We Need A Revolution In Literature!

Saying a fertilized egg has a "destiny" to have life is a bit trite (they are alive, but so are bacteria and cockroaches, the relevant question is if they are persons). First of all, an embryo may or may not actually have the potential to be a human being, they may lack necessary genetic components to form a viable human being, while still being viable at earlier stages of development. Secondly, the majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Third, a potential to be something which has rights does not imply that thing in itself has rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Saying a fertilized egg has a "destiny" to have life is a bit trite (they are alive, but so are bacteria and cockroaches, the relevant question is if they are persons). First of all, an embryo may or may not actually have the potential to be a human being, they may lack necessary genetic components to form a viable human being, while still being viable at earlier stages of development. Secondly, the majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Third, a potential to be something which has rights does not imply that thing in itself has rights.

---

Careful. You are cutting it too far outside of ecosystem. There occur no things in themselves.

Darcy, please tell me you're just jerking Bewlar's chain be saying you don't know who Stalin is. . . .

The posts of Bewlay have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and have nothing to do with literature as well. Why not just ignore his posts? I think his posts would be better suited for some right-wing neo-Nazi posting board. It certainly isn't the kind of stuff that belongs in a discussion about literature.

A different poster, one whose posts are far more relevant to the topic, was kind enough to give a list of some writers and poets that he felt were innovative. I wish to thank him. Others may also wish to share with us the names of writers and poets who they feel are innovative, particularly of the modern and contemporary periods. Other members of the site might enjoy reading those poets and writers very much. (As I said before unless you have permission from the copyright holder please refrain from posting an entire work, just list titles, as posting an entire work that is not yet part of the public domain is against copyright rules. Thank you.)

A different poster brought up the subject of sexuality and literature. I believe that the time has come to end censorship in literature. Writers and poets need greater freedom of creativity. Sexuality is an extremely important part of human nature. To censor sexuality in literature is to impede the creative process, and the creative process is key to creating great literature.

Censorship of sexuality in literature may come in endless forms. It may be of the politically correct variety of censorship, which is a relatively new form of censorship. It may be of the religious extremist variety of censorship, which of course is a very old form of censorship. It may come from the government.

We need to understand that sexuality is natural. Sexuality has a natural place in literature. We should not be censoring it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

The posts of Bewlay have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and have nothing to do with literature as well. Why not just ignore his posts? I think his posts would be better suited for some right-wing neo-Nazi posting board. It certainly isn't the kind of stuff that belongs in a discussion about literature.

A different poster, one whose posts are far more relevant to the topic, was kind enough to give a list of some writers and poets that he felt were innovative. I wish to thank him. Others may also wish to share with us the names of writers and poets who they feel are innovative, particularly of the modern and contemporary periods. Other members of the site might enjoy reading those poets and writers very much. (As I said before unless you have permission from the copyright holder please refrain from posting an entire work, just list titles, as posting an entire work that is not yet part of the public domain is against copyright rules. Thank you.)

A different poster brought up the subject of sexuality and literature. I believe that the time has come to end censorship in literature. Writers and poets need greater freedom of creativity. Sexuality is an extremely important part of human nature. To censor sexuality in literature is to impede the creative process, and the creative process is key to creating great literature.

Censorship of sexuality in literature may come in endless forms. It may be of the politically correct variety of censorship, which is a relatively new form of censorship. It may be of the religious extremist variety of censorship, which of course is a very old form of censorship. It may come from the government.

We need to understand that sexuality is natural. Sexuality has a natural place in literature. We should not be censoring it.

---

There are some very "creative" churches of sex. Some claim that De Sade was the only revolutionary ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

Darcy, please tell me you're just jerking Bewlar's chain be saying you don't know who Stalin is. . . .

---

Of course I know who he is. I'm well read. He wrote Fathers and Sons right? See I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

A different poster brought up the subject of sexuality and literature. I believe that the time has come to end censorship in literature. Writers and poets need greater freedom of creativity. Sexuality is an extremely important part of human nature. To censor sexuality in literature is to impede the creative process, and the creative process is key to creating great literature.

Censorship of sexuality in literature may come in endless forms. It may be of the politically correct variety of censorship, which is a relatively new form of censorship. It may be of the religious extremist variety of censorship, which of course is a very old form of censorship. It may come from the government.

We need to understand that sexuality is natural. Sexuality has a natural place in literature. We should not be censoring it.

---

You really think literature as a whole is censored for sex these days? The Lady Chatterly Obscenity Trial was back in 1959 man. Its old news. Tropic of Cancer is one of my favourite books. Did you just step out of a cryo-chamber? The 50's are long gone.

What you want is sex, sex, sex raining down, thrusted upon us at every turn, rendered as ubiquitous and banal as red brick. You would rape our sense of decency. You sneer at those who regard sex as something more than a crude animalistic urge, those for whom to the act is attached some higher almost spiritual meaning.

Our culture is over-sexed. I turn on a television and see soft-core porn playing on every channel. I walk outside in the summer-time and fancy myself in ancient Sparta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Of course I know who he is. I'm well read. He wrote Fathers and Sons right? See I know.

---

Considering the clear lack of historical prespecive you showed before, I don't think any of us would have been particularly suprissed had you not know who stalin was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Considering the clear lack of historical prespecive you showed before, I don't think any of us would have been particularly suprissed had you not know who stalin was.

---

Whatever. I've heard scholars state that the form of slavery the African Americans endured was perhaps the most brutal in all history. I can think of few example of such large numbers of people being shipped to other continents and kept in drudgery and discrimination for centuries. I'm sure there are some but it is not "typical" as you in your superior intelligence and historical perspective state.

