Do you ever find (in an idle moment) your eyes wandering around your room and seeing an object that's been in your family's possession from years before you were born, and wondering about its previous 'life' before your arrival into the world? Yes, you're right, it is an odd question, but I'll tell you why I ask it.
I have this notion that, without realising it, we tend to date 'creation' from when we first become aware of it. By that I mean, in our minds, the world didn't start until we became cognizant of our surroundings and the passage of time. Yes, we know on an intellectual level that the world, etc., predates us, but it doesn't feel like it on a personal, emotional level. Time's stopwatch didn't begin until we developed sequential consciousness, and it doesn't end until we die.
Or at least that's how it seems.
Every year, when I put up my Christmas tree, I remember it gracing (almost) all my previous houses - in this case, five different homes. However, the tree predates me, and was likely bought to brighten up my brother's four Christmases prior to my existence. I have no memory of the place we lived in when I was born because we flitted when I was only one and a half years old, but my brother lived in at least one other domicile before that.
That means he associates the tree (if he even thinks about it, but probably not) with a minimum of two more homes than I do. So when I look at the tree and relive earlier memories, it's difficult to imagine that the tree knew four Christmases that I have no knowledge or experience of, not yet having been born. Before I thought about it, I'd always considered the tree's first Christmas to be the first one I recalled, and it somehow feels strange to me to consider that it wasn't.
It's not just the tree though; there are several items in my house from my earliest years whose existence I tend to regard as starting with mine, but, again, they predate me. I can't help but wonder (because I'm bonkers) what stories they could tell if they were sentient and had the power of speech. Imagine the sideboard, or brass plates on the wall, saying "Yes, we remember when you were a baby and also recall your first Christmas. Actually, we preferred that house more than the subsequent ones."
They could tell you things pertaining to yourself that are beyond your ability to recollect, tell you about places and people (neighbours, etc.,) that you were too young to be aware of - even of things that happened before you were born, from their perspective.
Every Christmas, when I look at my old tree and think back to the first Christmas I remember, I can't help but wonder if (were it able) the tree is remembering the first Christmas it knew. Odd though it is, the realisation that our memories wouldn't coincide somehow saddens me.
Have you ever wondered?
(Excuse me, but there are two guys in white coats at my door who want me to accompany them. I may be some time.)
******
(Excuse me, but there are two guys in white coats at my door who want me to accompany them. I may be some time.)
This reminds me of the Steptoe & Son Christmas episode where the old boy's doing a monologue to his threadbare Christmas tree fairy, reminiscing about Christmasses past (it's probably still on Youtube if you wanna check it out - I think it's the 1973 one). My own Christmas tree only dates from the early '80's so it's a mere spring(?) chicken compared to yours.
ReplyDeleteWhat does fascinate me though (and this is odd enough to rival some of your flights of fancy) is when I see an UK comic title or a US Marvel that falls within May-December 1968. I was born 31st December, so I imagine my Mum, lugging me around in her tum, seeing these issues that I would now dearly love to own, pristine on the shelf, but her having no interest in them at all, her mind only set on her fried tomatoes pregnancy craving!
I dunno if it's universal or just an only child thing, but as a kid I really did think that everything began and ended with me - but forget world history, the discovery that 'my' comic titles/characters predated me blew my tiny mind! Being given UK Marvels, then realising there's a huge US backstory to be discovered...that's what made me realise my tiny place in the vast scheme of things.
Great response, HS. Thanks for demonstrating that I'm not the only 'abstract' thinker in the world. What blows MY mind is not that comicbook characters like Superman and Batman (to name but two) predate me, but that that they'll still be here after I'm gone. Also that there'll be James Bond films (yet to be made) that I'll never get to see. I don't think it's fair that we don't get to live forever.
ReplyDeleteWell I kinda hope that we do - it's just not necessarily sitting on a cloud strumming harps! I can't see the evolutionary point in amassing all this experience and knowledge for nothing. In a lucid dream, you're spark out 'here' but conscious in an apparently (hyper)real environment (by which I mean you can choose to examine a piece of brickwork for instance, and it's detail is much clearer than in real life). Rather than oblivion, I hope that we might retreat into a comfortable ideal memory. If time's relative, the few seconds your brain spends switching off could theoretically seem to last forever?
ReplyDeleteI hope so too, but as whatever counts as our personality (or soul) doesn't exist until our physical selves are born, my fear is that it ceases to exist upon death. After all, it's so inextricably linked to the physical that why should it exist without it?
