The Hive
SCK
out why it was translated into English. It's the story of a bunch of
mostly failing and desperate self-interested sociopaths whose lives
revolve around a cafe in Spain. The principal literary vehicle employed
by Cela appears to be all of the characters owing each other money. And
while this may not be a lot of money, it's a lot of characters. I think
I lost count around 30.
It may have been interesting in its original form, partly because the
people are probably more credible to Spaniards, but in English, to a
North American perspective, it is mostly absurd. Cela won the Nobel
Prize for literature in 1989, "for a rich and intensive prose, which
with restrained compassion forms a challenging vision of man's
vulnerability". I think most of this must have been lost in the
translation.
Started reading "The Beggar" by Naguib Mahfouz but gave up. It ain't no
Harafish.
Michael T. Richter
> "The Hive" by Camilo Jose Cela is one of those books that I can't figure
> out why it was translated into English. It's the story of a bunch of
I'd think that novel would speak directly to you.
SCK
> > out why it was translated into English. It's the story of a bunch of
> > mostly failing and desperate self-interested sociopaths [...]
>
> I'd think that novel would speak directly to you.
Naw, it wasn't desperate and sociopathic enough for me. I demand style
and performance from my failures, not humourlessness and mediocrity. I
don't want them to slowly become invisible against the faded yellow
wallpaper of the cafe, I want them to dance like electrocuted rag dolls,
slide down a screeching, no-brakes self-destructive spiral and then
explode into a million diamond beads.
Nikolaus Maack
I can't see past all the waves of rabid anti-welfare types. It's like all
the mosquitoes in your swamp learned to type on the same day.)
I just finished reading "The Road to Wellville". I had this weird feeling
I'd read it before, and then I remembered how I started to read it while
in Wyoming, and then had to leave. It being a library book, I had to
leave it behind. So I read the first four chapters or so, and then was
forced to give it up.
It was an OK read. Probably would have been better if I hadn't seen the
movie first. I kept seeing Matthew Broderick and Bridgette Fonda as I
read the book, and they are both such lousy actors. In a weird way,
seeing them as I read, it made the characters less believable, if that
makes any sense.
All in all, it was an amusing book, if somewhat unmemorable. Most of the
characters were rather unpleasant. Normally that doesn't bother me, but
in this book it did. Everyone in the book READ like they were a
character. George the drunk, Charlie the conman who may not be a conman,
Will the pussy-whipped neurotic, and Eleanor the whatever. No one seemed
very complicated, or very interesting.
Has anyone else read anything else by T. Coraghessen Boyle?
Nik
--
"He is too tiring in his inconsistency and inherent silliness." - C/E
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
Susan Duncan
> people are probably more credible to Spaniards, but in English, to a
> North American perspective, it is mostly absurd. Cela won the Nobel
> Prize for literature in 1989, "for a rich and intensive prose, which
> with restrained compassion forms a challenging vision of man's
> vulnerability". I think most of this must have been lost in the
> translation.
I've found that most translations are simply a waste of time. Not only does
the original book have to be good, but the translator must be able to
translate not only the language but the nuances and style of the original
writer. The odds of having two people of talent take a crack at one book
seems to be higher than the most addicted gambler would bet on.
JHall
On Wed, 10 May 2000, Susan Duncan wrote:
> ...
>
> I've found that most translations are simply a waste of time. Not only does
> the original book have to be good, but the translator must be able to
> translate not only the language but the nuances and style of the original
> writer. The odds of having two people of talent take a crack at one book
> seems to be higher than the most addicted gambler would bet on.
Why is it the logical is more times than not the correct direction ?
Your belief that "the odds ..." is my belief and has been since that
wicked grade 5 teacher made me translate Homer's Great U..., oh I am still
not able to say or write that word, but I am able to do Achilles.
Ah communication the sweet soul of relationships.
SCK
> (Yo, Kunc! Wanna shotgun the feces in this group instead of ott.general?
> I can't see past all the waves of rabid anti-welfare types. It's like all
> the mosquitoes in your swamp learned to type on the same day.)
>
Yes, ott.general annoys me because it's teeming with rodents from work
like that subliterate Matrix twerp. I'm sure you appreciate that when
you sit there happily typing out loaded questions to me, and I grit my
teeth over here filtering out contentious answers. But don't think I
don't appreciate your usual efforts to get me fired by confessing things
on my behalf.
> I just finished reading "The Road to Wellville". I had this weird feeling
> I'd read it before, and then I remembered how I started to read it while
I don't read any more, I've become one of those trailer trash yokels who
listens to audio books. This is mostly another time issue, where driving
to Toronto and back eats up about 8 hours, and I have yet to perfect the
art of reading while driving. Actually, I can read while driving, but it
seems to disconcert other drivers, and I hate having a good paragraph
interrupted by those serrated edges of the 401 when you start to drift
off the road. Drunk. (That was gratuitous for Richter, whose rat-brain
has now gone into an ecstatic overload with tabloid interest).
So I listen to audio books read by has-beens and failed talk show hosts.
Recently, I listened to Dracula (Stoker), Wuthering Heights (Bronte),
Timequake (Kurt Vonnegut), Pure Drivel (Steve Martin), Dirty Jokes and
Beer (Drew Carey), Eat the Rich and Parliament of Whores (PJ O'Rourke).
Maybe some others.
I started listening to some evil feminist epistle called "The Beauty
Myth" in which some crazed woman denounces advertisements, make-up and
the patriarchal society for two hours (curious paradox in that the photo
of her on the back she is all made-up with big-ass poufy hair), but I
couldn't bear it. I started listening to the King James version of the
New Testament, but fell asleep during the Book of Matthew (amusing story
about how I was pulled over for speeding [140 in a 60 zone] but I was
listening to the bible and the cop let me off...)
Dracula and Wuthering Heights were good. Timequake was just the same old
autobiographical mashed potatoes that Vonnegut has inflicted upon us for
the last decade. Pure Drivel convinced me that except for brief flares,
Steve Martin shouldn't be allowed to own any writing utensils.
