What’s your opinion of Malcolm X? What impression have you gotten? Do you remember where you got it from?

Depending on the mind, the mention of Malcolm’s name can bring forth images from a righteous, principled, heroic revolutionary, to an angry, hatemongering black supremacist.

In a word, I always figured he was a very intense person. I vaguely remember that from the trailer of the biopic starring Denzel Washington, but I was pretty young when that aired. From a more recent visit to the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis I learned that he thought Martin Luther King Jr. was a “chump.”

Coincidentally, this last MLK Day I finished Malcolm X’s autobiography. Now, unexpectedly, I know a lot more about Malcolm than I do Martin. (Please, if you’ve read one, recommend a good book on Dr. King.)

I’d like to review the book, not the man – though what better report of a man can there be than his own autobiography? I guess then I’m sharing my opinion of what I’ve learned about Malcolm’s life, from his book; I’ve purposely withheld from learning more about him from other sources for now.

I cherish the ability to form my own opinions based off an original source. If someone paraphrases something a politician or celebrity said or did, colored by their own opinion, I consider it, but am much more interested in tracking down original quotes or clips in context and interpreting it for myself.

Based on the heavy nature of 2016’s predominant political and social discussions I aimed to read four books last year, books I’d never read, whose historical subjects figured so prominently into the topics of the present: The Bible, The Quran, Mein Kampf, and The Autobiography of Malcolm X. I don’t think I need to explain the pertinence or modern significance of these books.

With these subjects so casually tossed into conversation, I’m ashamed that I don’t know more about them, especially with how easily copies of books can be tracked down. Scholars have devoted their entire lives to understanding and interpreting the meaning of religions’ central texts, though, so I admit I’m reluctant to try the Bible or Quran, but I did procure copies of the other two books. (Also, I’m a slow, er, careful reader, and for some cosmic balance I always juggle multiple books – fiction, non-fiction, something dry about art/life/philosophy, comics, etc.)

Faced with the choice of reading the words of either Malcolm X or Adolf Hitler, especially if I hoped to read the book in public, I realized that however academically and critically I hope to try and read Mein Kampf I’d definitely feel embarrassed, if not begging for negative reactions, by reading it in a cafeteria or while donating plasma. Shoot, I’d definitely be shocked at someone publicly reading Hitler, and I don’t know if I’d be comfortable asking them why they wanted to read such a book, even though I know why I’d want to read it: to try and learn how a person could go so horribly wrong while pursuing what they thought was right. I don’t know if I’ll find that in Mein Kampf, but I have this theory that a book written by a bad person can be used as a tool for good – something of a “how not-to” manual. Then again, by that notion, Charles Manson’s music doesn’t seem to offer any real insight.

Wish me luck if I ever get to that one. I chose The Autobiography of Malcolm X first.

(*SPOILERS GALORE AHEAD* — The book’s 50 years old, but I sure hate spoilers. Perhaps a more important warning is my inconsistency in citing specifics; I didn’t think to write this until I was almost done with the book.)

Off the bat, it was a very interesting read. Malcolm’s Michigan childhood was tragic, with destitution, his dad murdered, and he and his handful of siblings forced from their mother’s custody by the state. Young Malcolm’s determination and intelligence are objectively inspiring.

After leaving school he moved to the east coast to live with an older sister, working at a night club shining shoes. It’s fascinating to read someone’s stories of what entertainment and entertainers were like back then, and just the night life in general. So much action! Really fun, lively times between old Boston and New York.

Malcolm’s coworkers turned him on to more illicit means of making money, a.k.a. hustling. Drugs, pimping, the like. Dude got corrupted quickly. Out of his shell, flush with easy cash, flashily dressed, and armed with newly acquired dance skills and slang, Malcolm had a whole lot of fun employing it all. But the focus on money got him into trouble with other hustlers, and the drugs he got addicted to turned him paranoid and miserable. He became a full-time thief, and eventually got busted and sentenced to a very long time in prison.