Darcy said:

Quote:

---

You really think literature as a whole is censored for sex these days? The Lady Chatterly Obscenity Trial was back in 1959 man. Its old news. Tropic of Cancer is one of my favourite books. Did you just step out of a cryo-chamber? The 50's are long gone.

What you want is sex, sex, sex raining down, thrusted upon us at every turn, rendered as ubiquitous and banal as red brick. You would rape our sense of decency. You sneer at those who regard sex as something more than a crude animalistic urge, those for whom to the act is attached some higher almost spiritual meaning.

Our culture is over-sexed. I turn on a television and see soft-core porn playing on every channel. I walk outside in the summer-time and fancy myself in ancient Sparta.

---

Darcy is mistaken. He clearly does not understand what I'm saying.

I feel that no one has a right to impose their sexual Puritanism on others, and I feel that this is especially true or should be especially true in the world of literature. Who is Darcy or anyone else for that matter to say what should be allowed in literature and what shouldn't? The most important thing here is not to put obstacles in the creative spirit of the writer or poet or painter or sculptor.

Not every writer or poet or painter or sculptor shares Darcy's opinions about sexuality. I defend Darcy's right to write whatever he chooses. But I also defend the right of poets and writers and painters and sculptors to be more free in their creative endeavors.

The important thing is absolute freedom for the writer or poet, whether it be in sexuality or otherwise, provided that the writer is not espousing neo-Nazi filth, which is a different matter entirely.

Darcy's insistence that we live in a literary world free of sexual censorship is incorrect. It is true that sexual censorship in the literary world (and in society in general) loosened during the sexual revolution. However, it seems that since the 1980s the pendulum is swinging the other way. Ihe literary world (and society in general) is becoming more puritanical. This sexual Puritanism, in my opinion, is having a negative impact upon the literary world in the form of censorship.

This censorship takes many different forms, including that of political correctness. But whether this censorship derives from political correctness or religious extremism or government intervention censorship is censorship. It is ugly. It has no place in the literary world. We should defend the right of writers and poets and sculptors and painters to create whatever they shall choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

Darcy said:


Darcy is mistaken. He clearly does not understand what I'm saying.

I feel that no one has a right to impose their sexual Puritanism on others, and I feel that this is especially true or should be especially true in the world of literature. Who is Darcy or anyone else for that matter to say what should be allowed in literature and what shouldn't? The most important thing here is not to put obstacles in the creative spirit of the writer or poet or painter or sculptor.

Not every writer or poet or painter or sculptor shares Darcy's opinions about sexuality. I defend Darcy's right to write whatever he chooses. But I also defend the right of poets and writers and painters and sculptors to be more free in their creative endeavors.

The important thing is absolute freedom for the writer or poet, whether it be in sexuality or otherwise, provided that the writer is not espousing neo-Nazi filth, which is a different matter entirely.

Darcy's insistence that we live in a literary world free of sexual censorship is incorrect. It is true that sexual censorship in the literary world (and in society in general) loosened during the sexual revolution. However, it seems that since the 1980s the pendulum is swinging the other way. Ihe literary world (and society in general) is becoming more puritanical. This sexual Puritanism, in my opinion, is having a negative impact upon the literary world in the form of censorship.

This censorship takes many different forms, including that of political correctness. But whether this censorship derives from political correctness or religious extremism or government intervention censorship is censorship. It is ugly. It has no place in the literary world. We should defend the right of writers and poets and sculptors and painters to create whatever they shall choose.

---

I'm done responding to you on this issue. All I say goes in one ear and out the other.

Actually never mind. You took the effort to respond and so shall I.

Wolf if you write brilliant prose or poetry chalk full of sexual content then it will get published and read. If you cheapen and demean sex, reduce it to no more than another mere animal function wholly divested of sanctity, placing it on the same unhallowed plane as defecation, as you did in that poem you posted earlier, people won't respond warmly. Maybe its not puritanism but decency and taste that is the true object of your gripe.

Of the contemporary literature I've read, which admittedly is not much, I've found sex freely depicted. I do not see evidence of the kind of extensive censorship you speak of.

And as far as society goes.... come out from under your rock! Sex is everywhere, its unavoidable, your utopia has arrived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

The posts of Bewlay have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and have nothing to do with literature as well. Why not just ignore his posts? I think his posts would be better suited for some right-wing neo-Nazi posting board. It certainly isn't the kind of stuff that belongs in a discussion about literature.

---

First, all perspectives should have a voice in a discussion of almost anything. Have conservatives never written good literature?

Plus, I hardly think his voice is representative of a far right-wing mentality, much less a neo-Nazi mindset--and, fankly, i wonder if you even know what that means.

Quote:

---

A different poster, one whose posts are far more relevant to the topic, was kind enough to give a list of some writers and poets that he felt were innovative. I wish to thank him. Others may also wish to share with us the names of writers and poets who they feel are innovative, particularly of the modern and contemporary periods. Other members of the site might enjoy reading those poets and writers very much. (As I said before unless you have permission from the copyright holder please refrain from posting an entire work, just list titles, as posting an entire work that is not yet part of the public domain is against copyright rules. Thank you.)

A different poster brought up the subject of sexuality and literature. I believe that the time has come to end censorship in literature. Writers and poets need greater freedom of creativity. Sexuality is an extremely important part of human nature. To censor sexuality in literature is to impede the creative process, and the creative process is key to creating great literature.

