Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7121314151617
Results 241 to 248 of 248

Thread: Literature Ramble

  1. #241
    The Gnu Normal Pompey Bum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    5,931
    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Ah, I see. Well, besides the dynamic nature of the plays compositin (I can say an artifitial model of the oral text composition), i also do not mind much if Shakespeare or another guy named Shakespeare was the ultimate author.
    No, I didn't mean that either. All I meant was that without some version in Shakespeare's hand, given the revision process prior to quarto publication, we cannot know the author's original vision in detail, although the surviving texts may provide some clues.

    That said, I must admit that there is little room for the fool in Dover in the existing texts. Lear himself plays the fool in the scene on the beach with Gloucester. The fool would have been out of place in the reunion scene with Cordelia and in Lear's death scene. And where Lear is directly concerned, what else is there? But perhaps that's the point. We don't know what else there was. As the mad Ophelia observed: "We know what we are but know not what we may be." I can see the fool as a quickly conscripted soldier in the battle against Albany and Edmund--perhaps with a Falstaff-like speech about how stupid the whole thing is. But I can also see him dying before Lear gets to Dover. One way or another, his end seems like an editorial oversight in the texts as we have them. Ultimately, who knows? But that's how it strikes me.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    I think one of the problems of bardolatry (or Bloom fanatical cult) is just not accepting that the interferences in the text in a company and then the edition made by others without the supervision of the author would be huge.
    I agree. And that is my point, really. Uncertainty about authorial intent in light of a dynamic process of revision in Shakespeare's lifetime interferes with the literary dogmatism of egomaniacs like Bloom and others. Readers (and literary critics, too) actually have to analyze the possibilities for themselves. Looking it up in Bloom is not enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    But what I do not see is the final version, the one that survived the editing process of time, memory and folios to be very contraditory to the central shakespeare idea.
    How could we possibly know that from the evidence we have? We can't, which is exciting.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Ah, I imagine this is a reflex of all pressure indeed, but it cannot be bad. There is sometime graphic novels (and comic books, so the snobs do not snob this) have excelent quality and this will bring us a important reflection of actual reading interest of the new public and the growing aspect of visual impact (why only Tolkien or movies?).
    I knew you would like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Of course, I cannot talk about this specific genre, but this argument is so meh. Like when we talked about The Sleeping Giant, what we saw was not the limitation of the genre (as if fantasy is limited), but Ishugiro owns limitations to deal with the tropes of that genre. The good authors just have no problem with them, the prizes shound't have. The best snob should be a snob about it and accept works for their quality and "but he explores the language beyond the genre" excuse.
    The argument is worse than "meh. It reminds me of what once would have been said to a woman trying to get into an all-male college: "Don't mistake us, dear. It's just that your hormones would keep you from being fully rational and that would prevent you from competing with men on exams. We're only thinking of you." It's always fun to watch a self-impressed liar (though granted it would have been less fun for the woman).

    So called genre is capable of answering to the requirements of literary fiction just as so-called literary fiction is capable of providing a gripping read. As I think we agree, the distinction is largely bogus. But this doesn't sound like a very well written book, which rather screws the pooch where broadening literary horizons is concerned. Perhaps it's just bad timing. Bauer's literary patron got to be a Booker judge right after Bauer had written a lousy book. Sad life, sad life.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    As noir, I can see a noir revival as interesting, albeit i do not remember good "noir" books, Chandler perhaps, but his books were really noir? But perhaps this noir trait is more about the tropes in recent noir movies. Something that happens in New Orleans or old hollywood like those james ellroy stuff (which i only know the La Confidential movie and you said, it is a movie! works there).
    I'm not sure since I'm only going by the Booker webpage, but I think they're talking about European film noir, which took images and styles from American cinema and reimagined it into a kind of dark fantasy of their own. Hence (per Booker): "as those dark, classic movies made clear – the country needed outsiders to study and dramatise its new anxieties." My point was that, since European film noir was a fantasy in the first place, it is a laughable starting point for a London poet to say anything real about America. For some reason, I don't quite trust these outsiders we need to study and dramatize our anxieties. But then you know what a "deeply paranoid" fellow I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    well, the last four books as you describe, seems to be driven by diversity tropes (and the previous).
    Yes, they're trying to follow the rules, bless their little hearts. Note the bumper crops of fig leaves this year: I'm Irish, but don't mind me if I write about a Syrian refugee, because hey, he's an immigrant--are you saying he's not Irish, too? Or: I'm English, but don't mind me if I write about the Muslim experience in London because what I'm really writing about is Islamophobia--bad us, bad us, bad us! Or (my favorite): I'm a Scotsman from London, but don't mind me if I trash America because my protagonist was born in Nova Scotia, which is a little like Scotland, and besides--bad America, bad America, bad America! All the good little doggies lined up and beggin' for their treats.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    It always make sense "in name of diversity, let us only talk, and we talk about others and we are good at it. applause".
    I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do for you, but no, I wouldn't hold your breath. PC is about feeling good not about doing good. And feeling good is ultimately about me, me, me, me.

