Over the course of the summer I claimed that I was not working. Or rather, I believed that I did not accomplish anything, despite the fact that I finished several interviews, published an essay, continued to whittle away at two or three secret projects, and mostly stayed on top of all the technical aspects of running an online magazine. Even while hanging out with friends I was deeply immersed in research; my notebooks are full of observations and character sketches.
The problem is that my work is only tangentially related to producing anything real and concrete. For the most part, I think. The value of any particular thought process is impossible to evaluate; it is not possible to know in advance which fleeting impression will be useful, let alone what will be published.
If I am sitting in my pajamas eating cinnamon jelly beans and obsessively checking social networking sites, an observer might think that I am not working. But perhaps I am considering adjustments to the sites I run. Or I could be doing research for a story. Or I might be corresponding with far-flung friends and collaborators, which is necessary to maintain my sanity and productivity.
I wouldn’t be able to categorize the experience if pressed. I’m not even sure that writing this sentence constitutes “work” though it would appear to fall in that category.
Last week I was pondering an essay about street racing in the rural Pacific Northwest. To facilitate the process I retreated to London, where I elected not to socialize with any of my friends. Instead I visited the British Dental Museum. I spent most of one day at the Hunterian. I also took my kids to the Tate Modern to see an installation of work by Pierre Huyghe.
Along the way I read several newspapers, two gossip magazines, started Gilead, and contemplated an essay about the nature of storytelling by Michael Frayn.
Did these excursions relate in any way to the topic I was writing about? Yes and no. While a pilgrimage to stand in front of Caroline Crachami’s tiny skeleton might seem a waste of time, I am concerned with the question of who owns a story – the participant, the author, or the audience? Dr. Hunter’s curiosity cabinet, while fascinating, contains many specimens collected by dubious means.
Charles Byrne did not want to be displayed, yet here he is, a human rendered and left to languish behind glass. Or what of poor Mr. Jefs, plucked from his grave?
I went to the Tate somewhat haphazardly, without knowing anything about the artist or his work. The first object in the Huyghe exhibition is a huge neon sign proclaiming I do not own Tate Modern or the Death Star.
The objects and films in the gallery proposed questions about place and possession that reflected all the points I was considering while assembling an essay about riding in fast cars before I was old enough to consent to the race. The Frayn essay offered observations about memory and subjectivity that were directly pertinent to my ethical quandaries in writing nonfiction. The Robinson novel contained the sentence It seems to me some people just go around looking to get their faith unsettled.
Wandering through a city visiting museums, sitting in pubs taking notes, exchanging text messages and email with friends, even staring vacantly at rivers are all integral to whatever final product I create. The fact that it doesn’t seem like work probably has more to do with my class antecedents than any true value of the experience.
I am paid to do this, after all.