Still Life Still Lively
Dale Kirby
Also, It seems that Still Life was such a transition book that it contained
hints of the plots of all his subsequent novels: the life of inanimate
objects, genius waitresses, fairy tales, frogs, etc. Anyone agree,
disagree, spit on my grave?
Dale
Roseann Gabrys
I agree, I'm a very agreeable girl. And I'll just use that spit on my
hankie to wipe that grave countenance of yours.
I just took SLAA and HAIFPJ's out at the library. Be ready for some
heavy doses of relevant Robbins, Rose Ann (just the way my mama intended)
Dale Kirby
Alright! I'm looking forward to your insights. Does Tom do much with astrology?
Dale
Marjorie. Duehmig-Hayes
Dale,
I had to reply when you asked if anyone would spit on your grave!
I also have to agree...but then again, each book seems inevitably to lead
to the next in a sideways way. OK, except maybe HAIFP because that
one seems to be leading somewhere else. It seems on thing I really
liked about TR books initially is the fact that they didn't
seem to be as recipe oriented as other authors...read one, you read
them all basically. His words morely seem his own path and thus
have the same sort of twists & turns one encounters in real life
(with or without Woody). Once upon a thead long ago we discussed
how his endings seemed somewhat weak (I'm not talking about the
Geek Love thread of this week...but back way when. It occurs to
me now, this may very well be the reason why his endings are
somewhat more truncated...they're not really endings at all...
just a segway into the next bit.
Hoping I've not bitten off more than I can chew,
MAD-H
Tom May
Dale Kirby wrote:
>
> Also, It seems that Still Life was such a transition book that it contained
> hints of the plots of all his subsequent novels: the life of inanimate
> objects, genius waitresses, fairy tales, frogs, etc. Anyone agree,
> disagree, spit on my grave?
>
> Dale
What's your problem, Dale, bringing up that Tom Robbins guy?
Still Life seems that way in the sense that it brings up themes that are
pursued in the later novels. I tend to see Jitterbug as a fairy tale or
myth interwoven with the more modern themes that are touched on in Still
Life, SLAA as a more didactic and expository expresson of the same
themes. HAIFP appears to be another transition, towards what I don't
know, but with Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary as professors it's
bound to be weird.
Smart primates, frogs, animated inanimate objects...sometimes I think
that Tom Robbins and Robyn Hitchcock were separated at birth.
Love,
tom
Dale Kirby
Yeah, after you read the later work Still Life seems like a skewed dream
of the succeeding novels. Echoes, hints, lines, shadows, small voices,
flashbacks and flashforwards, delerium and all the tremens, satanic
sideshow barkers pssting, Timothy's leerings, lemmings steering us
toward some manifestation of the infinitely goofy Overmind. It's like TR
prognosticated in a wine trance and then forgot he did. Then he
unconsciously followed the subconscious plan.
One thing I didn't like about Still Life & HAIFP was the know-it-all
hero instructing the clueless female. That's exactly what he didn't do
in ARA and ECGTB. Does it seem like TR's heroines have gotten weaker
over time? Amanda's wisdom and loving detachment, Cissy confused but
independent, Leigh-Cheri's naivite, downtrodden Priscilla, the failures
of Ellen Cherry, and, of course, poor clueless Gwen.
Dale, pine coning for Amanda
Dale Kirby
Marjorie. Duehmig-Hayes wrote:
>
> Dale,
> I had to reply when you asked if anyone would spit on your grave!
> I also have to agree...but then again, each book seems inevitably to lead
> to the next in a sideways way. OK, except maybe HAIFP because that
> one seems to be leading somewhere else. It seems on thing I really
> liked about TR books initially is the fact that they didn't
> seem to be as recipe oriented as other authors...read one, you read
> them all basically. His words morely seem his own path and thus
> have the same sort of twists & turns one encounters in real life
> (with or without Woody). Once upon a thead long ago we discussed
> how his endings seemed somewhat weak (I'm not talking about the
> Geek Love thread of this week...but back way when. It occurs to
> me now, this may very well be the reason why his endings are
> somewhat more truncated...they're not really endings at all...
> just a segway into the next bit.