Locked up and painfully sober, he was so mean he earned the nickname “Satan.” Malcolm’s education began in prison, though. I’m a fan of autodidactism, and Malcolm absolutely inhaled the books in the prison’s exceptionally stocked library. (I’ve always felt that that’d be the only potentially enjoyable part of a long sentence.)

One of his brothers wrote to him about the Nation of Islam. He glommed onto the rhetoric very quickly, and with growing intensity this became the new lens through which he learned. White people rapidly became “the devil” to him. He recalled all of his experiences with white people growing up, and retroactively confirmed this judgment – though he skips over all the white people who genuinely cared for him, including a long-term girlfriend from Boston.

I should mention that the Nation of Islam’s “history” of the creation of the evil white race is outrageous enough to make L. Ron Hubbard blush. In short, long ago, a mad scientist named Mr. Yacub took black men into a cave and turned them evil while lightening their skin tone over centuries. Yep!

Malcolm’s mind was made up, though, and he passionately took to the Nation of Islam and its leader, Elijah Muhammad, almost as if he’d replaced a chemical addiction with an ideological one. (We see that all the time with the seeking of a “higher power” in the 12-step addiction recovery program.) After prison he gets very tight with Mr. Muhammad, travels all over, setting up new temples, recruiting members, gaining prominence, giving speeches and interviews spreading his beliefs.

Most of the middle of the book was difficult to read. Malcolm had some unflattering if not vicious opinions regarding women, Jews, biracial people, and of course white people. A huge point of his contention with MLK – whom he indirectly references throughout the book, but only mentions by name toward the very end – was racial integration. The epilogue even had an anecdote of Malcolm taking cream with his coffee – “the only thing he likes integrated,” was his comment. He was also incredibly cynical about the March (“Farce,” as he calls it) on Washington.

At one point he talks about a white college student finding him in Harlem after he’d spoken at her campus – she’d traveled from the south because she was so concerned with his message. She explains her journey and how deeply ashamed she felt of her ancestors’ irreparable crimes against black people, and implores, “What can I do?” His reply? “Nothing!” To his stern satisfaction she ran out crying. He offered no solutions beyond segregation at this point, entertaining the formation of one or more black ethnostates in the US.

Perhaps his most despicable moment came after he celebrated to the press when he learned of a plane crash that killed its 30 white passengers.

The majority of the book presents this stage of Malcolm’s mindset: anti-white, pro-Nation of Islam, with these two prongs inextricably linked. Somedays it was real work to read; it’s tough to take someone seriously when their hatred of people with a certain skin color is so central to their ideology. But the hypocrisy was tough, too; he complains of the media making a scapegoat of him, while he often does the same of white people.

Indisputably, the book maintains a striking sincerity and honesty throughout. It was written as Malcolm told it to journalist/author Alex Haley (who later wrote Roots). Malcolm’s opinions evolve a great deal over the years that Haley wrote the book with him, and Malcolm later agreed to leave his former opinions intact; Haley correctly suggested the book would be more effective if it displayed Malcolm’s evolution. If you haven’t read the book and plan to, I regret if I’ve spoiled that, but I think it’s incredibly important.

Eventually, Malcolm is made a scapegoat by Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. He seems to handle his excommunication with real honor, in spite of what he learns of his former leader on the way out. After his split he pursues Islam more directly – the best I can do to explain the difference between the Nation of Islam and Islam is the former is Islam plus “white people are the devil.” He embarks on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and meets Muslim and world leaders who had followed his story internationally. And on this pilgrimage, witnessing white, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Muslims and Muslims of all physical appearances, he sheds his segregationist mentality.

In a sense, at least; he gains the mindset that all people should unite under Islam, going so far as suggesting Islam should govern society. On the one hand it’s beautiful that he witnesses racial harmony for the first time, but this all but leads him to favor segregation by religion instead of race.

