|
American
Writer Monthly 11/4/02
CHASING
GHOSTS & OTHER STRANGE TRIPS WITH JC
Staff
Writer: Beverly Reeves
 It
has been a long break between journals for the rogue journalist-cum
chronicler of the bizarre, James Campion, whose 1996 debut, Deep
Tank Jersey burst onto the underground publishing scene with
the force of a violent shore gale. His follow-up compendium, the
fearlessly vitriolic, Fear No Art hilariously reviewed
subsequent years of living off the fat of a solid debut, but failed
to make the noise of the wildly sordid and entertaining, Deep
Tank Jersey. Now comes Trailing Jesus, an enigmatic
and highly emotional journal penned along the Israeli desert with
ghostly dreams and driven by the spirit of one of the most revered,
controversial and influential personalities to ever grace the
pages of any tome.
So
where does a Gonzo hack with a rabid cyber following and two books
of relative frivolity get off tackling Jesus Christ? And not even
with a smirk, mind you. After all, it's been a few years since
the world was engrossed in millennium madness with its apocalyptic
overtones, and according to Campion's people, the original manuscript
was mostly in the can by late 1997, so this could hardly have
been a New Age religious backlash from the events of 9/11. So,
again, where does Trailing Jesus hail, if not from the
mind of one of the most brazen new authors to break molds only
to be bound by new labels and break them once again?
Why
not go to the source, who was summarily given the head's-up that
we took his latest work with a modicum of trepidation, considering
the annoying levels of irreverence and outrage jammed into his
first two efforts, not to mention the litany of abuse dolled out
in his weekly syndicated column, Reality Check. We caught
up with jc at the beginning of his promotional junket for Trailing
Jesus. In fact, we are told, this is the man's first interview
since the book went to print. It is due out Christmas of 2002.
Are
you religious?
No.
Why
Jesus?
Why
not?
Seriously.
From what we've seen of the early review segments of Trailing
Jesus, this is pretty heady stuff for a mere Gonzo lark, and
it certainly doesn't read like a lark.
Correct.
It is not a lark. Much like Deep Tank Jersey, it is a journey.
But unlike the four month trek depicted in Deep Tank, it
lasted for 33 years. I feel comfortable in saying it still lasts,
and I expect it to last for the remainder of my life. But the
book covers the thoughts of a man I hardly know anymore.
You're
talking about yourself?
Yes.
How
is that so?
Would
you recognize the person you were seven years ago?
Well
that brings us to why it took you six years to complete Trailing
Jesus when Deep Tank Jersey was a similar effort and
took only ten months to write. Both possess your fast-paced journal
style, but entirely different approaches.
Completely
different state of mind and subject matter. That might be a painfully
obvious and irreverent way to put it, because, of course, the
subject of Jesus Christ would rank a tad higher on the scale than
a New Jersey club band, but that's not why I say it was a longer
ride. The difference is in the perspective. In my first book,
I plunged myself into the journey. This one is the journey emanating
from myself.
So
it was a revelatory experience.
Yes,
very much so, and it took me some time to formulate the thought
processes of thinking in one way about my surroundings and how
I fit into them and coming to grips with the emotional, intellectual
and philosophical revolution of spirit it took to place my journey
into the context of this book.
How
do you mean "revolution of spirit"?
 Recently
a friend told me it was impossible to express what I aimed to
express in this book with words. He said I was insane for even
making an outline, much less spending some six years paining over
the thing. But, you see, that in itself was a journey.
In
a much smaller way, I experienced something of what the Buddha
discusses in his "awakening". Again, in a slightly less
historical and more intellectual way, much more like what the
late-great Alan Watts presented in his lectures. I had this gradual
understanding, but instead of a peaceful emergence, it was a violent
change of heart, a revolution in itself. It makes sense really
in the context of the my subject matter, because Jesus
of Nazareth was a revolutionary in every sense of the word. His
peace movement was born of violent personal change, something
he demanded from his tribe. It's reviewed in his philosophy and
in his actions. That kind of understanding blows you way initially.
It has to.
The
book is both personal revelation and biting Biblical commentary,
is it not?