Censorship of sexuality in literature may come in endless forms. It may be of the politically correct variety of censorship, which is a relatively new form of censorship. It may be of the religious extremist variety of censorship, which of course is a very old form of censorship. It may come from the government.

We need to understand that sexuality is natural. Sexuality has a natural place in literature. We should not be censoring it.

---

Do you have any particular contemporary examples of literature that has been censored or suppressed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Of course I know who he is. I'm well read. He wrote Fathers and Sons right? See I know.

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

The posts of Bewlay have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and have nothing to do with literature as well. Why not just ignore his posts? I think his posts would be better suited for some right-wing neo-Nazi posting board. It certainly isn't the kind of stuff that belongs in a discussion about literature.

A different poster, one whose posts are far more relevant to the topic, was kind enough to give a list of some writers and poets that he felt were innovative. I wish to thank him. Others may also wish to share with us the names of writers and poets who they feel are innovative, particularly of the modern and contemporary periods. Other members of the site might enjoy reading those poets and writers very much. (As I said before unless you have permission from the copyright holder please refrain from posting an entire work, just list titles, as posting an entire work that is not yet part of the public domain is against copyright rules. Thank you.)

A different poster brought up the subject of sexuality and literature. I believe that the time has come to end censorship in literature. Writers and poets need greater freedom of creativity. Sexuality is an extremely important part of human nature. To censor sexuality in literature is to impede the creative process, and the creative process is key to creating great literature.

Censorship of sexuality in literature may come in endless forms. It may be of the politically correct variety of censorship, which is a relatively new form of censorship. It may be of the religious extremist variety of censorship, which of course is a very old form of censorship. It may come from the government.

We need to understand that sexuality is natural. Sexuality has a natural place in literature. We should not be censoring it.

---

There we go. Boom. You don't agree with it so that is the end of it. Though if it was something you agreed with, you would be all over it. You are a phony. You don't care about truly being "controversial" but only ridiculing people you don't agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Whatever. I've heard scholars state that the form of slavery the African Americans endured was perhaps the most brutal in all history. I can think of few example of such large numbers of people being shipped to other continents and kept in drudgery and discrimination for centuries. I'm sure there are some but it is not "typical" as you in your superior intelligence and historical perspective state.

---

Drudgery and discrimination? They would much rather be here in America right now than Africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

Drudgery and discrimination? They would much rather be here in America right now than Africa.

---

My response to that is to say that I will not dignify it with a response.

Quote:

---

Not to mention a BA in English is only 12 classes over a 4 year period, so that averages out to be 3 classes a year. How much can a person really cover in so short a time period in their courses? Not to mention I remember having a discussion with Mortalterror a little while ago on Lit Net in which he asserted that many people he knows with BAs in English spent too much time reading contemporary work in their courses, while getting little to no background in the older classics. So Wolf's claim that students are forced to only spend their time with the Old Masters doesn't match up well with everyone else observations.

---

There certainly is plenty of contemporary literature taught in college literary courses. However, much of that work, while often quite good, lacks innovation and experimentation. I think that there should be some conventional contemporary literature, but at the same time there should be innovative literature in these courses as well. What is often being left out of the courses is the contemporary INNOVATIVE literature.

In an earlier post I posted the work of a relatively unknown author (with his prior permission) whose work I discovered on the Internet. I believe his work to be more creative than ANYTHING I read in 16 years of formal education with a BA in English literature. This is certainly not the first time that I discovered on the Internet excellent innovative works by unknown authors.

Perhaps the best writing in the history of the human race is being written right now, or perhaps the best writing of the human race does not find its way into any canon, because the tastes of those who decide what goes in the canon might be far too conservative. The canon may contain some very good works of literature, some others that are not so good, but does the canon have the greatest works of literature written by man? I doubt it.

We've already heard the word "good taste" repeated over and over again like some mantra. "Good taste" is nothing more than the prejudices of the status quo. Certainly, until he made big, Pablo Picasso's work was not considered to be in "good taste". His paintings were considered vulgar. And certainly he is not the only one.

Each generation of artists and writers must fight against the haughty connoisseurs of "good taste". For the guardians of "good taste" new and bold does not fit their definition of "good taste".

This does not mean that I don't think there is a place for conventional writing. At the moment I myself happen to be writing in a conventional manner.

But there is no correct manner of writing. There is no such thing as "good taste". If people wish to do so let them write in a conventional manner one day and a completely innovative manner the next day. Let there be as many creative writing styles as there are poets and writers in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

There is no such thing as "good taste".

---

Oh but there is. Its a preference for quality. It accepts the vulgar and the new be they a worthy read but rejects whatever is of poor quality. That story you posted was interesting but its silly to say its better or more creative than every work in the canon. I realize that the poetry establishment has become somewhat more conservative as of late, placing greater emphasis on rhyme for example. But I walk into a library or a book store and am confronted with a veritable tide of outstanding innovative literature, many works laden with sex, politics, amorality. Like I said, these sentiments of yours would have been timely 150 years ago. I suppose it might not be a bad attitude for an artist to have, whether it reflects the reality or not. But don't take rejection as cause to condemn the entire world of literature. Maybe, just maybe it has to do with the quality of your writing and not with the conservative puritanical censorship you imagine to pervade the literary world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

They would much rather be here in America right now than Africa.

