Stalker is still the most beautiful film I've ever seen. I took a film class in college and fell asleep when we were watching it (embarrassing, but the professor was wholly understanding) - I watched it 3 or 4 times later the same week on my own. But it's also the film that's been hardest for me to understand. I "get it" the least of all, I'm still not sure what it's about - it's an otherworldly experience, though.
With Stalker I turn to Fellini - I don't like the idea of "understanding" a film. I don't believe that rational understanding is an essential element in the reception of any work of art. Either a film has something to say to you or it hasn't. If you are moved by it, you don't need to have it explained to you. If not, no explanation can make you moved by it. That's why I don't think my films are misunderstood when they are accepted for different reasons. Every person has his own fund of experiences and emotions which he brings to bear on every new experience-whether it is to his view of a film or to a love affair; and it is simply the combination of the film with the reality already existing in each person which creates the final impression of unity. As I was saying, this is the way the spectator participates in the process of creation. This diversity of reaction doesn't mean that the objective reality of the film has been misunderstood. Anyway, there is no objective reality in my films, any more than there is in life.
I think people are too used to the "American style" of moviemaking which focuses solely on goal driven characters in a rules driven world. While the characters in Stalker have some goals it's not all that important.
There is no "explanation" as in a series of rules of the universe and character internal goals that together drive the plot. Why would one think there has to be? "Film is a mosaic made up of time."
Andrei Rublev felt like a slog until the last segment with the bell making. That segment really built tension for me and at its end it became clear to me that the entire film had been a set up. It established the vanity of Rublev's religious experience and his realization of that through his sudden exposure to the chaos of the world outside the monastary.
But to make Rublev's epiphany clear -that he could live for compassion, passion and the kindred spirit of a fellow creator- you had to be taken through this long process of seeing this crazy world through Rublev's naive eyes.
It was definitely one of my first experiences where I discovered that sticking with art that is challenging or difficult could truly pay off in a way immediately gratifying art sometimes cannot.
It’s worth reading the source material “Roadside Picnic” if you haven’t yet. It’s very different from the film in a way that I think lets you appreciate what Tarkovsky did with it even more.
Roadside Picnic is also the incredibly rare example of the book, the movie (Stalker), and the video game (S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) each being able to stand on their own merits. This is probably in part because they are so different thematically.
I totally agree. I find it very frustrating when upon watching a film, people attempt to place it into a box. A film does not have to be "about" a particular thing. It does not need a singular interpretation. One can watch a film and simply celebrate the interstitial, the ambiguous, the perplexing.
>If you are moved by it, you don't need to have it explained to you. If not, no explanation can make you moved by it.
And I think it is totally wrong.
If you are moved by something, you better explain to yourself why it is so. You lose a part of perception by not doing that. Rational mind is one of the ways we perceive world around us.
And you can be moved by an art if it has been explained to you. It happened to me many times in the past and is also wonderful experience. As if some gates are opened and I can feel more.
> I don't like the idea of "understanding" a film. I don't believe that rational understanding is an essential element in the reception of any work of art.
I think it depends on the work. Take the tv show The Wire. There is a lot to understand and learn from it. I found doing so really worthwhile (for multiple reasons).
> If you are moved by it, you don't need to have it explained to you. If not, no explanation can make you moved by it.
I respectfully disagree. Watching Schindler’s List as an eleven year-old barely had an effect on me. After it was explained to me I found it tremendously heartbreaking.
I think that a lot of the "understanding" part of these kind of films are quirks to do with constraints that the filmmakers had. I would contrast this with Annihilation, which was confusing because it's not properly thought out IMO and with Inception, which was not confusing but did sacrifice artistic expression for mainstream appeal (for example the scenes with a lot of gun fighting).
The immediate things about Stalker that bothered me are, in retrospect, solvable with a higher budget or better film support. Of course, some people prefer the authentic aura of such films. Bellflower would be another example of a good idea and story done on a budget of next to nothing.
I feel that way about Synecdoche, New York - it's funny, gross, and horrifying and there's some deep truth there. I watched 3 times in a row at first. Every time I see it it puts me into a blue funk for a week.
Beyond the beautiful cinematography and sound design, the thing that blew me away when I saw it (on a big screen, I think I also dozed off for a few minutes) was how he stretches time almost to a hypnotic effect.