ReplyDeleteThat few seconds as the brain switches off might seem like an eternity while it lasts, but once it's over, that seeming eternity is gone, man - solid gone.
I was sat on a park bench a few years back...a mother walked past with a toddler (he must've been about 3)and the 5 second passing conversation snippet was this: "I've been to heaven, Mummy" - "Oh yes, when was that?" - "Before I was born."...and it was said so matter-of-factly, it sent chills up and down me spine. If you read the literature (yeah, I know), we can apparently recall this stuff until dealing with the real world drums it out of us...I dunno...make of it what you will...it did happen though, nevertheless, and it is an odd thing for a toddler to say...
ReplyDeleteAs far as my own personal cobbled-together theory goes, the shutting down might well be actually finite, but if it seems like forever to the participant, what's the diff? If we're willing to consider survival, It seems more likely (and more preferable) to an afterlife that echoes this shite with it's queues and forms to fill in before you can progress?
That Steptoe & Son Christmas special is the 1973 one and it's definitely on YouTube - I watched it last Christmas.
ReplyDeleteKid, I'm amazed you have a Christmas tree dating back to 1954 - that's the year my parents were married (on New Year's Day).
There's no such thing as a soul - our consciousness is created by the brain in order to interact with the outside world. As you noted, upon the death of the brain the consciousness has no further function and ceases to exist. And I'm perfectly happy with that fact.
Interesting, HS, but we've no way of knowing why the kid said that. Perhaps someone had told him he'd been in heaven before he was born and he just accepted it as fact. Unless you're into reincarnation (which I'm not - though I used to be when I was a giraffe), most religious thinking (as far as I'm aware) doesn't subscribe to the notion that we pre-existed before being born.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the difference between something SEEMING infinite and it actually BEING infinite, is that it's not. And if it ends, although we may never know it, it's only because we're no longer around to know it. And trust me, there's no one who wants to survive death more than I do, so I really hope there's some kind of continued existence after the expiration of our physical selves.
******
Then you're easily pleased, CJ. My description of the apparent death of the 'soul' along with the body wasn't a statement of what I believe, merely an expression of what I fear. I hope I'm wrong. Incidentally, I'm sure my Christmas tree once said it had attended your parents' wedding.
It's all unknowable and unprovable, man...to say there's definitely no soul is just as daft as me hoping we can enter a lucid dream state and return to happier times...and just as daft as all these organised religions that purport to know what definitely happens next. It's all tosh really, my theory included, but there's no way anyone can say that it's definitely this or that, and therein lies the fun of it if we don't take it too seriously...my theory is just wishful thinking, but I dunno what's to be gained by expecting oblivion? It's not like you can say, "There you go, I told ya!"
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact is that no one can say what definitely ISN'T, unless they know everything that definitely IS. All I know is that oblivion is a frightening prospect, and it seems to me that those who don't fear it, probably don't fully comprehend it.
ReplyDelete"I wanna liver foreveeeerrr!"
Yeah, you're dead right, Kid - there's no way of knowing what that toddler was being fed at home, but his Mum did seem as bemused as I was by his sudden pronouncement. We do try to mould our experiences to fit into our philosophies, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone. I was both delighted and pissed off by the finale of the original Life on Mars show...it was great that someone else also subscribed to my theory of 'Heaven' (not that I'm suggesting that I invented it - I'd just never seen it depicted 'outside' before), but watching the extras it was only one of many possible endings so the fact that they didn't know how to end it themselves somehow dilutes any profound statement...
ReplyDeleteFor what Heaven might be, HS, see my post 'A Taste Of Paradise...' I never saw every episode of Life On Mars, but I intend to catch up on it one day.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, HS, what did you think of Past Perfect?
ReplyDeleteI hadn't seen that short story post, so thanks for pointing me towards it - brilliant! Similar to your more recent story about the kid waking up in his old house, this one hits (too) close to home!
ReplyDeleteLife on Mars SPOILER (UK show) - I couldn't have wished for a better ending, so please do give it a watch if you can. It's pretty divisive in that it arguably promotes suicide as a good thing, but that's what made it such a brave show at the end, though as I said, that was a last minute decision - if you can watch it without crying, you're a better man than I...
