Skip to main content

Pederast in my pocket, and I know (28 February 2009)

VivianLea:

The old tradition of scholarship is of asocial monasticism. Being in the office of someone who values the old ways, and looks at the new era of professionals expected to justify and share, to be out there, rather than all holed up, made you feel like you were in the company of a pederast -- and you may well have been. (Harold Bloom is old school, and you may have heard that Naomi Wolf accused the old sage of trying to feel her up while in his office for a chat.) It's about true nerdyness and fiddling, more than it is about leaving the genius alone to do his/her work.

I'm all for finding ways to stop spending on all the big lectures (they're just a different version of a textbook) -- let's get all those from itunes U, and from preferred universities/professors from all over the world. (If all you're going to do is lecture, you'd best be good, because I'll otherwise turn to so-and-so from MIT and hear what s/he has to say, instead. Actually, I think I'll do that anyway.) Lots of teacher/student contact/interaction (and lots of student/student interaction, which is just as important), I'm all for. Some say that the ideal of scholarship gets in the way of furthering this end, though.

Lots and lots of people going to university hasn't just meant free training for business. It's also meant a lot of people coming from the rough getting to know people/ideas of a different sort. It has been about rising a huge mass of people, making them better -- about furthering along the old humanist mission. As mentioned in my previous post, I'm all for turning off/trimming down the post-secondary, but only so long as it is because other, more empowering, ways for people to learn, invent, challenge one another, are becoming available.

better things for you,
patrick

Link: After Meltodown, Back to Post-Secondary?

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,...