Skip to main content

Consolidating gains (4 October 2008)

I'm thinking about your reply. I admit I'm surprised: I would have
figured the numbers had increased. Mustn't have felt very good to
take risks and have the numbers dwindle like that; being "punished"
with relative obscurity for doing right -- Hmmm. Maybe, though, this
development could serve as a spur to encourage you to let those who
are interested in psychohistory but are not those who would push the
discipline where it really ought to and could go, go. (I wonder if
some of your interpretations of America's current situation could be
presented so that mags like McSweeney would draw their readers'
attention to it. I think your “Reagan's America” one of the most
interesting and fun works I've ever read. Something like that done
for the current four year cycle, maybe . . . )

In any case, maybe this discussion group could continue to do some
real good that'll draw in some of those who've had it with it with
tentative bullshit from those who are far more interested in
consolidating their lives' gains than in engaging in potentially
psychologically unnerving explorations (to me, that sums up a hell of
a lot of academia, as I experienced it) of psychic experience. I know
that personally whenever I see writers/thinkers these days who are
willing to look foolish to explore ideas they find interesting, I
cheer loudly. Hasn't been an age for
this kind of thing -- for it usually means being ignored by everyone
("what's up with that strange fellow?"--and then they move on) while
others are oh so loudly and repeatedly feted: and that's almost
impossible for even the healthiest to be able to take. Still, there
are books being written like that popular underground British one – “Is
it Just Me or is Everything Shit?” --which suggest to me that maybe
brazen risk-takers will start getting the support they deserve and may
to some extent need, from the people who'll most matter in the
upcoming years -- that is, by those who have had enough support from
their mothers that they don't need to use literature/science/society
to shore-up/strengthen their fragile psyches ("please don't let the
earth crumble from underneath me!"), and who really are interested in
undertaking new journeys, whatever the risk.

Link: RealPsychohistory

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…