>
> Hoping I've not bitten off more than I can chew,
> MAD-H
>
>
> > Also, It seems that Still Life was such a transition book that it contained
> > hints of the plots of all his subsequent novels: the life of inanimate
> > objects, genius waitresses, fairy tales, frogs, etc. Anyone agree,
> > disagree, spit on my grave?
> >
> > Dale
> >
Hi MAD-H,
I believe you're right. A writer who mines his subconscious as deeply as
TR does must merely punctuate his life work with publication dates and
separate volumes. Each unique and yet showing the continuity. Themes
like self-enlightenment, icons like frogs and woodpeckers, men and women
who have much to learn from each other. I never had any problem with his
endings until HAIFP myself, but I can see the validity of the thought.
I wonder where HAIFP is going. Is it TR's increasing frustration with
the decline and fall of the Sixties mentality? Is it his slipping into
old age without finding a love to stay? Is it the last stage of his
questioning in which he might offer answers?
Dale
Sean Yeomans
> >
> >One thing I didn't like about Still Life & HAIFP was the know-it-all
> >hero instructing the clueless female. That's exactly what he didn't do
> >in ARA and ECGTB. Does it seem like TR's heroines have gotten weaker
> >over time? Amanda's wisdom and loving detachment, Cissy confused but
> >independent, Leigh-Cheri's naivite, downtrodden Priscilla, the failures
> >of Ellen Cherry, and, of course, poor clueless Gwen.
> >
> >Dale, pine coning for Amanda
> >
> because I am reading her from a different perspective, as a 40 year old
as
> opposed to a 24 year old when I first read it. First off, she's crying
all
> the damned time! Endless weeping. A follower of cause of the month
without
> understanding what it is she 'believes'... and then, first she locks
herself
> in an attic for months, then agrees to marry A'ben Fizel so she can be
the
> one who loves less. Why does the Woodpecker love her?
> I had a lot more sympathy with Gwen. While she is confused and
> misguided in her materialism (which TR roots in her tragic child of
artiste
> past), I think she Does see it as the path to happiness and security
which
> she craves (Damn, I lent it out, so I can't peruse here) and has never
had.
> Her ongoing friendship with HoJo keeps the line to her spiritual self
alive,
> and she IS conflicted over her relationship with her father. She seemed
to
> me the most real, least fantastic of TR's heroines. I think there are
many
> women like her, intelligent, struggling with who they Should be versus
who
> they Are, confused over the mixed signals they find within themselves,
> wanting to be strong and sure... (prozac, anyone?) And I liked the
ending.
>
> Verdant
i often wonder about guy authors who write about a girl characters
perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
sean
Robert Stubblefield
At 12:38 AM 11/22/96 +1300, you wrote:
>>i often wonder about guy authors who write about a girl characters
>>perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
>>a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
>>reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
>>books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
>>highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
>>said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
>>woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
>>question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
>>but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
>>
>>sean
>>
>the word girl? At 40, I am hardly a girl, any more than a 40 year old man
>is a boy.
>
>Verdant
> occasionally girlish, but definitely a woman
>
>
boys will be boys. and so will men.
boyish bobby
Uli Niebergall
At 09:26 1996-11-21 -0500, you wrote:
>>perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
>>a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
>>reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
>>books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
>>highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
>>said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
>>woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
>>question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
>>but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
>>
>>sean
>>
>make a point, or is that just casual terminology? Just wondering.
>
>Anyway, I do think that some of TR's women tend to be closer to an idealized
>version of a man's woman than they are realistic, or maybe not idealized but
>fanticized, since not all of his women are so ideal...for me, in particular,
>Leigh Cherry was annoying. Yes, I've had the sensation when reading that a
>character..and Amanda comes to mind (sorry, Dale), is just too good to be
>true. Hmmm, maybe someone like Leigh Cherry, with human foibles like
>inconsistency and abounding self-centeredness would be MORE true to life
>than some of the others. But, on the other hand, I've yet to meet any
>Jamaicans that come with their own hat of bees or spooky blondes from the
>Planet Argon, either. Aren't TR's characters all larger, stranger, more
>fantastic than life? I don't read him when I'm in the mood for sheer
>realism. To you, are his men typical of the male psyche?