The scene when they are on the train tracks, slowly morphing from black and white into colour - so slowly that it takes a while for you to figure out what's going on, while being lulled into almost a trance like state. I did not realise film could elicit such experiences prior to seeing Stalker. It's beautiful
I discovered Tarkovsky only last year. I didn't "get" him until the death of my father. Roiling in ineffable grief, I struggled to find meaning, to sum up the arc of my father's life. The experience had (and still has) a timeless, absurd quality to it.
Tarkovsky's films seem to exist in a different type of time orthogonal to our own, and the experience of engaging with them is difficult to describe. They are both powerful and ineffable.
From his writings, he could be mistaken for a practitioner of Zen. I would like to share my favorite Tarkovsky quote:
"Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch into pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it."
That is quite a beautiful quote! I suspect we search for meanings and interpretations mostly to communicate what we feel to others we may try to share the experience with, although it seems that the best way to do this might just be to be honest about it and describe the feeing rather than the interpretation.
(Also, I’m sorry for your loss. Losing a parent seems un fathomable to me although I know it will happen to me too).
>there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it.
Almost all art analysis I see has to penetrates my zone of not seeking it out. So maybe it's being done impeccably somewhere, but in the stuff I see, the "analysis" is really a lossy description of the person doing the analyzing.
It tells me their frame of reference. The parts of the work they'll care about, and their analytical blindspots. It tells me about their views on hot contemporary issues, their pet peeves and hobby horses. It shows me the types of conclusions they were taught to draw. Very rarely does the analysis tell me anything about the work beyond the unambiguous facts visible to every layperson.
Solo traveling is where I learned how to be alone. Turns out, I don't mind hanging out with myself. Not an insane revelation, but an important one.
Yet when I try to convince people to solo travel, I encounter so much hemming and hawing, so much resistance. I suppose there's a safety aspect. I'm male and can't speak about traveling as a woman or trans-man. But I do meet many female travelers. And I don't know significantly more guys who solo travel.
I'd imagine there's a fear of loneliness, of homesickness, of paralysis in face of being so untethered. Which, yes, can happen. It comes in waves. Some days I'd be horribly, terribly lonely. Some days I'd do almost nothing. It always passed.
Anybody who has the time, the money, the temptation to travel alone should do it. Which is often less than people imagine. Flights have gotten incredibly cheap. Hostels are acceptable for a few weeks. Food can be bought on the street or prepared from grocery stores. Every country, every city has low income people, and they still eat.
The lifestyle certainly suits the young more than the old. So then why do so many of my young friends delay traveling? Why are they so resistant to the idea of slowing down their education a little to see the world? I know, I know. They need the money. But I do have friends who aren't stuck in a hyper-competitive race to optimize their earnings by age 25. Who are fortunate to take the luxury of a break.
I shouldn't care this much. Yet I can't help but find it so odd that people require someone else to be with them while traveling. If I had to find a travel partner with the same time off, similar goals with traveling and who I wouldn't murder after a week or two, I'd probably be stuck at home.
I think solo travelling requires a specific type of say introvert personality. As you write, most people are scared of this. And when they do travel without a supporting group, they go... to see friends/family somewhere. I see it so many times around me. People literally rather abandon their dream vacation for a mediocre one with less than ideal companions just to not travel alone.
I am like you too. I am also an introvert. Also I don't travel to rest, but to have as intense experience as possible. Not necessarily only positive, intensity is more important. Often I feel like I need another vacation after a vacation, this time for resting. It is so fulfilling to challenge oneself a bit. There are great life lessons to learn - throw yourself into the trip, without precise plans, and let it unfold on its own.
That said, I just had a son, and I will gladly switch to family-only travel. But all of you, before you reject this form, try it at least once, in some less civilized place. I can recommend India. Just buy a return ticket and some guide book (this part ain't mandatory). You won't forget the experience till your last second on earth. This I can guarantee you.
There's one thing preventing me from traveling alone: a deadly allergy to sesame. This is an ingredient that gets into everything, and it's often very hard to communicate reliably to people how serious it is if I accidentally eat it. Do you know many solo travellers with obscure and serious allergies? Any tips?
100% agree with you on solo travelling: I am not daunted in any way by the idea of days-long-trips alone with my thoughts, a notebook and my kindle. In fact, often I'll seek out long-distance travel by train over flying precisely to experience some alone-time.