Dirty Jokes and Beer was surprising, because there is no beer, only a
few dirty jokes, and is comprised of three decent short stories and a
lot of anecdotal chatter ranging from the light-hearted, to personal
philosophy, to Carey being molested as a boy. I had thought I was going
to tune out for 4 hours to an endless stream of sex jokes, but not at
all. It was amusing thinking about all the people who probably bought
this looking for 1,001 sex jokes to tell around the construction site
and then got stuck with a kind of confessional.
The best were Eat the Rich and Parliament of Whores. Both of these are
continuously funny, insightful and interesting. PJ O'Rourke (political
correspondent for Rolling Stone) is a genius. Eat the Rich is an effort
to explain global economics. PJ visits various countries and basically
asks ordinary people why they have no money. Parliament of Whores is an
attempt to explain the convoluted American political system. I agree
with both of the major conclusions in these books, but I don't want to
recommend them to you because I don't want you to become a fan of Mike
Harris. I prefer you staying a confused lefty with no actual
understanding of economics.
On that note, if anyone has any audio books they want to trade, drop me
a line.
Nikolaus Maack
> But don't think I
> don't appreciate your usual efforts to get me fired by confessing things
> on my behalf.
You're welcome.
Of course, the easiest way to get rid of all those silly, "Shouldn't we
fire you, you drunkard?" comments at the performance review is to tell
them I am a total fucking loon. Point them to ThemeStream. Make them
read some of my stuff. That way, not only will they think I'm disturbed,
but I profit from it financially. Everyone wins.
On the other hand, maybe getting fired would provide you with an
interesting experience, and a profound lesson. Just think of all that it
would teach you! If I get you fired, I expect a "thank you" card in the
mail.
> Pure Drivel convinced me that except for brief flares,
> Steve Martin shouldn't be allowed to own any writing utensils.
Yes, it sucked. I was somewhat disappointed with it too. Totally
forgettable.
I've given up on P.J. O'rourke. He used to be funny. Then he became a
money grubbing fuckhead. The turning point was clear -- the first edition
of his book "Modern Manners" featured his text and amusing cartoons from
some illustrator. It was so funny it made me weep. A later edition had
all the cartoons ripped out, as well as some of the more "offensive"
humour. Bye bye to the witty "castration" gags. P.J. decided he was
being childish, and it was time to grow up.
Personally, I think it was writing for those "rich fucker" magazines that
did him in. Instead of writing satire -- like he did so beautifully in
National Lampoon -- he started writing about test driving jeeps and
smoking cigars. Suddenly he realized he liked all the shit he used to
make fun of. He threw away his soul, and decided to suck up to the ruling
elite.
When I saw him interviewed on Jay Leno many moons ago he was little more
than an apologist for corporate greed. He was loathesome and toad like,
and he fawned over Jay Leno like some networking groupie.
O'Rourke is just like every other hippie turned yuppie -- "I could have
ideals, but that would mean a drop in salary."
You respect this guy?
> I prefer you staying a confused lefty with no actual
> understanding of economics.
You misunderstand me and all lefties. It's not that we don't understand
economics -- it's that we don't like every single decision being based on
how much money it will cost.
"I would pull you out of this burning car, but if you live, the medical
costs will be extremely expensive, what with those second degree burns.
Whoosh! Ha ha! Wow! Gee, make that third degree burns."
That, and right wingers live on another planet -- one where everyone has
to underdtand that the two most important things in the world are MONEY
and JOBS. We have to beat the poor so they'll find real work. The
economy is king.
A real life example: a right wing loon told a lefty friend of mine that a
certain number of homeless people have to die each year. It's in fact
necessary that they die. Otherwise people will think homelessness is a
viable alternative to employment, and stop supporting the system. If
people see that homelessness is ugly, then they won't want to be homeless.
Words trying to explain to him that people aren't homeless by choice
didn't penetrate his cranium.
His proof, by the way, that homelessness is attractive, is that every time
a homeless shelter opens up, it fills up immediately. Obviously people
are rushing into the streets, thrilled at the idea of a "no income"
adventure. Solution? Close all homeless shelters.
> On that note, if anyone has any audio books they want to trade, drop me
> a line.
Audio books -- Jesus Christ. Just when I thought your life of drunken
rationalizations couldn't get any worse, you slip another rung down the
ladder. Aren't most books-on-tape recordings abridged (read -- GUTTED)
versions of the actual text?
SCK
> O'Rourke is just like every other hippie turned yuppie -- "I could have
> ideals, but that would mean a drop in salary."
>
> You respect this guy?
>
Yes, he's a great, and especially creative writer. Although, I have no
experience with his earlier stuff. I think aside from the ones I've
mentioned, I've only read, "Holidays in Hell". He's also a creative
"thinker". Turning away from the predictable sew-on badge ideals of
hippie-dom was probably one of the best things he ever did, like being
emancipated or finally digging his way out of a tire fire.
Personally, I think he just got fed up with other peoples' stupidity.
> You misunderstand me and all lefties. It's not that we don't understand
> economics -- it's that we don't like every single decision being based on
> how much money it will cost.
>
Everybody thinks they understand economics. You think you understand it
intuitively, without ever having read a single book about it. You
probably don't know what a futures contract or a mutual fund is, but you
think you know how the economy works.
One thing I find interesting is that lefty types tend to be artsy types,
which may help explain why the root of all leftist misconception about
economics is a simple misunderstanding of math.
The essential thing you don't understand is that the amount of money in
the world is not finite. For every bathtub full of money I take, there
is not one bathtub less for you. My wealth does not create your poverty.
This is a difficult concept to grasp, and it is why lefty types are
always advocating that those people with money should give so much of it
away. You see money as a zero sum equation, where a dollar that I have
is a dollar that a homeless person doesn't have. This just isn't true.
There is a bottomless pit of money. Huge piles of dollars come into
existence out of nowhere every day because money is created from nothing
but ideas and the shifting weight of value. A dollar I have is a dollar
I reached in and took. A dollar a homeless person doesn't have is not
the dollar I took, it is the dollar he didn't reach in and take.
This is probably an incomprehensible explanation, but it's why you
should read more about economics.
> That, and right wingers live on another planet -- one where everyone has
> to underdtand that the two most important things in the world are MONEY
> and JOBS. We have to beat the poor so they'll find real work. The
> economy is king.