I
promised myself on this one not to berate any conclusions based
on this project. It should speak for itself, so if that's how
you see it, sure. I'm kind of glad that my notoriety is not as
great as it might be at the time of this book's release, because
those who know my work will probably prejudge it. I know all about
that kind of preconceived notions. "Wow! Campion's going
to piss off some people with this subject!" I think that's
what publishers and agents wanted for it too.
But
you admit there is a great deal of controversial deptictions in
this book.
Yes
there is, but it should not be the focal point. This is not a
biting commentary on the subject matter. It's more of a personal
experience through the subject, not unlike what I explored with
Deep Tank Jersey. Although that book has spawned a fan
base solely on its irreverence and humorous overtones, I still
think it a heartfelt tribute to the idea of making music for a
living and surviving in the atmosphere that kind of commitment
engenders. I guess you can apply that kind of dedicated synopsis
to my Holy Land experience and the resulting voice of this book.
Having
said that, when considering the subject, the book is anything
but tame. But, again, that in itself is a microcosm of the subject's
legacy as well.
Having
read Deep Tank Jersey many years ago now, and having just
read the galleys for Trailing Jesus the most striking similarity
for me is the personal honesty of the author's pure feelings of
his surroundings. Is that a fair assessment of your goals with
this particular story?
I'm
sure everyone can relate to maturing into their own personal philosophies.
Sometimes we don't see it coming and sometimes we force it to
surface. I didn't recognize many of the feelings I was going through
at the time and how that influenced my telling of this story,
but I can tell you the search was planned, and the resulting story,
all true. I think the people and places I encountered during my
time in Israel bring that out more or less.
The
book is like any journal on any trip, but it becomes far more
intriguing when you consider what it is I was searching for throughout
its telling. Israel does something to the psyche that is hard
to explain. I hope I did the experience justice by simply trying
to impart it.
I
read somewhere that you needed for the reader of Deep Tank
Jersey to understand the motivatation of the author. Why he
would throw himself into the fray with no preconceptions. Is that
what this latest trip was for you?
Yes,
I'd say that's right on the money. I really just wanted to know
what was the purpose, the need for most of us to believe in a
structure to the universe, God and all of that, when the blatant
evidence all around speaks volumes against it. And not through
some boring study, but to dive in head first and challenge my
faith in humankind, my preconceived thoughts about the mystical
elements of life. Yes, and I suppose being a Catholic kid from
the Bronx and being inundated with images and stories of how Jesus
Christ fits into the scheme of that has something to do with my
motivation, but again, I shouldn't try and explain the book too
much. To tell you the truth, I've forgotten much of it. I need
to read it from the beginning myself.
You've forgotten it?
Sure. It was so subconscious, most of it. I can't
stress enough that if you plan to go to a place like Jerusalem,
you probably shouldn't be in the introspective state of mind I
was in at the time. It makes for good writing material, but tends
to screw with your head a bit. I mean, I've recovered, but not
entirely. Despite writing the book, it still seems like some kind
of reoccurring dream state. Christ, I sound like Huxley's Mescaline
connection, but I can't lie. It was pretty disturbing.
Disturbing?
But rewarding.
Now
to the book itself. Isn't there a fine line between a bold statement
with this subject and total pretentious blather?
Again,
I would tend to agree if that is what your vision has brought
to the book. I must stand by my words, however. They're all I've
got really. I plan to do plenty of these interviews, but in the
end, I've got to stand by the book as a statement unto itself.
In
the end, before beginning to write it, I could take no more of
this haunting, this incredible reverberation of thought and vision
in my skull. It had to come out. I think the trip to Israel certainly
inspired it, but I began to unleash these emotions because the
book is far less intellectual thought than raw emotion for me.
If nothing else, I think the book is about conviction, regardless
of what side you're on, evil or good. Excuse
me, what side you subscribe to, since you really can't escape
either.
Man,
does that sound pretentious, or what? It's hard not to come off
as pedantic, but what can you do? This is a difficult subject
to tackle. I guess if I gave it five minutes thought, instead
of diving head first, I might have skipped the thing all together.
