Why are you all so fucking retarded?
Kylie A. H.
Jarett Kobek wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Are you all just completely unaware of what Surrealism is? I understand
> that this may be the case, as you are pretty much all crappy Americans
> whose definition of surrealism could be substituted with the words:
> "TRIPPY AND STUPID".
>
> This is because you are morons.
>
> You would be morons in anything you chose to persue, not just surrealism.
> Surrealism, however, happens to be a personal interest. It also happens
> to be something, if you chose to persue it, that, in the hands of the
> morons, can be something used to generate infinite stupidity.
>
> And so it is with you.
>
> Endless POEMS about YOUR GIRLFRIEND titled "GOLGOTHA" which you
> MISPRONOUNCE. That's this entire fucking newsgroup. You whining about
> your stank ass in house ho-pussy.
>
> Or boyfriend. WHatever.
>
> You people are disgusting specimens.
>
> The closest thing anyone has managed to achieve to surrealism is a "fucked
> up piece of writing" with "SPECIAL SYMBOLS". Wow. I think that harkens
> back more to Futurism than Surrealism. If it wasn't total banal, that is.
>
> ANyway.
>
> Fuck off and die.
>
> -Jarett
sensible, are you by any chance australian and practical with your hands
Chuck Vollers
Ya...@florida.com
Surrealism is an ensemble of creative behaviours and conducts and of expressions utilising all the
psychic forces (automatism, dreams, unconsciousness) once freed from the control of reason and
opposed to preconceived values and ideas.
Now, do you think one can be deaf and dumb and a ventriloquist at the same time?
Cordially,
Yann
Rampage
Lack of Rule.
Jarett Kobek
Ya...@Florida.com wrote:
> Surrealism is an ensemble of creative behaviours and conducts and of expressions utilising all the
> psychic forces (automatism, dreams, unconsciousness) once freed from the control of reason and
> opposed to preconceived values and ideas.
Suuuure! NO DISAGREEMENT THERE!
I'm just like, you know, daddy, wondering where the alla that good stuff
is in this newsgroup? As far as I can tell this place is dedicated to
crappy sentimental first-person poetry about how GIRLFRIEND/BOYFRINED-X is
mean and treats their lover bad and is all sort of insensitive and stuff.
Boo hoo.
> Now, do you think one can be deaf and dumb and a ventriloquist at the same time?
I assume by this you are trying to say, "HELLO, PEOPLE IN THIS NEWSGROUP
ARE JUST TRYING TO LEEEEEARN MAN, LEAAAAAARN."
To that I say: "Yeah, whatever."
-Jarett
Jon Dunn
Pretty funny, but I still like the radio version better - you know, the
one with funny sound-effects in place of all the dirty words.
Rick Creech
> here's the key for you ignorant ass American
> mind:
ster-e-o-type. n. conventional opinion or belief.
.rick.
craig cooper
Nice One Jarett Kobek
It is not before time that the overthrowing
of the "fish on head" Surreal Folk does so
begin with fire.
Death to the Hippy.
And all those who sail in the spunkbubbling
vessel.
Those of Absolute Surrealism need not speak
out on the Radish or the Sardine.
Those of Absolute Surrealism wipe their arses
with Franklin Rosemonts books.
I paint so therefore I am.
Why do dogs lick their balls...
Because they can.
The Surrealists may have spent some time
in America but that was only because Hitler wanted
to severely pop their cherries.
And as we all know it was the Legendary Max Ernst
and his Crew who gave the green light to
Jackson Pollock and his streetgang.
Europe sent some flowers for the Yanks.
Thank you and goodnight.
CRAIG COOPER - chaser of rainbows.
In article <35246d98...@news.mindspring.com>, Chuck Vollers
<cvol...@mindspring.com> writes
>jwk...@is8.nyu.edu (Jarett Kobek) wrote:
>
>>
>>Hello!
>>
>>Are you all just completely unaware of what Surrealism is? I understand
>>that this may be the case, as you are pretty much all crappy Americans
>>whose definition of surrealism could be substituted with the words:
>>"TRIPPY AND STUPID".
>>
>>This is because you are morons.
>>
>>You would be morons in anything you chose to persue, not just surrealism.
>>Surrealism, however, happens to be a personal interest. It also happens
>>to be something, if you chose to persue it, that, in the hands of the
>>morons, can be something used to generate infinite stupidity.
>>
>>And so it is with you.
>>
>>Endless POEMS about YOUR GIRLFRIEND titled "GOLGOTHA" which you
>>MISPRONOUNCE. That's this entire fucking newsgroup. You whining about
>>your stank ass in house ho-pussy.
>>
>>Or boyfriend. WHatever.
>>
>>You people are disgusting specimens.
>>
>>The closest thing anyone has managed to achieve to surrealism is a "fucked
>>up piece of writing" with "SPECIAL SYMBOLS". Wow. I think that harkens
>>back more to Futurism than Surrealism. If it wasn't total banal, that is.
>>
>>ANyway.
>>
>>Fuck off and die.
>>
>>-Jarett
>
>I claim this post in the name of spam!
--
craig cooper
Rick Creech
> Hey, Q-bert, what the hell is wrong with you?
>
> I mean, either you're agreeing with me, or you're disagreeing, but the
> problem is that you're not exactly saying which side you're on.
>
> I MEAN YOU COULD BE SAYING: "HOW CAN YOU DIS AMERICANS AND OUR WAY OF
> LIFE LIKE THAT?"
>
> Or
>
> YOU COULD BE SAYING: "WHEW, I SURE AM GLAD SOMEONE HAD THE GUTS TO POINT
> OUT THAT AMERICANS HAVE BEEN CATEGORICALLY WRONG ABOUT SURREALISM
> SINCE THEY SUFFERED THE DALI INVASION."
>
> -Jarett
> I just, however, can't tell.
well, i'm more on the side of americans, since i am one. however, i would
be lying if said some americans don't know what they are talking about. but
that goes for people all over the world, not just americans. and you say
americans as in including *all* of them. which is not the case.
.rick.
Jon Dunn
whatever you say, dada
Paul Kinsler
craig cooper <cr...@easel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Nice One Jarett Kobek
Ah, a newsgroup invasion, is it?