>
Well, the economy sort of is king. With a successful economy, you have
at least some money to give the poor, pay for health care, buy those
free heroin needles and condoms. Without a healthy economy, you have no
money to do any of those things and suddenly everybody is poor and
desperately in need of non-existent needles and condoms.
> A real life example: a right wing loon told a lefty friend of mine that a
> certain number of homeless people have to die each year. It's in fact
> necessary that they die. Otherwise people will think homelessness is a
> viable alternative to employment, and stop supporting the system. If
> people see that homelessness is ugly, then they won't want to be homeless.
>
It sounds like your dumb right-wing friend is talking more about mass
psychology than economics. I don't think most right-thinking people have
a problem having safety nets for those who truly need it, or expanding
those safety nets as those needs arise.
Being "right wing" is more about freedom and responsibility than money.
People should have the freedom to make choices, then reap the rewards
from correct ones as well as suffer the lashes from the wrong ones. It
is the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. I agree with this
philosophical tenet. I want to be accountable for my own mistakes,
otherwise, my life actually belongs to some higher power who rescues me
from repeated stupidity.
However, there is a psychology to poverty. You cannot pay people not to
be poor. Only education makes people not poor because giving someone
money does not suddenly bestow upon them any great fiscal wisdom. For
example, if I gave you $2000 every month, it wouldn't make you a wise
investor. Nothing about your financial responsibility would be changed,
you would just expand your lifestyle to enjoy your expanded disposable
income. In other words, you'd spend it. You'd go out more often, enjoy
more luxuries, whatever, but it wouldn't transform you into someone who
would successfully use his wealth to create more wealth and security.
> Audio books -- Jesus Christ. Just when I thought your life of drunken
> rationalizations couldn't get any worse, you slip another rung down the
> ladder. Aren't most books-on-tape recordings abridged (read -- GUTTED)
> versions of the actual text?
Yes, but you have to admire my willingness to be objective about my
patheticness, unlike all your wretched friends who ascribe mythical
beautific qualities to whatever dreary things they do. Audio books truly
are for the lazy scourge, although I do try to avoid the abridged ones.
And I only listen to them in the car, and have so far resisted any
temptation to bring one into the house.
In the house, I am currently reading "Giles Goat-Boy" by John Barth. I'm
still at the comparative beginning (the book weighs more than a brick),
but there is something almost beautiful about a main character who gets
into ritualistic and jealous fights with his best friend (a goat) over a
girl (who is also a goat). Mercifully, the sex scenes so far have been
limited to descriptions of Hedda's speckled teats.
Nikolaus Maack
[P.J. O'Rourke]
> Yes, he's a great, and especially creative writer. Although, I have no
> experience with his earlier stuff. I think aside from the ones I've
> mentioned, I've only read, "Holidays in Hell". He's also a creative
> "thinker". Turning away from the predictable sew-on badge ideals of
> hippie-dom was probably one of the best things he ever did, like being
> emancipated or finally digging his way out of a tire fire.
> Personally, I think he just got fed up with other peoples' stupidity.
He turned away from one set of sew-on badges and embraced another set. I
don't see that as particularly laudable.
The reason I know he wrote essays about driving jeeps and smoking cigars
is because one collection of his writings featured rather sad and drooling
accounts over what it was like to drive a big shiny car. "I'm sitting
behind the wheel of a monster truck, and boy, is it great!" Yippee. Some
magazine paid him money to drive something and then write about it. That,
in my mind, is not the work of a great thinker.
Part of O'Rourke's becoming a right wing money-loving fuckhead is he's
lost his sense of humour. Almost all conservative types have no sense of
humour. You may find this hard to believe, but P.J. has become serious.
If you want to know what P.J. O'Rourke once was like, hunt down some old
National Lampoons from the dusty bins of used bookstores. O'Rourke used
to be able to make me piss my pants with laughter. Now he's just a shell
of what he once was. If you like him now, you would love what he used to
be.
> Everybody thinks they understand economics. You think you understand it
> intuitively, without ever having read a single book about it.
I don't understand the economy, and I don't want to. From what I have
seen of the world, as soon as you start counting your pennies too closely,
you become overly concerned over who is getting them. You lose your mind.
As someone who doesn't have a fuck of a lot of money, I don't understand
those people who are so eager to have tons of it. I think Bill Gates must
be insane. After you have earned twenty times more money than you can
possibly spend in your lifetime, why continue?
The people who created Winamp amuse me. They made gobs of money, so they
started giving their software away. Now they make freeware for fun,
because they have all the money they need.
A web page I love -- www.e-sheep.com, or is it esheep.com? -- is run by a
guy who used to be in the computer industry. He made enough money to live
on, and then left. Now he works on his web page -- an electronic comic
book -- full time.
These are sane people. Insane people never leave the workforce. There is
no "I have enough, now," for them. They're lost little critters. They
need help.
Despite what you say, Bill Gates owning billions of dollars does prevent
other people from getting to that wealth. The original idea behind money
is that it circulate. When people hoarde power, they keep it from others.
> One thing I find interesting is that lefty types tend to be artsy types,
> which may help explain why the root of all leftist misconception about
> economics is a simple misunderstanding of math.
Please! Most lefties could care less about math or the economy. Their
main point is much simpler -- wouldn't it be nice if we took care of each
other? That doesn't necessarily mean burying the poor in money.
> Well, the economy sort of is king. With a successful economy, you have
> at least some money to give the poor, pay for health care, buy those
> free heroin needles and condoms. Without a healthy economy, you have no
> money to do any of those things and suddenly everybody is poor and
> desperately in need of non-existent needles and condoms.
Funny -- the economy is extremely healthy right now, and right wingers are
still talking about privatizing the health system and the education
system. Explain that to me. Better still, let me explain it to you --
the United States would like to set up money-making hospitals and schools
in Canada. They are buying Canadian politicians. The politicians, having
been bought, are now telling us how a privatized medical system is a great
idea. And if universities have to compete with private schools, everyone
benefits! There won't be a two tiered medical system! Of course doctors
will work for socialized medicine, when they could make twice the amount
working in a private clinic.
> Being "right wing" is more about freedom and responsibility than money.
Right now, being right-wing means suspending kids from school if they
swear at a teacher. In the US of A it means a fundie christian running
for president who doesn't understand why there's no prayer in schools.