    Anyway, it seems to me that this headline about "alarming whiteness" is just the Bombay Times' way of saying: Bad dogmatic doggies! Bad compassionate crypto-racists! (And many no doubt are already cowering). But strip away the racism of the headline (which would have been written by a copy editor and not the journalist), and the paper has a point. There are plenty of English-language writers from India, Pakistan, Jamaica, Nigeria--wherever--whose perspectives were silenced this year. But then of course the Booker's political correctness is not interested in diversity of thought. Until this now, it has been a bean count of skin color and genital concavity among those who proclaim the same Gospel. In 2018, the Booker opted to replace one kind of cheating with another, that's all. I'm not surprised the Bombay Times is pissed. The good little doggies have been rolling over for the wrong people.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Of course, the effects of such protests may be long lasting and your shopping list in the future may be filled with dystopian novels about a black woman in a world where she owns the last lipstick. wait for it.
    There's no progress there. I'd buy that book today if the premise were a little better and no one was telling me I have the wrong kind of genitals or DNA. We shall overcome.
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 08-13-2018 at 10:10 AM.
    And this from a man in a bunny suit.

  2. #242
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Pompey Bum View Post
    No, I didn't mean that either. All I meant was that without some version in Shakespeare's hand, given the revision process prior to quarto publication, we cannot know the author's original vision in detail, although the surviving texts may provide some clues.
    But this is true about almost anything, I mean, some authors save drafts after drafts, but most of them leave us just hints of the original intention (or some, like Goethe, would openly mock people trying to find the original intent. There is a faery tale he wrote, lily and the green snake, that he would laugh on the face of however asked him what it meant). Of course, it is my guess, it seems likely, it works that way best, but yeah, like suggested, maybe he was just not willing to kill a fool in stage because the public would dislike it? Or maybe he considered it would get mixed with lear death and someone will accuse him of calling kings as fools? We can write dozen stories about shakespeares motivations indeed. All can be true, after all, no evidence Homer was blind at all, but as Oscar Wilde said, it is good that way because made poetry be related to the sound. Works well.

    That said, I must admit that there is little room for the fool in Dover in the existing texts. Lear himself plays the fool in the scene on the beach with Gloucester. The fool would have been out of place in the reunion scene with Cordelia and in Lear's death scene. And where Lear is directly concerned, what else is there? But perhaps that's the point. We don't know what else there was. As the mad Ophelia observed: "We know what we are but know not what we may be." I can see the fool as a quickly conscripted soldier in the battle against Albany and Edmund--perhaps with a Falstaff-like speech about how stupid the whole thing is. But I can also see him dying before Lear gets to Dover. One way or another, his end seems like an editorial oversight in the texts as we have them. Ultimately, who knows? But that's how it strikes me.
    I think our mind is biased by the Flauberts and Tolstoys of life that taught us how important editorial work can be for their novels. It makes a lot of sense for us to find the fool's fate, but Chekhov gun is a few centuries apart from Shakespeare. At that time, it is possible that the gun will not fire.



    I agree. And that is my point, really. Uncertainty about authorial intent in light of a dynamic process of revision in Shakespeare's lifetime interferes with the literary dogmatism of egomaniacs like Bloom and others. Readers (and literary critics, too) actually have to analyze the possibilities for themselves. Looking it up in Bloom is not enough.
    Yeah, Bloom wiht his great reading, memory and all is an Ahab with a surf board to hunt a small sardine thinking it is Moby Dick. He got obssessed with the idea of Shakespeare as the center of the canon and Freud to the point of applying a religious view about it (One Shakespeare to rule them all, how pissed he would be by that) that he is missing the sensibility to a proper criticis. All the talk about the school of ressentment is just annoying and in the end, Shakespeare is the more damaged by his view. He set the bard so much in a stone to workship him that now is possible to attack Shakespeare ignoring his words.


    How could we possibly know that from the evidence we have? We can't, which is exciting.
    More things in heaven and earth... Wittengeintein would attack you with a poke.

    I knew you would like it.
    And a friend just left it for me to read sunday. It is not bad (Not the greatest work either), minimalistic art (I thought it was a mix of Dilbert with Daniel Clowes), flat colors, no action at all, you can say it is the equivalent of a woody allen graphic novel: characters talking and talking. Not heavily politic, there is a message there and here, but no preaching. I do not think it is good enough to be the graphic novel that will open the gates for the big prizes, but if the books in the list are as uninteresting as you say, it will not be the Jar Jar Binks of the lot.