--
#Paul.
------------------------------+soluble fish+------------------------------
Inst Microwaves & Photonics, University of Leeds, UK. (ph) +44 113 2332089
"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."
X-No-Archive: yes
Paul Kinsler
In alt.surrealism Jarett Kobek <jwk...@is8.nyu.edu> wrote:
> This allows for any number of perversions of the original themes.
> Such as this newsgroup.
NB: this thread is crossposted to alt.flame
Qagi (Me)
Some of us like being retarded morons. And not just the Americans.
Fuckeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Dr. G. Reindeer
Magical Gnome Researcher Extrordinairre
James Braun
Jarett Kobek wrote:
> What I can do is fulfill the ol' role of gadfly and point out that you are
> all a bunch of whiny, pathetic, artistically-inclined jackasses braying
> into the wind.
[Mad, Manic laugh inserted here]
Delusions of grandeur to boot. (`:
I don't know why you've appointed yourself the Ancient Mariner of
the new era. I don't know why you feel you're doing something important
telling and endlessly re-telling your tale of woe about the death of the
internet. A friend of mine who happens to be a conspiracy theorist told
me once that you and your kind(and god knows your kind are a dime a
dozen) were actually agents of Microsoft, demoralizing Netizens to pave
the way for the *true* death of cyberspace...a broadcast medium of
corporate whitewash. I doubt if it's true, but I guess that's really
not
the point. I think the real point is you're tiresome, obnoxious, and I
have to wonder how you find the time to inundate a medium you obviously
so completely deplore.
Something you should ask yourself, Jarret: Why garner hostility
from people you obviously don't respect? Are you that starved for
attention? Is life so empty that your only pleasure is to attack(not
even indoctrinate, simply to provoke) these "unwashed masses" on their
own turf? Is it because you feel you'd go utterly unnoticed in any
other
arena? I honestly can't imagine a self-respecting person that would
behave like this. I know plenty of people who view the Internet as a
complete waste of time...but then, they have the good sense not to waste
time on it. Or at least refuse to justify the time spent with vague
notions of "fulfill[ing] the role of ol' gadfly" or meaningless crusades
such as "point[ing] out that you are all a bunch of whiny, pathetic,
artistically-inclined jackasses braying into the wind."
Now that's been said, I implore this group not to add to this
insipid thread any longer. I know...now that it's 'mysteriously' been
crossposted to alt.flame, we'll probably never hear the end of it, but
that's not an excuse to add to the fire. I'm frankly already ashamed of
myself that I had to come out of lurking simply to attack Mr. Kobek.
--
The Mad Philosopher
James Braun
"You are a subject of the Divine, created in the image of the masses,
for
the masses, by the masses. Be thankful we have commerce. Buy more.
Buy
more now. And be happy."
-The Divine, THX-1138
"Television is the opiate of the people."
-Chairman Grossberg, Max Headroom
craig cooper
The Angel has landed...
At Teeside Airport...
Love Craig...xxx
In article <1998Apr5.2...@leeds.ac.uk>, Paul Kinsler
<kin...@bloch.leeds.ac.uk> writes
>craig cooper <cr...@easel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Nice One Jarett Kobek
>
>Ah, a newsgroup invasion, is it?
>
--
craig cooper
Avoid normal situations.
Jarett Kobek (jwk...@is8.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Rick Creech (qb...@EriNet.com) wrote:
: > well, i'm more on the side of americans, since i am one. however, i would
: > be lying if said some americans don't know what they are talking about. but
: > that goes for people all over the world, not just americans. and you say
: > americans as in including *all* of them. which is not the case.
: Well, given that I'm American, I'm not really being all inclusive. Just
: for the vast majority of American people, Surrealism, as a direct result
: of the DALI invasio, is defined as "ANYTHING THAT IS STUPID AND TRIPPY".
: This allows for any number of perversions of the original themes.
: Such as this newsgroup.
Now... we've got to get into the city.
--
The Stainless Steel Moviegoer
"There's a hatred of art, a hatred of literature -- I mean of the genuine
kind. Oh the shams -- *those* they'll swallow by the bucket!"
-- Henry James, _The Author of Beltraffio_
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <352a187f...@news.se.mediaone.net>,
Yann wrote:
> Surrealism is an ensemble of creative behaviours and conducts and of expressions utilising all the
> psychic forces (automatism, dreams, unconsciousness) once freed from the control of reason and
> opposed to preconceived values and ideas.
[snipped]
Bullshit. surrealism is a very specific local historical phenomenon which
emerged in Europe [France especially] in the early 20th century -- okay,
parts of it linked into automatism, etc., but it asn't Age of Aquarius -- and
what cracked up the Surrealist movement was how to respond to the rise of the
Communist Party in Russia.
QUESTION: Who was Tristan Tzara? -- Answer me that and I'll begin to take
you seriously.
Robin Hamilton
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
Having plowed my way through all twelve messages in this thread, I have to
say that it's not so much a matter of "retarded" as "etiquette" -- not all
the American posters did it but none of the English [not British -- why do
all the American reply-forms give an option for UNITED KINGDOM, but not for
SCOTLAND/WALES/NORTHERN IRELAND/ENGLAND?] -- but (most?) of the American
posters cluttered their responses with the +whole+ of the previous message,
leaving (me) to plough through masses of pre-seen material.
Can't you-all snip to the crucial part of what you're responding to?
Just to show I'm broad-minded, somebody better point out to Jarett (in his
original post, I think) that "persued" is usually (in England/United kingdom)
spelled "pursued".
INTERESTING QUESTION: (Relevant?) -- why is it important to a Scot living in
England that there's a difference between James I and James V!?
HEY! They've +SIGNED+ the Northern Ireland Peace Accords -- I know it's got
nothing to do with this alt.group, but ... !!!!
Cheers
Fascinan
is griping good etiquette?
cheers
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98041...@dante29.u.washington.edu>, "C.
Endicott" <cend...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> He pulled the death of the author out of the hat of Modernity in the
> form of a poem...