I have travelled extensively alone as a woman - there is a safety aspect regardless of gender. It has its own benefits as well as the obvious downsides. For example I found home-stays or BnBs that more easily accepted a solo female and I was welcomed into many family's lives.
I'm a young person and would like to travel solo, but there are still major obstacles. In my case debt. It's not like I'm just stuck in the rat race, I made some bad financial decisions when I was young and now if I froze the progress I've made and went on a long holiday it would be absolutely disastrous to me long term.
There is something to be said for optimizing your career rather than traveling when you are young. I chose to delay my career and education to travel and while it taught me to enjoy my own company and has given me great insight into a lot of things I still hesitate to recommend it to people.
Fact is that life is a 'choose your own adventure' kind of game and most people grow into that understanding slowly as they dive deep into their cultural norms. Traveling young exposes you to this idea when you are a bit too idealistic to make good use of it.
For example, having a shared context / assumptions is a prerequisite for successfully raising a child (nevermind that you brainwash it into your assumptions, at least you are in approximate agreement with you spouse and have relative confidence in your opinions).
What ends up happening to many travelers is that they return to find that their original culture isn't special but rather represents some arbitrary set of choices in the spectrum of possible cultures. Probably there will be a realization that some of these choices are less than optimal.
The idealist sets out to 'convince people' or believes they've now got the right idea about things, even if you are relatively pragmatic and just pick up some slight quirks it's still often enough to isolate you from the most boring part of society. The part that hands out 'normal jobs' and supports the dominant political party.
From there things go downhill because people start to associate 'quirky' or 'weird' with you and you silently become a cautionary tale of the dangers of traveling ("it will undo your conditioning", "you will become isolated from the herd and exposed to danger"), however on the surface the reasoning will always be: "it's so dangerous, there are all of these things that could go wrong.." or "I am this kind of person and elsewhere I will face prejudice" a.k.a. "here I have special status that I am unwilling to let go of".
This kind of situation eventually turns people off traveling and they recondition themselves to fit into some group (maybe expats maybe back home) vacation is spent on "holiday" not traveling but maybe they manage to leverage some small idea they gained on their travels and make a profit, others don't give up on traveling but do so at the cost of everything else until all they have left is bragging in some hostel, finally there are the grown up idealists that have sorted out their beliefs over multiple years of battling with the status quo, they live a somewhat reclusive lifestyle and if they know what they stand for and act with some conviction they sometimes manage to earn the respect of others and move the culture forward a cycle of computation but most will be ignored quietly so long as they don't upset anyone.
Meanwhile the people who optimized school and career are reaching the brink of breakdown from never giving themselves the time off to figure out what they are doing. However they have plenty of money to take that time off and their main struggle will be existential crisis, physical ailments, being a workaholic or some other stress related injury.
My belief is that the right path is more balanced, when I was traveling all over the place I was going too fast and I had no aim or reason, I was just there. Slowly I realized that everyone around me traveled for a purpose, they wanted to go skiing or to see something they attached importance to or meet someone they were good friends with etc.
The balance I was missing was the comfort of having a reason or support and the balance others often miss is the courage to face the unknown. The right idea is to travel in the place you are (stepping out of the comfort zone) and to live in the place you travel to, that is, always be constructing your home. Even if you only stay for a couple of nights, no matter how short the stay it is never an excuse to "put up with your environment" - of course you need to be realistic about what you can accomplish but never shut off this part of your mind that is making a home.
> Why do we travel? Among other things so we meet people who don't think they know us once and for all; so we may again experience what is possible in this life.
-- Max Frisch
> Warum reisen wir? Auch dies, damit wir Menschen begegnen, die nicht meinen, daß sie uns kennen ein für allemal; damit wir noch einmal erfahren, was uns in diesem Leben möglich sei.
My wife looked at me like I had three heads the first time I said that I'd seen many films alone and that I enjoyed doing so. For her, movies are a social event, something enjoyed with friends. I'm not opposed to that and enjoy it as well, but it's not where I started.
There was a phase early in my adult life, before I learned how to make friends, where I'd go see most movies on my own, and I enjoyed it greatly. I got to think through my own reactions and come to my own terms with the films without having to filter through other people's thoughts and without having to filter what I watched on the behalf of the group. At this point in life, most movie watching for me is social, but there are some that I still make a point of seeing on my own. There's a wonderful place for sharing, but there's a wonderful place for solitude as well. Cheers to you wherever you are on that spectrum.
