. Is this good or bad? Good and bad are terms from morality; and morality, like every other set of rules designed to describe or proscribe human behaviour, is human-made. In other words, it is all a matter of perspective: it depends on whether you accept that particular set of rules. Dogmatic sets of rules are fixed; some others can be changed; others still can be fluid and changeful - but it is up to you to decide what the rules are or aren't: in your mind. And the mind can do anything, because thoughts can go anywhere. If you want to, you can be everything, and there is no limit to everything. Like I said in an earlier post, the mind can decide that there is no box.