Anachronistic and inaccurate -- the Surrealists, both painters and writers,
may have challanged the conventional image of the author/creator, but they
were most all (except maybe Magritte) and especially Tzara (think of Dali as
an extreme!) screaming egoists. Max Ernst doing collage doesn't destroy the
concept of the author, and I'd see [this is a personal opinion, and
arguable], surrealism as something different to Modernism [Eliot, Pound et
alia] which is into control.
The death of the author thing is an idiocy generated by Bartes, via a
misunderstanding of Saussure, and so post-dates Tzara -- the point of this
isn't to knock your point, but to suggest that the concept wouldn't have made
sense to Tzara who was around admittedly after Saussure's COURSE came out but
+before+ the 'rediscovery' of Saussure.
The only good 'death of the author' piece I've come across is by Foucault,
mostly because (unlike Barthes and the rest of the French) he's got some sort
of historical sense.
Which brings me round to the header of your posting ...
The Tzara reference was meant to make two points:
1) You can't talk about surrealism (anything?) in an historical vacuum
2) Unless you know what the person you're talking to knows, how do you know
on what level to talk to them [which your reply illustrated very nicely --
there wouldn't be much point in posting this to someone who'd never heard of
Tzara -- +not+ 'name-dropping]
Incidentally, do you know the play by the English playwright Tom Stoppard,
called TRAVESTIES? -- it has Tzara, Lenin, and Joyce brought together in
Zurick in the twenties, and is +incredibly+ [I think] funny.
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98041...@dante12.u.washington.edu>, "C.
Endicott" <cend...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Not anachronistic, as I am not claiming *Tzara* knew what he was doing.
Fair point -- I once tried to read back existentialism into the Italian
philosopher Pico della Mirandola. Also, there's a good case for the first
post-modern novel being Sterne's TRISTRAM SHANDY.
> are bullshit. There was no *defining moment* of modernism, post-modernism,
> etc, because every critic will pick a different starting/ending point
Generally, I'd agree -- concepts like "the Victorian period" or "the
Enlightenment" are +so+ fuzzy -- but aren't there some defining +moments+?
The publication of TOTTEL'S MISCELLANY in 1555 (?), Sidney's ASTROPHIIL AND
STELLA, Wordsworth and Coleridge's LYRICAL BALLADS, Eliot's WASTE LAND.
Hm???
> (which is not to say I am being ahistorical; just that such histories are
> not objective).
Yay! 'Objective' history is the smile on the Cheshire cat -- but I'm still
old fashioned enough to feel that history isn't a _complete fiction_ --
Richard III +was+ killed on Bosworth Field in 1485 -- but beyond that, he
does become fairly much fiction (More, Shakespeare, the repainted portaits,
etc.)
> I should also add that I personally find all such discussions a little
> suspect, and am just trying to have a little fun... I think the "death of
> the author" is a useful concept but ultimately innacurate.
Part of what bugs me about DOTA is the side of me that writes poems -- I
don't feel I'm dead (just) yet -- also I'm a Saussure freak, and I feel that
Barthes was the beginning of the end -- Saussure accepted both langue and
parole -- Structuralism can only kill the author by ignoring (which Saussure
didn't, even if he didn't foreground it) parole.
> > The only good 'death of the author' piece I've come across is by Foucault,
> > mostly because (unlike Barthes and the rest of the French) he's got some sort
> > of historical sense.
> heheh. there are more good pieces floating around, all which have their
> relative strengths and weaknesses. admittedly, a lot of the french stuff
> leaves me feeling like I've drunk a quart of red wine after finishing it
> (not *always* a bad thing)... the trick is to subject them to the same
> "rules" they are laying down, cut-n-paste and deconstruct them...
Fair. I've always had a problem with 'Contemporary Literary Theory' -- when
I was still a Working Academic, I once went round to my head of Department to
ask for a medical note to be excused from ever reading Derrida -- Foucault's
the only one of them I can even begin to read without my brains breaking.
> Yea, verily... just teasing/playing with words. I have to play "footnoted
> academic" all day; sometimes I just want to blab
I know the feeling -- I'll take this as permission not to have to check
dates/spellings/?etc. on this posting
> > Incidentally, do you know the play by the English playwright Tom Stoppard,
> > called TRAVESTIES? -- it has Tzara, Lenin, and Joyce brought together in
> > Zurick in the twenties, and is +incredibly+ [I think] funny.
>
> I'll check it out; I'm a big Stoppard fan..
If you like Stoppard, I think you'll like this -- I think it's one of his
best. [I saw not the London premier but part of the first run there, and a
friend and myself were laughing ourselves sick while most of the rest of the
audience were looking at us with glum bemusement -- not an elitist point, but
to get +all+ the jokes, you had to be simultaneously into
Surrealism:Dada/Marxism/Modernism -- I think it's this play where the phrase,
given to Tzara, appears: "My heart belongs to Dada"] -- bet your favourite
Stoppard is PROFESSIONAL FOUL ???
Which maybe brings us back to the point of the newsgroup, as Stoppard could
be described as surrealist ....
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <6govdj$633$3...@news.nyu.edu>,
jwk...@is8.nyu.edu (Jarett Kobek) wrote:
> robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk wrote:
>
> > Just to show I'm broad-minded, somebody better point out to Jarett (in his
> > original post, I think) that "persued" is usually (in England/United kingdom)
> > spelled "pursued".
>
> Well, that's the problem with the English, they're* amazing inability to
> get grammar correct. All that Queen's English nonsense, you here* what I'm
> saying?
{Okay, i get the point -- irony's not my strong soot.}
I'm Scottish, not English, even although I live here now! America is unusual
in +not+ having a linguistic 'standard', but most Eurropean countries have
(had?) a +geographical+ standard -- 'proper' French is the way they speak in
Paris rather than Bordeaux, in Italy, it's (tho' I'm not sure of this) Tuscan
(?). England (I stress this -- +not+ 'the United Kingdom' or Scotland) is
unusual (unique?) in having a +non-geographical+ standard -- 'proper'
(Received Standard) English is that spoken by 'men' who went to the major
public schools [= in America, private schools!] and then on to Oxford or
Cambridge. It's softened a bit in the last few years, but is still all too
prevalent.