Christianity is RIGHT, after all. Is this the freedom you're talking
about?
> Yes, but you have to admire my willingness to be objective about my
> patheticness, unlike all your wretched friends who ascribe mythical
> beautific qualities to whatever dreary things they do.
I'm still waiting for the day when you describe yourself as a sorry lush
stuck inside a bottle, as opposed to some kind of enlightened being
floating around the world on a cloud of pink alcohol.
Speaking of drug addiction, I'm reading "The Man With The Golden Arm", by
Nelson Algren. Published in 1949, it's one of the first books to descibe
the lives of the working poor, junkies, etc. I prefer "Last Exit to
Brooklyn", by Hubert Selby, but "The Man With The Golden Arm" has its
moments. Lots of strange, happy little stories about pathetic drunks,
drug addicts, losers, and lost people. It's fun to read, because a lot of
the stories remind me of people I know -- you don't have to be a
poor, drunken, drugged up human in order to be "lost".
You may know the title "The Man With The Golden Arm" because it was made
into a rather crummy movie starring Frank Sinatra. The only great thing
about the movie is the soundtrack -- lots of slutty horns.
SCK
> Part of O'Rourke's becoming a right wing money-loving fuckhead is he's
> lost his sense of humour. Almost all conservative types have no sense of
> humour. You may find this hard to believe, but P.J. has become serious.
> If you want to know what P.J. O'Rourke once was like, hunt down some old
> National Lampoons from the dusty bins of used bookstores. O'Rourke used
> to be able to make me piss my pants with laughter. Now he's just a shell
> of what he once was. If you like him now, you would love what he used to
> be.
How long ago was it that you peed yourself over O'Rourke? I don't mean
when did he write it, I mean how long ago was it that you read it and
found it pee-yourself-funny? The reason I ask is because I have a chart
of the progression of your sense of humour [remember when you used to
write nothing but messages about sodomy and shit?], which goes through
five distinct phases. If you liked him during what I call your 'anus
period' then I probably won't bother.
> I don't understand the economy, and I don't want to. From what I have
> seen of the world, as soon as you start counting your pennies too closely,
This is the problem, you admit you don't understand the economy, and yet
you have a strong opinion about things which are directly related to it.
In other words, you're too lazy to learn anything, you just like having
opinions.
> These are sane people. Insane people never leave the workforce. There is
> no "I have enough, now," for them. They're lost little critters. They
> need help.
>
I agree entirely. This is why I spend so much time berating techie
career-slaves. You will probably find out when I have enough money, and
vanish out of that poison, soul-sucking cloud. Or perhaps you will just
see the masts of my ship as it glides into the sunset.
> Despite what you say, Bill Gates owning billions of dollars does prevent
> other people from getting to that wealth. The original idea behind money
> is that it circulate. When people hoarde power, they keep it from others.
>
Bill Gates isn't hording money. He doesn't have stacks of million dollar
bills piled in his basement. The computation of his wealth is based on
net worth. He owns pieces of companies, just like I own a piece of my
house. It would make no sense for me to sell my house just so that I
could spend that equity on pizza pops, and it makes no sense for Bill
Gates to liquidate his assets either. It makes even less economic sense
for him, because the only way for him to liquidate is to sell those
pieces of companies to someone else. So an equal amount of money that he
puts into the economy when he sold was just removed from the economy by
people buying his portion of the company.
But Gates pays more taxes every day than you are likely to pay in your
lifetime. In other words, he pays for more education and poor people
than you ever will. In real terms, doesn't that make him more
compassionate than you?
This is one aspect of lefty-ism that particularly irritates me: you
don't think in the real terms of quantifyable contributions, you think
in terms of how much more idealistic you are. Then instead of measuring
actual contributions to society, you measure your wishes.
Perhaps I can illustrate with an image. I am pumping water from a well
in Ethiopia. I'm drinking half the water while I fill buckets for the
dying children. You're standing there with your hands on your hips
pontificating about how all those children ought to have more water.
"That greedy fucker is taking half the water," you say to them, but
meanwhile my pumping is providing something and you are giving them
nothing. Then you turn to me and say, "All this preaching is sweaty
work, you bastard, hand some of that water to me, too."
Very few of the lefty types I know pay taxes at all. Do you pay taxes?
If you do, I bet you cheat on them. I bet you don't claim whatever you
make writing, and you don't claim the room and board you get in exchange
for being Mary Poppins. I bet you receive a GST credit in fact. What is
the difference between you and a parasite, except that the parasite is
less likely to stand there berating its host body?
In terms of real contributions to the poor and to social programs, I
give more than you, yet you reserve for yourself this luxury of calling
yourself compassionate. But do you really care about anyone but
yourself? You pay no taxes and you have 8 hours a day more free time
than I do. When was the last time you volunteered at a mission?
> Please! Most lefties could care less about math or the economy. Their
> main point is much simpler -- wouldn't it be nice if we took care of each
> other? That doesn't necessarily mean burying the poor in money.
>
I know that most lefties couldn't care less about math or the economy.
In short, you're too lazy to find out anything about the two things you
need to understand in order to have a credible opinion on the subject,
you're only interested in the narcissism of talking about some a crazed,
fairyland Xanadu amongst self-affirming peers. You lavish upon
yourselves the best qualities of human ideals and charity, and yet as a
statistical body, you are the least likely group to actually be
contributing anything at all to the people you claim to want to help.
> Funny -- the economy is extremely healthy right now, and right wingers are
> still talking about privatizing the health system and the education
> system. Explain that to me. Better still, let me explain it to you --
I don't know. I don't agree with privatizing the health system. I would
agree to a privatization of the education system as long as there was an
acceptable baseline level that would be maintained for public schools. I
would probably agree with the privatization of all post-graduate
education.
> Right now, being right-wing means suspending kids from school if they
> swear at a teacher. In the US of A it means a fundie christian running
> for president who doesn't understand why there's no prayer in schools.
> Christianity is RIGHT, after all. Is this the freedom you're talking
> about?
No, but this is a very sectional example you have given. Being
conservative is essentially believing in smaller government, less
controls and more personal autonomy. I agree with all of those things,
in principle. I don't want the government to be some stern parent saving
me from all my fuck-ups. I also don't want to be penalized for making
wise decisions.
