A New Post
It's been a long time since I've written anything, hasn't it? Sorry about that. I have my reasons. My last blog post got such a heartwarming reception, and I was kinda hoping I could leave my legacy at that and wait for heart disease to take me while people still thought I was clever. You know, the George R.R. Martin approach.
The truth is that I haven't been burning to speak about anything for a while. When you're a lifelong depressive and you make the decision to try and be about something else, there's suddenly precious little to you. Your fashionable coat of suffering has been taken away and suddenly you're not Mr. Tortured Artist, you're just some frowny guy with sleep problems and man-tits.
In my quest to become a real person again I've had to start welcoming those pesky human emotions back into my life, and out of all those Anger has been the hardest to incorporate. I'm determined to bring this unsavoury feeling back into me in the healthiest way I can, which has got me thinking. How much anger should a person have? In what ways does anger help? In what ways does anger screw you over?
I want to talk about the Pros and Cons of being too angry, and the cost of repressing it, as I have ample experience with both.
What Does Too Much Anger Look Like?
The Cause
We've all seen someone with an explosive temper. It's an uncomfortable thing to witness, and it begs the question: Why would someone allow such a toxic emotion to take over their life?
When I was a kid, I got a reputation as the angriest kid in school, and I think the root of it was feeling perpetually out of favour with other kids. People didn't call me angry, they called me stressed, and I think the distinction was important. I wasn't using my anger in some sort of clever, Machiavellian, "give me your Pokemon cards and I'll leave you alone" sort of way. The anger was bigger than me and I was at its mercy a lot of the time, and I think other people picked up on that.
The Benefits
So anger sounds pretty destructive. But is there more to it?
A question: In television, why do we root for protagonists who are:
Surly?
Sarcastic?
Rude?
And Aggressive?
There are lots of characters we admire who you couldn't call 'nice'. That should clue us in that there's something we admire more than niceness and agreeableness, and that anger has some utility.
We prefer honest meanness to impotent niceness. There's something cathartic about a person who calls things like he sees them. More importantly - if these shows are anything to go by - we like people who can do things.
You could make the argument that these characters would be even greater forces for good if they managed to regulate their aggression, but the point still stands that in a world of people who want and need things, useful trumps nice. And maybe for some people there has to be a tradeoff between those two qualities. Maybe in order to become someone disciplined enough to cater to people's needs, you have to compromise your ability to be easygoing.
And maybe you're thinking that you'd rather take the nice person over the dutiful person. Don't be so sure. I bet you've had an amiable, weed-smoking roommate who never, ever cleaned, and I bet you'd be willing for them to have a little more of a stick up their ass if it meant you could walk into a kitchen without crying.
The Problem
That all being said, there are probably others like me who have taken that lesson too far.
Something that I had to realise when I was being mean to people is that the camera isn't there. This isn't a sitcom. That little tantrum you had in front of your friend wasn't worth it because you got to say something that sounded clever in your head. No one is keeping score of that.
There's a reason characters get away with being assholes on TV. Dr. House is a brilliant Diagnostician. Malcolm Tucker is a formidable spin doctor. Sherlock is a genius detective. A lot of characters get away with having a temper because they are too useful to be replaced. Not to mention there's a team of about 20 scriptwriters engineering every scenario so the angry man looks great and the person he's talking to looks like a big dumb loser. That just isn't how it works in real life. When you're an asshole, people get sick of you and stop hanging out with you.
And you have to practice your devastating one liners on the Samaritans Hotline.
I whined above about how - when I was in school - I used anger as a coping mechanism to deal with loneliness, depression and anxiety. But does all anger have such a sympathetic origin? Could there be more insidious reasons why someone lets anger take over their life?
I've been thinking about this a lot. About the reasons myself and others have lost their temper, and I don't think it's always as simple and blameless as 'Daddy didn't love me enough' or 'the other kids picked on me for being the only ten year old with a comb-over'.
I think people can be Angry to disguise the fact that they are Cruel.
Everyone finds sins committed in Wrath more palatable than sins committed in Cruelty. Crimes of Passion tend to receive lighter sentences than Premeditated crimes, for example. If you say something horrible to a friend, you're far more likely to be forgiven if you said it because you lost your temper.
It certainly goes over better than "I just wanted to see the dumb look on your fucking face".
Along with this sleight of hand comes the unpleasant task of having to generate reasons to be angry with people. It's a lot easier, for instance, to get away with saying something horrible if your excuse is "Well I shouldn't have, but by God he was dancing on my last nerve!". It is entirely possible for someone not to notice that he has been on his last nerve every day for a decade.
I've seen people engineer their body language and choice of words so that every encounter - every exchange with friends and shop clerks and family - ends poorly, and the angry person ends up being in the sympathetic position of Them against the World. What better excuse to act like an asshole?
What Does Not Enough Anger Look Like?