    I'm not sure since I'm only going by the Booker webpage, but I think they're talking about European film noir, which took images and styles from American cinema and reimagined it into a kind of dark fantasy of their own. Hence (per Booker): "as those dark, classic movies made clear – the country needed outsiders to study and dramatise its new anxieties." My point was that, since European film noir was a fantasy in the first place, it is a laughable starting point for a London poet to say anything real about America. For some reason, I don't quite trust these outsiders we need to study and dramatize our anxieties. But then you know what a "deeply paranoid" fellow I am.
    Dietrich had a great face for noir, so you never know


    Yes, they're trying to follow the rules, bless their little hearts. Note the bumper crops of fig leaves this year: I'm Irish, but don't mind me if I write about a Syrian refugee, because hey, he's an immigrant--are you saying he's not Irish, too? Or: I'm English, but don't mind me if I write about the Muslim experience in London because what I'm really writing about is Islamophobia--bad us, bad us, bad us! Or (my favorite): I'm a Scotsman from London, but don't mind me if I trash America because my protagonist was born in Nova Scotia, which is a little like Scotland, and besides--bad America, bad America, bad America! All the good little doggies lined up and beggin' for their treats.
    Yeah, obviously this kind of thing is often followed "I cannot understand why them do not accept my criticism, it is all in good will and it is constructive". Obviously, this can lead to something as fantastic as Kafka' America (which is in the end, it is not exactly a critic about America, just a book that treats America as we treat bagdah or china to set fantastisc stories).



    I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do for you, but no, I wouldn't hold your breath. PC is about feeling good not about doing good. And feeling good is ultimately about me, me, me, me.
    Don't worry, crocodiles do not expect tigers to bring food to the river.

    Anyway, it seems to me that this headline about "alarming whiteness" is just the Bombay Times' way of saying: Bad dogmatic doggies! Bad compassionate crypto-racists! (And many no doubt are already cowering). But strip away the racism of the headline (which would have been written by a copy editor and not the journalist), and the paper has a point. There are plenty of English-language writers from India, Pakistan, Jamaica, Nigeria--wherever--whose perspectives were silenced this year. But then of course the Booker's political correctness is not interested in diversity of thought. Until this now, it has been a bean count of skin color and genital concavity among those who proclaim the same Gospel. In 2018, the Booker opted to replace one kind of cheating with another, that's all. I'm not surprised the Bombay Times is pissed. The good little doggies have been rolling over for the wrong people.
    The thing about prizes is that they try to correct their mistakes often by a more espetacular mistake. Even when they are "right", like the Nobel finally giving an award for a writer in portuguese language to Saramago, which only shows how amazing work they do to ignore the 6th more used used language in the world. "Hey, thank you, we just started to write and read last decade!How nice of you"


    There's no progress there. I'd buy that book today if the premise were a little better and no one was telling me I have the wrong kind of genitals or DNA. We shall overcome.
    The lipstick is obviously a weapon used to silence every white rapper. Not that bad, in the end there is a plot twist.
    #foratemer

  3. #243
    The Gnu Normal Pompey Bum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    5,931
    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    But this is true about almost anything, I mean, some authors save drafts after drafts, but most of them leave us just hints of the original intention (or some, like Goethe, would openly mock people trying to find the original intent.
    If we had Shakespeare's autograph version, we would know how he first told the fool's story. As I said, we could gain insight into the revision process and potentially open new interpretive pathways for first productions. It's not that the first version is the real version or the best version or the most authoritative version. I'm not talking about thematic literary analysis but historical text criticism. Archaeology wants to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Yeah, Bloom wiht his great reading, memory and all is an Ahab with a surf board to hunt a small sardine thinking it is Moby Dick.
    And I would hate to tell you (per Freud) what that small sardine turns out to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    He set the bard so much in a stone to workship him that now is possible to attack Shakespeare ignoring his words.
    I was trying to remember where I had read something like that recently. It was in Troilus and Cressida:

    'Tis mad idolatry
    To make the service greater than the god

    I guess some words won't be ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    More things in heaven and earth... Wittengeintein would attack you with a poke.
    No, but he'd tell me whereof I cannot speak, thereof I must be silent. (But then if he were following the Ramble, he'd know I can speak of quite a lot. )

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    And a friend just left it for me to read sunday. It is not bad (Not the greatest work either), minimalistic art (I thought it was a mix of Dilbert with Daniel Clowes), flat colors, no action at all, you can say it is the equivalent of a woody allen graphic novel: characters talking and talking.
    I've been unimpressed by the drawings I've seen so far. They seem static and--perfunctory? If you are telling me the dialogue is wordy too, I can't imagine it's a very good book. And it makes the graphic novel aspect sound like a gimmick. Why not just write a play and let actors breathe life into it? Was there any reason this needed to be a graphic novel?

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Not heavily politic, there is a message there and here, but no preaching. I do not think it is good enough to be the graphic novel that will open the gates for the big prizes, but if the books in the list are as uninteresting as you say, it will not be the Jar Jar Binks of the lot.
    I may be wrong, but I think a few Cinderellas were invited to the ball with no real chance of dancing with the prince. In other words, this is not the longlist, but the shortlist with a few distractions intended to gain the attention of new markets. But I imagine (with the caveat that I haven't read any of the books) that the shortlist will include the most of usual suspects and few of the tourists:

    Warlight (established author)
    The Overstory (established author and PC environmentalism)
    The Water Cure (PC man hating)
    The Long Take (PC Yank hating)
    The Mars Room (established author and PC victim mongering--not to mention "the absolute corruption of the American dream").
    Washington Black (quasi established author and DNA fig leaf for the "alarming whiteness" of the longlist)

    I should add that I will be sending my bear after Daisy Johnson's Everything Under, which is being described by credible sources as dark, mythic, and Sophoclean. It may nudge one of the above novels out of the shortlist since it is a mother-daughter story (cha-ching!) that has something to do with gender identity (CHA-CHING!). Still, the odious (if well named) rag The Guardian didn't feel Everything Under was quite correct on gender, so perhaps it won't pass the Booker smell test after all.