> I'm still waiting for the day when you describe yourself as a sorry lush
> stuck inside a bottle, as opposed to some kind of enlightened being
> floating around the world on a cloud of pink alcohol.
Why are you talking to me again anyway?
Nikolaus Maack
bother talking to each other? No, really. Why? I can't figure it out.
SCK (s...@igs.net) writes:
> How long ago was it that you peed yourself over O'Rourke?
When I was a teen, I bought National Lampoon because sometimes there were
tits in it. Other times, there were very funny articles and the like. I
think it would be safe to say that the old P.J. O'Rourke stuff is not
about shit and piss and bloody tampons.
He put a book out awhile ago that was supposed to be a collection of his
old and new works, showing his evolution from hippie freakster to cigar
chomping conservative. The cover showed an old photo of him next to a new
photo of him. The contrast is amusing. Mostly the book is bad essays
about driving big cars. Still, might be a place to start looking at his
older work.
Then again, if "Modern Manners" is any example, O'Rourke is a little
touchy about his past, even as he makes fun of it. It's this aura of
sucking up to respectability that bugs me. Imagine if Hunter S. Thompson
suddenly turned around one day, became a fundie Christian, and denied ever
having had a drink in his life. That's why I hate O'Rourke. Feel free to
change, by all means! Just don't spend too much time rewriting the past
in some fit of Orwellian self-love.
> You will probably find out when I have enough money, and
> vanish out of that poison, soul-sucking cloud. Or perhaps you will just
> see the masts of my ship as it glides into the sunset.
Or as it slowly sinks to the bottom of the ocean.
> Why are you talking to me again anyway?
I started talking to you again because I am bored. No one is witty
anymore. On a good day, you're capable of wit. On a bad day, you
lecture. To be fair, I think I work much the same way. The last two
days, I think it's safe to say, have been bad days for both us.
Let's go back to saying shallow but pithy things that we can bounce back
and forth. Textual tennis is far more amusing than actually trying to
communicate. I find this out more and more. It depresses me.
However, know this -- Mike Harris cut welfare once, announcing that the
$20 he was removing was specifically the money the welfare bums were
spending on beer. I think it's safe to assume that such behavior would
shock and offend you, seeing how much you love beer.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something small and soft.
JHall
> ...
>
> On the other hand, maybe getting fired would provide you with an
> interesting experience, and a profound lesson. Just think of all that it
> would teach you! ...
And it would be based upon his (sck's) moral code (or value system -
value system being the corporate terminology for morals &/or scruples)
what a benefit !
> ...
>
> You respect this guy?
Not any more and that is not unusual as more and more give up and suck
up.
> You misunderstand me and all lefties. It's not that we don't understand
> economics -- it's that we don't like every single decision being based on
> how much money it will cost.
What ? You dislike or detest the bottom line ? Hell the 12-year olds
standing on the corner (in a mall) ain't singing barbershop harmony they
are singing the praises of the bottom line. Remember when bottom meant
something one was able to grab onto ?
> ...
Just wait until sck starts getting his sex from Mars
JHall
> ...
>
> The essential thing you don't understand is that the amount of money in
> the world is not finite.
Not quite Mr. Galbraith, not quite. But then printing one's own money
has never been allowed and printing some government's money is the
worst crime, aside from the crime of getting caught, that any one human
bean may perpetrate. Hell clinton-sucks-toes got caught indulging in
what was once a criminal act of perjury and 'cause the economy was on fire
(read making the not finite bucks multiply at the speed of lies) he was
given a full day of prime TV time to masturbate for more bucks.
> ...
> This is probably an incomprehensible explanation, but it's why you
> should read more about economics.
And you should realize that the application of fair market economy only
works in an unfair system that must be rife with corruption. You are so
unfair, you cheat, you always have and always will. You may term it
a simple twist of faith. Bullshit.
> ...
Without a healthy or without an unhealthy economy nothing would change
when measuring or evaluating the bottom line. Just the frills of the
journey would be altered.
> ...
JHall
> ...
One would hope or imagine to hope that Billy "Tenth in GNP" Shut That
Gates would turn to something more in tune with computers and humankind -
such as humankind ain't even caught up to the technological advances made
by Leonardo so there may be a gap (more beautiful females with less
clothes please) existing in our world between the societial aspects of
the machine and the physical (the doing) of said machine.
>
> You may know the title "The Man With The Golden Arm" because it was made
> into a rather crummy movie starring Frank Sinatra. The only great thing
> about the movie is the soundtrack -- lots of slutty horns.
Thank you for mentioning this fact.
sinister
> I don't understand the economy, and I don't want to.
if this is true, nik, then you can't have a valid opinion on it. thus, when
you say "funding cuts are bad" it has no meaning because you don't know what
it implies.
> From what I have seen of the world, as soon as you start counting your
> pennies too closely, you become overly concerned over who is getting them.
I agree that this is a problem, since greed-based hoarding of currency is
actually detrimental to the economy. now, if you mean managing your cash
flow, then I'd have to disagree. the overly frivolous dispersion of hard
currency is, again, detrimental to the economy as a whole.
> Please! Most lefties could care less about math or the economy. Their
> main point is much simpler -- wouldn't it be nice if we took care of each
> other?
hence, your problem. mathematics are the language that is used to express
the economy, so if you don't understand the math, you cannot understand the
economy.
your statement that leftists don't care about the economy is completely
baseless. what do you think communism is? it's an economic theory. what
you seem to be doing is bantering about the terms "right-wing" and
"left-wing" without knowing how these terms are applied. consider this:
you have a straight line. it has a left side and a right side, with respect
to the center point of the line. in the case of a purely economic
application, the line represents government (or an authority's) control over
the "natural" behaviour of the economy. the left side is absolute control
over all aspects. the right side is no control what-so-ever. this is the
so-called "left" vs. "right" economies.
consider another line. this line represents individual liberty and
responsibility. the "left" represents none (authoritarian politics) where
the government controls all aspects of your life. the "right" represents
absolute freedom (anarchy?) where the government is not responsible for you
in the least (you are responsible for yourself).
place these two lines at right angles with their centres overlapping. the
"x" axis is economic control and the "y" axis is personal responsibility.
now, you can start branding things "left" or "right" with respect to the x-y
plane. for example:
leninist soviets (bolshevism) - authoritarian policy, left economics (double
"left")
national socialism (fascism) - authoritarian policy, rightist economics
fundamentalist christians - authoritarian policy, no (central?) economics
most developed "western" countries - central policy, central economics.
socialism - left tending policy, left tending economics.
the extreme right/right model is hard to fill. the only example I can think
of are the "pirate states" along the barbary coast of africa, mozambique, or
in the caribbean of a few hundred years ago.
anyway, the willingness to help each other has little to do with economics.
it's a human nature thing, imposed or otherwise.