From
what I gather you spent your time in Israel coming to grips with
these visions and thoughts?
Yes.
The spring of '96 to be exact.
There
is a great deal of self-evaluation in this book. Was that part
of the "trail" left by Jesus Christ?
For
me, yes. I suppose the same could be said for anyone of influence.
I see pieces of that in all my revolutionary heroes. I just finished
reading a brilliant book by professors, Ronald Collins and David
Skover called The Trials of Lenny Bruce that echoed similar
sentiments expressed in my book by Jesus of Nazareth. And I'm
not referring to the obvious Jewish persecution either. I'm talking
again about conviction. For me, Jesus of Nazareth ran the belief
system as far as it goes. A lot of people love the "live
fast/die young" romanticism of pikers who think they've bent
the envelope in the past decades of media hype and celebrity worship.
That's bullshit compared to taking something, anything, to the
absolute breaking point and then beyond.
So,
is it fair to say that the Jesus Christ found in your book is
primarily a social icon as opposed to a religious one?
Again,
I don't mean to belittle religious icons here, but I'm talking
about Jesus of Nazareth, the historical, the actual Jewish artisan,
not what it all became after his execution. The movement, the
Jesus movement, being alive and well somewhere under all those
centuries of muck; that is what I'm getting at.
I
guess what I mean to say here in its most crass and bare bones
terminology is forget the divine aspect of a Jesus Christ and
marvel at the remarkable faith of a Jesus of Nazareth. Therein
lies the strong conviction, the utter conviction of the persecuted
first-century peasant with the dream.
Try
and understand the balls it takes to defend your philosophy to
the end, the bitter end, as it were. Then, my guess is you can
see the purpose of any journey to discover your truth.
Your
truth?
The
truth as you see it. The truth as it applies to your specific
conviction. To me, that is the greatest faith, the faith in one's
self. And I'm not talking about ego, but the true self you hide
to kind of get through life. That "person" alone could
begin to break down the barriers of hate and self-loathing that
leads to all this shared pain of ours.
I
know that sounds nuts. It is no wonder then that they kill people
like Jesus of Nazareth.
So
then Jesus Christ had his own truth separate to that of the religious
one based on it?
Despite
the fact that Israel has two thousand years of garbage piled on
it, you can still smell the air of rebellion in the original Christian
movement. Forget that; the original Jesus movement, which had
little to nothing to do with the subsequent Christian movement.
That is true of the Israelite movement. That is true for the Islamic
movement. When you go to these places, even now, you can smell
it. You can really feel it.
From
the parts that I've read, I did get that feeling.
Good.
You
wrestle with definitions of God in Trailing Jesus.
Well,
who doesn't? But for the most part that is how you can deconstruct
the fanatic, the contrarian, the irrational philosopher in a Jesus
of Nazareth. Dehumanizing the lunatic. Yeah, we've certainly perfected
the art of specializing or blaming the messenger and ignoring
the message. What you do is dilute the message by demonizing or
heradling the messenger. You call the messenger devil or angel.
Satan or God. Special or evil. Label the mystery. Slap terms on
everything and it becomes easier to squeeze them into our preconceptions.
Then you can deconstruct them or reconstruct them to fit your
needs, philosophical, political or social.
You see, for my money, you can't find a more misunderstood human
on record then Jesus of Nazareth. And that is not merely a controversial
religious statement. I can debate that in the arena of social
concerns, politics, pop culture icons, lunatics, artists, whomever
you'd like to bring up in whatever idiom. And here is where the
God answer comes in. The duality of this mess called existence
comes from change, evolution and danger. Yes, wrestling with God
is part of it. But it is only a part. A big part in the story
is a guy who needed for you to understand that key aspect of the
equation, the battle for existence within one single human soul.
 I
think there is a mistake of readers to delve into these books
and expect an answer. Having not read the whole book, I assume
you do not provide even your own humble answer.
I
think it's in there somewhere, yeah. I mean conclusions are arbitrary.
Anybody can come up with any philosophy that might stick. Religion
is based on theorem never proven. Faith is a tough nut to crack.