    Oh, and I left a book out in my earlier post. Anna Burns' The Milkman is set in an unnamed Irish city, probably Belfast, during the Troubles of the 1970s. Burns is from Belfast, which in the Booker's anti-colonial view of things makes her, um, British. I've heard The Milkman is a well written but not especially plot driven novel. The characters have identifiers rather than names (the Milkman, the Middle Daughter, and so on). It all sounds a little affected to me. I'm inclined to throw it to the crocodiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Dietrich had a great face for noir, so you never know
    Oh, European noir is great. I assume you've seen A Bout de Souffle, but if you haven't drop everything and watch it now. It's brilliant. But it's about the fatal attraction for Europeans of sexy, dangerous images from American pop culture. The images are fantasies, that's the point. Godard and his ilk weren't outsiders observing the realities of American culture with some sort of detachment. They were outsiders having fun with images that excited them. So were a lot of Europeans at the time. Here, check it out:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5RkH3V_MAs8

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Don't worry, crocodiles do not expect tigers to bring food to the river.
    Wise crocodiles. The Indians let the compassionate tigers in, and it took centuries to get rid of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    The lipstick is obviously a weapon used to silence every white rapper.
    No, that would be utopian novel. In a dystopian one, the Parthenogenic World Matriarchy would have declared possession of lipstick a crime punishable by acid attack and 20 years hard labor at the Mother Gaia Saltworks and Daycare Collective. Booker would welcome a book like that, right? True it would be different, but hey, it's all about diversity!
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; 08-17-2018 at 02:02 PM.
    And this from a man in a bunny suit.

  4. #244
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,252
    Quote Originally Posted by Pompey Bum View Post
    If we had Shakespeare's autograph version, we would know how he first told the fool's story. As I said, we could gain insight into the revision process and potentially open new interpretive pathways for first productions. It's not that the first version is the real version or the best version or the most authoritative version. I'm not talking about thematic literary analysis but historical text criticism. Archaeology wants to know.
    But who said he only considered the fool after 3 or 4 versions or that the construction of the play registered every step and had no help from actors during the preparations? Indiana Jones would be be unable to pick the right grail this time.


    And I would hate to tell you (per Freud) what that small sardine turns out to be.
    Well, eels... It is funny to see someone that develops a theory that talks about conflicts between the old canon and the new generations as the source of creation ranting against the marxism inside academy as if his own idea isn't the emperor new clothes for the materialism (granted, could be called hegelian if marx wasn't the most popular philosopher) and Freud isnt a product of the same germany enviroment of those ideas.

    I mean the guy can give you insights (i recall a text about Emily Dickinson that he manages to push a link between two because one of her poems mentions blindness. Ok, I didnt fell for Emily being a reader or being under Milton influence, but I could see how you can talk about her faith because Milton gives light about faith), but he certainly got weird when he tried to write for a broader audience. I read one of his book about Yahvé, and it is so weird how he turns in the end. You know, he has a theory that one of the "authors" of the OT is a woman (considering the theory that the OT has two different sources) from the court in jerusalem. Ok, I have no idea what exactly are his arguments for this (and seems like he says it is just an exercise of imagination), but granted, it give us a new perspective to see those texts, which is a good critical work. But in this other book, he goes analysing the texts and when he gets in John he is a radical sionist, blaming John for all anti-jewish bias afterwards and basically calling him a thief (and to complete, he goes accusing all Islam of the same thing and calling it a religion of hate, etc.). He ends accusing the early christians of cultural appropriation (so he fuels a lot of ressentiment) and of course, that makes no sense at all.


    I was trying to remember where I had read something like that recently. It was in Troilus and Cessida:

    'Tis mad idolatry
    To make the service greater than the god

    I guess some words won't be ignored.
    hah, I recall Musil with something similar, in a short text saying he does not want to have his name in a street or have a statue (or anything similar) because it is never good to the writer/artists, only for the "mortals" who now can have their daily lives thinking they are equal to the "Imortals" (or great man). He was probally quite found of Schopenhauer.