>
>on the other other hand, comparatively few male authors write from the
>female point of view, so it could be a case of readers not having adjusted
>to the male-doing-female form of the unavoidable discrepancies that have got
>to occur when one gender is speaking as its opposite. Women have done it
>from the male pov longer, and have had MUCH more reference material to study
>than vice versa.
>
>Oh who knows, the way we change our minds all the time, how could a guy
>figure out how a gal would really talk anyway ;-)
>
>Amy
>
>
I think it's a very bold (or brave?) approach when a male writer tries to
write from a woman's point of view. I of course cannot judge how well e.g.
TR succeeds in this approach, but I hope he's doing well.
But I agree to you in your opinion about the characters being - as you say -
"larger, stranger, more fantastic than life", also the male ones. I mean,
why do I never encounter any Chinks living in grottoes or drivers of
caravans disguised as turkeys, any whale-masked fanatically ecologic perfume
producers, nor any spiritual know-alls curing cancer by shoving leaves up
their ass?
Well, on the other hand, the larger-than-lifeness of TR's characters is
usually the thing that attratcs me most to his novels. Which explains why I
often spend more time rolling embryo-like on the bed with one of those
novels instead of going out meeting people and experiencing things. "If
songs were lines in a conversation, the situation would be fine", Nick Drake
once said. Replace songs and conversation by "life" and "TR novels" and... well.
uli
Roseann Gabrys
Well, I'm often accused of having excess tostesterone for one so female,
but certainly identified with Amanda back all those many years ago when I
first read it. There was a time later on when I thought Woodpecker was
Tom's attempt at my biography. Of course, I'm a storyteller who is
easily absorbed into a story, so even if it wasn't me I could make it
be. And lets face it, Diamond could do me anytime. I'd of took a chance
on Timbuktu too. Although after looking at the Web page it's the most
godforsaken scene I've ever seen. (thanks again dear Dale) (lenghthy
aside here -- I ghost type/write for my friend and past president of
Detroit Story League JoAnn Korczynska when she does her stories, articles
and record reviews for Detroit Blues Magazine. Check "us" out at
http://www.detroitblues.com It's just more reachings of Roseann)
So the point is this quote from Tallulah Bankhead "Nobody can be exactly
like me, sometimes even I have trouble doing it." Or perhaps what Kurt
Vonnegut Jr. meant when he said "We are what we pretend to be, so we must
be careful what we pretend to be." My case being that there is no
constant character but a constantly accumulating series of experiences.
Tom is just exceptionally good at picking out the pulse of our current
culture. He hears my heartbeat...
Dale Kirby
>see my previous post on this thread and know that as far as this "woman"
>is concerned the girl is still there. She's part of the past but still
>practicing in the present. Wish I could connect more with the baby
>version of myself. Then I could see how I started to believe all this
>stuff in the first place. And by that same token, I try to remember who
>I am as an old woman as well. What does that wise one farther up front
>have to give to this Roseann now whose too fluid to stay put and always
>politely correct? Cracked up at Oprah the other day, she was
>interviewing Diana Ross' daughter Tracey and talking about powerful role
>models for black women. Oprah recalled when she was "just a little
>colored girl." Coming from her, it was hilarious. So lets face it
>folks, change is the only constant.
Hi Roseamannda,
I love your fluid sense of time. I'll dance on your timeline anytime.
Has anyone done John Bradshaw's guided imagery exercise to rescue one's
Inner Child. Yes, it sounds funny, but it's a powerful, powerful technic. I
cry most every time I do it, even though I had a happy childhood.
And I think you're right about having so much to learn from our future
selves. Just as the seeds of Tom's later novels were in Still Life, the
hints and seeds of our future lives are in the minutiae of our here and
now. And with a little imagination, you can dialogue with your future self
(Tristine Rainer's New Diary has some excellent technics) and learn from
him/her. Be your own spirit guide!
Thanks Roseann.
BTW, When We Were Colored is a very good movie.
Dale
Dale Kirby
>>Also, It seems that Still Life was such a transition book that it contained
>>hints of the plots of all his subsequent novels: the life of inanimate
>>objects, genius waitresses, fairy tales, frogs, etc. Anyone agree,
>>disagree, spit on my grave?