I should admit that I am not religious. I abide some form of secular morality and whatever else I listed in my second post. I’m not here to try and work out or justify my current non-relationship with religion, but I feel the need to mention it because religion figures so prominently into Malcolm’s life. Also, lest I be labeled an Islamophobe, know that my non-participation in all religions is totally equal. I can’t rule it out, but for now I feel fortunate that my parents never pushed religion on me.

I can’t know if my personal non-religiousness figures into my support of a separation of church and state. I hope it doesn’t. But I do feel it’s the most maximally free way to run a country, and therefore disagree with his suggestion that Islam or any religion should rule a country.

More so, I’m bothered when I read between the lines: if Malcolm believed an Islam-based government (he never uses the term Sharia) is the only means of racial harmony, is he not inferring that people who aren’t religious are inherently racist?

Forgive me if I’m not eager to accept a requisite link regarding religion and racism. He makes a more general statement, though, that I find tougher to disagree with:

“Truly a paradise could exist wherever material progress and spiritual values could be properly balanced.”

Of course, seeking such an ill-defined, detail-deficient paradise is probably what’s driven so many wars for so long. Sounds nice, though.

In loosening his hard line against white people, Malcolm redefines “whiteness” as an attitude more than a skin tone. Why, then, continue to use the skin tone to describe the attitude? Why not use another word, perhaps “bigotry,” that people of all skin tones are capable of?

Maybe he would have gone on to better articulate this. What I might admire most about Malcolm X, or Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz as he was known post-pilgrimage, was his positively evolving societal outlook. Even though he was seriously ostracized and misunderstood by the end of his life, he appeared to be headed in a positive direction.

I hate that he was assassinated. Members of the Nation of Islam took everything from him, slandered his name, blew up his house, and committed as much damage to him as possible. Finally, at one of his speeches, shortly after he took the stage and addressed the crowd, multiple Nation of Islam members rose from the audience, drew their guns, and shot him to death. Violence is never, ever the way to deal with different opinions (no, not even with neo-Nazis; perhaps more on that in a future post).

At my most optimistic, I fear we lost a powerful voice that could have gone on to deeply, positively affect race relations. I hate that we’ll never know.

I’ll continue my optimism and discuss what I liked about Malcolm. I’m not worried about sounding like Justin Trudeau eulogizing Fidel Castro, or John Service describing Chairman Mao, because Malcolm was much different. As controversial as he may have been, based on my knowledge – again, limited only to whatever he told Haley for this book – Malcolm never directly called for violence.  You could argue young Malcolm X’s rhetoric, in the twisted minds of some people, led to destruction, violence, and death. But he certainly wasn’t in charge of a country and in a position where he could order death or imprisonment to dissidents like Castro or enact policies that killed millions like Mao.

I liked that Malcolm was such a motivated learner. I think the more he learned and experienced, the more his mind was opened. His heart opened more, too; privately, though not publicly, he later expressed regret for his harshness and cruelty regarding the plane crash and the lady in the diner. Malcolm could have stayed angry his entire life, and even found ways to personally benefit from stoking anger in others, but I think he was genuine in his pursuit of societal harmony, radical as it may have been. Again, I wish we could have seen where he wound up.

He was eager to engage in discourse. Sure, he may have had a combative edge to his debates, but he would field a question or comment from anyone. He fully utilized his freedom of speech. He did, however, allow his supporters to drive out dissenters from crowds at his speeches, but since they were private events he was within his rights.

I like that he was politically independent. He detested both political parties, feeling like neither cared about people, but gave the republicans “credit” for at least being honest and forthright in their disdain. I liked his skepticism, and his understanding that social and political movements can be compromised or corrupted, if not co-opted by those who bankroll them.

And again, I respect his honesty, and restraint from going back and rewriting this book when it must’ve been very tempting (looking at you, Lucas and Spielberg), especially as he found himself further alienated.