/sin.
JHall
On Mon, 15 May 2000, sinister wrote:
> ...
> hence, your problem. mathematics are the language that is used to express
> the economy
is the language of the universe
> ...
SCK
> the extreme right/right model is hard to fill. the only example I can think
> of are the "pirate states" along the barbary coast of africa, mozambique, or
> in the caribbean of a few hundred years ago.
>
I don't think there are any modern day examples of absolute right-wing
economics, unless you count illegal ones such as Colombia's
FARC-controlled rebel northern half.
Hong Kong is probably the closest in developed terms. Flat 15% tax rate,
extremely minimal subsidizing, no import or export tarrifs, no minimum
wage. I think Hong Kong also has the highest per capita GDP.
Nikolaus Maack
> you say "funding cuts are bad" it has no meaning because you don't know what
> it implies.
I think I don't require a knowledge of the economy to comment on the one
aspect of current "budget cuts" that has me fuming. Mike Harris has been
cutting welfare to beyond the bone, cutting money he claims is "welfare
beer money", slashing the budgets of homeless shelters and welfare
programs to the point of insanity.
This is the "budget cutting" that irks me, and this cutting has nothing to
do with the economy or saving money or even cutting taxes. It has to do
with a hatred for the poor.
Do you disagree?
> your statement that leftists don't care about the economy is completely
> baseless. what do you think communism is? it's an economic theory.
Remember when politics used to be about more than JUST money?
> anyway, the willingness to help each other has little to do with
> economics. it's a human nature thing, imposed or otherwise.
Mike Harris has the human nature of a decaying tree stump.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
SCK
> A serious question, despite it's seemingly snide tone -- why do people
> bother talking to each other? No, really. Why? I can't figure it out.
>
"People" talk to each other for different reasons, depending on the kind
of people they are. I talk to people as a kind of experimental video
game. One day I'll probably complete my experiments and move so far away
from society as to make my swamp look like a space colony. You all
disgust me.
Average people talk to each other because it's a kind of accepted trade
agreement for air time. They talk to each other to provide opportunities
to talk about themselves. I usually figure that what is going through
the average person's mind during any conversation is the repeated drone
of their subconscious, "Can I interject about me now?", "Is there
something I can add to this which will extend this person's appreciation
of me, or advance my appreciation of myself?"
I suspect you talk to people because it is one of your few means of
feeling like you are a part of something larger than yourself.
Yesterday, Ann Landers told a man in his 30s who pees his bed at night
that he has a passive-aggressive disorder. That subconsciously he has
control issues with his wife and wants to pee on her. How depressing
does the world get?
But it made me think of you. It made me wonder about your girlfriend
actually. I'm not even sure I know who she is, but you sometimes refer
to her in your Themestream tear drops. An image of this person has been
forming in my mind for a while, and I get the impression that you make
her feel unappreciated and dumb. Something about the way your morality
has been manifesting itself since you're talking to me again. I don't
know what it is, but would you say there is any validity to this
impression?
Incidentally, your Gavin story was sub-par. It was boring in the way
that an old man might reminisce about a love he had for the woman before
he married your grandma. But there was one momentarily forehead-whapping
part for me. Throughout the whole story I'd assumed that the Andrew you
were talking about was Nellis. Then you got to the part about Andrew
losing his virginity and I think my eyebrows did some kind of inhuman
gymnastics.
> However, know this -- Mike Harris cut welfare once, announcing that the
> $20 he was removing was specifically the money the welfare bums were
> spending on beer. I think it's safe to assume that such behavior would
> shock and offend you, seeing how much you love beer.
Naw, the only thing shocking about this is how I have ruined alcohol for
you and all your acquaintances forever. I like the way you can't look at
even the remotest things on the planet without tieing them to beer now.
It amuses me that the most super-competent person on the planet, a man
confident, successful, capable of anything, could knock on your door and
if he had a beer in his hand, all your prejudices of me would surface
unbidden to the fore of your mind and cause you to regard this man with
immediate suspicion and distaste, and ultimately cast the merit of your
life of abject dependency and intellectual risklessness to a higher
moral plateau.
Hmmm, I think I should have a poker game.
sinister
> This is the "budget cutting" that irks me, and this cutting has nothing to do
> with the economy or saving money or even cutting taxes. It has to do with a
> hatred for the poor.
I think that you're basically correct when you say it has little to do with the
economy, cutting taxes, et al. my opinion is that is has everything to do with
maintaining power and having the party re-elected. I don't think that harris and
his cronies sit around saying "how can we screw the poor today?". it's more
likely something more tactical like " lets pick on public services because the
number of voters who subscribe to these programmes are far exceeded by those who
don't and many of those who don't can be manipulated into seeing these programmes
as money wasted".
infrastructure expenditures (call boxes on highways, highway maintenance,
telecommunications, health care, citizen support programmes, et cetera) are
things that do not directly generate revenue. it's easy to convince oneself that
these are not necessary or can be put off until later. I think it's a hollow
argument since a strong infrastructure better supports the citizens.
politically, I believe that government should serve in the interest of its
citizens. that said, my opinion is that a society will grow into a larger
infrastructure easier than the infrastructure enlarging to satisfy the society.
in fact, the infrastructure can be used to "guide" the advancement of the
citizens.
(I should state here that the above paragraph is pretty "left wing", but I'm a
political schizophrenic.)
I've noticed a great deal of passion in your prose when you write about the
current ontario government. I can only conclude that this is due to these
policies having a direct effect on you personally. if this is so, then you
certainly have the right to complain about it.
for myself, I have little to no faith in the government providing anything for me
and I plan accordingly.