>>
>>Dale
>>
>>
>reason perchance?
>
>Verdant
I've been dead for 3 months and prewrote all these messages to be parceled
out after my demise to help keep my beloved AFTRLife going. Including this
one!
Dale is dead. Dale is dead. Dale is dead.
Dale Kirby
>>i often wonder about guy authors who write about a girl characters
>>perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
>>a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
>>reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
>>books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
>>highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
>>said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
>>woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
>>question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
>>but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
>>
>>sean
>>
>the word girl? At 40, I am hardly a girl, any more than a 40 year old man
>is a boy.
>
>Verdant
> occasionally girlish, but definitely a woman
It was a gentle jump, but I have to say that I see the AFTRLife as a sort
of Never Never Land (geez, Michael Jackson screwed up that allusion) where
men are boys and women are girls. And yet just as Lao Tzu was often
translated Old Boy, we possess the wisdom of the ages and a youthful
Pan-like nimbleness of wit and lust.
Dale, an old boy, but not good old boy or a member of the Old Boy's Network.
Dale Kirby
>
> Verdant
In other words, no particular reason. For some reason I had a picture of
Granny Clampett doing a spitting devil-avoidance signal thingee.
Dale
Marjorie. Duehmig-Hayes
Amy, You best check out the gender of George Sand as well...
Keep wanting to jump in on this thread...but for crying out loud,
doesn't anyone know how to SNIP around here?
Amy, totally AGREE with you on the point that the females TR creates
are fantasy...wrote alot about this late 1994...but have re-thought
this argument. I don't know if Amanda, etc. are so much figments
of a man's personal favorite fantasy chicks OR if TR plays what if.
I kinda think now that these women would be the kinds of women he would
be if he were female. Or, (yikes) what if TR is a "New Man" and
the feminine characters are his feminine/receptive side?
Personally when I write male characters it's gotta be half from
observation & half from playing what if?.
The thing is, Dale's close I think, by fingering TR's interpretation
of the Goddess as part of what he bases these hers on. I just wonder iffen
he's man enough to ever get into Kali?
Did anyone ever answer the Astrology question? No, not in my recollection
has TR used it as much of a theme...but then again, it's a helluva lot
harder to research Astrology (speaking as an Astrologer) than tarot
or palmistry or even magick or mythology...I Ching's pretty difficult
too. He hasn't really mentioned Rune much either, but I figure it's
due to his personal mythos...seems very asian/egyptian oriented.
Answering machine's on now,
MAD-H
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Dale Kirby wrote:
> >
> >How about that great male writer, George Sand, he definitely did the female
> >pov well. Harold Robbins did books from the female viewpoint, but I haven't
> >read them. (I did enjoy his early books like The Carpetbaggers et al)
> >
>
> Is Harold Robbins really a woman too?!?
>
> Amy
>
> Dang, I can't get away with anything around here.
>
> Dale
>
Roseann Gabrys
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Verdant wrote:
> >i often wonder about guy authors who write about a girl characters
> >perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
> >a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
> >reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
> >books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
> >highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
> >said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
> >woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
> >question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
> >but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
> >
> >sean
> >
> gee Sean, can I jump on you for a moment here and ask why you choose to use
> the word girl? At 40, I am hardly a girl, any more than a 40 year old man
> is a boy.
>
> Verdant
> occasionally girlish, but definitely a woman
>
amy littlefield
>perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
>a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
>reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
>books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
>highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
>said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
>woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
>question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
>but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
>
>sean
>
Roseann Gabrys
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Dale Kirby wrote:
> >>Also, It seems that Still Life was such a transition book that it contained
> >>hints of the plots of all his subsequent novels: the life of inanimate
> >>objects, genius waitresses, fairy tales, frogs, etc. Anyone agree,
> >>disagree, spit on my grave?
> >>
> >>Dale
> >>
> >>
> >Spit on your grave? Curious choice of words there Dale... A specific
> >reason perchance?
> >
> >Verdant
>
> I've been dead for 3 months and prewrote all these messages to be parceled
> out after my demise to help keep my beloved AFTRLife going. Including this
> one!
>
> Dale is dead. Dale is dead. Dale is dead.