    No, but he'd tell me whereof I cannot speak, thereof I must be silent. (But then if he were following the Ramble, he'd know I can speak of quite a lot. )
    The poke is his rambling argument

    I've been unimpressed by the drawings I've seen so far. They seem static and--perfunctory? If you are telling me the dialogue is wordy too, I can't imagine it's a very good book. And it makes the graphic novel aspect sound like a gimmick. Why not just write a play and let actors breathe life into it? Was there any reason this needed to be a graphic novel?
    Well, it is cheaper to write a comic book (and as Marshall MacLurham would suggest, the medium is the message, he may be unable to wrte a play or a movie, as much as a comic book script may resemble a a movie script). But, yeah, the art is not amazing at all, but you have to consider that comic books (either they have the fancy name graphic novels or not) worked for a long time with the visual arts, so the great visusal art work is linked with super-heroes or science fiction pulp genre and were action driven. When the medium started to develop the texts and characters more, they started to work with a more minimalist art, with less details, not only to open some distance from super-heroes but also to open space for dialogues and character development. They had more or less two references, daily comic strips or manga and with time, this art style (which have a bit of reference from pop art) became the rule for graphics novels like this one. There are better visual artists that manage to create a more distinct style working this way, the only argument for Sabrina is the framing, that create a movie like-dynamics, I guess.


    I may be wrong, but I think a few Cinderellas were invited to the ball with no real chance of dancing with the prince. In other words, this is not the longlist, but the shortlist with a few distractions intended to gain the attention of new markets. But I imagine (with the caveat that I haven't read any of the books) that the shortlist will include the most of usual suspects and few of the tourists:

    Warlight (established author)
    The Overstory (established author and PC environmentalism)
    The Water Cure (PC man hating)
    The Long Take (PC Yank hating)
    The Mars Room (established author and PC victim mongering--not to mention "the absolute corruption of the American dream").
    Washington Black (quasi established author and DNA fig leaf for the "alarming whiteness" of the longlist)
    They will eventually create a cathegory for American Authors, so they can win every year and yet never win the main prize, meaning they are just not good enough.

    I should add that I will be sending my bear after Daisy Johnson's Everything Under, which is being described by credible sources as dark, mythic, and Sophoclean. It may nudge one of the above novels out of the shortlist since it is a mother-daughter story (cha-ching!) that has something to do with gender identity (CHA-CHING!). Still, the odious (if well named) rag The Guardian didn't feel Everything Under was quite correct on gender, so perhaps it won't pass the Booker smell test after all.

    Oh, and I left a book out in my earlier post. Anna Burns' The Milkman is set in an unnamed Irish city, probably Belfast, during the Troubles of the 1970s. Burns is from Belfast, which in the Booker's anti-colonial view of things makes her, um, British. I've heard The Milkman is a well written but not especially plot driven novel. The characters have identifiers rather than names (the Milkman, the Middle Daughter, and so on). It all sounds a little affected to me. I'm inclined to throw it to the crocodiles.
    Perhaps there is a great reveal and the MuffinMan will come and sit on the table. Take your chance



    Oh, European noir is great. I assume you've seen A Bout de Souffle, but if you haven't drop everything and watch it now. It's brilliant. But it's about the fatal attraction for Europeans of sexy, dangerous images from American pop culture. The images are fantasies, that's the point. Godard and his ilk weren't outsiders observing the realities of American culture with some sort of detachment. They were outsiders having fun with images that excited them. So were a lot of Europeans at the time. Here, check it out:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5RkH3V_MAs8
    Oh, of course, a movie about Belmondo Cigar and Stenberg Short Hair. Goddard is great, he is with a new movie, except that it was in Cannes I heard nothing about it, so he is probally too old to be creative, but still probally worth to be watched. A great artist failure can tell a lot about their past sucess.




    No, that would be utopian novel. In a dystopian one, the Parthenogenic World Matriarchy would have declared possession of lipstick a crime punishable by acid attack and 20 years hard labor at the Mother Gaia Saltworks and Daycare Collective. Booker would welcome a book like that, right? True it would be different, but hey, it's all about diversity!
    It is the last lipstick, banning anything that is unique will create a religion. The rulling party is weary. What if instead of lipsticks we ban lips?
    #foratemer

  5. #245
    The Gnu Normal Pompey Bum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    5,931
    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Well, eels... It is funny to see someone that develops a theory that talks about conflicts between the old canon and the new generations as the source of creation ranting against the marxism inside academy as if his own idea isn't the emperor new clothes for the materialism (granted, could be called hegelian if marx wasn't the most popular philosopher) and Freud isnt a product of the same germany enviroment of those ideas.
    Eels are too likable.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    I read one of his book about Yahvé, and it is so weird how he turns in the end. You know, he has a theory that one of the "authors" of the OT is a woman (considering the theory that the OT has two different sources) from the court in jerusalem. Ok, I have no idea what exactly are his arguments for this (and seems like he says it is just an exercise of imagination), but granted, it give us a new perspective to see those texts, which is a good critical work.
    Heh. Yes, that Yawist/J business wasn't even his hypothesis. It was from much older work on the sources of the Pentateuch by the German scholar Julius Wellhausen. Wellhausen proposed four documents: J, which primarily calls God YHWH; E, which primarily calls God Elohim; D, which was produced during Josiah's failed attempt to reestablish the Davidic Kingdom as regional power; and P, a late source that emphasized the role of the priesthood in Israel's development. Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis was the consensus view of scholars for most of the 20th century and remains the point of departure for modern hypotheses (you could draw a rough analogy between Mendelian genetics and modern genetics).