What I didn’t like was his proclivity for the collectivism that largely informs the concept racism. He acknowledged a number of “good” white individuals, but condemned us as a whole.

“Here in the United States, notwithstanding those few ‘good’ white people, it is the collective 150 million white people whom the collective 22 million black people have to deal with!”

In response, since it was Spike Lee who made the “Malcolm X” biopic, I’ll cite another Spike joint, “Do the Right Thing”, and the great scene where Mookie (who’s black) takes Pino (who’s white) to task over Pino’s overall prejudice against black people, in spite of his favorite musicians, athletes, and comedians all being black. Mookie points out individual positive examples to defy Pino’s collectively negative prejudice. Why is that so hard for some people?

In closing, I recommend the book and I’m very glad I read it. Part of why I want to throw these radical texts at myself is to see how my principles withstand, and what my reactions teach me about myself. Malcolm’s autobiography deepened my understanding of a prominent figure of 20^th century America, and even of the era itself. Any story of a famous person who is feared or revered, influential or ostracized, is naturally interesting, but specifically I appreciated these aspects of the book:

• His rise out of crime and addiction.
• His candid discussion of his recruitment methods, whether hustling or for his religion.
• His self-education and competitive debating while in prison.
• His account of his pilgrimage.
• His difficulty getting into another country – very different situations, but this still hit home; I was stuck at the airport in Slovakia in 2015, alone with staff while they argued in rapid, mumbled Slovak over my entry without ever addressing or even looking at me, just occasionally glancing at my passport. I’d never felt, nor physically been so far from home. After an eternity they tossed me my unstamped passport, without a word, and sort of let me just walk through.
• His dealing with demonization, ostracization, and justifiable paranoia.
• His religious faith.
• Again, his honesty.

Pretty please, let me know what you think! These were just my independent opinions. And like I said, I didn’t cite many specific details or quotes, so if something doesn’t add up that could be why; I’ve been living with this book for months and might have omitted something because it’s obvious to me. If you’ve read it and interpreted something different than I did, or if you have any recommendations for further research, please share!

I hope you learned something and will be inspired to learn more. The following rabbit holes call to me: Martin Luther King Jr., Elijah Muhammad, Louis Farrakhan, and of course more on Malcolm.

Thank you very much for reading! Holler,

-Matty

I have so much I want to say in my fancy new blog that I Literally Can’t Even begin. Which is to say, I haven’t begun to mess with or learn how to use this platform (WordPress) yet; I’ll hopefully better understand it this year, and get more involved with comments and other people’s blogs.

Nor have I decided how to proceed; I’d imagined a separate post for each topic, but there’s so much overlap when I brainstorm, it feels more like a book than a series of posts.

I know I need to just start. I’ve considered doing a post a week, or some regular interval, but if you read my first blog or my last article for Frankly Green Bay you can imagine my reluctance to impose new deadlines, weekly or otherwise, though they probably made me write more regularly than I would’ve on my own.

It’s a bit “grass is always greener,” but beyond no deadlines I’ll list a few other reasons I look forward to writing independently:

–Looser editing, in terms of formatting. Check my previous post for examples: caps lock for emphasis, odd listing, no word count limit.

–No need for topic approval. Not that I ever ran into issues with this with FGB, but I also set my parameters to local entertainment and chose to stay within them. The only time I suggested something – though I hardly pushed hard for it – that wasn’t approved was an objective report from Donald Trump’s third campaign rally in Green Bay. I completely understood the decision. The idea. though, of reporting on a large public event I otherwise wouldn’t have attended recalled perhaps my personal favorite piece, my review of a Martina McBride Christmas concert. Regardless, I can now write about whatever I want, deep, shallow, brief, long, weird, or square.