>
Long live Dale, AFTRLifer par excellant. Who says we're not real?
Real Roseann
Dale Kirby
>Anyway, I do think that some of TR's women tend to be closer to an idealized
>version of a man's woman than they are realistic, or maybe not idealized but
>fanticized, since not all of his women are so ideal...for me, in particular,
>Leigh Cherry was annoying. Yes, I've had the sensation when reading that a
>character..and Amanda comes to mind (sorry, Dale), is just too good to be
>true.
I agree, Amy. Would Tom be called a fabulist or perhaps a sensible
absurdist? Definitely not realistic in the day to day sense, but very
realistic in the essences that he portrays. Although Amanda is my all-time
favorite of Tom's characters, there are things about her that bug me. Like
the cosmic promsicuity wouldn't work too well these days. But I guess I see
her as a fabled being, an enlightened one, a manifestation of the Goddess.
The things I like about her are her grounded spirituality, her loving
detachment and her goofiness. Perhaps it is a prejudice of mine, but when
male characters teach and preach I always see the outlines of their egos
behind their words. But when a self-deprecating yet confident woman
preaches her viewpoint I can accept it better. Perhaps that is just the
outline of my own ego that puts me into a sort of defensive postion vis a
vis other males.
>Hmmm, maybe someone like Leigh Cherry, with human foibles like
>inconsistency and abounding self-centeredness would be MORE true to life
>than some of the others. But, on the other hand, I've yet to meet any
>Jamaicans that come with their own hat of bees or spooky blondes from the
>Planet Argon, either. Aren't TR's characters all larger, stranger, more
>fantastic than life? I don't read him when I'm in the mood for sheer
>realism. To you, are his men typical of the male psyche?
Me too on the realism. But then I think about the artifice of "realistic"
fiction also. The tricks that lead us to experience fiction as real-life
stuff are difficult and artistic, but still just tricks of the fictionist
trade. Because our lives are peopled by so many unintentioned people, we
tend to think the minor plots and self-involved confusion of the soap opera
is reality sometimes.
TR's males aren't like anyone I've known or been (except me in my
fantasies). Although, the Marx Marvelous and Dr. Robbins characters come
close to the real thing.
>
>on the other other hand, comparatively few male authors write from the
>female point of view, so it could be a case of readers not having adjusted
>to the male-doing-female form of the unavoidable discrepancies that have got
>to occur when one gender is speaking as its opposite. Women have done it
>from the male pov longer, and have had MUCH more reference material to study
>than vice versa.
How about that great male writer, George Sand, he definitely did the female
pov well. Harold Robbins did books from the female viewpoint, but I haven't
read them. (I did enjoy his early books like The Carpetbaggers et al)
>
>Oh who knows, the way we change our minds all the time, how could a guy
>figure out how a gal would really talk anyway ;-)
>
>Amy
Lucyyyyyy.
Dale
Dale Kirby
>
>How about that great male writer, George Sand, he definitely did the female
>pov well. Harold Robbins did books from the female viewpoint, but I haven't
>read them. (I did enjoy his early books like The Carpetbaggers et al)
>
Is Harold Robbins really a woman too?!?
amy littlefield
>pov well. Harold Robbins did books from the female viewpoint, but I haven't
>read them. (I did enjoy his early books like The Carpetbaggers et al)
>
Is Harold Robbins really a woman too?!?
Amy
>>
Robert Stubblefield
At 11:52 AM 11/21/96 -0500, you wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Verdant wrote:
>
>> >perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
>> >a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
>> >reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
>> >books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
>> >highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
>> >said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
>> >woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
>> >question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
>> >but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
>> >
>> >sean
>> >
>> the word girl? At 40, I am hardly a girl, any more than a 40 year old man
>> is a boy.
>>
>> Verdant
>> occasionally girlish, but definitely a woman
>>
>see my previous post on this thread and know that as far as this "woman"
>is concerned the girl is still there. She's part of the past but still
>practicing in the present. Wish I could connect more with the baby
>version of myself. Then I could see how I started to believe all this
>stuff in the first place. And by that same token, I try to remember who
>I am as an old woman as well. What does that wise one farther up front
>have to give to this Roseann now whose too fluid to stay put and always
>politely correct? Cracked up at Oprah the other day, she was
>interviewing Diana Ross' daughter Tracey and talking about powerful role
>models for black women. Oprah recalled when she was "just a little
>colored girl." Coming from her, it was hilarious. So lets face it
>folks, change is the only constant.