The Cause
Plenty of us have known someone like that; someone who was so toxic and unstable that it can be tempting to - consciously or unconsciously - make the internal decision "I'm never becoming like that!" I think I made a decision like that when I was about 12 years old.
The Benefits
You get into less arguments. People tend to think you are nice. You are less likely to be fired for something you say on Twitter.
...Yeah, that's all I have.
...Yeah, that's all I have.
The Problem
When I was in secondary school I thought I'd cured my anger. If I got bullied, I became sad instead of angry. Given that I used to be a scrappy little fucker in primary school, I saw that as some sort of moral progress. Looking back, I guess I wasn't overflowing with the monk-like calm I thought I was, seeing as I ended up stabbing a kid with a pen several times in an eruption of repressed rage.
It turns out the only thing worse than someone dangerous is someone unwittingly dangerous. I didn't know I was capable of that right up until I did it. Most kids who knew about that incident gave me a wide berth after that, and I got a reputation as someone dangerous, and deeply, deeply angry. It didn't occur to me until ten years later that they were right.
Things snapped into place for me fairly recently. It was like my body was trying to pull itself in two different directions, until I heard an explanation that clicked with me.
You are capable of doing horrible things, and you will feel the ugliest of emotions. Anger, envy, resentment, bitterness and cruelty. And you need to own that before you will ever be at one with yourself, otherwise you'll feel like you're wandering around in a world made of cardboard. You'll scare yourself with your own thoughts, or lie to yourself and end up confused about what you want and who you are.
Once you've brought these feelings to consciousness, things become a lot clearer. It's like Captain Holt said before he joined the Brooklyn Nine Nine:
"You, Tim Bayliss, you have a darkness inside of you. You've gotta know the darker, uglier sides of yourself. You gotta recognise them so they're not constantly sneaking up on you. You gotta love em, cos they're part of you. Because along with your virtues they make you who you are."
Maybe this whole process seems dramatic and unnecessary. After all, I'm the weird unhappy kid who couldn't be trusted with writing implements. And look, fair enough, but I think the whole thing could have been avoided if I hadn't spent two years being incapable of pushing back when I needed to, in moderation.
This might be the part of the article where a smarter person would quote Dostoevsky or some other fuckin' guy with a beard. But books make me sleepy, so I'll give you a quote from an Adam Sandler movie, Anger Management:
"There are two kinds of angry people. Explosive and Implosive. Explosive is the kind of individual that you see screaming at the cashier for not taking their coupons. Implosive is the cashier, who remains quiet, day after day, and finally shoots everyone in the store."
And then Adam says something like OOPSIE POOPSIE I SHIT MY PANTS and we all laugh heartily.
Anger doesn't even have to result in a catastrophic violent meltdown. Maybe instead of shooting up the store, your anger could culminate in the quiet decision that you're going to make everyone's lives as bad as you possibly can within the confines of the law. You don't have to be criminal or even confrontational to be horrible.
I struggled with the section above where I talked about the benefits of Not Enough Anger. I just can't bring myself to admire someone who acts like a doormat in the same way I begrudgingly admire someone who's capable of being an asshole. I just don't find it believable.
A question to doormats: How much of your spare time do you spend thinking about the transgressions your friends and family have made? Really think about it. Is there something within you that has remained unspoken and needs to be expressed? Do you need to speak up, as carefully and tactfully as you know how to, about the boundaries that your friend is pushing up against? Are you mature enough that if you keep quiet, you won't find other outlets for revenge?
That last question is important. As far as I can tell, no one is mature enough that they won't retaliate if they're made to feel small. There are plenty of ways people will find to fight back that don't involve fisticuffs or a raised voice. Maybe you'll act disinterested when your friend comes to you excited with good news. Maybe you'll shut your bedroom door when you hear your wife struggling to take care of your kids. Maybe you'll order a Hitman off the deep-web and ask him to poison your husband's coffee.
Conclusion: What's the Right Balance?
So packing your anger away into a murderous little compartment doesn't seem to be the best option. Neither does picking fights with strangers or yelling at shopkeepers or leaving nasty reviews on Yelp. So what's the solution? What's the magic balance?
There are people all over the anger spectrum, and most manage to find some way to survive in society. So maybe how angry you are isn't the right issue; the issue is how much of that anger you have under control. I don't think people get uncomfortable if you have anger in your heart. You can have quite a temper and people will still talk about you fondly. It's a question of volatility. People don't like unpredictable tempers. More importantly, people who have their anger under control can bring it to the table when necessary.
And I think there's nothing more attractive than that kind of emotional competence.
Apart from some tits, maybe.
And I think there's nothing more attractive than that kind of emotional competence.
Apart from some tits, maybe.
Julian Page is an aspiring writer who plays video games by day and writes blogs with pretentious third-person summaries by night. If you want someone to write for you, hit me up. I have absolutely no principles and I like money.