He definitely meant a different type of healthy solitude, rather than the one on which newspapers and studies report when they assert loneliness and isolation among young people is at an all-time high.
> He definitely meant a different type of healthy solitude, rather than the one on which newspapers and studies report when they assert loneliness and isolation among young people is at an all-time high.
Maybe it's because people spend too much time exchanging msgs in forums such as this, instead of having meaningfull exchanges with real people. Even walking down the street, they have their noses buried in a device.
Knowing how to be alone and being social is not a rigid dichotomy. I think it’s clear what Tarkovsky means: that there is immense value in self-discovery. I’ve heard similar sentiments from other great artists.
Grothendieck famously attributed his mathematical confidence to a long period of solitude in his youth where he independently recreated some major results.
The late Harold Bloom used to say that reading is ultimately a solitary endeavor—that its purpose is to learn to have a conversation with yourself.
However I think for reflective people there is a “danger” on the side of being too entangled in this conversation. Socialization can start to seem banal and unambitious in comparison. But I’ve found that this just suggests that you haven’t found people who aren’t in the habit of talking with themselves.
I find this story apropos: There was a screening at the Yale Humanities Center of Tarkovsky’s “Ivan’s Childhood” that my roommate wanted to take me to when we were undergrads. I only reluctantly agreed—it was freezing outside and I had been cooped up in my room wrestling with a statistical mechanics problem set. Frankly I didn’t feel like we got along. But my decision to go became the beginning of one of the deepest friendships I continue to have and my endlessly enriching relationship with film and literature.
I spent a fair bit of time alone, and bored, while growing up (I was born in the late 70s, so this was primarily in the 80s). I felt it helped me to get comfortable with my own thoughts and to be able to think for myself.
It is of course difficult, on the basis of memory and introspection, to tell how much it helped in that regard.
I'm not saying that being alone will help someone get comfortable with their thoughts and be able to think for themselves. It just seems like it can be conducive to that.
> "Every person needs to learn from childhood how to spend time with oneself. That doesn’t mean he should be lonely, but that he shouldn’t grow bored with himself."
This is something that has helped me a lot. Some of the best creative ideas and stuff I came up as a young person were due to my spending this time on self-learning and trying to do something or the other. Learnt never to get bored just being with myself.
And to this day whenever I am alone, either I put myself in a learning/exploring/thinking mode; or I work on doing something creative/practical. There's no passive mode.
I think the key to not getting bored alone and spend this 'me time' in some meaningful way is to actively engage oneself instead of passively passing the time.
The problem with being very comfortable being alone is that there’s not actually a lot of opportunity for it once you have a family, then it’s quite stifling and builds frustration over time.
I guess like everything, healthy moderation is needed. But when you’re truly comfortable being alone for long periods of time it’s like opium- and I don’t mean that in a sardonic way; it’s addictive, peaceful, free and makes you start to resent lack of control.
Yes, it can be stifling at times when you yearn to be alone and have other pressing/family needs.
I try to work out my priorities in time and 'am able to clearly communicate with my spouse and children that I need some time out to think/sort/do stuff. Luckily it works most of the time.
I can relate to this so much. Spending time alone feels like recharging my social battery. There is a weird contradiction I enjoy being around people, but at the same time long to be alone and enjoy the solitude. Now with kids, social obligations and a plethora of distractions these moments alone get fewer and fewer by the day.
Reminds me of a complementarity I sometimes see between being in society, which allows to share, collaborate, etc., and being in solitude, which allows to think, contemplate, etc., and of a south american indigenous tribe I forgot the name of, where the elders somehow transcend this opposition: for important deliberations, they gather in a dark hut and whisper their views, for those who speak not to be
identified, as if they formed a single mind.
I would appreciate if anyone could remind me the name of this tribe.
[+] [-] mellowdream|6 years ago|reply
With Stalker I turn to Fellini - I don't like the idea of "understanding" a film. I don't believe that rational understanding is an essential element in the reception of any work of art. Either a film has something to say to you or it hasn't. If you are moved by it, you don't need to have it explained to you. If not, no explanation can make you moved by it. That's why I don't think my films are misunderstood when they are accepted for different reasons. Every person has his own fund of experiences and emotions which he brings to bear on every new experience-whether it is to his view of a film or to a love affair; and it is simply the combination of the film with the reality already existing in each person which creates the final impression of unity. As I was saying, this is the way the spectator participates in the process of creation. This diversity of reaction doesn't mean that the objective reality of the film has been misunderstood. Anyway, there is no objective reality in my films, any more than there is in life.