>
bobby
Marx
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:20:47 -0500,
Tom May <tho...@WWD.NET> wrote:
: Smart primates, frogs, animated inanimate objects...sometimes I think
: that Tom Robbins and Robyn Hitchcock were separated at birth.
You've been laying eggs beneath my skin...
: Love,
: tom
and all the sea through things are crawling..
Furry green bowl.
Damn you tommay!
M
--
Marjorie. Duehmig-Hayes
hey marx,
looks as though the lice and things are really getting you down
perhaps a dose of clootie dumpling will do the trick to
calm what must be frazzled nerve endings...aberdeen must be
cold 'bout now.
doest thou ever readtheth thine email?
check back...a bit, week or so...importanto message there.
Hey, check out TV tonight..."Wicker Man" is on.
Stoking the fire,
MAD-Head
Betsy
Marjorie. Duehmig-Hayes wrote:
> Keep wanting to jump in on this thread...but for crying out loud,
> doesn't anyone know how to SNIP around here?
Second you on that one, Marj...WHEW! Thanks for providing me with a
springboard into the deep end...
> Amy, totally AGREE with you on the point that the females TR creates
> are fantasy...wrote alot about this late 1994...but have re-thought
> this argument. I don't know if Amanda, etc. are so much figments
> of a man's personal favorite fantasy chicks OR if TR plays what if.
My fantasy is that each female character represents a distillation of the
essence of a woman TR has known. I also see certain modern archetypes in his
characterizations of the Intelligent Waitress and the Ditzy Businesswoman. A
recognition of the radical shift in women's roles that's taken place since
the 1950's, an illustration of the "split" referred to by Verdant - or was it
Roseann? - that has caused us to see ourselves separately as women and as
(productive, money-earning) people.
Betsy
Roseann Gabrys
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Betsy wrote:
> Marjorie. Duehmig-Hayes wrote:
>
> > Amy, totally AGREE with you on the point that the females TR creates
> > are fantasy...wrote alot about this late 1994...but have re-thought
> > this argument. I don't know if Amanda, etc. are so much figments
> > of a man's personal favorite fantasy chicks OR if TR plays what if.
>
> My fantasy is that each female character represents a distillation of the
> essence of a woman TR has known. I also see certain modern archetypes in his
> characterizations of the Intelligent Waitress and the Ditzy Businesswoman. A
> recognition of the radical shift in women's roles that's taken place since
> the 1950's, an illustration of the "split" referred to by Verdant - or was it
> Roseann? - that has caused us to see ourselves separately as women and as
> (productive, money-earning) people.
>
> Betsy
>
And let's face it, writing about or from the point of something you're
not is rather frowned upon. More of the politely correct stuff. Tom is
brave to "create" women, whether they're real or fantasy. I hope he's
going by that old maxim: can't please everyone, so you have to please
yourself. I guess I'd like to be some of those women or to have some man
look at me through that particular set of lens.
One thing I have noticed around here, we all like to laugh. It's the
best medicine for whatever ails ya. And feminism isn't funny. When you
set out to chronicle oppression it's not gonna be pretty. Somehow when
Tom writes about these women he's created, he sets them free. He builds
in some sort of choices for them. When you read the story of the
Marriage of Gawain, sometimes called the Loathesome Lady you understand
that that's all any woman wants or needs, the chance to choose.
Ranting Roseann
jbil...@templar.fgi.net
> perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
> a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
> reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
> books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
> highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
> said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
> woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
> question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
> but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
>
> sean
I've always thought TR's characters, male and female, were
representations of those archetypal parts of himself -- not really
intended to be separate beings in their own right. It seems to me
that none of the characters in his books is complete without the other
characters; that they're all part of a gestalt and would collapse
without each other. The gestalt, of course, being Tom himself, or his
view of himself at any given time. For example, Gwen is obviously
incomplete, but so is Larry, if less obviously. Gwen is clueless, but
it is she who figures out how to get what Larry needs to(perhaps)heal
himself.