---

That doesn't work. If the ancestors of the descendants of slaves had never been enslaved, those ancestors would have lived completely different lives with different people around them. They would have engaged in coitis with different people, and at different times in their ovulation cycles and sperm production. They would have had different children, and because millions of people would be different the world itself would be different, you can't know if it would be better or worse for hypothetical people in that scenario or if we're better off with this reality. Furthermore, America would be a completely different place. Everything contributed or done, big or small, by a person who is the descendant of a black slave would never have been done, and that adds up to a lot. Not just the big names, American has been affected by it's black population in many ways - look at the color of many of the soldiers in the Vietnam war for example, that whole situation would have certainly gone differently. You can't make a judgement about the quality of that hypothetical, alternate-reality America. You're saying, "this reality is better than what would have been if black Africans weren't enslaved," but there's no way in hell you would ever possibly be able to know that. That's outside of our field of vision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

That doesn't work. If the ancestors of the descendants of slaves had never been enslaved, those ancestors would have lived completely different lives with different people around them. They would have engaged in coitis with different people, and at different times in their ovulation cycles and sperm production. They would have had different children, and because millions of people would be different the world itself would be different, you can't know if it would be better or worse for hypothetical people in that scenario or if we're better off with this reality. Furthermore, America would be a completely different place. Everything contributed or done, big or small, by a person who is the descendant of a black slave would never have been done, and that adds up to a lot. Not just the big names, American has been affected by it's black population in many ways - look at the color of many of the soldiers in the Vietnam war for example, that whole situation would have certainly gone differently. You can't make a judgement about the quality of that hypothetical, alternate-reality America. You're saying, "this reality is better than what would have been if black Africans weren't enslaved," but there's no way in hell you would ever possibly be able to know that. That's outside of our field of vision.

---

far to many if's.

Most likley had they not been taken from affrica, their descendants of now would be virtual slaves to ather africans.

Irony, humanity if full of it.

Thank you Mutatis for sticking up to me. I was starting to feel alienated and it is obvious that many people here are like talking to brick walls. Not you though.

Darcy:

You know what I said is true. You don't care about the truth or truly probing the essence of humanity and life. All you care about is trying to prove just how much you care about black people. I'm not impressed. I expect such things. How about you go past the most simplistic layer of the topic at hand?

And Darcy, do you know what I like to do on Saturdays? If I have no other plans?

I love to go to Dunkin Donuts and get a dozen of donuts but four boxes. Then I put three donuts in each box. I then go to miscellaneous places. Barnes and Noble, Tj Max, the YMCA, and I look for a nice wholesome Africian-American family. I then go to them and say, "Hey man, me and my family are about to go on a road trip and we couldn't finish these donuts and we don't want the car to smell like donuts. Do you want the rest?"
Normally they say yes. Now Darcy, do you know why I do this? I do it so I can prove to them that I am NOT a racist.

Now I know what you are thinking. What good will that do? Only like three families will know i'm not a racist! You see the thing is, you may not agree with everything I say - but you have to agree with evolution and homeostasis. You see, since blacks have been hunted and maimed and beaten by white people for their entire existence, they have evolved an uncanny ability to describe all of the queasy nuances of the caucasion face. I figure that when African-Americans will get together, they will talk about my acts of beauty, and describe my face. I predict that by 2025 72% of African-Americans on the east coast will know that, in fact, THIS FACE loves them!

My goodness. Sometimes I just feel like I am one with humanity itself. This is one of those times. I'm talking about paradigm-shattering, take-no-prisoners compassion. I aspire to be you Darcy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

far to many if's.

Most likley had they not been taken from affrica, their descendants of now would be virtual slaves to ather africans.

Irony, humanity if full of it.

---

Even when it is true that most of the slaves that came to America were bought by negro importing businesses, from other Africans that had taken them POW's, that has nothing to do with the nature of slave life in USA.
The American civil war was not truly fought for the liberation of many slaves, although Lincoln would claim it. It was mainly fought for the monopoly of textiles in the midst of the industrial revolution. Lincolm's claim was true as the beginning of a consequence of the civil war.
It was not until the 1930's that the true political currents of slave liberation came to stage. And in the south we were in the 1960's and seventies before the lynchings stopped considerably, not fully.
What does all of this business of how the slaves arrived to America has to do with slavery in America and what it developed into and how the problem was resolved? Vestiges of stupid racism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Most likley had they not been taken from affrica, their descendants of now would be virtual slaves to ather africans.

---

Or an infinite number of other possible scenarios. That's the fun of the chaos theory. African slavery in America is actually a huge chunk of modern history. If it had never happened, who the hell knows what the world would be like? America would be completely different, and America is a huge global powerhouse. The whole world would be different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Or an infinite number of other possible scenarios. That's the fun of the chaos theory.

---

Your the fan of logic and reason here - look at it from the point of view of probability. The majority would be contempory slaves in africa. it can't be denied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

That doesn't work. If the ancestors of the descendants of slaves had never been enslaved, those ancestors would have lived completely different lives with different people around them. They would have engaged in coitis with different people, and at different times in their ovulation cycles and sperm production. They would have had different children, and because millions of people would be different the world itself would be different, you can't know if it would be better or worse for hypothetical people in that scenario or if we're better off with this reality. Furthermore, America would be a completely different place. Everything contributed or done, big or small, by a person who is the descendant of a black slave would never have been done, and that adds up to a lot. Not just the big names, American has been affected by it's black population in many ways - look at the color of many of the soldiers in the Vietnam war for example, that whole situation would have certainly gone differently. You can't make a judgement about the quality of that hypothetical, alternate-reality America. You're saying, "this reality is better than what would have been if black Africans weren't enslaved," but there's no way in hell you would ever possibly be able to know that. That's outside of our field of vision.