Past Perfect - I bought 20 quid's worth of Pauls' issues at once. It's very professionally produced for an A5 zine and it's great-looking, the amount of colour illos is great! That being said, I found myself skipping an awful lot of pages...it really comes down to your personal interests comics-wise...I absolutely loved reading about the differences between Marvel UK, the Power comics and the original US issues - but I've no interest at all in early '60's Lion stories...the format of the 'zine is such that a certain title (Lion for instance)is meticulously dissected issue after issue, but if that feature doesn't appeal, you're stuck with it. It really comes down to whether the majority of an issue is of interest to you.
I moan when magazine's features are too fleeting to do a title justice, but Past Perfect seems to go to the opposite extreme. That's not necessarily a criticism - it's just aimed at a VERY specific fanbase. My advice would be, definitely order the latest copy, and see if appeals to you...
Funnily enough, when I first read Past Perfect, I found myself skipping past a few articles to the ones I knew would interest me more, but later, I went back and read the ones I'd skipped and found them more interesting than I'd imagined they'd be. I think that's because PW has such an engaging style of writing that the articles are worth the read just for the sake of it, even if you're not that interested in the comic or strip being written about. And, with up to 80 pages an issue, even if every single article is not to your personal taste, there's still enough to make the mag worth the price. Just like an old comic in fact, which very often would only have a few favourite strips out of the entire contents.
ReplyDeleteI bought a few issues of that new mag, Comic Zine (I think it's called), but I found it was like a random collection of amateur blog posts, with more factual errors (and layout mistakes) than you'd expect in a professionally-published mag. One article said that Buster comic didn't have a club, but I've got two Buster Club badges that say otherwise.
I'd say out of the two periodicals, Past Perfect is a more enjoyable read. Glad to hear that you enjoyed it in the main.
Paul Ware's writing IS excellent - like I say, everyone should definitely gamble a few quid and try at least one issue. My only criticism was the fact that it doesn't just give a general overview of an obscure Lion/TV Tornado/etc. strip you've never read, it gives an issue by issue synopsis in each issue. My ideal 'zine (fan or pro) would devote however many pages are necessary (even a complete issue) to a comic or individual strip, and do it in one go...I know that Paul offers collections of articles (eg. reviews of all the Ditko Spidey issues) in separate cumulative volumes at excellent prices - that would be my preference...
ReplyDeleteThe other mag you mention is, I assume, Comic View? If so, the fact that you can't recall the name says more about the mag than your memory. I bought the first one for a feature on Shiver & Shake (one of my all-time faves), but in all honesty I could have read it in five minutes in the shop. 2 pages, including large illos, is not sufficient to cover a title that lasted 80-odd issues and influenced so many of it's successors - that's just one example. They did ask for comments and I did write in, but I was later given a couple of copies by someone else who didn't enjoy it and their scattershot, 2 pages per article approach seemed to continue, so I haven't supported it.
I miss the print version of Crikey! I know you've pointed out its shortcomings, but it was far better...
Regarding Past Perfect, I think there's still enough in each issue of interest though, even if some comics featured don't ring everybody's bell, but I see your point.
ReplyDeleteI now think the other mag might be called Comic Scene, but I'm not quite sure and don't have an issue to hand at the moment (buried somewhere). The paper it's printed on stinks to high heaven, and at £6.99, it's over-priced. I reckon it'll have a relatively short life, as there's a strong hint of the amateur about it, despite its professional printing.
Crikey! was a good mag, its main flaw being the spelling mistakes (caused by spell-checker, ironically), and they've now been collected in a four issue set, with unpublished articles included. I haven't bought them because I don't know if the spelling errors have been corrected or not.
I plan on buying some of Paul's Specials you mentioned when I have a spare bit of dosh. They look good.
Yep, you're right, my mistake - Comic Scene is the title. No-one wants to see a great mag devoted to UK comics more than me, but this ain't it. I just hope it recovers from it's early mistakes and becomes all we hoped for...
ReplyDeleteCrikey did have one big positive for me at least - as a result of their piece on Cheeky, I contacted Frank McDiarmid to commission a drawing of The Gasworks Gang (which is now framed on my living room wall) and we corresponded for a bit...there's not many of those classic IPC artists left, unfortunately...
And it also published Gil Page's memoirs about the revamped Smash!, which Gil wrote at my request. It was originally intended for The Illustrated Comic Journal, but it faded into limbo so I sent it to Crikey! instead. Unfortunately, it 'corrected' a few names, which meant that they were spelt wrong.
ReplyDelete