H. P. Lovecraft

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

-- H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

H. P. Lovecraft

"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

-- H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Camille Paglia

I have not turned-on to any so-called reality-TV show, but Camillie Paglia has a wonderful take on "Real Housewives".

_ _ _

[T]hese shows are archetypal bitch fests! I read a few months ago that Gloria Steinem hates "Real Housewives of New Jersey" and would be glad to picket it. Well, there’s the big difference between Steinem and me. She sees the show as a distortion of women, while I see it as a revelation of the deep truth about female sexuality. Right there is the proof of why feminism has faded. Those second-wave feminists had a utopian view of women — they constantly asserted that anything negative about women is a projection by men. That’s not what I see on "Real Housewives"!

It’s like the Discovery Channel — sending a camera to the African savannah to watch the cheetahs stalking the gazelles! What you’re seeing is the primal battles going on among women. Men are marginalized on these shows — they’re eye candy, to use Obama’s phrase, on the borderlines of the ferocity of female sexuality.

-- Camille Paglia

_ _ _

It's too bad we don't see her more on the cable chat shows on news and politics. She is a real firecracker.

Camille Paglia

I have not turned-on to any so-called reality-TV show, but Camillie Paglia has a wonderful take on "Real Housewives".

_ _ _

[T]hese shows are archetypal bitch fests! I read a few months ago that Gloria Steinem hates "Real Housewives of New Jersey" and would be glad to picket it. Well, there’s the big difference between Steinem and me. She sees the show as a distortion of women, while I see it as a revelation of the deep truth about female sexuality. Right there is the proof of why feminism has faded. Those second-wave feminists had a utopian view of women — they constantly asserted that anything negative about women is a projection by men. That’s not what I see on "Real Housewives"!

It’s like the Discovery Channel — sending a camera to the African savannah to watch the cheetahs stalking the gazelles! What you’re seeing is the primal battles going on among women. Men are marginalized on these shows — they’re eye candy, to use Obama’s phrase, on the borderlines of the ferocity of female sexuality.

-- Camille Paglia

_ _ _

It's too bad we don't see her more on the cable chat shows on news and politics. She is a real firecracker.

Lo (F) "aphrodisiac"

Our stalwart editor, John Ray, makes no apologies for refusing to censor Humbert’s text, and seems to offer the argument that this work of art may provide some redemptive recompense for the deviant and criminal life behind it.

_ _ _

Viewed simply as a novel, “Lolita” deals with situations and emotions that would remain exasperatingly vague to the reader had their expression been etiolated by means of platitudinous evasions. True, not a single obscene term is to be found in the whole work; indeed, the robust philistine who is conditioned by modern conventions into accepting without qualms a lavish array of four-letter words in a banal novel, will be quite shocked by their absence here. If, however, for this paradoxical prude’s comfort, an editor attempted to dilute or omit scenes that a certain type of mind might call “aphrodisiac” (see in this respect the monumental decision rendered December 6, 1933, by Hon. John M. Woolsey in regard to another, considerably more outspoken book), one would have to forgo the publication of “Lolita” altogether, since those very scenes that one might ineptly accuse of a sensuous existence of their own are the most strictly functional ones in the development of a tragic tale tending unswervingly to nothing less than a moral apotheosis. The cynic may say that commercial pornography makes the same claim; the learned may counter by asserting that “H.H.”’s impassioned confession is a tempest in a test tube; that at least 12% of American adult males - a “conservative” estimate according to Dr. Blanche Schwarzmann (verbal communication) - enjoy yearly, in one way or another, the special experience “H.H” describes with such despair; that had our demented diarist gone, in the fatal summer of 1947, to a competent psychopathologist, there would have been no disaster; but then, neither would there have been this book.

-- “Lolita” by Vladimir Nabokov

Lo (F) "aphrodisiac"

Our stalwart editor, John Ray, makes no apologies for refusing to censor Humbert’s text, and seems to offer the argument that this work of art may provide some redemptive recompense for the deviant and criminal life behind it.

