![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aug. 15th, 2014
"His heart beat faster and faster,
as Daisy's white face came up to his own.
He knew that when he kissed this girl,
and forever wed his unutterable visions to her perishable breath,
his mind would never romp again like the mind of God.
So he waited, listening for a moment longer
to the tuning fork that had been struck upon a star.
Then he kissed her.
At his lips' touch she blossomed for him like a flower
and the incarnation was complete."
.............................................
We should be through our first reading of Gatsby this weekend, which may be the definitive novel on the lure and disillusion of the American Dream.
Monk remembers the last time that he was accused of seeking the American Dream. It was in a patrol car with a cop. No, Monk was not in the backseat. He was a citizen observer that night. The ride was part of his graduate class for public affairs. We were parked alongside another patrol car. Loose discussion filled the lazy night air.
My Anglo cop had a thing about me being a law student. Perhaps, he knew that it was a bridge too far for our unlikely primate-protagonist, or he may have been stuck on the absurd fickleness of chance, on the wildness of America, where almost anything is possible -- almost anything. With his head reclined back on his seat, this cop would sing mockingly or disbelievingly, "[Monk's] living the American Dream!"
The reality is, of course, something else. Yesterday morning, while Monk was reading and dreaming more deeply into Gatsby, ol' Duke dropped by. He gave Monk the money for last week's tending, and Monk returned the keys. Monk feels awkward about getting money. So, he hastily takes it without looking at it, and he feels some disappointment at first. It's only a single bill, and he's thinking that it's a twenty. He tries to repress any note of disappointment as they chat for a couple of minutes. When they separate, Monk sees that the single bill is a fifty. And Monk is glad to get it.
************
Canary said, "Kissing is probably the greatest pastime in the world."
Monk said, "You are a romantic, Canary!"
as Daisy's white face came up to his own.
He knew that when he kissed this girl,
and forever wed his unutterable visions to her perishable breath,
his mind would never romp again like the mind of God.
So he waited, listening for a moment longer
to the tuning fork that had been struck upon a star.
Then he kissed her.
At his lips' touch she blossomed for him like a flower
and the incarnation was complete."
.............................................
We should be through our first reading of Gatsby this weekend, which may be the definitive novel on the lure and disillusion of the American Dream.
Monk remembers the last time that he was accused of seeking the American Dream. It was in a patrol car with a cop. No, Monk was not in the backseat. He was a citizen observer that night. The ride was part of his graduate class for public affairs. We were parked alongside another patrol car. Loose discussion filled the lazy night air.
My Anglo cop had a thing about me being a law student. Perhaps, he knew that it was a bridge too far for our unlikely primate-protagonist, or he may have been stuck on the absurd fickleness of chance, on the wildness of America, where almost anything is possible -- almost anything. With his head reclined back on his seat, this cop would sing mockingly or disbelievingly, "[Monk's] living the American Dream!"
The reality is, of course, something else. Yesterday morning, while Monk was reading and dreaming more deeply into Gatsby, ol' Duke dropped by. He gave Monk the money for last week's tending, and Monk returned the keys. Monk feels awkward about getting money. So, he hastily takes it without looking at it, and he feels some disappointment at first. It's only a single bill, and he's thinking that it's a twenty. He tries to repress any note of disappointment as they chat for a couple of minutes. When they separate, Monk sees that the single bill is a fifty. And Monk is glad to get it.
************
Canary said, "Kissing is probably the greatest pastime in the world."
Monk said, "You are a romantic, Canary!"
aug 18, 2003 Flirtations with Madness
Aug. 15th, 2014 09:00 amDo you ever have those awful moments
when you feel this terrible need
to look inside yourself
and seek some core within that manifests your sanity,
and then grow cold with fear upon finding nothing,
and you no longer trust what you're saying,
fearing what others are hearing,
and you wonder whether your mind is about to go blank,
leaving you laughing madly and insensibly?
when you feel this terrible need
to look inside yourself
and seek some core within that manifests your sanity,
and then grow cold with fear upon finding nothing,
and you no longer trust what you're saying,
fearing what others are hearing,
and you wonder whether your mind is about to go blank,
leaving you laughing madly and insensibly?
aug 19, 2003 Arabia's American Idol
Aug. 15th, 2014 09:15 amPicking up the paper this morning, Monk sees an article on how the Arab world has adapted "American Idol." This is the show where the young and beautiful unknown may compete to be the next singing sensation. Of all the Western values that we might like to see transferred, the pop glitz of American Idol wasn't at the top of the list. Representative democracy and secular politics would have been preferable. However, it may be a start.