---

You are right about the second half. Blacks have helped make America a great place. It is unfortunate that for a lot of the help they didn't really have a choice. That is in the past though. We have moved past that embarrassing and depraved era, and today all of America is better because of it - including the descendants of slaves. It is terrible that it happened but luckily society has been mature enough to move forward, been progressive, and not harbored ill will against people because of acts they did not commit, or warped their grasp of humanity because of hand-picked enormities.

People like Darcy... oh boy. He has that platform of his, that feeble perspective of the grand scheme of things. It is up in the sky somewhere, a castle on a plot of land. Weighed down by the gravity of progress, he falls down to lowly hateful America. He despairs, but realizes that in his hands he is still grasping clumps of soil, from when he was holding on for dear life. He holds onto these clumps. They never leave his sight. He tries so hard to make a garden out of them.

I hope to hell he doesn't succeed. I like people. I know how easy corruption comes though, and how disgusting they can be. I've seen personalities get flesh-eating diseases. Scores and scores of them. It is a hard thing to watch happen. I'm glad they aren't armies though, which would be Darcy's utopia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

That is in the past though. We have moved past that embarrassing and depraved era, and today all of America is better because of it

---

Is it really - I mean if you prioritize a civilization over the individual, slavery is extremley beneficial. I mean almost all of the great civilizations were founded upon a bedrock of slavery - human history without slaver, would meant that most civlizations would not have been able to rise and culture as we know it might have never existed, for what created art and philisophy and culture was the fact that slavery meant there were also lots who did not need to work and could dedicate time otherwise, to the pursuit of culture.

Just sayin...

dont blame other for being narrow minded and then proccede to shoot out cliche blanket statments without much tought to what was said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Your the fan of logic and reason here - look at it from the point of view of probability. The majority would be contempory slaves in africa. it can't be denied.

---

That's not mathematically correct. To discuss the minute points of ecological chaos theory would take a really long *** time but I'll give you one obvious example of a very large, observable change. What we're talking about happened a long time ago, when the world's population was quite low. If we were to go into the world's genetic tree, those people who's offspring would have been changed because of African slavery would be the starting branches for billions of people, and those are people, variables abound. People cause things, great social changes. Imagine if Hitler had never been born, or if Gandhi had never been born, or ANY huge social changer (Bush, Kim Jong-Il, Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Stalin, the list goes on forever). How could you be sure that there wouldn't have been another huge social changer in that massive group of billions of people who would have existed in the hypothetical scenario in which black slavery in America never happened? It's a solid bet that there would have been at least a couple and that's all you need to change the world, one Shakespeare or one Alexander of Macedonia. Not to mention the fact that a few of the big names in our reality would never have been born, Martin Luthor King for example. How would the world change then? Hell, the reproduction of the slave owners would have been altered as well, not as much time for ****ing if you have to pick your own damn cotton. Some white Americans who you might not even think connected to anything at all might never have been born, and other people would have taken their place, people who would have been raised under different conditions and who would make completely different decisions. And then remember the medium and the multitudes of small effects as well, they really add up. I'm telling you, society and the world would be completely different in ways nobody can possibly predict.

That's why Bewlay's suggestion that people are "better off" because of black slavery doesn't hold water. There is no way in hell that you can predict a thing like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Is it really - I mean if you prioritize a civilization over the individual, slavery is extremley beneficial. I mean almost all of the great civilizations were founded upon a bedrock of slavery - human history without slaver, would meant that most civlizations would not have been able to rise and culture as we know it might have never existed, for what created art and philisophy and culture was the fact that slavery meant there were also lots who did not need to work and could dedicate time otherwise, to the pursuit of culture.

Just sayin...

---

I'm talking about America. Of course mankind isn't past slavery. It is going on right now for crying out loud. However now, America is past it, and the people that keep bringing it back up to utilize it display the most phony type of humanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkvRY...ature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3cGf...eature=related

BB - I was bemused by your Dunkin' Donuts story - not sure that being non-racist and patronising both count as being a 'good citizen'.

But apologies, we're not all on here to give you a hard time. Honest. Welcome to LitNet - and you just happen to have wandered onto the 'thread from Hell'

:-)

H

I guess some people here are bored of literature then?

What does this discussion have to do with literature?

If you look at Bellway's first post and some of his commentaries in his other posts you'll see what is purpose is: to hijack a thread on a literary site and use it to promote his white supremacist ideas.

I really don't think that Bellway's white supremacist ideas belong on a website about literature. Why doesn't he post this nonsense on some white supremacist posting board?

Even if I'm mistaken and Bellway's posts are not some kind of white supremacist whitewash of slavery his posts still have nothing to do with literature. Whatever Bellway is on about it certainly is not literature. He is on the wrong website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

I guess some people here are bored of literature then?
Seems so - but not Me
What does this discussion have to do with literature?
Absolutely nothing

---

I'm not taking sides, Wlof - merely making an observation. And I think you'll see he spells his name Bewlay.

H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

I guess some people here are bored of literature then?

What does this discussion have to do with literature?

If you look at Bellway's first post and some of his commentaries in his other posts you'll see what is purpose is: to hijack a thread on a literary site and use it to promote his white supremacist ideas.

I really don't think that Bellway's white supremacist ideas belong on a website about literature. Why doesn't he post this nonsense on some white supremacist posting board?

Even if I'm mistaken and Bellway's posts are not some kind of white supremacist whitewash of slavery his posts still have nothing to do with literature. Whatever Bellway is on about it certainly is not literature. He is on the wrong website.

---

Talk to me. Or am I a subhuman to you? Is everyone a subhuman to you? I don't see you talk directly to anyone.

Point out to me what I have said that is racist.

And my satire about Dunkin Donuts had much more to do with literature than any of your nauseatingly trite, unlearned, and sophomoric babbling sessions.