_ _ _

Viewed simply as a novel, “Lolita” deals with situations and emotions that would remain exasperatingly vague to the reader had their expression been etiolated by means of platitudinous evasions. True, not a single obscene term is to be found in the whole work; indeed, the robust philistine who is conditioned by modern conventions into accepting without qualms a lavish array of four-letter words in a banal novel, will be quite shocked by their absence here. If, however, for this paradoxical prude’s comfort, an editor attempted to dilute or omit scenes that a certain type of mind might call “aphrodisiac” (see in this respect the monumental decision rendered December 6, 1933, by Hon. John M. Woolsey in regard to another, considerably more outspoken book), one would have to forgo the publication of “Lolita” altogether, since those very scenes that one might ineptly accuse of a sensuous existence of their own are the most strictly functional ones in the development of a tragic tale tending unswervingly to nothing less than a moral apotheosis. The cynic may say that commercial pornography makes the same claim; the learned may counter by asserting that “H.H.”’s impassioned confession is a tempest in a test tube; that at least 12% of American adult males - a “conservative” estimate according to Dr. Blanche Schwarzmann (verbal communication) - enjoy yearly, in one way or another, the special experience “H.H” describes with such despair; that had our demented diarist gone, in the fatal summer of 1947, to a competent psychopathologist, there would have been no disaster; but then, neither would there have been this book.

-- “Lolita” by Vladimir Nabokov

Reading Life

Having finished my exegetical book on Orwell, I began my next daytime book: "36 Arguments for the Existence of God" by Rebecca Goldstein. It's a novel, but I put it in my 'serious' stack, the 'literature' shelf at GoodReads, because it did not look exactly like a page-turner. It's a bit serious in the way of fiction, I think.

But here is the thing, I am rather enjoying it. It is not a page-turner, and I am fairly over my enthusiasm for the God question, but I am thinking that this could work for my nighttime reading, that I could readily stretch myself a little and make it work. It would be nice to channel all my fiction into my bedtime reading, while keeping the days for the non-fiction. It would be a good division of labor.

However, although it would be nice to beef up the reading life, I am inclined to stick with the trash fiction for the nighttime - the detective stories, the Koontz and King stories, and, yes, the schoolgirl-in-distress stories, the quasi-porn novels. When I wake up at three o'clock in the morning, unable to fall back asleep, and I decide to pick up my nighttime book in order to burn off a little excess energy, I need something that is not challenging in the least for my befogged, zombie-like brain; I need a quick, straight drop into a fantasy world that I want to get lost inside of - a hot shot of heroin-fiction to get me through a tough time.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that it feels too sugary and hollow to be working two novels at the same time, even if one of them is somewhat more serious and requires a bit more attention. I will probably continue debating this issue for a while. It is the kind of problem I don't mind living with.

Reading Life

Having finished my exegetical book on Orwell, I began my next daytime book: "36 Arguments for the Existence of God" by Rebecca Goldstein. It's a novel, but I put it in my 'serious' stack, the 'literature' shelf at GoodReads, because it did not look exactly like a page-turner. It's a bit serious in the way of fiction, I think.

But here is the thing, I am rather enjoying it. It is not a page-turner, and I am fairly over my enthusiasm for the God question, but I am thinking that this could work for my nighttime reading, that I could readily stretch myself a little and make it work. It would be nice to channel all my fiction into my bedtime reading, while keeping the days for the non-fiction. It would be a good division of labor.

However, although it would be nice to beef up the reading life, I am inclined to stick with the trash fiction for the nighttime - the detective stories, the Koontz and King stories, and, yes, the schoolgirl-in-distress stories, the quasi-porn novels. When I wake up at three o'clock in the morning, unable to fall back asleep, and I decide to pick up my nighttime book in order to burn off a little excess energy, I need something that is not challenging in the least for my befogged, zombie-like brain; I need a quick, straight drop into a fantasy world that I want to get lost inside of - a hot shot of heroin-fiction to get me through a tough time.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that it feels too sugary and hollow to be working two novels at the same time, even if one of them is somewhat more serious and requires a bit more attention. I will probably continue debating this issue for a while. It is the kind of problem I don't mind living with.

Daily Fun

( Read more... )

Daily Fun

( Read more... )