When Monk reads the article, he is not surprised to find that some of the cultural conservatives over there see this as a prime example of the importation of American decadence. Although the point is well taken, there is something to be said for the regions's need to loosen up -- more fun and less martyrdom! What concerns Monk more is the way that they adapted the show.
They actually turned it into a nationalist contest. The article relates some of the violence between the peoples favoring their national representative. Why?!? Why couldn't they have an edition for each country? Why did they have to create another source of sectional friction? This had to be the worst way to do it. Incredible!
When Monk reads the article, he is not surprised to find that some of the cultural conservatives over there see this as a prime example of the importation of American decadence. Although the point is well taken, there is something to be said for the regions's need to loosen up -- more fun and less martyrdom! What concerns Monk more is the way that they adapted the show.
They actually turned it into a nationalist contest. The article relates some of the violence between the peoples favoring their national representative. Why?!? Why couldn't they have an edition for each country? Why did they have to create another source of sectional friction? This had to be the worst way to do it. Incredible!
aug 20, 2003
Aug. 15th, 2014 09:30 amGranville-Barker discusses today the possible significance for Shakespeare of the Elizabethan limitation that women's roles be played by boys. He argues that this may have helped Shakespeare to have to dig deeper into the resources of language itself, not being able to win over an audience more easily by exploiting feminine charms.
He intriguingly suggests that a big part of the problem for actresses today is the natural tendency to rely on those mesmerizing physical charms, which may vitiate the writing as one takes the cheap and easy way to entertain an audience. And this certainly applies to sex scenes. Granville-Barker laments, "Much could be said for the restoring of the celibate stage; but the argument, one fears, would be academic."
It should be noted that "Preface to Hamlet" was published in 1946, and one suspects that his veiw may be a bit on the old fashion side. And, of course, there are some forms of entertainment and story-telling that specifically focus on a woman's voluptuous charms. We don't want to cover women in veils and lock them in at home. Though, even Hollywood these days seems to be taking this more Victorian attitude, which seems even more misguided when you consider that we aren't getting greater artistic and intellectual value for this loss -- just a bland insipidity.
However, when in comes to poetic and dramatic arts, the point needs to be given its due. Excellence in poetic arts requires one to focus on the sublimity of the human spirit, and not on the primal and bestial allure of big tits and a sweet ass. In any case, Granville-Barker concludes that Shakespeare could not ask a woman to exploit her charms: "He asks instead for self-forgetful clarity of perception, and for a sensitive, spirited, athletic beauty of speech and conduct, which will leave prettiness and its lures at a loss, and the crudities of more Circean appeal looking very crude indeed."
He intriguingly suggests that a big part of the problem for actresses today is the natural tendency to rely on those mesmerizing physical charms, which may vitiate the writing as one takes the cheap and easy way to entertain an audience. And this certainly applies to sex scenes. Granville-Barker laments, "Much could be said for the restoring of the celibate stage; but the argument, one fears, would be academic."
It should be noted that "Preface to Hamlet" was published in 1946, and one suspects that his veiw may be a bit on the old fashion side. And, of course, there are some forms of entertainment and story-telling that specifically focus on a woman's voluptuous charms. We don't want to cover women in veils and lock them in at home. Though, even Hollywood these days seems to be taking this more Victorian attitude, which seems even more misguided when you consider that we aren't getting greater artistic and intellectual value for this loss -- just a bland insipidity.
However, when in comes to poetic and dramatic arts, the point needs to be given its due. Excellence in poetic arts requires one to focus on the sublimity of the human spirit, and not on the primal and bestial allure of big tits and a sweet ass. In any case, Granville-Barker concludes that Shakespeare could not ask a woman to exploit her charms: "He asks instead for self-forgetful clarity of perception, and for a sensitive, spirited, athletic beauty of speech and conduct, which will leave prettiness and its lures at a loss, and the crudities of more Circean appeal looking very crude indeed."
Ah, Monk has gone some more rounds with the Winnipegger. One only hopes that it is more light than bitter. A nationalistic chauvinism seems to undergird the back and forth. Yet, Monk seems an unlikely nationalist; he may be susceptible to a male chauvinism, but a nationalist chauvinism? Monk is too anti-worldly to think much of nations and governments, having ceased thinking that much good can come out of these, resigned to his dreamy fatalism.