This is true of many, maybe most, artists,(that their characters or
images are their own inner archetypes) but seems especially pronounced
in TR. One reason his work keeps me fascinated (in spite of my frequent
and serious irritation with the books) is the ongoing quest of a male
artist to find and understand his feminine side. Leonard Cohen
fascinates me for the same reason.
I have no confidence that any of this is true, or even makes sense. I
just felt like talking.
jes
Barb Karman
>At 11:52 AM 11/21/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Verdant wrote:
>>
>>> >perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
>>> >a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
>>> >reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
>>> >books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
>>> >highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
>>> >said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
>>> >woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
>>> >question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
>>> >but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
>>> >
>>> >sean
>>> >
>>> the word girl? At 40, I am hardly a girl, any more than a 40 year old man
>>> is a boy.
>>>
>>> Verdant
>>> occasionally girlish, but definitely a woman
>>>
>>see my previous post on this thread and know that as far as this "woman"
>>is concerned the girl is still there. She's part of the past but still
>>practicing in the present. Wish I could connect more with the baby
>>version of myself. Then I could see how I started to believe all this
>>stuff in the first place. And by that same token, I try to remember who
>>I am as an old woman as well. What does that wise one farther up front
>>have to give to this Roseann now whose too fluid to stay put and always
>>politely correct? Cracked up at Oprah the other day, she was
>>interviewing Diana Ross' daughter Tracey and talking about powerful role
>>models for black women. Oprah recalled when she was "just a little
>>colored girl." Coming from her, it was hilarious. So lets face it
>>folks, change is the only constant.
>>
>>i knew it. i knew you'd come through on this one, Rosie. bravo.
>
>bobby
I was going to sit back. . .but ah, hell. Rosie, I'm with you on this one,
too.
Sean-- you can call me a girl. i'm just an over-age adolescent anyways,:)
so i don't mind.
barbed
Barb Karman
>> perceptions. i have read a number of books written by girls where there is
>> a boy as head honcho and there are differences between what they think guy
>> reactions would be and what they are. and these were not deep insightful
>> books but mere escapism. i imagine that a more philosophical novel would
>> highlight these differences even more. a girl friend of mine read ara and
>> said it was very good and she enjoyed it but tr did not know much about
>> woman psyche. obviously a personal opinion on her part but i throw the
>> question open to all the girls on the list. do you think that tr is close
>> but no cigar on what motivates a girl and how girls think and feel?
>>
>> sean
>
>
>representations of those archetypal parts of himself -- not really
>intended to be separate beings in their own right. It seems to me
>that none of the characters in his books is complete without the other
>characters; that they're all part of a gestalt and would collapse
>without each other. The gestalt, of course, being Tom himself, or his
>view of himself at any given time. For example, Gwen is obviously
>incomplete, but so is Larry, if less obviously. Gwen is clueless, but
>it is she who figures out how to get what Larry needs to(perhaps)heal
>himself.
>
>This is true of many, maybe most, artists,(that their characters or
>images are their own inner archetypes) but seems especially pronounced
>in TR. One reason his work keeps me fascinated (in spite of my frequent
>and serious irritation with the books) is the ongoing quest of a male
>artist to find and understand his feminine side. Leonard Cohen
>fascinates me for the same reason.
>
>I have no confidence that any of this is true, or even makes sense. I
>just felt like talking.
>
>jes
Actually Jes, I think there is something quite profound and accurate in the
above. Share anytime.
barb
Dale Kirby
Betsy wrote:
>
> Marjorie. Duehmig-Hayes wrote:
>
> > doesn't anyone know how to
[SNIPPED the word SNIP] a
>round here?
>
> Second you on that one, Marj...WHEW! Thanks for providing me with a
> springboard into the deep end...
>
> > Amy, totally AGREE with you on the point that the females TR creates
> > are fantasy...wrote alot about this late 1994...but have re-thought
> > this argument. I don't know if Amanda, etc. are so much figments
> > of a man's personal favorite fantasy chicks OR if TR plays what if.