–Alternative to Facebook. I’ve redirected the majority of my posting to other avenues as it is: Packer posts on the Live from Stadium Drive page, random, brief observations on Twitter. But there’s something too passive-aggressive about inserting potentially different political opinions alongside those of friends; I want to express myself, but FB just doesn’t seem like a great place to discuss politics, with how personally people can take things. (I’ll expound on that in a later blog.) Also, other than the aforementioned looser editing/formatting I can enjoy, I’ll try and keep these pieces fairly properly written, a style that comes off snobby in the casual context of FB.

–Guilt-free indulgence! With FGB I mostly interviewed, reviewed and reported. The couple of times that I indulged in direct, first-person address, I felt sheepish for using my position as a podium. Now, I don’t have to – again, though, with the grass and the greenness. Another perhaps greater indulgence is the therapy of writing out thoughts.

Excited as I am, incredibly(!), I’ve managed to temper my expectations for what I’m capable of accomplishing with a blog. It’d be easier to run down what I Don’t want to do here:

–I don’t want to virtue signal. I’m permanently weary and sick of campaigning, sell-jobs and advertising, and you probably are, too. I might devote a future post entirely to the nuisance of virtue signaling. But I am not writing here to try and convince anyone of my moral superiority, superior taste, etc. I am a confused, conflicted person who has to work pretty hard to maintain a positive outlook.

–I don’t want to swear. Not on here, anyway. We’ll see how it goes, but for now I’m imposing it as a small test to express myself and argue sans profanity.

–I don’t want to go unchallenged. Like I said, I haven’t messed with this site enough yet to know how to respond to comments, but I want to figure it out and at the very least keep commenting open. I haven’t decided yet if I’ll post all of these entries elsewhere online, but if I do, I hope I get measured responses there, too. I want challenges to my ideas that will help me articulate my principles. I want suggestions and help. I want to learn, and that means being wrong about things. Eggs, omlettes. I want discourse.

–I don’t care if people lurk. Or stalk, creep, or hate-read. Go ‘head! This is a public blog. I’ve kind of hoped that adding the extra step of clicking out of facebok or twitter will weed out some of the lazier lurkers, let alone the long-form turn-off for the “tl;dr” crowd. But, shoot, I read plenty of stuff online without commenting.

–I don’t want to kick dead horses. Obvious, agreeable fluff will largely be ignored here; you can find that anywhere. I’ll try to expound on what’s not considered, not widely known, or perhaps not widely popular.

–I don’t want to simply incriminate myself. I’m naively hopeful I can do more than that here. But I realize, anything I put here can and will be used against me. I learned a while ago that something I post online can affect real life; my venting once cost Muddy Udders a cool spot at a music festival (no, not the old Symco Shakedown; I bit my tongue pretty well on that). I wouldn’t put this blog, or anything out there if I didn’t anticipate judgment, but what’s more important is how people respond. I sure hope a person would ask me to elaborate, rather than jump to some assumption and write me off. We’ll see!

On that last one, I’ve half-joked that this blog is my worst idea yet. I hope that doesn’t bear out, but who knows. Smearing is rampant. Accusations and allegations are repeated until they’re accepted as truth, evidence (or lack thereof) be damned. I’m going to try and write objectively, independently and trutfully here, and if I achieve that goal then I’ll inherently piss people off, right, George Orwell? That is not the goal! I hope I can be thoughtfully critical without being insulted, or called a troll or a bigot, etc. I’ll carefully respond to – and learn from! – real arguments, but not ad hominem attacks.

Finally, here’s a list of as many of my values, principles, and things that I appreciate that I’ll hopefully be able to expound upon, or can at least give you an idea of where I’ll be writing from. Some items are abstract, some are specific, some more meaningful than others. I don’t think any of it’s contradictory – if you think it is, please let me know! But in no order here’s where my head’s at:

