Lighting candles
By Conrado de QuirosInquirerLast updated 11:11pm (Mla time) 08/01/2007
A COUPLE of people had some interesting things to tell me in separate gatherings.
One suggested that I write about positive things, too, about the bright side of things. She missed my columns on music, books, movies, mami, my neighbors who have been tormenting me with karaoke, etc., she said, and would like to see more of them.
Another said I should help make my readers hope things could be better. My writing of late, he said, tended to be on the grim side. He quoted something I hadn't heard in a long time, which was Joe Con's favorite motto: "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness."
The points are well taken. I miss my columns on street life too and, as per that reminder, will get back to them when I find the time, and topics, for them (the topics tend to be more abundant than the time). Right now, there are a couple of kids in my neighborhood who seem resolute in not hitting the right note as they sing at the top of their voices in very loud loudspeakers. And, yes, I have dwelled on the grimmer side of things lately and that could give readers a despairing view of life. What can I say? Like many people who write, I suffer from obsessive-compulsive behavior. And like many libertarians who are passionate about their beliefs, I tend to push my cause with much relentlessness.
But some points about those comments I have to dispute as well.
There's one idea I've harped on over the years, which is that half the time when you write--a column, in particular--you do not always choose your topic, your topic chooses you. The first time I said that (in a book launching ages ago), another journalist came up to me and said I was joking, right? I said no, I was perfectly serious, even if, as I am wont to do, I state my case strenuously. He laughed, still finding it droll, and went on to never become a good writer or journalist.
But it's true: half the time when you write your topics choose you. They thrust themselves upon you and demand to be confronted more than others, before others. Who the hell wants to write about the horrendous state of governance, about the obscenity of death and dying--of the soul far more than the body--or, worse than either one, about GMA, when there's Maria Sharapova to thrill to (other than in the French and Wimbledon, when she got whupped in the semis)? Who the hell wants to risk life and limb making life miserable for those you can do you harm when you can always win (corrupt) friends and influence wrongdoers? You do, or have to, because you can't help yourself once you pick up the pen or start pounding the keyboard. You write about them because, like Mt. Everest, they are there. They demand to be climbed, they demand to be conquered.
Things are grim, life in the this country is grim, and no amount of zeroing in on Tony Meloto's formidable achievements or those of Fil-Am contestants in "American Idol" is going to change it. I'm all for doing our bit to feed, house, clothe and regale with song (even from the karaoke) fellow Filipinos, we need all the help we can get. But I don't know that that doesn't have its downside, too.
It's government's duty to provide them. By providing them ourselves, or attempting to, we are in fact freeing government from that duty, or worse exculpating it for its negligence. It's like that proposal to arm journalists and other endangered species in this country: What's nuts about it isn't just that it adds to the menace rather than subtracts from it (as you would infer from the types of journalists that currently tote guns), it's that it excuses government's inability to enforce peace and order or, forget that, to not allow the obliteration of the Fourth Estate.
Indeed, I don't know that this whole business of "thinking positive" doesn't have its downside, and epically so. Depends on what we think of "positive" and "negative." Being angry isn't always being negative, being critical isn't always being negative, being filled with disgust isn't always being negative. They can be, and often are, the most positive things in the world. In fact, the opposite can be, and often are, the most negative things in the world. Not being angry, not being noisy, not being filled with loathing over deviltry and sheer evil is the most negative thing in the world.
That is so especially today. Not being outraged by the disappearance and death of Jonas Burgos and Musa Dimasidsing is the most negative thing in the world. Not protesting the cheating, in-your-face lying to the public, and rottenness of public officials, elective and appointive, elected and non-elected, is the most negative thing in the world. Not being filled with reprehension and revulsion at the ease with which murder and mayhem take place in our midst is the most negative thing in the world.
"Thinking positive" can be, and often is, the most negative thing in the world. What we lack today is not more things to dwell on to be happy about. What we lack today is more rejection of things we shouldn't be.
I'm all for hope. But not the kind of hope that comes from burying our heads in the sand in the belief that what we don't see can't hurt us. Or in the belief that if we pat ourselves in the back and think long and hard that things will get better, things will somehow be better. I believe in the hope that comes from realizing that however dark the world has become, the power to bring light to it lies in our hands. If we only have the wits to see it, if only we have the will to do it, if only we retain enough conscience, or sense of right and wrong, left to want to do it.
Better to light a candle than curse the darkness? Not always so. Sometimes it is better to curse Napocor than light a candle. (emphasis mine)
One suggested that I write about positive things, too, about the bright side of things. She missed my columns on music, books, movies, mami, my neighbors who have been tormenting me with karaoke, etc., she said, and would like to see more of them.
Another said I should help make my readers hope things could be better. My writing of late, he said, tended to be on the grim side. He quoted something I hadn't heard in a long time, which was Joe Con's favorite motto: "Better to light a candle than curse the darkness."