Here, it's not a neutral thing. I remember years ago when the BBC (which,
within limits, does +try+ to be objective) was reporting a strike -- you had
the reporter talking in Received Standard, the managers talking in Received
Standard, and the workers talking in local accents -- as a result, despite
anything the reporter +said+, the implicit linguistic authority lined the
managers up with the 'objective' reporter. It's still a bit (a lot?!) that
way now -- on TV at least: -- radio here is a bit more inclusive. Some of
our best news presenters are non-WASP (Trevor McDonald, for instance) but
still speak Received Standard.
[Rumour has it that the BBC has sold on rights to their 24 hour Newschanel to
some American company -- as I only get terrestial TV here, I can't [as if I'd
want to!] watch it, so you may be in a better position to tell what's going
on on this now than I am ... Tho' it still won't let you see Trevor
McDonald, as he presents for ITV-- the last part of this paragraph probably
doesn't make much sense across the Pond -- Oscar Wilde: "England and America
are two countries separated by a common tongue"]
But +behind+ this there's a huge range of dialects/accents, which is why it's
unfair to speak of 'English as spoken in England' [which Jarett didn't say
but implied] as if it were one thing. Things +are+ changing for the better
[tho' probably in Scotland more than England] -- recently, the
best-establishment-received [as well as for all of me, the best anyway]
novels/poetry/films have been in 'real' dialect, as opposed to Received
Standard [in Scotland, the change was beginning in the sixties] -- check this
out if you get a chance to see the actor Robert Carlyle in TRAINSPOTTING (or
anything -- his most recent piece was a TV-not-film series made for here,
called WHAT'S BECOME OF JO-JO? casting him as a heroin pusher in Edinburgh in
the eighties) [I don't know if TRAINSPOTTING has reached the States the way
THE FULL MONTY seems to have], a film based on a novel by Irvine Walsh which
was written in an Edinburgh dialect that +I+ found hard to follow -- but
nevertheless it both sold copies and got well reviewed.
Sorry to rant on so, but Jarett pushed one of my buttons on this one ...
> Besides, the most tragic thing that ever did happen to you is Johnson's
> dictionary.
Tragic? We could have had the French Academy [who are, I believe, currently
trying to create 'proper' French terms for the Web!]. Johnson was part of,
and helped to confirm in England [sic], the idea that a dictionary describes
what we +do+ say rather than tells us wha we +ought+ to say -- and this runs
on till the Oxford English Dictionary and beyond. Also he had a sense of
humour (humor), describing a lexicographer as (?) "an underpaid drudge".
> > INTERESTING QUESTION: (Relevant?) -- why is it important to a Scot living in
> > England that there's a difference between James I and James V!?
>
> UMMM, gosh, I've got no clue. I'm assuming, from memory, that James I was
> his royal highness's official title when King of the Scots, and upon
> ascention to the English crown he got the V tagged on. Or is that
> backwards?
Yup, you got it backwards. He was the sixth (VI) king of Scotland called
James, but the first (I) king of England/Britain -- the point of it [for a
Scot] is that calling him James I abolishes a few hundred years of our
history. To be honest, I'm not consistent in this -- I think of Our Current
Monarch as Elizabeth II, even though she is really Elizabeth I of Britain.
> the only important thing is that the
> Authorized Version of 1611 ripped off Tyndale big time. And that's a real
> problem.
>
> Fuck Wycliff.
Rip off or draw on? [Pretentious Put-Down Remark (he he!), -- "aren't you
anachronistically importing contemporary ideas of 'originallity' into a time
when they wouldn't have applied?"]
[To be honest, I wish you hadn't said that -- it makes me realise that I'm
not sure that Wycliff was before Tyndale, and I want to go off and chase down
my books to check, and my library currently is +such+ a mess, and it's 5am
here and I need to get some sleep ... What have you got against Wycliff,
anyway? ]
O'Brien
>Anachronistic and inaccurate -- the Surrealists, both painters and writers,
>may have challanged the conventional image of the author/creator, but they
>were most all (except maybe Magritte) and especially Tzara (think of Dali as
>an extreme!) screaming egoists. Max Ernst doing collage doesn't destroy the
>concept of the author, and I'd see [this is a personal opinion, and
>arguable], surrealism as something different to Modernism [Eliot, Pound et
>alia] which is into control.
>
>The death of the author thing is an idiocy generated by Bartes, via a
>misunderstanding of Saussure, and so post-dates Tzara -- the point of this
>isn't to knock your point, but to suggest that the concept wouldn't have made
>sense to Tzara who was around admittedly after Saussure's COURSE came out but
>+before+ the 'rediscovery' of Saussure.
>
>The only good 'death of the author' piece I've come across is by Foucault,
>mostly because (unlike Barthes and the rest of the French) he's got some sort
>of historical sense.
Yes. Indeed. Quite so. Indubitably. Certainly. Emphatically, emphatically, Yes.
and,
exo- skeletal sausage battalions to all on this fine easter morn
and,
cave aged whimperings of orval faubus,
and,
did you ever eat the cloven pine for emzabel's lightly frosted forest
and,
some taxes and restrictions may apply.
--
----
Take the *** out of my email address if you reply.
Fascinan
Didactic tactics and superfluous dross,
factoids, analysis, and mental dental floss.
Scoffers scoff and paste haste on provocation,
jossers joss and take their paid vacations.
Lack of comprehension led to anti-you strikes,
supple branches bend when the albatross alights.
Bubbles burst, hot sand kicked in eyes, veils are tied tighter.
Any chance of unity, sated by the coalescence spiter.
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <6govr0$633$4...@news.nyu.edu>,
> > called TRAVESTIES? -- it has Tzara, Lenin, and Joyce brought together in
> > Zurick in the twenties, and is +incredibly+ [I think] funny.
>
> fair to say that the play makes (perhaps unsuccessful) attempt at Artaud's
> infamous Theatre of Cruelty.
I don't follow this -- could you expand? To me, it seems more
domestic/surreal [which is mostly where Stoppard is at] than Theatre of
Cruelty.