[+] [-] H8crilA|6 years ago|reply
There is no "explanation" as in a series of rules of the universe and character internal goals that together drive the plot. Why would one think there has to be? "Film is a mosaic made up of time."
[+] [-] DubiousPusher|6 years ago|reply
But to make Rublev's epiphany clear -that he could live for compassion, passion and the kindred spirit of a fellow creator- you had to be taken through this long process of seeing this crazy world through Rublev's naive eyes.
It was definitely one of my first experiences where I discovered that sticking with art that is challenging or difficult could truly pay off in a way immediately gratifying art sometimes cannot.
[+] [-] nrp|6 years ago|reply
Roadside Picnic is also the incredibly rare example of the book, the movie (Stalker), and the video game (S.T.A.L.K.E.R.) each being able to stand on their own merits. This is probably in part because they are so different thematically.
[+] [-] _hardwaregeek|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thesz|6 years ago|reply
And I think it is totally wrong.
If you are moved by something, you better explain to yourself why it is so. You lose a part of perception by not doing that. Rational mind is one of the ways we perceive world around us.
And you can be moved by an art if it has been explained to you. It happened to me many times in the past and is also wonderful experience. As if some gates are opened and I can feel more.
[+] [-] jamesrcole|6 years ago|reply
I think it depends on the work. Take the tv show The Wire. There is a lot to understand and learn from it. I found doing so really worthwhile (for multiple reasons).
[+] [-] alasdair_|6 years ago|reply
I respectfully disagree. Watching Schindler’s List as an eleven year-old barely had an effect on me. After it was explained to me I found it tremendously heartbreaking.
[+] [-] mikorym|6 years ago|reply
The immediate things about Stalker that bothered me are, in retrospect, solvable with a higher budget or better film support. Of course, some people prefer the authentic aura of such films. Bellflower would be another example of a good idea and story done on a budget of next to nothing.
[+] [-] damontal|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dharma1|6 years ago|reply
The scene when they are on the train tracks, slowly morphing from black and white into colour - so slowly that it takes a while for you to figure out what's going on, while being lulled into almost a trance like state. I did not realise film could elicit such experiences prior to seeing Stalker. It's beautiful
[+] [-] cordaciu|6 years ago|reply
It's my favorite movie of all time
[+] [-] wnscooke|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamesakirk|6 years ago|reply
Tarkovsky's films seem to exist in a different type of time orthogonal to our own, and the experience of engaging with them is difficult to describe. They are both powerful and ineffable.
From his writings, he could be mistaken for a practitioner of Zen. I would like to share my favorite Tarkovsky quote:
"Everybody asks me what things mean in my films. This is terrible! An artist doesn't have to answer for his meanings. I don't think so deeply about my work - I don't know what my symbols may represent. What matters to me is that they arouse feelings, any feelings you like, based on whatever your inner response might be. If you look for a meaning, you'll miss everything that happens. Thinking during a film interferes with your experience of it. Take a watch into pieces, it doesn't work. Similarly with a work of art, there's no way it can be analyzed without destroying it."
[+] [-] pm90|6 years ago|reply
(Also, I’m sorry for your loss. Losing a parent seems un fathomable to me although I know it will happen to me too).
[+] [-] forgottenpass|6 years ago|reply
Almost all art analysis I see has to penetrates my zone of not seeking it out. So maybe it's being done impeccably somewhere, but in the stuff I see, the "analysis" is really a lossy description of the person doing the analyzing.
It tells me their frame of reference. The parts of the work they'll care about, and their analytical blindspots. It tells me about their views on hot contemporary issues, their pet peeves and hobby horses. It shows me the types of conclusions they were taught to draw. Very rarely does the analysis tell me anything about the work beyond the unambiguous facts visible to every layperson.
[+] [-] papito|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hardwaregeek|6 years ago|reply
Yet when I try to convince people to solo travel, I encounter so much hemming and hawing, so much resistance. I suppose there's a safety aspect. I'm male and can't speak about traveling as a woman or trans-man. But I do meet many female travelers. And I don't know significantly more guys who solo travel.
I'd imagine there's a fear of loneliness, of homesickness, of paralysis in face of being so untethered. Which, yes, can happen. It comes in waves. Some days I'd be horribly, terribly lonely. Some days I'd do almost nothing. It always passed.