The points are well taken. I miss my columns on street life too and, as per that reminder, will get back to them when I find the time, and topics, for them (the topics tend to be more abundant than the time). Right now, there are a couple of kids in my neighborhood who seem resolute in not hitting the right note as they sing at the top of their voices in very loud loudspeakers. And, yes, I have dwelled on the grimmer side of things lately and that could give readers a despairing view of life. What can I say? Like many people who write, I suffer from obsessive-compulsive behavior. And like many libertarians who are passionate about their beliefs, I tend to push my cause with much relentlessness.
But some points about those comments I have to dispute as well.
There's one idea I've harped on over the years, which is that half the time when you write--a column, in particular--you do not always choose your topic, your topic chooses you. The first time I said that (in a book launching ages ago), another journalist came up to me and said I was joking, right? I said no, I was perfectly serious, even if, as I am wont to do, I state my case strenuously. He laughed, still finding it droll, and went on to never become a good writer or journalist.
But it's true: half the time when you write your topics choose you. They thrust themselves upon you and demand to be confronted more than others, before others. Who the hell wants to write about the horrendous state of governance, about the obscenity of death and dying--of the soul far more than the body--or, worse than either one, about GMA, when there's Maria Sharapova to thrill to (other than in the French and Wimbledon, when she got whupped in the semis)? Who the hell wants to risk life and limb making life miserable for those you can do you harm when you can always win (corrupt) friends and influence wrongdoers? You do, or have to, because you can't help yourself once you pick up the pen or start pounding the keyboard. You write about them because, like Mt. Everest, they are there. They demand to be climbed, they demand to be conquered.
Things are grim, life in the this country is grim, and no amount of zeroing in on Tony Meloto's formidable achievements or those of Fil-Am contestants in "American Idol" is going to change it. I'm all for doing our bit to feed, house, clothe and regale with song (even from the karaoke) fellow Filipinos, we need all the help we can get. But I don't know that that doesn't have its downside, too.
It's government's duty to provide them. By providing them ourselves, or attempting to, we are in fact freeing government from that duty, or worse exculpating it for its negligence. It's like that proposal to arm journalists and other endangered species in this country: What's nuts about it isn't just that it adds to the menace rather than subtracts from it (as you would infer from the types of journalists that currently tote guns), it's that it excuses government's inability to enforce peace and order or, forget that, to not allow the obliteration of the Fourth Estate.
Indeed, I don't know that this whole business of "thinking positive" doesn't have its downside, and epically so. Depends on what we think of "positive" and "negative." Being angry isn't always being negative, being critical isn't always being negative, being filled with disgust isn't always being negative. They can be, and often are, the most positive things in the world. In fact, the opposite can be, and often are, the most negative things in the world. Not being angry, not being noisy, not being filled with loathing over deviltry and sheer evil is the most negative thing in the world.
That is so especially today. Not being outraged by the disappearance and death of Jonas Burgos and Musa Dimasidsing is the most negative thing in the world. Not protesting the cheating, in-your-face lying to the public, and rottenness of public officials, elective and appointive, elected and non-elected, is the most negative thing in the world. Not being filled with reprehension and revulsion at the ease with which murder and mayhem take place in our midst is the most negative thing in the world.
"Thinking positive" can be, and often is, the most negative thing in the world. What we lack today is not more things to dwell on to be happy about. What we lack today is more rejection of things we shouldn't be.
I'm all for hope. But not the kind of hope that comes from burying our heads in the sand in the belief that what we don't see can't hurt us. Or in the belief that if we pat ourselves in the back and think long and hard that things will get better, things will somehow be better. I believe in the hope that comes from realizing that however dark the world has become, the power to bring light to it lies in our hands. If we only have the wits to see it, if only we have the will to do it, if only we retain enough conscience, or sense of right and wrong, left to want to do it.
Better to light a candle than curse the darkness? Not always so. Sometimes it is better to curse Napocor than light a candle. (emphasis mine)
so, there goes. the emphasized portions are so emphasized to prove a point. that is, anger, angst, being avant garde (to the social norms) as well as deviance are really positive things. as humans, who are tagged as with the most number of possibilities in the kingdom animalia, i think it is but right and proper that we live up to that. we are given a whole gamut of emotions so that we can explore each of them.
it is not wrong to be angry. especially when the object of anger is the deplorable scenario that the country is in. it has been said before, and i will say it again, "we have squandered the independence which our forefathers have waged their lives for." whatever happened to the good old filipinos who thought of nothing but how to uphold and defend inang bayan. i guess the difference between yesterday's filipinos and today's is that before, the enemies where from the outside of the country, whereas today, the enemies are the very same people who are "serving" the public office (and their vested interests).
it is just sad that we have to struggle not against an alien but against one of us. this is what undermines, fragments and disintegrates the country. the so-called leaders are quite one in raping inang bayan until she is rendered utterly inutile.
WE OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING BEFORE OUR COUNTRY LITERALLY GOES TO THE DOGS.
indeed, conrado de quiros' conviction is contagious. it is worth catching. it is worth echoing.
No comments:
Post a Comment