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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more