My satire about Dunkin Donuts was rather out there too. People will probably read it and just have a confused look on their face. I thought you loved things like that and that was what you wanted! Oh but of course not, because it isn't about something you agree with.

For you to call me a white supremacist is a bold faced lie. White supremacy is the belief that whites are inherently superior to other races. There is absolutely no justification for that accusation, except of course the fact that you are a phony and you don't give a damn about innovation or originality or edginess all you care about are cheerleaders for your very myopic underdeveloped views of humanity and life.

And whitewash? I'm putting things in perspective. Humanity is a different dimension. It is not affected by enormities of any side or size because if that were the case, humanity would be maimed past the point of any recognition. Sorry that I don't waste my energy and time relentlessly trying to prove just how much I care about black people, because that is not an accomplishment. You are SUPPOSED to care about all people equally based on their actions and personality and intentions and hundreds of thousands of other things before skin color comes into play. The difference is that I actually take this seriously, rather than politically like you. I would blow my brains out if I looked at this world through eyes such as yours.

Saying that slavery was not the worst atrocity of all-time isn't whitewashing. It is fact. And I pointed out that fact to show how absurd it is to believe that what bad thing happened to a particular race in the past should have any affect on how they are treated today. It would be much more reasonable to accuse people like you of whitewashing things like the Holocaust by likening something that wasn't 1/10th as bad. Actually that is exactly what I am going to do. You whitewash the Holocaust because you don't give a damn about homosapien suffering. You only care about manipulation and self-indulgence, and slavery is a much sexier thing for you to manipulate. Oh and bro, before you say it, white supremacists HATE Jews. I must really be the black sheep of my white supremacy family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

That's not mathematically correct. To discuss the minute points of ecological chaos theory would take a really long *** time but I'll give you one obvious example of a very large, observable change. What we're talking about happened a long time ago, when the world's population was quite low. If we were to go into the world's genetic tree, those people who's offspring would have been changed because of African slavery would be the starting branches for billions of people, and those are people, variables abound. People cause things, great social changes. Imagine if Hitler had never been born, or if Gandhi had never been born, or ANY huge social changer (Bush, Kim Jong-Il, Thatcher, Nelson Mandela, Stalin, the list goes on forever). How could you be sure that there wouldn't have been another huge social changer in that massive group of billions of people who would have existed in the hypothetical scenario in which black slavery in America never happened? It's a solid bet that there would have been at least a couple and that's all you need to change the world, one Shakespeare or one Alexander of Macedonia. Not to mention the fact that a few of the big names in our reality would never have been born, Martin Luthor King for example. How would the world change then? Hell, the reproduction of the slave owners would have been altered as well, not as much time for ****ing if you have to pick your own damn cotton. Some white Americans who you might not even think connected to anything at all might never have been born, and other people would have taken their place, people who would have been raised under different conditions and who would make completely different decisions. And then remember the medium and the multitudes of small effects as well, they really add up. I'm telling you, society and the world would be completely different in ways nobody can possibly predict.

That's why Bewlay's suggestion that people are "better off" because of black slavery doesn't hold water. There is no way in hell that you can predict a thing like that.

---

Like I said before it is all if's - all we have for certain is the concrete present, and the concrete present is that America as a nation would not be as it is now if not for the bennefits of slavery. Like all civilizations before it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

And Darcy, do you know what I like to do on Saturdays? If I have no other plans?

I love to go to Dunkin Donuts and get a dozen of donuts but four boxes. Then I put three donuts in each box. I then go to miscellaneous places. Barnes and Noble, Tj Max, the YMCA, and I look for a nice wholesome Africian-American family. I then go to them and say, "Hey man, me and my family are about to go on a road trip and we couldn't finish these donuts and we don't want the car to smell like donuts. Do you want the rest?"
Normally they say yes. Now Darcy, do you know why I do this? I do it so I can prove to them that I am NOT a racist.

Now I know what you are thinking. What good will that do? Only like three families will know i'm not a racist! You see the thing is, you may not agree with everything I say - but you have to agree with evolution and homeostasis. You see, since blacks have been hunted and maimed and beaten by white people for their entire existence, they have evolved an uncanny ability to describe all of the queasy nuances of the caucasion face. I figure that when African-Americans will get together, they will talk about my acts of beauty, and describe my face. I predict that by 2025 72% of African-Americans on the east coast will know that, in fact, THIS FACE loves them!

My goodness. Sometimes I just feel like I am one with humanity itself. This is one of those times. I'm talking about paradigm-shattering, take-no-prisoners compassion. I aspire to be you Darcy.

---

OK....you asked. I find this post to be very racist!!


It also seems that several people have brought up about you (Bewlay Brother)...and I am addressing you. You are not subhuman, but it seems that you are acting in such a manner.

There is a reason that I have not posted on this thread. It is because the topic didn't really interest me. I'd suggest that you do the same.

Wolf, I am sorry that this is off topic. Maybe I'll try to follow this thread a little and offer something to put it back on topic. BTW, I enjoyed your two poems. You've got some wit about you.

What I am talking about is much closer to substance and literature than anything you have said Wolf. The whole "oh yeah it really makes me feel good and like a genius and a great person when people are so courageous and brave to say bad stuff about God and did you know that the burden is on proving it exists and not to prove it doesn't? Like there could be a tapioca monster and you couldn't prove there isn't! Oh boy. That is such an amazing argument. I'm so brilliant. Oh I started so young. I remember when I was in 5th grade the teacher was teaching all this lame algebra stuff and I raised my hand and said 'why do we have to learn this if we are never going to use this in the real world? Oh boy she was stunned. She knew at that moment how brilliant I was. Such resilience! Such free-thinking!" thing ran out of steam infinity years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

OK....you asked. I find this post to be very racist!!