/sin.
Nikolaus Maack
> "People" talk to each other for different reasons, depending on the kind
> of people they are. I talk to people as a kind of experimental video
> game.
I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to feel the same way. Especially on
usenet, anyway. I don't know how big a fan of me you are, but I have
everyone in alt.surrealism scared of me. They can never tell when I'm
joking and when I'm not. They think I'm always out to manipulate them. I
lay out my latest kooky theory and they all start screaming. They spend
all their time saying they're going to ignore me, and then spend all their
time insulting me and making theories about me.
It's fun. If you're looking for new toys to break, I suggest you check it
out.
In real life, I tend to see other people as different camera angles. That
is, if I have an idea about something, I enjoy asking a person about it,
and trying to get their perspective. This gives me further perspective on
something I am contemplating. That sounds rather cold and miserable --
these cameras have feelings towards the subjects...
I also like hearing how other people think and feel. When someone tells
me some autobiographical story about their childhood, their adulthood,
what it's like at their work, some picture of the inside of their head,
I'm fascinated. I like hearing about other people's lives.
Unfortunately, people tend to prefer talking about how they think and what
they believe. People will gleefully tell you all about their opinions on
abortion, capital punishment, etc, but will very rarely tell you what it
was like to undergo an abortion, or for that matter, what they did this
week. Probably because they didn't do anything this week worth
mentioning -- or because they assume that whatever they did is simply
boring. Too bad.
> Average people talk to each other because it's a kind of accepted trade
> agreement for air time. They talk to each other to provide opportunities
> to talk about themselves.
Sounds about right.
> I suspect you talk to people because it is one of your few means of
> feeling like you are a part of something larger than yourself.
I do like that, yes. I guess that's a different way of wording what I
said in the above. But I prefer talking to ONE other person, one on one,
and get the low down of their perspective.
> It made me wonder about your girlfriend
> actually. I'm not even sure I know who she is, but you sometimes refer
> to her in your Themestream tear drops. An image of this person has been
> forming in my mind for a while, and I get the impression that you make
> her feel unappreciated and dumb. Something about the way your morality
> has been manifesting itself since you're talking to me again. I don't
> know what it is, but would you say there is any validity to this
> impression?
Jesus, Steve. You won't even tell me your girlfriend's goddamn name --
let alone whether she's a NEW girlfriend or an old one. Yet here you are,
grilling me for info?
Quid quo pro, Mr. Lecter?
I don't think I make her feel unappreciated and dumb, no. Quite the
opposite, I try to encourage her to do what she wants to do, be what she
wants to be. Like many people -- me, you (though you'd probably never
admit it), Nellis (though he'd never admit it) -- she's got low self
esteem.
Her name is Michelle Tribe, by the way.
> Incidentally, your Gavin story was sub-par. It was boring in the way
> that an old man might reminisce about a love he had for the woman before
> he married your grandma.
Oh well. It was something I was thinking about. Not sure how I could
make it any more interesting. I like reading autobiographical stuff and I
enjoy writing it.
> But there was one momentarily forehead-whapping
> part for me. Throughout the whole story I'd assumed that the Andrew you
> were talking about was Nellis. Then you got to the part about Andrew
> losing his virginity and I think my eyebrows did some kind of inhuman
> gymnastics.
Yes, it's a very different Andrew.
>
> Naw, the only thing shocking about this is how I have ruined alcohol for
> you and all your acquaintances forever.
As usual, you over-estimate your impact -- but don't we all?
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
SCK
> I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to feel the same way. Especially on
> usenet, anyway. I don't know how big a fan of me you are, but I have
> everyone in alt.surrealism scared of me. They can never tell when I'm
I'm only a modest fan of you, and I don't read alt.surrealism. I looked
in there a couple times more than a year ago and found little of
redeeming value. It briefly occurred to me that I could write a computer
program which could emulate most of the messages that appear there. I
have never been very interested in the formation of images through
near-random word association. It's a kind of feeble, talentless gutter
writing, like slightly better spelled conspiracy theories spray painted
onto railroad tracks by James Hall.
> It's fun. If you're looking for new toys to break, I suggest you check it
> out.
>
I'm trying to break myself.
> I do like that, yes. I guess that's a different way of wording what I
> said in the above. But I prefer talking to ONE other person, one on one,
> and get the low down of their perspective.
>
I don't have a preference, they're separate types of communication
entirely. I like watching group dynamics just as much as I enjoy talking
to another person, but I have different expectations of both of these
circumstances. I like discussing the dynamics of the conversation
itself, in a group. There is something intriguing about being able to
change the tonality of a surface conversation, for instance, by
remarking on the participants' body language.
And I have a knack for dead-panning intrusive questions.
> Jesus, Steve. You won't even tell me your girlfriend's goddamn name --
> let alone whether she's a NEW girlfriend or an old one. Yet here you are,
> grilling me for info?
>
I didn't know it was a serious question, because it seems so
uninteresting and neutral. I guess I don't appreciate whatever
significance you attach to someone being "NEW". Yes, she is "NEW". Her
name is Dre, which is pronounced like Dr. Dre, except without the
underlying hep stench of a rap lyric.
> I don't think I make her feel unappreciated and dumb, no. Quite the
> opposite, I try to encourage her to do what she wants to do, be what she
> wants to be. Like many people -- me, you (though you'd probably never
> admit it), Nellis (though he'd never admit it) -- she's got low self
> esteem.
I probably misspoke. I have no doubt that you are encouraging. I expect
that you have been that way with all your girlfriends, and it is your
general policy towards your friends as well. I think you are eager to
encourage. I meant that you make her feel unappreciated in a more
indirect way, that perhaps you are oblivious to the value of her
achievements because you do not acknowledge that value, and that you
unknowlingly refer to those qualities with derision through the praises
you are more likely to express for your own, and say, Nellis' lifestyle.
I don't any relevent examples, it's just an instinct.
> Oh well. It was something I was thinking about. Not sure how I could
> make it any more interesting. I like reading autobiographical stuff and I
> enjoy writing it.
>
I didn't think much of your Battlefield Earth review, either. Somehow
you fall short on imagery in describing how atrocious something can be.