[Tho' to be honest, I don't know Artaud's work at all (I came to theatre in
the sixties, at the height of the Absurd -- Pirandello and that lot -- and
never really was round a theatre that was staging Artaud that bit later]
> I think the only possible reason to contend it a failure is, if I remember
> correctly, a predominant reliance on the textual aspects. However, the
> case could be made that the heavy reliance on text is due to the
> ritualistic aspect of the scenes, repeating over and ove again, etc, and
> therefor might be a success.
To be honest, I've never read it, and saw it lo these many years ago -- but
my memories are that it was anything +but+ a failure (it made me laugh myself
sick) -- and it +had+ to use textual reference to do what it was doing. I've
(I think) a copy somewhere around the house, but god knows where -- if I find
it, I'll try and (re)read it and get back to you on this.
> I have a copy, somewhere in Rhode Island, of Artaud's own attempt, _The
> Cenci_, which is also a failed attempt, (much more so, in my opinion, that
> Stoppard's play) at the Theater of Cruelty.
Again, could you expand. I can't off the top of my head remember whether it
was Shelley or Byron who wrote _The Cenci_ [Shelley for a guess]-- the whole
thing [from my perspective of ignorance] sounds a bit like Brecht's re-vamp
of _Coroiolanus_ as _The Workers Rehearse the Uprising_
-- or are we into the 'power of intertextuality' bit here?
> The only real success I can think of is Weiss's _Marat/Sade_.
About 15 years ago now, an ex- (we're both now ex- !) colleague of mine
produced Marat/Sade, so I've seen it but haven't read it. I _quite_ liked
it, but went into time-warp and remembered seeing Durrenmat's _The
Physicists_ in Glasgow in the sixties -- also set in an asylum. I guess I'm
more into (generational thing?) the Absurd than Theatre of Cruelty -- Borges
rules OK rather than Genet.
> The RSC's
> production of Williams's _Camino Real_ last summer was pretty damned
> excellent, too.
Just to give you a stick to beat my prejudices with, I +hate+ ALL twentieth
century American drama (not films) -- I know this is probably me, and I've
the same reaction [with the odd exception of Mann's _Doctor Faust_] to
19/20th century German novels -- at some point when I was younger, I realised
that there were probably a lot of writers [Shelley? Tennyson?] who were
+probably+ good [as people whose opinion I respected liked them] but who I
just couldn't stick -- and this is maybe where I'm at with Theatre of Cruelty
-- life is simply too short to wear someone eles's soul in order to enjoy
them.
Robin
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
Intoductory comment -- DejaVu News seems to be screwing me up thoroughly -- I
had apparently no unread postings on alt.s~ till I started chasing this
thread, and discovered about 13 postings I didn't know about. Maybe it's me
not being able to run DVN properly, but ...
In article <6gp0aq$633$5...@news.nyu.edu>,
jwk...@is8.nyu.edu (Jarett Kobek) wrote:
>
> robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk wrote:
> > Fair point -- I once tried to read back existentialism into the Italian
> > philosopher Pico della Mirandola.
>
> Really? How? I mean, I could possibly see the case with the infamous
> _Oration on the Dignity of Man_, but absolutely no chance with _Being and
> the One_
Fair. I +was+ focusing on the Apology/Oration -- by the time he's buried in
Franciscan robes, he's moved way Right. The link was the self-defining
element in the Oration and in Sartrean existentialism. I still feel there's
a case for this -- but how many Picos are there? -- the one who ran off with
(abducted?) his friend's wife, the one who had his _Conclusions_ condemned,
up to the one over whose corpse Savonarola delivered a furneral speech
envisioning him burning in hell?
[There's an obscure _Notes and Queries_ article that argues that Hamlet's
'What a piece of work' draws on the _Heptaplus_, but even better is
Coriolanius' lines to Mummy, where he says (I quote off the top of my head,
so don't trust this for the exact wording) "I will not be such a gosling as
to obey instinct/ But stand up as if a man were the maker of himself/ And
knew no other kin"]
.> > Also, there's a good case for the first
> > post-modern novel being Sterne's TRISTRAM SHANDY.
>
> Blahhhh...
>
> Blaaaahhahhhhh...
>
> If you can make that case, then I want to make the case for Alfred
> Bester's _The Stars My Destination_ predicting psychadelia, 60s
> radicalism, and all the music that came with it.
Like Fats Waller said about jazz, "If you don't know by now lady, you ain't
never going to know". As for Bester's _Stars_, could it +predict+ the
sixties? I haven't chased the date, but I thought it +was+ written in the
sixties [that was certainly when I read it]. Psychadelia, yes, via Gurney
Foyle's kineastesia [mis-spelled, I know!] towards the end, but radicalism
and music? [Sf and music -- Moorcock and HAWKWIND?]
> Sunshine of your love... TALES OF BRAVE ULYSSES
Huh?? This goes way past me ..
Cheers
Robin Hamilton
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <199804120539...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
There's no absolute reason why a poem +should+ rhyme, but if it sets out to,
you should get it right -- strikes/alights ???
Fascinan
>There's no absolute reason why a poem +should+ rhyme, but if it sets out to,
>you should get it right -- strikes/alights ???
>
>Robin Hamilton
>
Thanks Robin, I was hoping to receive such helpful analysis.
In retrospect, I believe the poem +set out + to rhyme (as it had an organic
gravity that was beyond the consciousness of the +author+ (these pluses can be
so annoying). I'm sorry that you feel 'alights' was a poor choice to rhyme
with' strikes', as one weak strand can oh so devastate the content of a poem.
But then again, there is no + absolute+ reason why a poem should rhyme, or
where it should rhyme for that matter. Poetic license allows for myriad
structures (see _How Poetry Works: The Elements of English Poetry_ by Philip
Davis Roberts or _How to Read and Interpret Poetry_ by William Doreski--this
should help those that need to consult literature in order to read and enjoy
literature on their own). Thus, after much scrutiny, and consultation with the
_Josser's Guide to Fastidious Existence_, the poem was +right+ from the get
go--sorry to burst your badgering bubble.