    I was chuckling because in the old days, LitNetters who wanted to debate the Bible with me would typically start by pompously (but arbitrarily) quoting from Bloom's The Book of J. None of them had heard of the Documentary Hypothesis, and I don't recall many really understanding what Bloom was talking about either. But like a fundamentalist's prooftext, Bloom's holy word alone was supposed to be enough to put me in my place. And when I enthusiastically argued back from Wellhausen you could hear their knees knocking together--usually as they headed for the hills. I love the Internet.

    Anyway, this business about a woman writing J--no one takes it seriously. I think Bloom was trying to draw a connection between J and Queen of Sheba traditions, but the evidence was always circular and people want to push J forward now in any case. The bottom line is that Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis has proved a venerable and flexible working hypothesis, but Bloom always wants to set things in stone--preferably with his name on them. You can't do that with Biblical scholarship anymore than you can with Shakespearean scholarship.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    But in this other book, he goes analysing the texts and when he gets in John he is a radical sionist, blaming John for all anti-jewish bias afterwards and basically calling him a thief (and to complete, he goes accusing all Islam of the same thing and calling it a religion of hate, etc.). He ends accusing the early christians of cultural appropriation (so he fuels a lot of ressentiment) and of course, that makes no sense at all.
    Yes, I vaguely remember reading him on that. He was filling his discourse with Humpty-Dumptyisms for this kind of appropriation and that kind of appropriation (which is a bit like inventing a dystopian fantasy to further one's political agenda). Anyway, I will defend Bloom here a little (but only a little). Parts of the Johannine text as we have it are appalling in their treatment of Jews. And from at least the time of Justin Martyr (late 1st century), some Christians were staking a claim to be the true Israel--with the old Israel condemned to a life of divine punishment. This idea became increasingly lethal and led ultimately to the spilling of much blood. So Bloom isn't making it up. But I don't find his approach helpful. The question for me is how the faiths heal--how we stop the madness. I don't think more rage is going to help.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    The poke is his rambling argument
    Do you know the whole story of the poker incident? All I've heard is that Wittgenstein had a brief but intense argument with Popper on the only occasion they met. Wittgenstein is supposed to have been alternately poking at an Oxford fireplace and making impassioned gestures with the poker. At one point, Wittgenstein is supposed to have pointed the poker rather close to Popper and demanded a single example of a moral principle; to which Popper is supposed to have responded something like: Never threaten a philosopher with a poker (upon which which Wittgenstein is supposed to have withdrawn in defeat). But I've also heard that's only Popper's version, and when he published it in later life (after Wittgenstein's death), a number of men who were in the room at the time claimed he was lying. Do you know anything more?

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Well, it is cheaper to write a comic book (and as Marshall MacLurham would suggest, the medium is the message, he may be unable to wrte a play or a movie, as much as a comic book script may resemble a a movie script).
    Well, it's cheaper than a movie, that's for sure. But in that case it has to have more going for it than just storyboard. I've read only three graphic novels: Maus and Maus II, which were magnificent, and a cartoon version of Apuleius, which was pornographic and mean spirited. The Maus novels were not mere storyboard. They drew on cartooning traditions (using theriomorphic characters, for example) and they contributed significantly to the novel's tone (and of course its imagry. And for all their pornographic manipulations, The Golden *ss' illustrations were at least distinctively rendered by the graphic artist. If Sabrina's are as banal as they appear (and granted I have only seen a few), it's a real problem. My criticism of graphic novels is that they try to do what is better done by the imagination (another way to say it is that the drawings limit what could be better done in words). If, as in Maus, they adequately express an author's artistic vision, then fine. If, as apparently in Sabrina, they are merely perfunctory, then not fine. evoking minimalism is a fig leaf if talent is what one is being minimal about.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    They will eventually create a cathegory for American Authors, so they can win every year and yet never win the main prize, meaning they are just not good enough.
    I don't know many Americans who would care. I wouldn't. Besides there are plenty of Americans willing to tell the doggies what they want to hear. Remember "the absolute corruption of the American dream" is a description of an American book (by a turbo-privileged New York socialite, I might add). But most Americans have never heard of the Man Booker Prize. And those who have are usually elites and snobs. I don't think Booker's attempt to appeal to supposed "middle brow" readers is going to win them the friends they think it will--here or at home. And the other colonies are already pissed at them. Their reputation is going to suffer even more.

    I'm getting iffy, by the way, about Warlight. I'm hearing it's prose is off in just the way I feared: it's overblown and affected, exactly what I try to avoid in literary fiction. Probably the bear will go after Everything Under instead. And after that? I may be reduced to scavenging past lists. There was an interesting-looking novel a few years back called Do Not Say We Have Nothing. It looks to be about Chinese immigrants in Canada, with much reference to survival in the Cultural Revolution. I think I'll buy that one instead of Warlight. But maybe it's getting to be time to look beyond the Booker.