I suppose being killed for your faith is something along the lines
of trailing the icon, but that's not where I've chosen to go with
this book.
Also,
it's important to point out that the main reason I refuse to embrace
conclusions in these interviews is to allow the reader, not me,
not you, not any magazine or radio show, to come to their own
conclusions about their place in this struggle for existence.
And I'm not saying my book is lending a hand with that. It's really
only one man's story, but one I would hope people can begin to
dissect within their own journey.
Having
said that, you do make conclusions on basic ambiguities in the
Jesus story, or the story of Christianity as a whole. Something
as simple as Jesus being a stone mason in your book, as opposed
to being universally accepted as a carpenter, all the way to the
Immaculate Conception, something in which you reduce to Greek
myth.
Wrong
on the latter point. I only present what has become the scholarly
approach. I have yet to come to conclusions of metaphysical claims.
That is definitely not the point of the book. I think Biblical
concepts such as the Immaculate Conception are distractions from
the message of the original Jesus movement. It was meaningless
to them, so it is meaningless to me. There is no conclusion in
this book on the Immaculate Conception's veracity or its dogmatic
hyperbole, just its relation to the man, Jesus of Nazareth and
his times and its effect on his community. Everything else is
religious window-dressing, which is fine if you do not let it
distract you from your truth.
My
conclusion is that something like the Immaculate Conception is
distracting. It really isn't important to understanding the Jesus
movement as it pertains to the first century Jewish peasant or
the 21st century reader. Just
because the Gospel writers, specifically Luke, felt the need to
claim someone was born of a virgin or whether that was misinterpreted
by a church created out of Greek and Roman ideals of gods and
goddesses is not the focal point of the book. Of course, it must
be broached, but it is a minor sidelight to the bigger picture
as I see it. That's all based on the bullshit European obsession
with birthright and origin and hardly important to the message
or the life defined. And I feel pretty secure in saying that Jesus
couldn't have cared less about it, and so, neither does the author.
Now,
in the case of the mason vs. the carpenter thing, all we know
is that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of an artisan, who might
have practiced the craft as well. Some schools of thought believe
the English translation of "carpenter" from Aramaic
to Hebrew to Greek was off. Again, not pertinent, really, to the
grand scheme of things here.
Having said that, chances are that working with stone in first-century
Palestine would have been more prevalent than woodwork, which
was nearly absent to the destitute classes Jesus hailed from.
I chose mason. I see Jesus as a stone mason. The most important
aspect of his profession or what his family did to earn a living
was only important in that unlike today, any first century artisan
was pathetically low on the societal ladder. This helped to formulate
his social philosophy about the poor and destitute, but I don't
think his former occupation matters much beyond that. It's tantamount
to arguing that Hitler's painting career formulated his politics.
Although I wouldn't doubt some historians have cited it.
How
long did it take you to research all the Biblical historicity
of Jesus?
I
would say the better part of twelve years now. I find it to be
more of a hobby than anything else. Sort of a labor of love. I've
probably read four to five books on Jesus a year for that span
of time, including every possible version of the New Testament
and original Jewish translations of the Torah and the Old Testament
a dozen or so times.
In
the end, that stuff really doesn't matter either. This is not
a fact and find book. I suppose many learned people in the genre
will attack some portion of the thing. Again, it is a book about
emotional instincts based on human nature, and as such lends itself
to speculation. I've more or less fashioned a sketch based on
history and in the process get to wondering exactly why the hell
should I even care about the heritage of a philosophy, especially
a skewed philosophy of "loving one's enemy"? More importantly,
why should, or did, anyone with any sense of survival want to
base a religion on "love your enemy"? And, in the end,
no one did, did they?
Really
think about the beauty of that statement, "love your enemy";
the utter madness of it. Get down to the crux of that, mister.
That will screw with your head for a decade or so.
Would
you say this book is anti-religious?
I
would say the book's subject was anti-religious.
Would
you consider that statement blasphemy?