• Creativity
• Comedy
• Critical Thinking
• Humility
• Humanity
• Bias Awareness
• Political Dissent
• Autodidaction
• Morality
• Philosophy
• Judgment of Character
• Equality of Opportunity
• Diversity of Opinion
• Independence of Thought
• Freedom of Speech, Expression and Religion
• Family
• Friendship
• Music
• Food
• Film
• Long-Form Art and Journalism
• Pragmatism
• Reason
• Logic
• Evidence
• Classical Liberalism (I think)
• Nature
• Healthy Competition
• Productive Debate
• Nonviolence/Peace/Non-Initiation of Force
• Open-Mindedness

If you’ve read all this, maybe you’ll read some more! I’ve written really safely so far, but hopefully my next post will get people thinking/discussing/teaching me things: a review of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

Thanks for reading,

-Matty

Have you ever witnessed such widespread hatred for a calendar year? It’s weird to see the negativity so massively accepted and agreed upon. Really, the ENTIRE year was “THEE (I Can’t Even/I’m Literally Shaking) WORST”? Unfortunately, your brain won’t gain the sudden ability to focus on positivity once the New Year’s ball drops.

(I’ve never understood the whole “I can’t change now; it’s not January 1^st yet!” approach. Unless it allows for a few more fleeting moments of indulgence – but indulging in negativity? It does take more effort to be positive, so, maybe.)

Those who express and accept that 2016 contained the most awful 365 days of their life are typically operating on one or two factors:

1. Musicians/actors I enjoy died this year.
2. This year was difficult for me on a political level.

For #1, I’ve got more empathy. David Bowie’s death still hurts; I’m currently sitting where I was when I found out he’d died, and recalling that moment still makes me want to cry. Writing this piece on him certainly helped.

I can’t criticize anyone’s grieving process, but unless you were an absolute superfan with a shrine and tattoos of one of the departed talents, I have a hard time believing that the entire year was irredeemable because one or more of them happened to die between 1/1 and 12/31. But unless the person was a sadist – in which case, you probably wouldn’t be a superfan anyway – they would certainly find a celebration of their work more of a touching tribute than declaring your entire year ruined. Therefore, I don’t get #1.

For #2, this might have to be further broken down, because of the nature of the “difficulty.”

A. People who were distraught by the division between supporters of different presidential candidates.

-I can understand this. It was hard to see friends having Facebook battles. And it wasn’t always easy to witness peers and celebrities that I otherwise like and respect spouting uncharacteristic stupidity. It wasn’t a joy, but it was certainly navigable, if not a forced learning opportunity. (More on that later.)

B. People who hated the election results. Requires further breakdown:

i. People who’d resigned months ago that the results would suck no matter who won.

-Maybe I’m projecting, but I don’t think those people would have been clobbered by that realization, at least not to the point that they’d decry 2016 an abject failure of a year.

ii. People upset that Hillary lost/Trump won.

-Sure. I just don’t remember anyone in prior presidential election years writing off the entire 12 months as awful because the person they voted for lost, so I’m not sure if I get this one either. Nearly half of all voters have to ride out unfavorable election results every four years. People always threaten to leave the country, but don’t, and manage to get through it.

iii. People who think 2016 was the year in which freedom ended and all the awful isms and phobias of the world ascended, a wave upon which Hitler 2.0 was whisked onto his throne.

-This is the wildest one to me. First of all, the “Trump is Hitler” thing was ridiculous. Mitt freaking Romney was also Hitler, wasn’t he? And W. before him. But Trump is really, actually Hitler this time? The only people to rival the neurosis of the “Obammer’s gunna take R gunz!” crowd are those who think Trump will round up all non-white non-straight non-Christian non-males into concentration camps. If I’m wrong, I’ll be on the front lines fighting anything of that nature. No, thinking Trump isn’t Hitler does not equate to support. Be mad, be more active and vigilant, but I sincerely hope this crowd will  allow itself to stop freaking out unreasonably. And if you hate Trump, why would you let him ruin your year?

