Skip to main content

Extreme sports, and pussies who don't do the dew (30 March 2009)

It's too easy see his death and to moralize. For those of us outside his tribe, it's easy to call him crazy and dismiss him because, in some way, it affirms our safe choices. (If letting your body whither behind a desk, eating fast-food, driving in rush-hour, road-rage traffic every day a safe choice... or even living). And, yes, for those inside his tribe or on the fringe of it, it's probably too easy to put him on a pedestal.
But the fact is Shane McConkey was one crazy motherfucker who reminded us all that if we have the audacity follow our dreams, well, we just might be able to fly. (Geoff D’Auria, “Vancouver Ski Legend Dies,” _The Tyee, March 30, 2009)

Why write a piece where anyone who questions whether it is maybe a little romantic and inaccurate to identify Shane as someone who "befriends rather than fights his demons and then rides them to worlds beyond ours," becomes some chicken-shit who is afraid to live? I hope that's not part of the culture Shane partook in, doing something, in part, not just because it pushed limits but because it gave him status above the rest of us mundanes. If it was, then though I really like how you describe him as someone who is always tweeking, stretching, growing, how you make his life one of experimentation, learning, and adventure, there is plenty I hope others don't feel moved to want to emulate. Most certainly, I don't want more young people thinking that if you don't do the extreme, become the marine, you're some pussy who doesn't know what it is to live. Living this way may actually have a lot to do with a hyper-active need to ceaselessly re-engage with life-crushing terror, rather than life-enhancing flight. It may have been born from something gone wrong, rather than something that went right.

There is room here for admiration, but also the therapist's query. You should have allowed us that.

Link: Vancouver Ski Legend Dies (The Tyee)

Comments

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 ...

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...

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,...