I'm also sorry to have wasted any of your precious time, as the hallowed halls
of academic floundering await your analytical adroitness, and your crackerjack
comandeering of her majesty's nascent +Bellyachers Against the Bogus
Billet-Doux.+
Keep +au courant+ in your fight against such bleating beasties as poor rhythm,
sonic discord, or any such infraction against the _Josser's Guide to Fastidious
Existence._ As always, dig deeply into obscure literature so that there may be
a day when your recondite quoting of a long dead josser will drive an
indelible stake of vampiric attraction into your beautifully naive Beatrice.
example (the following is fictitious, but highly plausible):
Beatrice: "Oh Robin...please read me your dissertation once more:_ An
Extrapolation on a lot of Dead Surrealist Critiques-- Tertiary Creativity_. I
sooo love how you explicate..."
Robin: "Oh Dovey...say that again...you make me so randy!"
cheers,
Fascinan
scot...@earthlink.net
In early 1916 the Cabaret Voltaire was born.
WW1 was in its 3 rd year.
According to Hugo Ball the Cabaret Voltaire had as it's "sole purpose to draw
attention, across the barriers of war and nationalism, to the few independent spirits
who live for other ideals".
Tzara was one of those independent spirits.
In 1916 he was 20 years old.
What was 1916 like?
In July of that year, on the _ first day_ of the Battle of the Somme, British
causalities were 19,240 dead and 35,494 seriously wounded.
Tzara was born in Rumania.
What was WW1 like for Rumania?
Rumania mobilized about 750,000 men. Of those, 335,706 were killed.
In addition around 250,000 Rumanian civilians were killed.
We all live in our own time. It is difficult to comprehend another individual's time
and place.
Regardless of time and place we all live in a meatgrinder. Sometimes it hums in the
background and we almost don't notice it. We are educated not to notice it much, but
to meet it's demands if called.
In Tzara's time and place the meatgrinder roared.
Nothing had prevent the roar.
Nothing protected human beings.
Not politics,
not economics,
not religion,
not education,
not art.
Not the grand armies of Europe.
In fact all these things contributed to the meatgrinder.
And,
nothing could stop the roar.
Nothing, except exhaustion.
In 1918 the average caloric intake of a german civilian was 1000 calories a day.
How does a young man with "other ideals" fight the meatgrinder?
BOOM BOOM
Fascinan
>Damn, you are deep.
>
>And insightful, too!
>
>
>--
>Jarett W. Kobek
You're getting warmer Koby....
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <199804130746...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
fasc...@aol.com (Fascinan) wrote:
> Thanks Robin, I was hoping to receive such helpful analysis.
If it's any consolation, it's a remark that's been made about my own work
several times -- and +I+ never liked it either, even when it was true!
> so annoying). I'm sorry that you feel 'alights' was a poor choice to rhyme
> with' strikes',
Sorry myself, but I do. All the other couplets were 'pure' rhymes, so it's
not me but you/the poem which is defining the form. "ites" and "ikes"
+don't+ rhyme. Okay, Owen used para-rhyme, but when he used it, he +didn't+
use it in the context of full rhyme
> as one weak strand can oh so devastate the content of a poem.
I don't know whether you meant this sarcastically, but it's true -- it's a
hard cruel world
> But then again, there is no + absolute+ reason why a poem should rhyme, or
> where it should rhyme for that matter.
Yes and no -- poems do (it seems to me) set up their own structures -- and if
you've got a structure that says, "Look at me, I rhyme", you'd better have a
+good+ reason for departing from it [and this applies whether you're
consciously setting up the structure or it just emerges].
> structures (see _How Poetry Works: The Elements of English Poetry_ by Philip
> Davis Roberts or _How to Read and Interpret Poetry_ by William Doresk
I'd +much+ rather be insulted than patronised ...
Okay, I'll read your poem again more carefully. One of my current problems is
that my printer is off-line (I think a wire got kicked loose when my modem
was installed a few weeks ago) and I +hate+ reading poetry on-screen
> I'm also sorry to have wasted any of your precious time, as the hallowed halls
> of academic floundering await your analytical adroitness
No problem -- I recently retired (prematurely, with extreme prejudice) which
is why I've got time to join this group.
[Incidentally, I notice from the times of the postings that you-all must be
using (presumably free) university facilities -- pity poor me -- I pay
call-charges on these postings!]
>quoting of a long dead josser
The dead way outnumber the living, so it's hardly surprising that the most
interesting people are in the shadows
> your beautifully naive Beatrice.
Could you send me her address, please?
> Beatrice: "Oh Robin...please read me your dissertation once more:_ An
> Extrapolation on a lot of Dead Surrealist Critiques-- Tertiary Creativity_. I
> sooo love how you explicate..."
Actually, it was entitled JOHN DONNE AND THE TRADITION OF RENAISSANCE
PLATONISM (I think)
I'll try to post one of my rhymed poems soon, to let you get your own back --
I did do some sort-of surrealist poems a while ago, but that was in
pre-computer days, and I can't be bothered retyping. I've published in the
States a couple of times -- BORESTONE MOUNTAIN POETRY AWARDS (1972?) and once
in POETRY (Chicago) in the 80s -- I can't remember just when, but if you're
interested, I could probably trace the date/issue
Love and kisses
Robin
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <6gs4aa$b4t$2...@news.nyu.edu>,
jwk...@is8.nyu.edu (Jarett Kobek) wrote:
> Well, I don't really have much against Wycliff, to be honest. I'm just a
> huge fan of Tyndale. HUGE, huge, huge.
>
> And Wycliff preceeds Tyndale by about a century or two. (I can't remember
> if Wycliff is 1400s or 1300s, but I'm leaning towards 1400s.. 1436?
> maybe.. but, I think I might be blurring that with 153x which has
> something to do with Tyndale.. Anyway..)
Oh god, that makes it worse! Most of my encounters with pre-James texts were
via history-of-language anthologies. I suppose I'd better grovel around my
shelves and see if there's anything relevant [or are Wycliffe/Tyndale on the
Net?]