Anybody who has the time, the money, the temptation to travel alone should do it. Which is often less than people imagine. Flights have gotten incredibly cheap. Hostels are acceptable for a few weeks. Food can be bought on the street or prepared from grocery stores. Every country, every city has low income people, and they still eat.
The lifestyle certainly suits the young more than the old. So then why do so many of my young friends delay traveling? Why are they so resistant to the idea of slowing down their education a little to see the world? I know, I know. They need the money. But I do have friends who aren't stuck in a hyper-competitive race to optimize their earnings by age 25. Who are fortunate to take the luxury of a break.
I shouldn't care this much. Yet I can't help but find it so odd that people require someone else to be with them while traveling. If I had to find a travel partner with the same time off, similar goals with traveling and who I wouldn't murder after a week or two, I'd probably be stuck at home.
[+] [-] saiya-jin|6 years ago|reply
I am like you too. I am also an introvert. Also I don't travel to rest, but to have as intense experience as possible. Not necessarily only positive, intensity is more important. Often I feel like I need another vacation after a vacation, this time for resting. It is so fulfilling to challenge oneself a bit. There are great life lessons to learn - throw yourself into the trip, without precise plans, and let it unfold on its own.
That said, I just had a son, and I will gladly switch to family-only travel. But all of you, before you reject this form, try it at least once, in some less civilized place. I can recommend India. Just buy a return ticket and some guide book (this part ain't mandatory). You won't forget the experience till your last second on earth. This I can guarantee you.
[+] [-] kqr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] telesilla|6 years ago|reply
I have travelled extensively alone as a woman - there is a safety aspect regardless of gender. It has its own benefits as well as the obvious downsides. For example I found home-stays or BnBs that more easily accepted a solo female and I was welcomed into many family's lives.
[+] [-] reroute1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] openfuture|6 years ago|reply
Fact is that life is a 'choose your own adventure' kind of game and most people grow into that understanding slowly as they dive deep into their cultural norms. Traveling young exposes you to this idea when you are a bit too idealistic to make good use of it.
For example, having a shared context / assumptions is a prerequisite for successfully raising a child (nevermind that you brainwash it into your assumptions, at least you are in approximate agreement with you spouse and have relative confidence in your opinions).
What ends up happening to many travelers is that they return to find that their original culture isn't special but rather represents some arbitrary set of choices in the spectrum of possible cultures. Probably there will be a realization that some of these choices are less than optimal.
The idealist sets out to 'convince people' or believes they've now got the right idea about things, even if you are relatively pragmatic and just pick up some slight quirks it's still often enough to isolate you from the most boring part of society. The part that hands out 'normal jobs' and supports the dominant political party.
From there things go downhill because people start to associate 'quirky' or 'weird' with you and you silently become a cautionary tale of the dangers of traveling ("it will undo your conditioning", "you will become isolated from the herd and exposed to danger"), however on the surface the reasoning will always be: "it's so dangerous, there are all of these things that could go wrong.." or "I am this kind of person and elsewhere I will face prejudice" a.k.a. "here I have special status that I am unwilling to let go of".
This kind of situation eventually turns people off traveling and they recondition themselves to fit into some group (maybe expats maybe back home) vacation is spent on "holiday" not traveling but maybe they manage to leverage some small idea they gained on their travels and make a profit, others don't give up on traveling but do so at the cost of everything else until all they have left is bragging in some hostel, finally there are the grown up idealists that have sorted out their beliefs over multiple years of battling with the status quo, they live a somewhat reclusive lifestyle and if they know what they stand for and act with some conviction they sometimes manage to earn the respect of others and move the culture forward a cycle of computation but most will be ignored quietly so long as they don't upset anyone.
Meanwhile the people who optimized school and career are reaching the brink of breakdown from never giving themselves the time off to figure out what they are doing. However they have plenty of money to take that time off and their main struggle will be existential crisis, physical ailments, being a workaholic or some other stress related injury.
My belief is that the right path is more balanced, when I was traveling all over the place I was going too fast and I had no aim or reason, I was just there. Slowly I realized that everyone around me traveled for a purpose, they wanted to go skiing or to see something they attached importance to or meet someone they were good friends with etc.
