A few weeks ago I noted Stephen Fry's "confession" that he had tried to commit suicide last year, despite his self awareness of his mental health problems. (I saw one of the first stories about it, and probably wouldn't have bothered once it became widespread in the media soon thereafter.)
In any event, I see that he now has a post up at his website which deals mainly with the topic of loneliness. Last I had noticed, he was a in long term relationship, but the post makes it clear he is single again, and I see now from Wikipedia that he has been since 2010.
Fry's comments on how he, as a very famous and publicly popular figure who has a very active life can still be lonely, reminded me very much of part of interview I saw years ago with Freddie Mercury in which he expressed a very similar sentiment. (From memory, it was along the lines that you can be surrounded by people every day who think you're great but still feel you have no friends.) Given that by that stage it was already known he had led a very active gay recreational sex life, I also felt it a poignant comment on the lack of emotional satisfaction that such a lifestyle could entail.
Anyway, here's what Fry writes:
In the end loneliness is the most terrible and contradictory of my problems. I hate having only myself to come home to. If I have a book to write, it’s fine. I’m up so early in the morning that even I pop out for an early supper I am happy to go straight to bed, eager to be up and writing at dawn the next day. But otherwise…I think that there may be many people out there who understand this - more than Stephen realises, probably. When single, intimate (not just sexual) company can be missed sorely; yet when in relationships, any desire for time alone can be seen as being a slight on the partner or family, and people may feel a bit bad for even wanting some time alone.
It’s not that I want a sexual partner, a long-term partner, someone to share a bed and a snuggle on the sofa with – although perhaps I do and in the past I have had and it has been joyful. But the fact is I value my privacy too. It’s a lose-lose matter. I don’t want to be alone, but I want to be left alone. Perhaps this is just a form of narcissism, vanity, overdemanding entitlement – give it whatever derogatory term you think it deserves. I don’t know the answer.
I suppose I just don’t like my own company very much. Which is odd, given how many times people very kindly tell me that they’d put me on their ideal dinner party guestlist. I do think I can usually be relied upon to be good company when I’m out and about and sitting round a table chatting, being silly, sharing jokes and stories and bringing shy people out of their shells.
But then I get home and I’m all alone again.
It seems to me that this latter attitude was not always with us. I have the impression that, perhaps up to the 1960's or so, it was not so uncommon for at least the artistically inclined (writers especially?) to travel for lengthy periods away from their family for the experience and personal enjoyment, and it was not thought remarkable. (Of course, being artists, one would also not be surprised if there were sexual encounters involved as well.) I'm not sure when the tide turned against this, but I have the distinct impression that it has.
I don't raise this in any particularly autobiographical sense either - I very much enjoy domestic time at home after my long time as a single person, and in any event, the nature of my work affords little opportunity for time away - but if I was idly rich, I wouldn't mind short trips away. Occasionally.
I'll now end on a note which will probably annoy some readers. I had often wondered when I was single about how it was that, although I could wish I was more "connected", some people who are very outgoing, busy and popular with people (such as Mercury and Fry) can still feel lonely. Fry perhaps has bipolar as a possible explanation, but I don't think that is always the case for people who feel like him.
My suspicion is that, for people who believe (or even, perhaps, have just believed in the past) in a personal God (or any non materialist belief system which involves an otherworldly care for their well being?) may always have a more fundamental feeling of worthiness that helps prevent loneliness from moving into despair. If this is true, it shows the value of teaching such types of religious belief to children, rather than the modern idea that it is more honest to let them know intellectually about all religions and decide which (if any) is true when they grow up. And as for not teaching religion at all until people are adults, coming new to a belief in a personal God, or a deceased relative watching over you, carries too readily for them the suspicion of wish fulfilment. But if you have a child feeling emotionally that it is true, and noticing that it provides comfort for others in their family, I half suspect that the psychological benefit persists even if they become agnostic in the future.
There's probably been some work on this somewhere which I could go looking for, but not right now.
Given that by that stage it was already known he had led a very active gay recreational sex life, I also felt it a poignant comment on the lack of emotional satisfaction that such a lifestyle could entail.
ReplyDeleteYes there is a wonderful line by Bukowski that touches on that ...
People with no morals often considered themselves more free, but mostly they lacked the ability to feel or to love. So they became swingers. The dead fucking the dead. There was no gamble or humor in their game - it was corpse fucking corpse. Morals were restrictive, but they were grounded on human experience down through the centuries. Some morals tended to keep people slaves in factories, in churches and true to the State. Other morals simply made good sense. It was like a garden filled with poisoned fruit and good fruit. You had to know which to pick and eat, which to leave alone.
Women
There's probably been some work on this somewhere which I could go looking for, but not right now.
ReplyDeleteThere is, I've read some of it. I am surprised by Fry's concerns about loneliness. I love living alone and am a pain as a partner because I need lots of time alone to stay sane. Too many people drives me nuts but then recently a psychiatrist I know stated I demonstrate some aspie traits.
The problem with Fry's account is a common problem in self-reports. We *think* we know the reasons for our behavior but there is some research that suggests this is a very problematic assumption.
There are plenty of studies demonstrating religious affiliation promotes health physically and psychologically. An important caveat on that is that this improvement typically occurs in a culture where those beliefs are generally embraced. I am not in favour of teaching children religion because we are asking them to make decisions that are amongst the most difficult to understand. Religion is not essential for psychological well being, there are other means by which that can be achieved.