Yes,
of course. I believe if you check the record blasphemy is the
main reason Jesus of Nazareth was executed. He went down for that
first and foremost. A good deal of people survived sedition and
insurrection around that time. Not many, but some. If Jesus was
such a threat to Rome, why weren't the apostles or the crazies
who followed him massacred along with him, like, say, Spartacus'
troops?
Nah,
Jesus went down for saying he was God and religion was bullshit.
"He says he's God? Let's get rid of him immediately before
he poisons anyone else with that lunacy." It's rather elementary
addition by subtraction.
How
much of the gospels would you consider anti-Semitic.
Most
of it.
Let's
just say its anti-cultural, not against any particular race. In
a sense, Jewish Christians, or Jews who stood by the murder of
Jesus and their immediate ancestors had a beef with the rest of
Judaism. Of course, this is innocent disagreement until interpreted
as hate-speak by the predictably myopic rationale of human nature.
We need to find enemies. It keeps us warm and fuzzy. Makes us
feel important. And that is part of the larger scale of misinterpretation
of Jesus of Nazareth of which I spoke earlier. That whole church
mess is literally the antithesis of the Jesus movement. It's really
sad.
Jesus
fought the establishment of the religion of his time. So basing
a new religion on this figure is ludicrous at best, but as dissected
in my book, what else do mourners have left to do but build on
the memory of the fallen? I cannot blame the early Christians
or those Jews carrying on the memory of their slain leader fashioning
rituals or penning confrontational literature. I blame the supposed
clear-thinking readers of these documents thousands of years later
for choosing, and let that read choosing, to interpret
that Jews or the Jewish culture was somehow responsible for the
death of Jesus of Nazareth.
That
is asinine thinking, as stupid today as our limited thoughts about
race or gender or anything that is born of fear, insecurity or
ignorance In fact, it is doubtless that human nature itself, and
battles for power, tradition and superstition that come of it,
were responsible for murdering Jesus of Nazareth. The church culture
and the politically charged pecking order of a caste system snuffed
him out as sure as I'm sitting here saying it.
Again,
the irony of this Jesus story worth dissecting is that human nature
killed a man trying to change human nature. As we all know, in
every generation and every culture, it's a rough gig.
Back
to your trip before we close, you were in Israel during that nation's
first ever open election.
Correct,
and it is an interesting sidelight to my trip. It is, as we all
know from the news, an extremely volatile political country, stemming
from culture and religious wars. I saw the best and worst of that
when I was there and it would have been insane not to tell of
it.
Since
this is such a difficult subject to debate or even discuss at
times, and certainly a tough one to do an interview based on a
book I have only read excerpts from, I'll give you the last word.
I would just like to know what you feel the most compelling aspect
of Trailing Jesus is.
I
would say it's honesty about my fragile humanity, especially a
twentieth century man and a former Catholic, and a fighter, I
hope, of the good fight. I think it's the most brutally honest
thing I've written, and yeah, it could be misconstrued as pretentious
or didactic, but it was not my attention. I think, I hope,
the reader sees themselves in the work.
As
I say in the Author's Note at the beginning of the thing, I really
am a fan of Jesus. I am a fan of the undying faith he had in his
convictions and the courage to choose peace and forgiveness over
self-preservation. Somehow I believe all this religious posturing
and rabid moral and cultural judgments in his name have tried
like hell to dim that most stunning statement. But it's still
there, in black and white. Read it in the words, not my words,
but his. Not my theories, but his. It's hard to face, but if you
are going to have faith in a philosophy and its author, please
get to the core of it, warts, blemishes, scars and all.
And
I want to be clear that Jesus of Nazareth was not the first, nor
was he the last to espouse these theories. Some lived well into
old age like the Buddha and some were cut down in their youth
like Martin Luther King and Gandhi. The most amazing aspect of
the Jesus story though, and how it pertains to human history,
is its reverence, its lasting influence on western culture and
the miraculous stories born of this incredibly complexed man.
Finally,
I guess, I hope in some way by sharing my humbling experience
it might spark something new and inspiring in the reader as well.
I really do.
Click
Here For More On Trailing Jesus
Reality
Check | Pop Culture | Politics
| Sports | Music
|
