Skip to main content

Why, I've always preferred plain rocks to jewels--and you? (12 March 2009)

sex city

@ Michael Fellman and Tyee readers (and you guys too, at Open Salon!):

Anybody else beginning to worry that if you spoil yourself and buy something real nice to wear, you risk it being "lost" in a tarred and feathered ruin of an evening? (In this climate, God help you if you have a taste for anything fine in anything other than organic coffee/food.) And is anybody else wondering how right this writer is in thinking that the wealthy are safe from pitchfork prodding? But what if someone offers to serve them up to satisfy (if only temporarily) the bottomless hunger of those who hate, hate, hate the greedy rich -- how long do you think they'll last, then? And when they're gone, who might we turn to next? -- Why how 'bout the Americans, even if Obama's still at the helm, who have surely made greedy, presumptive use of our generous, neighborly will for far too long! Mightn’t indeed the short term bathos be such that it'll become difficult to keep the long-term, long-wave, long-view in sight, even if you're the historian well practiced in calming her/himself by doing so?

This historian (i.e., our author) likes the idea of greed as a primary mover of history. Most do, as it means you don't have to explore psychology much, nor, more to the point, do much messy introspection of your own unruly mind, to understand the ways of people and their times. But, worth noting, is that some psychohistorians actually look to those who, in a sense, desire LESS, not more – masochists -- to the sheep rather than to the wolves -- when searching for those who keep the narrative of haves, then haves and have-nots, a seemingly neverending one.

It's certainly been ongoing, but there is an achievable end, though. That is, Attend to the masochists, cure them of their love of being the righteous impoverished, and the narrative wall WILL fall, thank God.

That is, Historians be damned: In these dampened times, please know that an ahistorical utopia is still well within the possible! It's not only true, it's just gotta be a better beacon to keep our eyes on than the one our "history is and forever will be, a dispiriting tale" author offers us.

If YOU want more, check out http://www.psychohistory.com/, but keep it under hat, will you -- not the safest of times to be showing off your New and Dazzling.

Link: Rescuing the Wealthy Idiots (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,...