The balance I was missing was the comfort of having a reason or support and the balance others often miss is the courage to face the unknown. The right idea is to travel in the place you are (stepping out of the comfort zone) and to live in the place you travel to, that is, always be constructing your home. Even if you only stay for a couple of nights, no matter how short the stay it is never an excuse to "put up with your environment" - of course you need to be realistic about what you can accomplish but never shut off this part of your mind that is making a home.
[+] [-] moneywoes|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PavlovsCat|6 years ago|reply
-- Max Frisch
> Warum reisen wir? Auch dies, damit wir Menschen begegnen, die nicht meinen, daß sie uns kennen ein für allemal; damit wir noch einmal erfahren, was uns in diesem Leben möglich sei.
[+] [-] pjmorris|6 years ago|reply
There was a phase early in my adult life, before I learned how to make friends, where I'd go see most movies on my own, and I enjoyed it greatly. I got to think through my own reactions and come to my own terms with the films without having to filter through other people's thoughts and without having to filter what I watched on the behalf of the group. At this point in life, most movie watching for me is social, but there are some that I still make a point of seeing on my own. There's a wonderful place for sharing, but there's a wonderful place for solitude as well. Cheers to you wherever you are on that spectrum.
[+] [-] telegrammae|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stierlitz|6 years ago|reply
Maybe it's because people spend too much time exchanging msgs in forums such as this, instead of having meaningfull exchanges with real people. Even walking down the street, they have their noses buried in a device.
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] namirez|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjevans|6 years ago|reply
Like so many things, when you have a choice partaking an experience is positive; or else you'd go do something else.
Voluntary is to Forced as Alone is to Lonely
[+] [-] danielrk|6 years ago|reply
Grothendieck famously attributed his mathematical confidence to a long period of solitude in his youth where he independently recreated some major results.
The late Harold Bloom used to say that reading is ultimately a solitary endeavor—that its purpose is to learn to have a conversation with yourself.
However I think for reflective people there is a “danger” on the side of being too entangled in this conversation. Socialization can start to seem banal and unambitious in comparison. But I’ve found that this just suggests that you haven’t found people who aren’t in the habit of talking with themselves.
I find this story apropos: There was a screening at the Yale Humanities Center of Tarkovsky’s “Ivan’s Childhood” that my roommate wanted to take me to when we were undergrads. I only reluctantly agreed—it was freezing outside and I had been cooped up in my room wrestling with a statistical mechanics problem set. Frankly I didn’t feel like we got along. But my decision to go became the beginning of one of the deepest friendships I continue to have and my endlessly enriching relationship with film and literature.
[+] [-] jamesrcole|6 years ago|reply
It is of course difficult, on the basis of memory and introspection, to tell how much it helped in that regard.
I'm not saying that being alone will help someone get comfortable with their thoughts and be able to think for themselves. It just seems like it can be conducive to that.
[+] [-] iapsngh|6 years ago|reply
This is something that has helped me a lot. Some of the best creative ideas and stuff I came up as a young person were due to my spending this time on self-learning and trying to do something or the other. Learnt never to get bored just being with myself.
And to this day whenever I am alone, either I put myself in a learning/exploring/thinking mode; or I work on doing something creative/practical. There's no passive mode.
I think the key to not getting bored alone and spend this 'me time' in some meaningful way is to actively engage oneself instead of passively passing the time.
[+] [-] dijit|6 years ago|reply
I guess like everything, healthy moderation is needed. But when you’re truly comfortable being alone for long periods of time it’s like opium- and I don’t mean that in a sardonic way; it’s addictive, peaceful, free and makes you start to resent lack of control.
At least in my single user experience.
[+] [-] iapsngh|6 years ago|reply
I try to work out my priorities in time and 'am able to clearly communicate with my spouse and children that I need some time out to think/sort/do stuff. Luckily it works most of the time.
[+] [-] mrexroad|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newnewpdro|6 years ago|reply
It's akin to how nice a hot shower feels after spending a week backpacking in the wilderness.
[+] [-] Lutzb|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ak39|6 years ago|reply
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45564/the-world-is-to...
(Copying and pasting multi-line text on HN is an exercise in horror.)
[+] [-] acqq|6 years ago|reply
Andrei Arsenyevich Tarkovsky, Russian filmmaker, writer, and film theorist. (1932 – 1986)
The title about his message is from 2015, but he must have said that three decades earlier.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jffhn|6 years ago|reply
I would appreciate if anyone could remind me the name of this tribe.
[+] [-] myth_drannon|6 years ago|reply