I’m not going to pretend like misfortune isn’t out there. I’m not going to pretend that bad things don’t happen to people no matter how hard they have worked. Saints still die from cancer and little old ladies who knit afghans for people in nursing homes still face foreclosure. It is not a world where fairness is commonplace.
Nevertheless…I am finding myself being very irritated with something I read over the weekend. I’ve debated writing about it because while I need to discuss it I also want to make very sure that I’m not dismissing other matters that are equally concerning.
I’m talking about someone who is a minor celebrity once-removed (for lack of a better term) and has now become a vocal member of the Occupy movement. I’ve followed the writings of this person for quite a while now, and immediately prior to Occupy, Pat* was floundering for a new person to scrounge off of.
For years Pat lived rather comfortably off of Pat’s lover, who was a very talented craftsperson. Then Pat’s lover started a business with another talented person who also had that certain extra something that compels some people toward celebrity. Pat left the first lover and moved in on the celebrity. They were together for years and then after the relationship ended Pat walked away with enough cash to live comfortably for a very long time. Eventually that well dried up, though, and Pat became a bit notorious for living off the good graces of those within Pat’s social circle of artists and craftspeople.
Pat’s entire adult life has been about finding ways to charm or cajole living money out of friends and acquaintances.
And now Pat is part of the Occupy movement, lamenting how awful society is and how hard people have it.
And I’m sitting here realising that maybe I have a hole where some of my compassion should be. Because while I will weep salt tears over a person who was fired from their job and lost their home, I can’t bring myself to get worked up over how unfair Pat thinks the world is. Pat is in at least three different books talking about spending two decades dropping acid and living off of the fortunes of celebrity lovers.
I guess it’s the whole ant and grasshopper thing. If an ant loses their anthill, it strikes me as very sad. But for a grasshopper to moan and groan about how there just isn’t any food around and it’s all someone else’s fault…that kinda makes me a little bit angry.
—
*Pat is not the person’s real name
Is Pat a particularly supportive or empathetic person whose mere presence eased the lives of the first lover and the celebrity? Was Pat an unpaid housekeeper/secretary/sales representative for the first lover and the celebrity? Could Pat have lived comfortably on the walkaway cash indefinitely if Pat had invested it safely? Has Pat ever held a paid job, or tried to?
I guess I feel that I just don’t have enough information to determine whether you are indeed a monster of depravity with a shocking deficit in compassion, a cynic who fails to understand the important role a muse and unpaid partner can play in the life of a creative person, or someone who is very properly skeptical of Pat’s new political interests.
I’m sorry I can’t be more helpful. ;-)
I can’t answer your questions specifically without perhaps being more revealing to Pat’s identity. I will say that conversations I’ve been a party to with the first lover and friends of the Celebrity all seem to underscore the fact that whatever supportiveness Pat provided was pretty well only engineered to keep the gravy train on the rails. That was why when I first read that Pat had hitched wagons to Occupy I thought “oh, they deserve each other…” A key example is that at one point Pat did something that from an outside perspective seemed to be completely altruistic, and Pat brings it up often as a sign of what a great philanthropic person Pat has always been. But conversations with the first lover and the celebrity and the “beneficiary” of Pat’s “philanthropy” all agree that Pat was motivated to take action largely because of the benefits (actual governmental benefits) that came along with it. And when said governmental benefits ran out…so did Pat.
Oh, I’m not really asking for more information, just snarking on pedantry. I pretty well trust you to have evaluated Pat correctly.
What bugged me about the whole Occupy thing is that it seemed like too many of the occupiers and occupier supporters were grasshoppers…as the ants were too busy out trying to find jobs and/or work the not-quite-enough jobs they had.
I have much compassion for those in real need. But I have seen firsthand so many people who squander–and they are the loudest moaners.
I definitely see your point. But I do think that there is validity in pursuing justice in causes in which you don’t have a personal interest. Or, rather, supporting a cause that may be completely opposite of how you live your life (for example, my support of gay marriage, in which I have no real vested interest). The question, though, is Pat looking for empathy/support for herself or for the movement? And is Pat’s personal history such that Pat damages the credibilty of the cause? That may certainly be the case. Like how one may not want Charles Manson supporting a pet cause.
I think that Pat has kind of had a net effect of zero on the occupy movement. Not that it’s one of my pet causes at all. Just from the things I’ve read…Pat’s been able to talk one of Pat’s usual marks into donating tents and generators to various Occupiers but then Pat wrote an article about how other frequent “touches” are avoiding Pat now and looking down on the Occupy Movement because they associate it with Pat and Pat’s Always-On-The-Prowl-For-A-Handout lifestyle.
I am with Lesley on this — but if Pat is really as obnoxious — and as well-known for being obnoxious, dropping acid across memoirs and all — as Coble suggests, then Pat’s presence in a political movement may bring derision rather than positive focus. Or Coble could just have a hole in her compassion, of course.
Well, I DO have a holes in my compassion, and I’m darning them slowly. Or trying to. Nevertheless…