Friday, March 23, 2007

Songwriting

I'm home for spring break now. Classes begin April 2, and until then, I'm back here in SJ. Doing some reading, doing some writing. I just wrote some fakey song lyrics for a possible story I may write. Lots of dark themes and song names like "Cyanide Valentine" and "Bone Saw" and "Magnum in Your Hand." (The names randomly popped into my head. I'm particularly fond of "Cyanide Valentine.") They are all basically like "Kill me! Kill me! You love me and hate me at the same time!" I giggle when I write them.

I'll give you a snippet. Here's what I've written of "Bone Saw" (which is actually a metaphor for the fictional songwriter's resentment of being a celebrity who can't escape the public eye, not about somebody literally carving up his/her body):
Kill me with your overwhelming awe.
Slice me into pieces with your sharp bone saw.

You want to collect pieces of me,
Snatchin’ up slivers of bone with maniacal glee.
I’m livin’ the dreams you forgot that you had
And it’s makin’ you wild and angry and mad.

My body and soul are stolen by you.
I search for a haven and still you pursue.
I seek the darkness, while you shine the lights.
I keep trying to hide, but I’m still in your sights.

Get it? The whole "lights" and "sights" meaning cameras. I think it is an obvious attempt at being cleverly vague; like the songwriter isn't smart or practiced enough to make his/her metaphors more hidden.

"Slowly" is shaping up to be even more twisted.

I've never written songs before. With these, it's just fun. I think up a line or a good word, look it up and try to find a rhyme, and jot down whatever I think of. No pressure, and I can make the songs as stupid, dark, or angsty as I want, 'cuz they reflect the idea of a character I have. Fun!

Labels:

3 Comments:

At 8:48 AM, Anonymous Jacob said...

This is totally unrelated to what you wrote, but "his/her" sparked me to think, as I have before, that we need a singular neuter personal pronoun for people ("it" doesn't cut it, and no matter how much people might like to believe that poor grammar is acceptable, "they" is plural).

I propose: "xhq" (the "h" is silent). It's virtually unpronounceable, which I find appealing for some reason. One might say that it ironically reflects having a neuter-non-neuter pronoun in the first place. We can decline it as such:
Nominative: "xhp"
Accusative: "xhq"
Dative: "xhq"
Genitive: "xhj"

 
At 3:00 PM, Blogger Marie said...

Why would you want a word that's unpronounceable?

I remembered that the GLBT community has a transgender pronoun: sie (equal to she/he) and hir (his/hers). I don't know how often it is used.

 
At 8:46 PM, Anonymous Jacob said...

Huh. Don't think I've heard the "sie"/"hir" thing before. The first problem that comes to mind is that they (I assume) sound exactly like "sea" and "her." Also... they look sort of stupid. I'm sorry, but they do. Like a gimpy little typo or something. I sort of envision someone with a terrible lisp and a penchant for eternal victimization beliefs adopting those words, but I'm not really sure why.

As for having an unpronounceable word, I think it appeals to me because, even though I recognize the need for a sentient singular neuter personal pronoun (SSNPP?), it is also, by definition, ridiculous. We really HAVE only two sexes*. People are never unidentified in their sex. Only very rarely do you see someone and think, "Huh, not sure if that's a man or a woman." And even then, you know they are ONE of those; you don't think, "neuter!" So given all that, it just seems stupid in some ways. I'd almost rather people use whatever they want -- default "he" for Jane, default "she" for Ted, default "One" for Dr. Smith, and people use their intelligence (or sad lack thereof for some) to intuit if the author is talking about a specific sex or just being sloppily generic without choking on political correctness.

* Before you try and jump on me and say, "But what about transsexuals and hermaphrodites?," by definition, biology tells us we have only two sexes. Sex is determined genetically. The presence of two or more X chromosomes and the absence of any Y chromosomes is defined as female. The presence of one or more X chromosomes and one or more Y chromosomes is defined as male. The absence of any X chromosomes is defined as dead. (All human-specific genes are contained on X; Y contains all of the activator genes that initiate development of male-specific traits and suppress female-specific traits, including the utterly-crucial SRY, or "Sex-determining Region of Y.") Mental "alignment" with one sex or another ("I'm really a man!" "I'm really a woman!") is irrelevant, because that has nothing to do with sex. Similarly, any other behaviors or "states of mind" are irrelevant. Sex is biological. (And at a more fundamental level than balls and boobs -- e.g. how having a mastectomy doesn't make you neuter.) Gender is mental. Most people don't understand the difference, but it's really very important. (I try to be careful about using the right word when I talk.)

Rant off!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home