The dialectical friction comes as he seeks to explain the American will and vision. And let's be honest: he is hardly their best advocate, seeing more larceny and tyranny in American leadership than not -- aside from matters of skill and knowledge. Still, this is Blurty, and he is glad to try to get in on some of the fun of these discussions.
Monk feels pretty good about his position on the general principle of power and freedom. He argued that only the innocent can believe that they can enjoy Western freedom without power, the wealth without the sword. She proudly proclaims that she believes that such freedom can be enjoyed without power, and presumably it is just more of Monk's misguided thinking to suppose this must be innocence.
Fine! Here is an honest difference of views. What prompts this blurt is another more precise issue, at least relatively precise. This is a question of wealth. And if she is right, then one thinks the American people are being taken more badly than even Monk has suspected by our elites.
It still began as a question of general freedom. Monk was trying to draw a distinction between the freedom of an individual and the freedom of people as members of a collectivity, with America being hyper-individualist and hence not especially interested in thinking in collectivist terms. Monk even began to agree that the average Canadian is probably more free than his American counterpart, until he felt that he was becoming unfair to his Americans.
This retraction proved unfortunate, as it started another cascade of heated arguments -- another lecture on Monk's ignorance. Well, it is true that he doesn't know Canada, but the question is going to be more interesting. The focused measurement became material wealth, which is more specific than freedom. Indeed, Monk made it even more specific in terms of car ownership, as he remembered her saying that she cannot afford a car (IF she wanted one, as she says she doesn't) and thinking about how she is an admitted member of the middle class. Monk argued that if she were an American, she would have a car being a member of the middle class. He actually felt safe behind this proposition, because he believes every middle-class American has a car (notwishstanding exceptions like New Yorkers) -- more fool he!
Well, the meat and potatoes is that she doesn't believe that America is any richer than Canada. Although Monk didn't think that Canada was backward, as she seems to fear that one thinks, he didn't believe that they are as rich. And lest we get lost on the difference of the size between these two white North American nations, Monk was thinking of that being controlled for any comparison.
This is especially interesting to Monk, because he has taken it as part of the implicit deal with the American elites that for less socialism we get more wealth, not just more wealth for the top few percent but for the broad middle class. Sure, this is a harder deal for America's lower and working classes, but one could appreciate the political power of satisfying better the broad middle class with more capitalism and lesser social programs. That is, they would be able to afford better services than they would get with more socialism -- with the lower classes just being left out in the cold completely.
Well, again, if Monk is wrong, we are really being taken to the cleaners by our elites, not just the lower classes (who scarcely count) but even the broad middle classes.
But could this be true!?
The dialectical friction comes as he seeks to explain the American will and vision. And let's be honest: he is hardly their best advocate, seeing more larceny and tyranny in American leadership than not -- aside from matters of skill and knowledge. Still, this is Blurty, and he is glad to try to get in on some of the fun of these discussions.
Monk feels pretty good about his position on the general principle of power and freedom. He argued that only the innocent can believe that they can enjoy Western freedom without power, the wealth without the sword. She proudly proclaims that she believes that such freedom can be enjoyed without power, and presumably it is just more of Monk's misguided thinking to suppose this must be innocence.
Fine! Here is an honest difference of views. What prompts this blurt is another more precise issue, at least relatively precise. This is a question of wealth. And if she is right, then one thinks the American people are being taken more badly than even Monk has suspected by our elites.
It still began as a question of general freedom. Monk was trying to draw a distinction between the freedom of an individual and the freedom of people as members of a collectivity, with America being hyper-individualist and hence not especially interested in thinking in collectivist terms. Monk even began to agree that the average Canadian is probably more free than his American counterpart, until he felt that he was becoming unfair to his Americans.
This retraction proved unfortunate, as it started another cascade of heated arguments -- another lecture on Monk's ignorance. Well, it is true that he doesn't know Canada, but the question is going to be more interesting. The focused measurement became material wealth, which is more specific than freedom. Indeed, Monk made it even more specific in terms of car ownership, as he remembered her saying that she cannot afford a car (IF she wanted one, as she says she doesn't) and thinking about how she is an admitted member of the middle class. Monk argued that if she were an American, she would have a car being a member of the middle class. He actually felt safe behind this proposition, because he believes every middle-class American has a car (notwishstanding exceptions like New Yorkers) -- more fool he!