It also seems that several people have brought up about you (Bewlay Brother)...and I am addressing you. You are not subhuman, but it seems that you are acting in such a manner.

There is a reason that I have not posted on this thread. It is because the topic didn't really interest me. I'd suggest that you do the same.

Wolf, I am sorry that this is off topic. Maybe I'll try to follow this thread a little and offer something to put it back on topic. BTW, I enjoyed your two poems. You've got some wit about you.

---

I was satirizing Darcy and the fallacy of white guilt.

Also even if I was being serious, it wouldn't be racist. I don't think half of you guys have any idea what the hell racism is. Racism isn't a "gotchya" phenomenon. It is endlessly deep-rooted. Even if the post was serious, there would still be absolutely NOTHING in it to suggest a hatred for black people.

Once again I would like to encourage Bewlay to find someplace else that's more relevant to whatever it is he's talking about. Because whatever this Bewlay is on about it certainly is not literature.

I would like to thank Bewlay in advance for finding another place to post whatever it is he's talking about.

I guess that is the problem with satire. When out of context it is hard to interpret. I'm not going to take sides without reading more, and right now I just don't have the time. (or maybe the interest either)

It does not mean anything if several people have accused me of being a racist. It just means a lot of people are horribly and hopelessly wrong. Such a thing is hardly even an anomaly. Many people didn't see anything wrong with having a slave back in the day. Now many people are completely oblivious to the subconscious belittling of others based on race or dehumanization based on sexuality. I treat people based on who they are. We are all humans. Nothing else comes into the equation. If a man is homosexual and is disrespectful to women I will spit in his face. I'd do the same if he was straight. If a man is black and he refuses to work and runs around stabbing people I will consider him, for the time being, a menace to society. The same goes for if he is white. I do have sympathy for people born into the ghetto and have some ideas to improve that situation, and it has nothing to do with welfare or urging them to blame others for their shortcomings. I think it is much closer to racism to act like blacks nowadays need help from the government to succeed and that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, as if they are subhuman. They deserve blame when they mess up. Everybody does. One of the biggest things about being an adult human being is to be judged, good or bad, by your actions - and it disgusts me to see blacks and homosexuals deprived of that.

Blacks are human beings that happen to be black. To people like Darcy and wolf, blacks are African-Americans.

Gays are human beings that just happen to like members of the same gender. To people like Darcy and wolf, gays are just that - gay. All of their livelihood derives from the fact that they are, yes, you guessed it, gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

Once again I would like to encourage Bewlay to find someplace else that's more relevant to whatever it is he's talking about. Because whatever this Bewlay is on about it certainly is not literature.

I would like to thank Bewlay in advance for finding another place to post whatever it is he's talking about.

---

You are a coward and a simpleton and a hateful foolish little boy. I am basing this completely off of your thoughts and opinions and personality. I wish you could grant blacks and gays the same courtesy, or God forbid - the rich and the religious!

I posted satire. It was much better literature than anything you have been babbling about in the most adolescent of ways. Also it was rather unorthodox too. It offended someone as well! You should be foaming at the lips right now based on your essay, but you don't even regard it as literature? Oh and why? Because it isn't something you agree with! Because it doesn't parade your views! You are a phony and the biggest imposter of art or art appreciation I have ever seen.

Do you have any defense? It is quite clear you don't give a damn about what you were preaching. You only give a damn about cheerleaders for your opinion, or something to quench your most immature and pathetic desires for shock value and the risque.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I guess that is the problem with satire. When out of context it is hard to interpret. I'm not going to take sides without reading more, and right now I just don't have the time. (or maybe the interest either)

---

Does it really take time to take a side in this issue? Let us summarize.

1. Wolf has essay going on and on and on and on and on about how writers need to be more creative! Write things in different ways! And be controversial! Test boundaries! Say things not everybody agrees with!

2. I post satire of white guilt.

3. Wahhhh you are a white supremacist! You aren't talking about literature you are a white supremacist wahhhhh!! Of course I won't even talk directly to you because I'm so damn above you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bewlay Brother

You are a coward and a simpleton and a hateful foolish little boy. I am basing this completely off of your thoughts and opinions and personality. I wish you could grant blacks and gays the same courtesy, or God forbid - the rich and the religious!

---

wow, wow, easy there buddy. I know you have a lot in you, but maybe its best to watch some porn have a lovley little wank; and only then come back and argue on the forum, you will find post-masturbation your arguments are not fermenting with angst and pussing with anxiety. They will be clearer, and to the point, all the other nastinnes and slimley bubling angst and pertyrbation shall not find their way and corrupt your arguments.

When I used to do some rethric back in highschool, I would always masturbate in the bathroom prior, your arguments become far more clear and appealing to the audience. Its a good and effective tip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfLarsen

There certainly is plenty of contemporary literature taught in college literary courses. However, much of that work, while often quite good, lacks innovation and experimentation. I think that there should be some conventional contemporary literature, but at the same time there should be innovative literature in these courses as well. What is often being left out of the courses is the contemporary INNOVATIVE literature.

In an earlier post I posted the work of a relatively unknown author (with his prior permission) whose work I discovered on the Internet. I believe his work to be more creative than ANYTHING I read in 16 years of formal education with a BA in English literature. This is certainly not the first time that I discovered on the Internet excellent innovative works by unknown authors.