>
> My fantasy is that each female character represents a distillation of the
> essence of a woman TR has known. I also see certain modern archetypes in his
> characterizations of the Intelligent Waitress and the Ditzy Businesswoman. A
> recognition of the radical shift in women's roles that's taken place since
> the 1950's, an illustration of the "split" referred to by Verdant - or was it
> Roseann? - that has caused us to see ourselves separately as women and as
> (productive, money-earning) people.
>
> Betsy
I think our boy reads Cosmo and all the characters are manifestations of
the Cosmo Girl archetype.
Please don't get snippety with me. May I suggest something between the
two extremes of
Bobby, who tacks on one line to massive repeats and MAD-H who doesn't
give quite
enough context to know always indicate what she's responding too, 30
messages later out of sequence. Could be the difference between the
mailing list and the newsgroup where all the threads are laid out as
neatly as an English Garden.
Dale
Sean Yeomans
>
> Please don't get snippety with me. May I suggest something between
the
> two extremes of
> Bobby, who tacks on one line to massive repeats and MAD-H who
doesn't
> give quite
> enough context to know always indicate what she's responding too,
30
> messages later out of sequence. Could be the difference between the
> mailing list and the newsgroup where all the threads are laid out
as
> neatly as an English Garden.
>
> Dale
the mad organiser strikes again! remember folks this is the man who
wanted us to catagorise in our subject line! :-)
sean
John Harris
that bear no resemblance to the subject matter at hand - namely one Mr.
Thomas Robbins and his literary output. Any more posts that do not deal with
TR will be summarily sent to the furthest regions of cyberspace. Repeated
offenders will be arrested by the Net Police and be forced to spend the next
year in the alt.fan.Ophrah Winfrey newsgroup. If that doesn't work, the
offender will be locked in a room with an insurance agent for the next six
months (thanks, Woody). So Dale, were you really at the Munich Beer Hall
Putsch in the 30's? <g> I understand that Goering was a pretty nice guy
except for a few peccadillos.
John
Robert Stubblefield
bobby
Dale Kirby
Sean Yeomans wrote:
>
> >
> > Please don't get snippety with me. May I suggest something between
> the
> > two extremes of
> > Bobby, who tacks on one line to massive repeats and MAD-H who
> doesn't
> > give quite
> > enough context to know always indicate what she's responding too,
> 30
> > messages later out of sequence. Could be the difference between the
> > mailing list and the newsgroup where all the threads are laid out
> as
> > neatly as an English Garden.
> >
> > Dale
>
> the mad organiser strikes again! remember folks this is the man who
> wanted us to catagorise in our subject line! :-)
>
> sean
It was but a modest proposal as you might remember, not a categorical
demand.
Dale, Wobblie in the AFTRLife
Verdant
grace of a gazelle? Say it ain't so...
Verdant
Dale Kirby
> >> the mad organiser strikes again! remember folks this is the man who
> >> wanted us to catagorise in our subject line! :-)
> >>
> >> sean
> >
> >It was but a modest proposal as you might remember, not a categorical
> >demand.
> >
> >Dale, Wobblie in the AFTRLife
> >
> >
> Wobblie, Dale? You who walk through the AFTRLife with the surefooted
> grace of a gazelle? Say it ain't so...
>
> Verdant
Good eye, V. The 'modest proposal' part was of course referencing Swift
(who? not me!) an agent of social change and betterment of humankind,
while the 'categorical demand' part referred to Sean's 'catagorize' and
then Wobblie referred to Roger's earlier message about the IWW and also
referred to my current position re: the AFTRLife and also the spurilous
charge that I'm a 'mad organiser'. But for the record my favorite singer
is not Gazelle Mackenzie.
And I liked your reference to the Chicago Black Socks baseball scandal
where Eschewless Joe Jackson, because of lousy wages through lack of
union organizers, arranged a massive cheating scheme to make some money.
And your 'sure-footed grace' line could only come as a result of seeing
me take my turn on the catwalk, on the catwalk (MT) which is a symbol of
the Garment Industry (of which John is a member and another accuser of
me being an overly-organizing principal) which suffers so much from lack
of unionization in some places and too much unionization in others.
Dale, "we're all Weebles, but we don't All Fall Down" Kirby