Read The Douchebag Bible Online
Authors: TJ Kirk
household or a necklace to be worn. It’s a very
violent symbol, and if you think about how many
people died in the name of that symbol, it’s strange
to wonder why the hammer and sickle is taboo or a
swastika is taboo and the crucifix isn’t.”
Here’s a song that’s not even three minutes
long that touches upon subjects that one could
literally write entire books about. No one else in the
history of pop culture can boast such complexity. So,
if you want to get into Manson, don’t think that
you’re just attempting to get into a new band. You’re
getting into a new way or perceiving the world
around you.
But Marilyn Manson is old and his hayday is
gone. I love his new work, but its cultural
significance is negligible. And we can't get a new
Marilyn Manson until we get a new Kurt Cobain.
Cobain revitalized rock music after years of
corporate decadence. He gave birth to alternative
rock, and the next decade was a whirlwind of some
of the bleakest and smartest music to penetrate the
mainstream since the 1960’s. But just as rock in the
70’s took a backseat to meaningless Disco, rock
today has taken a backseat to the pablum of pop and
pseudo-hip-hop. Only electronic music today shows
any promise of being intriguing. Most of the rock
music coming out now is lifeless crap; a rehash of
things done better a decade ago.
We need a new Cobain to shake things up. To
usher in a new era. To make all this bland pop shit
seem as fake to everyone else as it already does to
me. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only
one.
Someone once posed to me a question: “When
you're dying, do you want to look back on your life
and only remember what a bunch of people on TV
did?”
My reply was: Well, sure. If what they did was
interesting. You have to remember when you make
statements like this that everyone only gets one life
and everyone has their choice of a few different
paths. TV, at its best, sates our curiosity about other
paths or other talents. You might be living your life
to the fullest, making it big as a painter. That doesn’t
mean you can’t enjoy an episode of House.
What if I
were a medical genius instead of an artistic one?
Maybe you don’t get the world’s most accurate
answer, but you get an answer. And it’s enjoyable to
watch.
If you think about it, your statement is really a
criticism of empathy. To ask, “Why care about the
people on TV, when you can instead focus on
yourself?” is basically an advocacy of selfishness and
isolation. Further, it’s predicated upon a false
notion—that concern for TV people is detracting
from your own life. This isn’t true. Human beings
are defined by their interactions and their ability to
perceive and interpret information. TV can enrich
lives. So can music, painting, film, literature, theater,
etc. The human condition grasps itself through
individuals
defining
themselves
via
other
individuals. The collective informs the man and the
man, in turn, informs the collective.
In short, yes, when I’m dying, I want to look
back on my life and remember what a bunch of
people on TV did. What they did told me something
about who I am.
People seem to think that our stories don't
reflect us. They think that what we are entertained
by isn't revealing of our character, but it is. Our
values, ideas, thoughts and feelings will live on more
in what we create artistically than anything else. And
we are producing garbage.
Our young children are raised on Dora The
Explorer, Barney and other shows that promote
values that we as human beings don't even seem to
adhere to. I think societies values ought to be
consistent. If we teach our children to share, be
polite and have empathy, then we as adults should
exemplify those values. If we will not (or cannot),
then we should stop teaching those values to our
children and instead teach them our true values:
greed, selfishness and cynical detachment. Our
teenagers play video games where the objective is no
more inspiring than “shoot the generic threat.” Our
adults—well, we don't really have adults anymore,
do we?
There's something I always wondered about
John Carpenter’s movie, 'The Thing' (1982): when
the thing eats you and replicates you, including your
memories, does the copy of you consciously know
that it’s the thing? This was never clear.
The obvious answer would seem to be yes,
since the creature would attack when its charade
was threatened, but I’m not so certain. What if the
attack is a wholly unconscious act? A bacterial
creature doesn't need consciousness to attack,
consume or replicate.
Imagine it: you’re sitting there with your
friends, scared shitless that one or more of them is a
monster. And you don’t have any idea that the real
you died 45 minutes ago and that you’re now just a
replica created by an alien organism as a clever
disguise.
Do you know what I thought during the recent
prequel/remake of 'The Thing?' I thought, “This is
fucking terrible.” And it's not the first time I've had
that thought sitting through a bad rehash or remake
of a good film. What is it about this time and place
that turns everything I love into shit? When did