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    Perhaps there is a great reveal and the MuffinMan will come and sit on the table. Take your chance
    Of course! The Muffin Man who lives on Drury Lane! And since Drury Lane is in London, it makes sense that the Booker Prize would list an Irish author as British. Especially in a book about the Troubles. Challenging the limits of identity as always!

    Quote Originally Posted by JCamilo View Post
    It is the last lipstick, banning anything that is unique will create a religion. The rulling party is weary. What if instead of lipsticks we ban lips?
    Yes certainly, that's what the acid attacks were for. But you're right, since our mysterious heroine remains at large, scrawling calls for freedom and dignity in Ruby Woo by M.A.C., the You Go, Girl! Empowerment Collective (the feared YGG) has resolved that oral self-circumcision will now be required. Luckily there has been a surplus of razor blades since the "voluntary euthanasia" of all known males. The enemies of Big Mother will soon be recognizable on sight.
    Last edited by Pompey Bum; Yesterday at 10:00 AM.
    And this from a man in a bunny suit.

  6. #246
    rat in a strange garret Whifflingpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    On the hill overlooking the harbour
    Posts
    2,546
    Surely oral self-circumcision would imply a devotion to the semi-divine Achilles. What might that mean in an ananthropic world?
    Voices mysterious far and near,
    Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
    Are calling and whispering in my ear,
    Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?

  7. #247
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Belo Horizonte- Brasil
    Posts
    3,252
    Heh. Yes, that Yawist/J business wasn't even his hypothesis. It was from much older work on the sources of the Pentateuch by the German scholar Julius Wellhausen. Wellhausen proposed four documents: J, which primarily calls God YHWH; E, which primarily calls God Elohim; D, which was produced during Josiah's failed attempt to reestablish the Davidic Kingdom as regional power; and P, a late source that emphasized the role of the priesthood in Israel's development. Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis was the consensus view of scholars for most of the 20th century and remains the point of departure for modern hypotheses (you could draw a rough analogy between Mendelian genetics and modern genetics).

    I was chuckling because in the old days, LitNetters who wanted to debate the Bible with me would typically start by pompously (but arbitrarily) quoting from Bloom's The Book of J. None of them had heard of the Documentary Hypothesis, and I don't recall many really understanding what Bloom was talking about either. But like a fundamentalist's prooftext, Bloom's holy word alone was supposed to be enough to put me in my place. And when I enthusiastically argued back from Wellhausen you could hear their knees knocking together--usually as they headed for the hills. I love the Internet.

    Anyway, this business about a woman writing J--no one takes it seriously. I think Bloom was trying to draw a connection between J and Queen of Sheba traditions, but the evidence was always circular and people want to push J forward now in any case. The bottom line is that Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis has proved a venerable and flexible working hypothesis, but Bloom always wants to set things in stone--preferably with his name on them. You can't do that with Biblical scholarship anymore than you can with Shakespearean scholarship.
    Yeah, I knew about Wellhausen theory and to be fair, Bloom does not take credit for it, only for the Jessie theory. I understand also, the little I got about it is that Wellhausen and the previous studies are more concerned about the traditions/culture that formed those texts than any sense of particular authorship, which is the aim that Bloom does. Ok, he needs it to apply his theories, he needs analysing the author behind the texts, to find the Oedipal relation in among the individuals creating literature. While I do not buy it much (if we dismiss Homer as a historical individual figure without problem, why would be those texts any different? It is obvious that finding a holy grail "here the bones of J" would mean just the guy who printed a text and as important he could be archeologicaly speaking, he is no more important than the process...), I find ok. A literary critic must stick to his bias and speculate a bit exactly because he is not doing archeology. But yeah, Bloom is trying to be the Darwin of literary criticism.

    I think ok, lets speculate that there is a female author. Nice, all cultures had huge influence of women in position of power, even those very matriarchal. They have influence, a certain degree of culture, even if behind the male figures. So, ok, we can think there is traces of women influence beyond Rachels and Ruths in the OT. Sheba could be more relevant (as well Solomon, mythical wise speaking) and yeah, I think he was trying to find a figure like her (but that would be too much luck, exactly her?) and turn Sheba in some sort of hebrew Scheherazade. Cute, little Jessie.

    Now his ego aside, I suspect Bloom motivation to be ironic. It is not unusual to see academics trying to address to the non-academic public, make some money, etc. Dawkins started like that, Umberto Eco did it quite well and Bloom was doing the same. So, what he did? Adapted his ideas to inclued women. He was after the feminists that he so much fought against. "Here, I am giving you a female author!". Very funny for someone who always attacked the feminist approach of literary criticism. But of course, with his show of empathy towards female public, his attempt is half-arsed and he ends showing himself as old and not relevant literary critic anymore. Bloom mentions is just some attempt to reach academic credibility. I would still pay attention to what he says about Shakespeare or Milton, but when he talks about Borges, Neruda or Pessoa is just embarassing.

