There are some people whose desire to write, or at least to see themselves in print, exceeds by far the urgency of anything they might have to say. They are, in essence, attention-seekers, rather than seekers after the truth. For this fraternity or sorority—I hesitate to use the modern cant word “community”—the existence of conventions or taboos is essential, for it is by breaking them that they may obtain the notice that they desire; indeed it is the only method available to them. Oddly enough, however, the last taboo that they or their publishers claim to have broken turns out not to be the last taboo after all. Last taboos are thus rather like the last appearances (positively the last) of aging prima donnas; and future attention-seekers need not fear that mankind will ever run out of taboos for them to break.

Thus Theodore Dalrymple begins his review of The Surrender: An Erotic Memoir, by Toni Bentley. Balance this with George Orwell’s “Why I Write,” (excerpted at Melinda Casino’s Sour Duck)…

“(i) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen — in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all — and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.

“(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.

“(iii) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

“(iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.”

How does one rationalize the above observations in the context of the bold display that the Mean Kids put on today, pulling JupiterResearch’s chain by juxtaposing a discussion of the WebTrends critical feature set and flexible deployment options with the similarly remarkable, indeed quite astounding feature set and flexible deployment options of a nude transexual.

Breaking taboos is a good thing, although many of us pay for our contrary behavior with our lives. Josh Wolf has been in jail for over six months for refusing to allow his journalistic freedom to be compromised by a government gone insane. He says, “This entire matter is about eroding the rights of privacy and those of a free press. It is about identifying civil dissidents and using members of the news media to actively assist in what is essentially an anarchist witch hunt…. I will not allow myself to be put in a position of outing anarchists who likely are guilty of nothing more that possessing political beliefs outside the American norm.”

This week Lieutenant Ehren Watada’s court martial ended in a mistrial because the government would not pursue a public airing of the Lieutenant’s refusal to follow illegal orders to deploy to Iraq. Watada’s act of conscience was multiplied by the government’s attempt to pull reporter Sarah Olson into the case. Her subpoena would have required her to address issues of conscience around protecting her sources. The whole thing was getting out of control and the Pentagon decided to cut their losses and force a mistrial.

All of this transgressive behavior has a purpose. The person of conscience, the writer, the blogger, the creative spirit expands the envelope of normative behavior, ferrets out truth, tears down the walls of taboo and stands firm in defense of freedom. But would I go to jail to protect the Mean Kids’ right to post titillating pictures?

Fuck… maybe. It’s three hots and a cot and it’s at least as interesting as my current gig. Beth would be pretty pissed though.