[Totally off the point -- I realise that from one of last night's postings
that reading Bester in the sixties +doesn't+ mean he couldn't have written
_Stars_ earlier -- excuse my lapse of logic on this one. ]
ANECDOTE: In Edinburgh, outside one of the main buildings in 'that' town (I
come from Glasgow, and if you think the divide between the North and the
South in the States is wide ... !) there's a 15 foot high statue of John Knox
[I first saw it when I was about 14, and accompanying my father [who was a
Church of Scotland minister] to the General Assembly Anyway, there was a
small-time Glasgow hardman (gangster) called Ray the Priest who used to shift
to London when things got too hot for him at home, and once he was overheard
in a London pub coming out with the following:
That cat John Knox
Put the cross on them, see
Fucked them up see?
The hand of John Knox
Lies heavy on this land.
-- which rates as found/folk poetry compares with something I got from a
colleague (this one's tragic rather than funny) who'd been teaching High
School kids:
My mother tell me
If I tell noboby
She take me to the park ]
> -Jarett
> How surrealist is that?
>
> NOT VERY
Shall we shift this one to alt.bible?
"I'm only here for the beer" -- does this phrase have American currency?
Cheers
Robin
Fascinan
>Sorry myself, but I do. All the other couplets were 'pure' rhymes, so it's
>not me but you/the poem which is defining the form. "ites" and "ikes"
>+don't+ rhyme. Okay, Owen used para-rhyme, but when he used it, he
+didn't+
>use it in the context of full rhyme
>
LOL... OH! Owen used para-rhyme! I guess it's okay then. I +DO+ use it in
the context of full rhyme, just to spite prig jossers (ohhhhh I know it's such
a horror to your Victorian ears).
>I don't know whether you meant this sarcastically, but it's true -- it's a
>hard cruel world
it can also be a very abrading world when unsolicited, didactic drivel is
brought in via peacockish newsgroup member.
>Yes and no -- poems do (it seems to me) set up their own structures -- and if
>you've got a structure that says, "Look at me, I rhyme", you'd better have a
>+good+ reason for departing from it [and this applies whether you're
>consciously setting up the structure or it just emerges].
Yes and no? What, no gray area Robbie? By the book again are we?--read the
instructions carefully...careful your tea is hot! My poems do whatever they
please without rhyme or reason; I'll leave structure with +reason+ up to cut
and paste poets.
>I'd +much+ rather be insulted than patronised ...
how bout a double dose then good sir?!?
>[Incidentally, I notice from the times of the postings that you-all must be
>using (presumably free) university facilities -- pity poor me -- I pay
>call-charges on these postings!]
I use no university facilities--once again your presumption is wrong. I'm
sorry you pay call-charges on these postings; perhaps you should use more
+discretion+ in what you say, and who you direct your thoughts too.
For you see:
Jossers delight in thinking their right,
whilst sipping their tea, they never agree.
O the King's Imperialist plunge, we need a sponge!
We confess to have created such mess, our Positivist drivel
drowns us in stress---we digress.
Using digression without discretion, words are wielded
for the sake of gentility's gyration.
that last line dont rhyme,
Parsley, Sage, Robbie, and Thyme.
cheers buddy boy
Fasci-- sippin on my Earl Grey
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <6gs4q8$b4t$3...@news.nyu.edu>,
jwk...@is8.nyu.edu (Jarett Kobek) wrote:
> robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk wrote:
> The repeating scenes that flux into each other. The whole play, at least
> when read, has this feeling of an expansion of the stage and a highly
> ritualistic element in it. These are major points in the Theatre of
> Cruelty.
Hm. The problem may be read/see -- I can't +read+ (ANY!!!!) Stoppard
Another rpoblem (re Stoppard and Cruelty) may be form/content -- you seem to
be defining Theatre of Cruelty in purely formal terms [OK, so I don't know
enough about TOC to open my mouth, but ...]
[ASIDE: despite the taken-for-granted brouhaha, Shakespeare you +can+ read,
Jonson you +have to+ see]
-- he [Stoppard] is (to me) almost the ultimate stage-not-page. My memories
of seeing the play are admittedly rather old, but I don't remember any
'ritualistic' elements -- OK, I'll try chase the text and get back to you on
this.
> (This is, of course, said by someone who read _Travesties_ *after* Artaud,
> so caveats abound.)
Okay, so, yes, Stoppard writes TRAVESTIES after Artaud -- but my big problem
on this is that I +still+ can't link TS into TOC/Artaud.
[Do you know anything by the English playright James Saunders? (THE SCENT OF
FLOWERS, NEXT TIME I'LL SING TO YOU -- Absurd, not Cruelty, but close to
(before) Stoppard -- you'd like him, I think]
> I can't quite remember what they wanted to do in the Alfred Jarry theater,
> but I've got dim notions of _The Revenger's Tragedy_, perhaps? Anyone
> out there know?
Hey, Jarett, there's like obscure and +heavy obscure+ !!! +No one+ hits on
Jarry today! Way back in the seventies, I did a 'pataphysical transposition
of an obscure 19thC Astronomy text, which got published in a York (England)
magazine -- don't even ask -- I'm not even sure I can find it, let alone (it
was pre-computer) scan it -- this may link in with the Stoppard thing -- I've
seen the Ubu plays (mostly at the Edinburgh Festival) [may black bats
over-fly Edinburgh and release syphylitic droppings on Morningside], but read
Jarry only in non-Ubu texts -- SURMALE (?) and the 'pataphysics stuff, 'bout
the same time I was reading early Barthes [Cape editions here (Scotland/UK)
-- ELEMENTS OF SEMIOLOGY and WRITING DEGREE ZERO -- jeez, that dates me!] --
Okay, this was a +long+ time ago! -- point is, I saw Jarry's theatrical stuff
on stage, and read the rest -- sort of the same with Stoppard -- I don't read
him, I saw him.
Weyhey! This is amost connectected with atl.surrealism!
>the Alfred Jarry theater,
Again, this passes me by -- is it like the Berliner Ensemble?
> Sometime in the 70s, Grove Press put out an edition of Artaud's version of
> _The Cenci_. It's pretty boring.
I'd +bet+. Ain't +never+ going to read Artaud, no matter how short the time
I live -- one nice thing about being 'retired', is nobody can make you do
anything -- I'm off to read the bacjkside of a John Brunner ACE DOUBLES,
which is mostly where the speed of my brain is at at this moment.