    Yes, I vaguely remember reading him on that. He was filling his discourse with Humpty-Dumptyisms for this kind of appropriation and that kind of appropriation (which is a bit like inventing a dystopian fantasy to further one's political agenda). Anyway, I will defend Bloom here a little (but only a little). Parts of the Johannine text as we have it are appalling in their treatment of Jews. And from at least the time of Justin Martyr (late 1st century), some Christians were staking a claim to be the true Israel--with the old Israel condemned to a life of divine punishment. This idea became increasingly lethal and led ultimately to the spilling of much blood. So Bloom isn't making it up. But I don't find his approach helpful. The question for me is how the faiths heal--how we stop the madness. I don't think more rage is going to help.
    Yeah, we rambled about John already, no? He may have the texts that were used for anti-jew persecution and of course, those are circustances of the culture of the time, it make sense under that context (but of course, nothing stop people using texts the way they want). The thing is exactly that, he goes full agressive over the other two religions at once using the cultural appropriation card. Ok, ok. I get there is some level of concern when we at present see some culture being used by others in a way that is damaged, but someone that claims that literary creation came from the wish of the author to take material form a previous text and produce something superior, this process shouldn't be one to anger him at all. Oh, John was getting the OT texts and transforming them to be useful for the new christians and exclude the jews! Geez, literary wise Bloom should applaud John. And well, concerning with cultural approriation 2000 years after is a bit silly.

    Do you know the whole story of the poker incident? All I've heard is that Wittgenstein had a brief but intense argument with Popper on the only occasion they met. Wittgenstein is supposed to have been alternately poking at an Oxford fireplace and making impassioned gestures with the poker. At one point, Wittgenstein is supposed to have pointed the poker rather close to Popper and demanded a single example of a moral principle; to which Popper is supposed to have responded something like: Never threaten a philosopher with a poker (upon which which Wittgenstein is supposed to have withdrawn in defeat). But I've also heard that's only Popper's version, and when he published it in later life (after Wittgenstein's death), a number of men who were in the room at the time claimed he was lying. Do you know anything more?
    Nah, the only thing different is that Bertrand Russell was the one that disarmed Wittgenstein. But yeah, sounds like one of those anedoctes that we have about greek philosophers in the past, rather than something real.

    Well, it's cheaper than a movie, that's for sure. But in that case it has to have more going for it than just storyboard. I've read only three graphic novels: Maus and Maus II, which were magnificent, and a cartoon version of Apuleius, which was pornographic and mean spirited. The Maus novels were not mere storyboard. They drew on cartooning traditions (using theriomorphic characters, for example) and they contributed significantly to the novel's tone (and of course its imagry. And for all their pornographic manipulations, The Golden *ss' illustrations were at least distinctively rendered by the graphic artist. If Sabrina's are as banal as they appear (and granted I have only seen a few), it's a real problem. My criticism of graphic novels is that they try to do what is better done by the imagination (another way to say it is that the drawings limit what could be better done in words). If, as in Maus, they adequately express an author's artistic vision, then fine. If, as apparently in Sabrina, they are merely perfunctory, then not fine. evoking minimalism is a fig leaf if talent is what one is being minimal about.
    Yes, Maus is great. Sadly, somone took and never gave me back the first book and today I have only the second book. But the truth is that the graphic novel status came from super-heroes comics and it is a bit unfair, since european comics have always been "graphic novels". I mean, Tintin is every bit a XIX century like adventure novel.

    As Sabrina, there is some treatment of framing and colors to build up the sequences that are interesting and place them way above storyboards, but yes, the artist lacks a more distinct style like Spielgeman or Crumb can give, after all, if comic books are a sequencial art, it is a visual art.

    Of course! The Muffin Man who lives on Drury Lane! And since Drury Lane is in London, it makes sense that the Booker Prize would list an Irish author as British. Especially in a book about the Troubles. Challenging the limits of identity as always!
    Would them complain if we allow Zappa's Muffinman instead or it would be too american?
    #foratemer

  8. #248
    The Gnu Normal Pompey Bum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Uncanny Valley
    Posts
    5,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Whifflingpin View Post
    Surely oral self-circumcision would imply a devotion to the semi-divine Achilles. What might that mean in an ananthropic world?
    Apollodorus is a dead white male. True, being dead is a little like being a victim, but alas, such enviable intersectionality is more than obliterated by his double-oppressor status. His attempts to "mansplain" the etymology of Achilles may therefore be dismissed as racist, sexist, and suspect to even know about. You had better watch yourself, Whifflingpin. The Compulsory Women's Studies Collective extends no mercy to the intolerant.
    And this from a man in a bunny suit.

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7121314151617

Similar Threads

  1. This is ramble-poetry
    By teggie in forum Personal Poetry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-10-2015, 05:36 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-13-2014, 10:48 PM
  3. The Ramble
    By Onirem2000 in forum Short Story Sharing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 08:48 AM
  4. The Ramble
    By Onirem2000 in forum Short Story Sharing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-27-2009, 05:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •