Interviewer Mrs. Potter, you have been running a blog now for little over a month. You have published 40 posts to date. Congratulations!
Interviewer Do you like what you’ve been doing so far?
Interviewer Could you elaborate a little?
Interviewee I could.
Interviewer But you won’t?
Interviewee You nailed it.
Interviewer What has the response to your blog been so far?
Interviewee The medical team is still discussing what type of a disorder it is. They are agreed it’s on the autistic-narcissistic spectrum, but there’s a debate as to where exactly. Asperger is being tossed up a lot. As long as I keep paying the bills, the debate is guaranteed to go on for a while still.
Interviewer Some might think you’re homophobic.
Interviewee You’re one of them? I’m not. Once, on a hot afternoon in Fosdinovo, when most sensible Italians were inside their cool, thick-walled houses, I saw two girls walking hand in hand, clearly very much in love with each other. I saw that as a sign of civilization in a country still dominated by catholic clergy. I envied those girls. In fact, I found it liberating.
Interviewer Gay men?
Interviewee Among my best friends, definitely.
Interviewer Gay pride?
Interviewee Get a life.
Interviewer You mentioned Catholicism. You seem to have a strong opinion on religion. People say they take offense at the way you write about religion.
Interviewee I don’t write about religion. It’s a non-issue. It’s completely empty and meaningless. It doesn’t refer to anything. How could I write about something that isn’t about anything?
Interviewer But wouldn’t you think it is exactly this aggressive stance on what is sacred to a large part of humanity that many of your readers are put off by.
Interviewer Yes, sacred to a lot of people.
Interviewee I’m sorry. I’m afraid I don’t understand the concept of “sacred”. Anyway, the people you’re referring to may consider praying for this blog to stop. If it doesn’t work, they still have the consoling certainty that, once dead, I will be in a hell or end up in some other horrendous after-life situation, as applicable. You see, the thing about religion is, it’s always true if you care to believe in your belief. A prayer doesn’t do the trick? Never mind, that’s because your god has something up his sleeve which is far more damning for the perpetrator: she’s going to be denied paradise. See, no matter what you believe, it is true, because, damn, you put it in there yourself first! Ah, you lucky bastards, who are dumb enough to be able to pull this Munchhausen stunt on yourselves!
Interviewer … point made, not taken though. Many readers are intrigued by your hints at a terrible accident that you suggest has left you with a scarred and disfigured face. Will you be revealing what happened in a future post?
Interviewee Don’t hold your breath over it.
Interviewer And your face?
Interviewer In a post called Living The Lies you claim absolute freedom to lie and deceive. A similar disregard for truthfulness can be found in the recount of a boating trip, which you recently blogged about in a post called Boat Ride. Would you describe yourself as immoral, amoral perhaps?
Interviewee My ethics are of the highest standard. I just don’t think that truthfulness is an ethical imperative, or even that morality has anything to do with being truthful. If deception might per se be harmful to suckers for truth, I have found that I must nevertheless lie and deceive constantly in order that no greater harm will to come to me. However, I will never, by deceiving, harm someone else…
Interviewer But if that someone is offended, morally harmed, by being lied to?
Interviewee That’s not my problem. And, let’s face it, truth is just another bubble. Wait…
Interviewee Ah, here it is: Non-fiction is boring, it’s limiting and reductionist. It is untruthful. Non-fiction is fake fiction. Males find satisfaction in non-fiction: what is on the outside stays on the outside. Fiction is expansive, it blends and blurs, it digresses, it is limitless, and it is meaningful. Fiction is nothing but the truth. This is from an early post, called Curtains Open.
Interviewer What does it say?
Interviewee It says there is no reference for what people call “truth”, or non-fiction. If you would lie down on your bed on a sunny afternoon and allow your mind to wander off, you will see what I mean. It’s like tripping on LSD.
Interviewer Do you do drugs?
Interviewee I don’t. They make me throw up. Nor do I smoke. Smoking is particularly harmful to women. They shrivel up and they start to stink from the pores of their skin. A smoking man starts to rot and wither between 50 and 55, a smoking woman from the age of 30. Never mind the cancer.
Interviewer There’s a lot of references to sex in your posts. Yet you condemn male-to-female cross-dressing as the committing of a sexual act in public, which you say you have a right not to be confronted with. What is the difference with the very explicit references to sex in your posts?
Interviewee The difference is that one can choose to read or ignore my blog. Another difference is that I write about sex, clearly in a stylized fashion, I’m not doing it. Well, of course I do it, but not in my blog. A cross-dresser on a TV show, in the streets or in a club is actually, physically engaged in a public sexual act. I would object as strongly to public sexual acts between men, between women and between a man and a woman. The thing is, gay lib, which for a reason unknown to me seems to cultivate cross-dressing as a staple of emancipation of gay people, is being confused with the liberty to confront people with sexual acts in public. This is not just about transvestites, it’s about men decked out in leather, strings, SM paraphernalia, etc. I don’t like to be confronted with prostitutes either. I guess I just don’t want sex to be out in the streets. The act itself, in whatever form or guise, is, I think, I hope, appalling to everyone but the people involved in it.
Interviewer Let’s turn to the blog’s style, the way it’s written…
Interviewee Do let’s!
Interviewer Eh, yes, so the blog, would you call it literature?
Interviewee Of course. Wouldn’t you?
Interviewer Eh, no. Do you think many people agree with you?
Interviewee No, but not many people are well-read. As a blog it’s as literary as they get. It’s full of linguistic jokes, references. Posts get reworked days after they were first published. Not all posts have the pretense of literature of course. But most posts are very funny.
Interviewer Depending on your sense of humor?
Interviewee Correct, depending on my sense of humor.
Interviewer Okay, in your archaic use of the indefinite pronoun: depending on one’s sense of humor?
Interviewee First, the use of the indefinite pronoun is not a deliberate archaism. It’s my way of getting closer to the writings of Virginia Woolf. My sense of humor is the only one relevant, if only because I have no way of knowing what another person finds funny. If my humor doesn’t appeal to my readers, they are at liberty not to smile, or to stop reading altogether.
Interviewer You mention “your readers”. Who do you think is your public?
Interviewee As a percentage of world population? My phone’s calculator returns an error. I don’t care about my public. What I care about is that everyone shall find at least one reason to be offended by what I write. If I have one fan, it’s time to up my game.
Interviewer Your blog is called Opening One’s Eyes, and the catchphrase is How to get the deadness out of one’s eyes. Have your eyes opened? Have you found a way to get the deadness out of your eyes?
Interviewee Hard no to both questions. Applies to your eyes, too.
Interviewer Eh, right. Well, Dingenom, thank you so much for doing this interview with us. Let me finish by congratulating you again on having published your 40th post. Happy blogging!