Another interesting book I started reading purely for its awesome title. I’ve been on a reading rampage lately, devouring any book about suicide, looking for any pearls of wisdom I might’ve missed in my lifelong obsession with the subject. So far nothing has changed my mind.
So on the heels of nonfiction memoirs by authors who later killed themselves, I’m now exploring fictional thoughts which are just as valid, since no one’s an expert until they’ve killed themselves and afaik Hades doesn’t have a publishing house in the material world.
I was expecting this book to be light hearted and comic, but aside from its cheeky title it’s taking a serious tone. I’m only 2 chapters in, but the author/main character’s suicide-prevention schtick is that anything is better than death. He illustrates this metaphorically by making the main character a vampire damned to exist in an undead state, unable to enjoy the pleasures of life, so he runs a suicide hotline trying to convince people to keep living at all costs. Very cool premise.
But (so far) it kinda falls short of the mark because the obvious argument is that we’re all going to fucking die, so what difference does it make that we scratch out a few desperate decades of a miserable life if we’re going to end up doomed for eternity anyway?
We’ll see if he addresses that, or if it’s a fatal loophole.
My suicide book recap so far: the best is still Cheslie Kryst’s “By the Time You Read This”. This is because she specifically avoids the subject of suicide, neither condoning nor condemning it, and that gives the book an air of authenticity that the others (openly anti-suicide) don’t have.
In second place is Ned Vizzini’s “It’s Kind of a Funny Story” which is clearly anti-suicide, but it takes the perspective of a 15 year old kid so he’s not preaching at us; we’re free to form our own opinions, especially in light of Ned’s suicide 10 years later. The book itself is light hearted, at times pretty funny, which keeps us from getting too depressed.
Third place might be Judy Collins’ “Sanity and Grace” which isn’t about her suicide (she’s alive & well) but about her son’s suicide and how she handled the crushing depression of losing a child which nearly pushed her over the edge. The book seemed to be leading somewhere until she fell back on the standard “faith” deus ex machina (literally), so it fell flat on me but it was honest and genuine so who can argue.
Last place, ironically, is the otherwise brilliant writer Albert Camus who wrote “The Myth of Sisyphus” which takes a philosophical approach, fine & dandy, but he overlooks the fact that some of us aren’t fucking privileged like he was, and we don’t have the luxury of waxing philosophical when we’re suffering a torment so hellish that we’re a fireplace-poker away from gouging our goddam eyes out.
13 comments
Two philosophers who committed suicide after writing their book: Philip Mainlander and Otto Weininger.
I have read only the latter but idea of universe as decaying corpse of a dead god by former is unique. Came across it few days ago and it’s definitely eye catching.
“idea of universe as decaying corpse of a dead god by former is unique. Came across it few days ago and it’s definitely eye catching.”
Holy shit, that philosophy is my latest obsession. Have you read any Krasznahorkai? I’m not sure if he was directly influenced by Mainlander & Weininger, but he latched onto that philosophy and wrote what I think is the greatest novel of our time, The Melancholy of Resistance.
It’s about a mysterious circus that comes to a Hungarian village, and the circus has only 2 acts: a deformed circus freak who calls himself The Prince and riles up the masses through hate and division (sound familiar?), while the other act is the decaying body of a giant whale.
The decomposing whale represents natural/cosmic order (he never uses the term “God” but instead refers to “that hitherto faultless mechanism or unnamed principle which, it is often remarked, makes the world go round”) while The Prince represents the role of human “authority”, believing itself to be order when it’s actually the agent of chaos.
I can get behind this philosophy 100%, and oddly enough, it’s a way of reconciling spiritual faith with the decrepit state of the world. We are not necessarily without “God”, it’s just that “God” is in a state of decay and we’re all too happy to fill the void with our human foolishness.
Anyway thanks for the awesome tip, I’m definitely going to check out those 2 (suicidal) philosophers next. Krasznahorkai himself is very much alive, and he recently won the Nobel Prize, so I hope his depression is mitigated enough for him to carry on writing. In other words, I sincerely hope he doesn’t join the “honor list” of author-suicides.
Yeah it explains or ends age old question of why god lets evil in world. God is no longer here and evil is just a form of decay. It is reassuring also in way that it takes burden off our shoulder. Everything is moving towards end. No longer much of a choice.
I have not read the author you mentioned. Part of his novel’s idea appears to sharply match Mainlander’s philosophy.
Suicide authors become stone engraved. Their work develops authenticity and honesty in eyes of public due to their act. I used to admire Nietzsche over other popular philosophers precisely because he went mad and others didn’t. Now going mad is an even greater proof of authenticity than suicide because it can’t be done by choice. Not saying those who don’t do it aren’t authentic but it helps beginner in choosing.
Totally agree, an author’s suicide adds authenticity. So does madness. It’s hard for me to trust authors who lived a happy life because honestly, I believe anyone who is a deep thinker will always arrive at maddening & hopeless thoughts if they are relentless in their pursuit of truth.