Perhaps the best writing in the history of the human race is being written right now, or perhaps the best writing of the human race does not find its way into any canon, because the tastes of those who decide what goes in the canon might be far too conservative. The canon may contain some very good works of literature, some others that are not so good, but does the canon have the greatest works of literature written by man? I doubt it.

We've already heard the word "good taste" repeated over and over again like some mantra. "Good taste" is nothing more than the prejudices of the status quo. Certainly, until he made big, Pablo Picasso's work was not considered to be in "good taste". His paintings were considered vulgar. And certainly he is not the only one.

Each generation of artists and writers must fight against the haughty connoisseurs of "good taste". For the guardians of "good taste" new and bold does not fit their definition of "good taste".

This does not mean that I don't think there is a place for conventional writing. At the moment I myself happen to be writing in a conventional manner.

But there is no correct manner of writing. There is no such thing as "good taste". If people wish to do so let them write in a conventional manner one day and a completely innovative manner the next day. Let there be as many creative writing styles as there are poets and writers in the world.

---

Well, maybe you just don't have good taste. You seem to be confused about what this term means. When people speak of "good taste" they aren't necessarily talking about the tastes of those in civilized high society or academia. They don't just mean it in the sense of decorum; Mr. Reynolds walking up to Mr. Joseph at a dinner party and whispering into his ear, "Ah, Joseph, the way you handled Maryanne's inappropriate talk of divorce was in good taste." Or "those people who don't like wine lack good taste." When someone says you have bad taste in relation to the arts it can also mean they're telling you that you like bad writing instead of good writing, you like tacky dull paintings instead of good moving paintings, etc.

It's hard to take someone seriously who is claiming that some surrealist story they found on the internet is more creative than anything they've read in the last 16 years of formal education. Not to mention why is creativity the only characteristic of art being considered? Why not skill? My story can be creative as hell, full of all sorts of surrealist ideas; it doesn't mean it's any good or more specifically the writing on the prose level is any good.

I haven't seen too many people here say they aren't open to the idea of good experimental fiction. What I have seen is a lot of people say, "Oh, I read a lot of those writers from your list of innovative writers and they're good, but not better than Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, etc." To accuse them of being enthralled by the preaching of academia and they only like these works better because they're supposed to like them is a conversation nonstarter; there would be no possible way for them to disagree with you because any time they would try to make the case for an older author you could always just claim, but you only think that because you're supposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

wow, wow, easy there buddy. I know you have a lot in you, but maybe its best to watch some porn have a lovley little wank; and only then come back and argue on the forum, you will find post-masturbation your arguments are not fermenting with angst and pussing with anxiety. They will be clearer, and to the point, all the other nastinnes and slimley bubling angst and pertyrbation shall not find their way and corrupt your arguments.

When I used to do some rethric back in highschool, I would always masturbate in the bathroom prior, your arguments become far more clear and appealing to the audience. Its a good and effective tip.

---

No man Wolf is a different animal. I'm not doing this out of frustration. I'm just saying the truth. This Wolf guy is the absolute rectum of mankind. I'll say that now and I'll say that after I take a time machine and bang Faye Dunaway circa 1967. If someone like him had power he would do worse things than slavery.

On top of that, he is just so horribly trite too.

He has like a 5k word essay going on and on about how writing should be more innovative and risque. Then I do exactly that, and so I'm a "white supremacist!"

He is a lost cause. Darcy proved lots of redeeming qualities and the presence of a brain. He is only guilty of getting acute-minded because of the pure horror of slavery, so other things that would normally help in opinion-making were disregarded. That is fine.

Wolf though, he has absolutely nothing of value in the way he goes about life. He doesn't take being a homosapien seriously.

I don't care if my posts to Wolf seem angsty. Such belligerent inhumanity deserves backlash even if most people don't sense turmoil until their are torches and pitchforks. This is a problem because sirens don't have any effect on tyrants.

Alex's stress relief regiment aside, he has a valid point about not getting too worked up about Wolf.

Anyway, what we're really seeing emerging here is an argument about who has the right to determine the truth or meaning, with respect to elusive categories of discrimination.

BB is echoing a rather conventional argument, but one that is problematic. Let's go back to the conception of the question that it is wrong for someone to vote for a black president because they are black. A fairly common discourse that emerged during Obama's election which implicitly, in a rather cowardly way, critiques the legitimacy of African American political choice and the legitimacy of Obama's election itself. However, where does the idea that people voted for Obama because he was black even come from. Let's not act like politicians are blank slates and we judge them merely by their policies, we also care about their cultural origins and ties to communities because we understand this effects their political actions. Even if someone voted for Obama simply because he was black, which is a rather tenuous fantasy to begin with, then we should also consider how this may reflect someone voting for someone they think has a greater tendency to have their best interest at heart. Darcy brought up the history of discrimination in America, this has left a legacy of distrust amongst African Americans which is fully justifiable. If you have grown up seeing generations of non-black elected officials not act in your best interest, might it not be a rational political choice, in terms of likely political policy to support someone black? There is nothing about voting for Obama because he is black that implies someone thinks that black people are not competent, that they are voting against a white candidate, or that they are not considering aspects of rational political action.

As to people who support gay rights dehumanizing gays, or people who support affirmative action dehumanizing blacks, that just strikes me as a rhetorical attempt to silence political voice one disagrees with. The implication that these actions are dehumanizing relies on a the appropriation of the motives of others, such that you are defining the thoughts and beliefs of people you whose minds you have no access to. It is a bizarre strategy, often deployed in conservative political rhetoric. That and the so-called reverse-racism argument, which is itself very flawed.