Well, the meat and potatoes is that she doesn't believe that America is any richer than Canada. Although Monk didn't think that Canada was backward, as she seems to fear that one thinks, he didn't believe that they are as rich. And lest we get lost on the difference of the size between these two white North American nations, Monk was thinking of that being controlled for any comparison.
This is especially interesting to Monk, because he has taken it as part of the implicit deal with the American elites that for less socialism we get more wealth, not just more wealth for the top few percent but for the broad middle class. Sure, this is a harder deal for America's lower and working classes, but one could appreciate the political power of satisfying better the broad middle class with more capitalism and lesser social programs. That is, they would be able to afford better services than they would get with more socialism -- with the lower classes just being left out in the cold completely.
Well, again, if Monk is wrong, we are really being taken to the cleaners by our elites, not just the lower classes (who scarcely count) but even the broad middle classes.
But could this be true!?
aug 31, 2003 Elsinore
Aug. 15th, 2014 09:45 amAll didn't keep going well for Gertrude and Claudius until Prince Hamlet finally answers his slain father's call for dire vengeance. No, Mr. Updike tells us of an earlier catastrophe that befalls the wayward lovers. King Hamlet uncovers the truth of what is going on with his obliging queen, a woman who knows that when she is confronted with one man she has trouble keeping in mind the other, so overwhelmed by the demanding presence of a man.
King Hamlet had Claudius over for a brotherly conference, and he drops the hammer on their adulterous game. Deathly punishment is certain. However, Claudius is to be exiled, and presumably killed abroad, and this creates the opportunity to take the desperately urgent action that we know about through the play.
Polonius, fearing his own head, conspires with Claudius to bring this about, informing him of the King's habit of taking afternoon naps outside, a refurbishment that he has needed getting on in age. This is enought for Claudius, as he has just the thing acquired from his travels in the Mediterranean, this exotic poison of hebona which when swallowed or poured into the ear become instantly effective, as the victim dies a leprous death.
Updike's story then overlaps with Shakespeare's. Claudius adroitly maneuvers to get the crown, and Gertrude agrees to marry him only one month after the death of King Hamlet, not knowing of the extreme action taken by Claudius, not even knowing that their affair had been discovered.
Claudius understands that the last piece he needs to put together to firmly consolidate his position and power is to win Prince Hamlet over. He and Gertrude succeed in keeping him from his desire to return to university at Wittenberg, keeping him near the throne. Claudius hopes to be able to win him over in the affection of his bosom. One of the master touches of Updike's is to conclude the novel with King Claudius's joyous state of mind that he has gotten away with it, believing that all will be well.
We know, of course, that the young Hamlet has yet to be informed of a certain somber and gloomy apparition stalking the castle grounds during the wee hours of the night until the cock crows, when the tragedy really begins to storm -- and the court is no more. But that takes us to the play itself, and yes, the play IS the thing!
King Hamlet had Claudius over for a brotherly conference, and he drops the hammer on their adulterous game. Deathly punishment is certain. However, Claudius is to be exiled, and presumably killed abroad, and this creates the opportunity to take the desperately urgent action that we know about through the play.
Polonius, fearing his own head, conspires with Claudius to bring this about, informing him of the King's habit of taking afternoon naps outside, a refurbishment that he has needed getting on in age. This is enought for Claudius, as he has just the thing acquired from his travels in the Mediterranean, this exotic poison of hebona which when swallowed or poured into the ear become instantly effective, as the victim dies a leprous death.
Updike's story then overlaps with Shakespeare's. Claudius adroitly maneuvers to get the crown, and Gertrude agrees to marry him only one month after the death of King Hamlet, not knowing of the extreme action taken by Claudius, not even knowing that their affair had been discovered.
Claudius understands that the last piece he needs to put together to firmly consolidate his position and power is to win Prince Hamlet over. He and Gertrude succeed in keeping him from his desire to return to university at Wittenberg, keeping him near the throne. Claudius hopes to be able to win him over in the affection of his bosom. One of the master touches of Updike's is to conclude the novel with King Claudius's joyous state of mind that he has gotten away with it, believing that all will be well.
We know, of course, that the young Hamlet has yet to be informed of a certain somber and gloomy apparition stalking the castle grounds during the wee hours of the night until the cock crows, when the tragedy really begins to storm -- and the court is no more. But that takes us to the play itself, and yes, the play IS the thing!