Not all great writers are “deep thinkers” though, and I think that’s the distinction between author and philosopher. Deep thought isn’t just a measure of intelligence. I think Tolstoy had great intelligence, an expert at the craft of writing as well as his perception of human nature, but he didn’t obsessively dig at truth the way secular philosophers did. Tolstoy only dug as deep as religion would allow. He would never entertain the notion that his god is rotting, because his bedrock was what Christianity decrees: God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent.
So for example Tolstoy’s great premise in “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” (about a deeply religious man who suffers a random and senseless illness causing him to question his faith) ends up falling on the lame trope that it was Ivan’s fault because his faith wasn’t honest enough. That if he were truly faithful he wouldn’t suffer.
Whereas Mainlander might end the story by saying Ivan was praying to a dead god. Or as Krasznahorkai would say, Ivan was praying to a god that was “becoming apparent in the process of disintegration.”
What a shallow conclusion by tolstoy. When a man is blamed when he does not fit into a framework of beliefs, it simply shows the beliefs were boxed and incomplete otherwise they should apply to every human, irrespective of his personal characteristics, and should apply to all situations including suffering.
I know value of faith. How did people of Jesus’ time develop faith in him? By seeing miracles. How did Arjun develop faith in Krishna? By seeing virat rup. Today we are told to read mere words and develop same faith. Without seeing faith can’t be developed. After seeing it automatically develops.
Reasoning is today’s method of faith. Anything seeking people’s faith has to pass through its test. That’s why science is popular today and has many’s faith. But it is missing vital element of subjectivity.
Bingo, that’s my problem with religion–it’s not that I’m opposed to the possibility of “supernatural” events, it’s just that if something supernatural is to occur, shattering the laws of existence as I understand them (my own “faith”), then I’ll need more than word-of-mouth.
If someone can perform a “miracle” in front of me such as healing the blind or parting the seas, then I’ll accept that as my new truth. But if a 1000s-year-old written text (itself subject to edits & sketchy translations if not outright rewrites like King James did) tells me about a “miracle” that directly conflicts with what science shows in front of us every day, then I dismiss it as mythology.
Add to the skepticism that every religion warns us about false prophets, and I don’t see how anyone with a rational mind can accept any man-made document as truth.
The nightmare is that if we choose pure science as our faith, it’s a very bleak scenario. The physical world (by that I mean laws of physics) has no goal, no happy ending, no real incentive for us to schlep through the pain other than to be a part of an enormous machine that exists for the sake of existing. And I think that nightmare forces people to cling to fantasies that might provide a happy ending. I don’t think religious fanatics are as dumb as they may appear; perhaps they realize that a delusion is better than nothing, so they dive into it full force the same way I might dive into a bottle of vodka. Everyone has their own delusion I guess.
No, religious fanatics are as stupid as they appear. And they believe the Bible literally. They don’t know it’s a delusion- they WANT some kind of feel-good after life and thing to believe in.
I mean I myself WANTED to believe in religion bc it gave a purpose and meaning in life. And a promise of a good life- a good life that can never be achieved here IRL.
But sadly I could not fool or delude myself. The “facts”/evidence just don’t add up.
Anyway, must religious fanatics are dumb AF. Mainly bc the avg American is already dumb to begin with. Add in a religious idiot that believes everything they’re spoon-fed, well…
never underestimate just how many dumb ppl there are.
“never underestimate just how many dumb ppl there are.”
lol To be written on the tombstone of the human race
Bleak scenario and science has inconsistencies, unanswered questions and myriad of other issues. It cannot become object of our faith.
Can anything presented by mind be delusion? Contrarily, EVERYTHING presented by mind would be delusion. We take outside as true and are willing to take ourselves as false. Why? Why such injustice to ourself? Neither science nor religion nor anything else from outside has any authority over us. Only we have authority over ourself. They may be used as helpers/tools, that’s their original purpose is also, they are not our masters.
Is there a suicide book club you’ve got going that I could join? I would totally join. (When I read this comment in my head it sounds like it’s supposed to be funny but I’m dead serious no pun intended)
I would sooooo be into that! But I guess suicide books are sort of a niche genre, and suicidal readers of suicide books are even nichier.
The 1 or 2 book forums that I joined are pretty sparse and focused on general topics like the classics or best sellers, etc. So if we’re gonna have a suicide book club it might as well be here I guess?
If you’ve got any good suggestions drop them here or start a thread, I’ll put em on my reading list. It would be really cool to have some deep dive discussions.
OMG imagine if you put “President of the Suicide Book Club” on your resume? And submit that? That would be HILARIOUS 😛
I would join in on the discussions. I wouldn’t read a whole book- have issues with reading/vision/etc- but you could post questions/topics that are interesting to discuss.