I think I’ve now covered most of anti-’16’ers, but not everyone. Surely some people had legitimately terrible years. If you had friends or loved ones die in 2016, or lost your job or your home, or you or someone you love was diagnosed with a horrible disease, or you experienced any other kind of personal catastrophe that lasted and marred the entire year, I’m sorry that it’s been such a painful time for you and I certainly hope things are better in 2017. But if you’re essentially justifying your wholesale hatred of 2016 because celebrities died and politics disappointed you, that’s pretty weak. For a lot of my friends, we’re in the sweet spot of our lives, and writing off an entire year of it seems like a colossal waste.

If 2016’s been agonizing for you, you may find the following either heartening, or infuriating: this was the best year of my life so far. Maybe it’ll be the single best year I’ll ever enjoy. Maybe it was me and those around me at our absolute best. Maybe it was overall good fortune. Of course it had its negative moments, but I really appreciated this year.

Nothing really bad happened to any of my friends. In fact, some fell in love, and some of them got married and had excellent weddings. Some had kids, or are currently pregnant. Some got jobs they like or relocated and are happier for it.

Nothing catastrophic happened in my family. My grandma, who’s about my favorite person on the planet, had a heart attack, but she’s doing okay. For the “2016 = Worst” crowd, it’s obviously easy to take for granted, but you likely failed to appreciate perhaps the greatest privilege of all: good health.

Here are some of my personal highlights from the year:

• My wife having our baby daughter at home with a midwife.
• Getting much farther in the process of adopting my stepson.
• Getting to play a bunch of wild concerts thanks to Cory Chisel: Meyer Theatre, Summerfest, Jones Park in Appleton for thousands, the Timber Rattlers’ stadium.
• Meeting Matt Sharp from Weezer, and Jimmy Chamberlin from Smashing Pumpkins (and jamming with him!), also thanks to Cory.
• Opening for Nobunny, Diane Coffee, JD McPherson, and Left Lane Cruiser.
• Playing shows with 8 different bands.
• Overall, in terms of playing shows and meeting people, this was just a great year.
• Writing 11 articles for Frankly Green Bay.
• Filming ~15 episodes of Live From Stadium Drive.
• Meeting Ty Montgomery, Randall Cobb, Brett Hundley, and Rob Demovsky.
• Completely remodeling our kitchen, and finishing it the day before my wife’s home birth.

It was a wild one, and I set some high marks for myself this year. In terms of responsibilities I held down, and what I accomplished on top of them, I may never have another year this productive. (I secretly hope I can do more in ’17.)

I also learned far, far more than I ever had. Loads of autodidacticism. I needed it to get through life’s confusion, and especially the intensity of the news cycle during the campaign; I learned I could either be rocked by every new headline or bit of analysis, or I could work harder to try and define my principles. A forced learning opportunity – all but necessary for mental survival. I dove more into history and read more sources’ reporting on current events than ever before in my life. I’d never fought harder to maintain independent thought. I would’ve rather remained unaffected, but I’m glad for it now. I am a much better critical thinker than I was before 2016. I’m proud that I’ve learned more, but know less than I used to. That make sense?

I think I’ll always strive to appreciate life from the perspective of my early 20s, when I was a romantically lonely college student, clueless about my career path, paycheck-to-paycheck, looking to create good work, but also wanting to enjoy life. I’ll always have empathy for that solitary figure, that pseudo-Steppenwolf.

Then again, although it’s the most important, mostly all that’s changed is my love life. But still, if that broke, single, discouraged person suddenly awoke and experienced my 2016, he’d be pretty thrilled.

For those who need to burn 2016 in some sort of effigy in order to move on, I hope they can. But I think most are just blaming internal problems on external events, and will likely find all new scapegoats next year.

Regardless of how your year was, or how you believe it was, or how you believe you believe it was, may 2017 be an enjoyable one.

-Matty

PS. I think my favorite albums of the year were Bowie’s, Iggy’s, and Kanye’s. Of Montreal’s had its moments, but still felt like a let-down after their last two. I don’t think I saw any new movies this year – crazy! Hoping to catch “Rogue One” this week.