You-all in the States -- you want surrealism, try an English Domestic Soap
called FATHER TED -- the lead actor died a few weeks ago, but they're still
running it with pre-recorded episodes. Whee ... !!!
[Bring back HOMICIDE: Life~ and NWPDB. --and Hill Street Blues (We still love
you --all is forgiven) -- even MURDER ONE (first series)]
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
Follows up, caveats, nothing new ...
In article <6gs5bq$b4t$4...@news.nyu.edu>,
jwk...@is8.nyu.edu (Jarett Kobek) wrote:
> _Stars_, which I guess would be titled _Tiger! Tiger!_ for you U.K. people
Yes. Penguin published it here as _TT_.
> [Side note: I honestly contend that there may not be a better novel
> written than _Stars_.
STAND ON ZANZIBAR? The Best of Le Guin (LEFT HAND OF DARKNESS, eg.)?
Mind you, when it comes to sf, my critical faculties drop (or droop) -- my
+favourite+ writers are Van Vogt (!) and Zelazny
> a death blow when it was written. How could people go anywhere from there?
This sounds +so+ like the "no novels after _Ulysses_" thing!
> New Wave, I guess..]
Constant Reader Throws Up -- _New Worlds_ has a lot to answer for. At least
now we've got cyberpunk.
> GULLY (damn you!) Foyle's adventures into the
mea culpa -- I'm not checking references or spellings on this post, and it's
a time since I read it
> realms of Ghost Rider-hood. (This is actually why I put this in response
> to your _Tristram Shandy_ claim. I associate the two due to their
> typographical oddity.)
Hm. Much typographical oddity in _Tristram_ other than the blank (all
black?) page?
I still think there's a case for _Tristram_ as the first post-modernist novel
(on the serious pub-conversation level) -- some of my younger ex-colleagues,
who are more into contemporary Lit Theory than I am, have been prepared to
buy this after the fourth pint [but then, maybe they ere simply being polite
...]
> like Foyle due
> to his discovering space jaunting and self-awareness, etc. etc.
cf Cordwainer Smith and the space-3 thing ("Drunkboat")
> As for the music, I was wrong about that: It's _Demolishad Man_ that
> predicts that. There's all this madness about an infinitely catchy jingle
> and so on.
Not Bester's fault, but hasn't this become a "block out the telepath" cliche?
[I've just been re-reading Kuttner's MUTANTS [which I +think+ pre-dates],
which has a similar spin on blank-your-mind]? Which I'd feel means the
"music" in _Demolished_ isn't important +as+ music
> > Huh?? This goes way past me ..
>
> Just two song titles by CREAM.
>
> I thought it went along with talking about 60s music.
I was the man, I was there, I suffered, but I didn't hear them.
[Was that Ferlighetti [OK, mis-spelled] or Whitman? I'm screwed on this one,
as I'd a friend who did a poem which ran:
I was the man
I was there
I suffered
Somehat
Come to think of it more closely, the above four lines are Ferlinghetti's
spin on Whitman -- god knows where my false memory of the "friend" came from]
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <199804131751...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
fasc...@aol.com (Fascinan) wrote:
> LOL... OH! Owen used para-rhyme! I guess it's okay then. I +DO+ use it in
> the context of full rhyme, just to spite prig jossers (ohhhhh I know it's such
> a horror to your Victorian ears).
It's the cliche problem -- how do you know the writer +meant+ it as a cliche?
> >I don't know whether you meant this sarcastically, but it's true -- it's a
> >hard cruel world
>
> it can also be a very abrading world when unsolicited, didactic drivel is
> brought in via peacockish newsgroup member.
You post a poem on the Net, you put up with what you get.
> Yes and no? What, no gray area Robbie?
Not here.
> My poems do whatever they
> please without rhyme or reason;
pity the poor reader ...
> >I'd +much+ rather be insulted than patronised ...
>
> how bout a double dose then good sir?!?
Touche!!!
> I use no university facilities--once again your presumption is wrong.
Yeah. OK, fair, but I +like+ stereotyping
> Jossers delight in thinking their right,
> whilst sipping their tea
And you're doing it too -- I +hate+ tea, and only ever drink coffee
,> Parsley, Sage, Robbie, and Thyme.
Huh?
I'll post this, and then post one of mine separately, so you can get your
teeth into it ...
Xcreep
Nothing ever changes without requiring a new LABEL. A hundred years from
who knows what will the defintions for a label will be. Trends tend to
expand with time, encompassing more than what we thought. The artist
rarely creates something to fit into a label ( which is usually defined
years after the fact). Rather one tries to: 1. make money 2. be
original 3. or do what one wants. Only after the fact do we label it.
+--------------------------------------------------+
| You want my advice? Kiss the Devil, eat the worm.|
| - Jan de Mooy; or, Man remade |
| Xcreep |
+--------------------------------------------------+
SurrealXis
Ok, Ok, Ok, !!
Finally, I can read something that 'strikes' my eyes as
sublime.
As for Hamilton and his replier... Way too many names of strangers who shared
once the greatness of their own thoughts with us. Get with it. Its about YOU
and what YOU have to offer, display, express, etc... Please stop the history
discussion you're wasting my time and yours.
Excuse my crude words, it's the first time I reply.
As for Fascinan I really appreciate your brief writings, There're so few of us
I had almost forgotten how it feels like to read something unique.
robin.h...@gmtnet.co.uk
In article <199804142247...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Serendipidy! I've just emailed Fascinian to say that nobody's yet complained
on this post that Jarett and I am carrying on a private conversation,
courtesy of alt.surrealism -- and here you do on you first post -- you should
get some sort of prize for this!
Robin (or as Fascinian would have it) Robbie
Dunbar66
Why are you all so hyper intellectualizing surrealism?
Ya...@florida.com
On 23 Apr 1998 00:41:21 GMT, dunb...@aol.com (Dunbar66) wrote:
>>Why are you all so hyper intellectualizing surrealism?
mainly because we are so fucking retarded
--
Yann
Jon Dunn
On 23 Apr 1998, Dunbar66 wrote:
> Why are you all so hyper intellectualizing surrealism?
Personally, I'm 'hyper' when intellectualizing anything. ;)