You should take lessons from O'Rourke on that score. But you may be
amused to know that your weird town-criering for your Themestream
articles has finally breached the membrane between the outside world and
our internal newsgroups at work with your Battlefield Earth review.
Someone posted an internal link to your article, mostly because battles
about the merits of every science fiction movie rage like armies of
dyslexic cockroaches amongst our internal newsgroups.
Nikolaus Maack
> I'm only a modest fan of you, and I don't read alt.surrealism.
I'm a big fan of me, and I'm tempted not to read it. I once again find
myself in the bizarre situation where I'm in a man's killfile, but he
responds to any material of mine that gets quoted by anyone else. Ever
been in that situation? They hate you, so they don't want to read you,
but they can't stop talking to you or about you, even as they ignore you.
> I
> have never been very interested in the formation of images through
> near-random word association. It's a kind of feeble, talentless gutter
> writing, like slightly better spelled conspiracy theories spray painted
> onto railroad tracks by James Hall.
It's sometimes an interesting place to start -- type at random, create a
mess of text, and then pluck images out of the mess and make it into
something. Sculpt the gibberish.
What's very funny is that the surrealists pretend that they write it all
at random, never shaping, never doing rewrites. They sneer at such work.
If you bug them a little, they'll reluctantly admit to rewriting -- which
is funny. Ever notice how in writing circles people like to pretend the
text came out perfectly the first time?
> I'm trying to break myself.
Good luck.
> I like watching group dynamics just as much as I enjoy talking
> to another person, but I have different expectations of both of these
> circumstances.
I find toying with groups rather boring, lately. What seems to happen
most often is there's the CORE group, a cluster of "normals", who loudly
proclaim the TRUTH. Everyone else falls silent, not wanting to a) look
silly in the face of the core group or b) start a fight. Trying to drag
people out into the open -- "You don't agree with them, do you?" --
results in scared people hiding under rocks.
In alt.surrealism, I've watched the core group scare away all the
interesting people. The people who leave inevitably write me email
saying, "I can't take it anymore," as they walk on out.
I instinctively hate the core group of any cluster of people. The
in-crowd always strikes me as loathesome, and I wish to destroy them. Why
do you suppose that is? Because I could never join them? Because I know
I can never fake being one of them? Because I want people to hate me?
Does this doom me to a life of living in basements, hating people?
I'm sure you must have similar feelings.
> Her
> name is Dre, which is pronounced like Dr. Dre, except without the
> underlying hep stench of a rap lyric.
Is there more to her than a name? Tell me more, if it suits your fancy.
Age, measurements, turn-offs, turn-ons, etc.
> I meant that you make her feel unappreciated in a more
> indirect way, that perhaps you are oblivious to the value of her
> achievements because you do not acknowledge that value, and that you
> unknowlingly refer to those qualities with derision through the praises
> you are more likely to express for your own, and say, Nellis' lifestyle.
> I don't any relevent examples, it's just an instinct.
I think you're wrong, so, um, oh well.
Michelle has an apartment, is working on an anthropology degree, and works
for the humane society. Her life is quite busy. My life is almost the
opposite. I have some minor duties, my food and shelter are taken care
of, and I can paint and write whenever I want. While I like my life, I
often envy hers. She has a "real job" with "real hours" and "real pay".
When I finish a painting or a piece of writing, there's no guarantee I'll
make ANY money. It could be a complete waste of time. It often is.
Michelle ends up telling me that I'm not wasting my time, and encourages
me in what I'm doing. I don't belittle her for what she's doing. I envy
her. Which, presumably, means I have to stop doing what it is I'm doing.
I'm not as much of a social drop out as Nellis is.
I've been mulling over, for almost a year now, a plan. I can't decide
which plan to act on.
1) Go back to school, do more work in psych, with the goal of eventually
being a therapist.
2) Forget school, try to set up a business now, working as a counselor.
Being a counselor doesn't require any kind of a degree.
I am torn between the two.
> I didn't think much of your Battlefield Earth review, either. Somehow
> you fall short on imagery in describing how atrocious something can be.
That was kind of the point, though -- it wasn't that bad. It was just
dull. The movie, I mean -- not my article.
You didn't like the line about the movie smelling like "a rotting dolphin
corpse thrown in a dumpster full of month-old dirty diapers"?
> But you may be
> amused to know that your weird town-criering for your Themestream
> articles has finally breached the membrane between the outside world and
> our internal newsgroups at work with your Battlefield Earth review.
> Someone posted an internal link to your article, mostly because battles
> about the merits of every science fiction movie rage like armies of
> dyslexic cockroaches amongst our internal newsgroups.
I was very surprised when the Battlefield Earth review got over 200 hits
within 24 hours. It's at 240 hits now, which means it's earned me US$24.
I didn't think anyone could possibly care about this rather idiotic movie.
I'm becoming somewhat addicted to ThemeStream. Right now I've made over
US$200 for posting stuff that I'd post for free on usenet. The "town
criering" is what's been getting me the hits, actually. No wonder people
spam usenet.
Some of the depressing things I've noticed:
1) Sex sells. When I mentioned the word "clitoris" in a post, it got hits
like crazy. When I advertised a poem as "Ugly People Fucking" -- the
online title is actually "Ugly Lovers" -- the hits when through the roof.
2) Anything I write that is vaguely contraversial gets a three star
rating, but lots and lots of hits. The Battlefield Earth review, which
some prudes might consider offensive, has a 3 star rating.
3) No one in the poetry groups actually reads other people's poetry. Same
goes for short stories. People post their own poetry, wanting to be read,
and ignore all the poetry posted. This goes for usenet as well as
ThemeStream.
Any ideas on what sort of thing I can write, drawing massive clouds of
mosquitoes to me, earning mega-bucks? Let's consider it a science
experiment. How to draw flies. Keep in mind that I do want to stay in
character, but I'm willing to bend that to get the dough.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
SCK
> I'm a big fan of me, and I'm tempted not to read it. I once again find
> myself in the bizarre situation where I'm in a man's killfile, but he
> responds to any material of mine that gets quoted by anyone else. Ever
> been in that situation?
Yes, with Richter when he was calling John a bigot all over ott.general.
I've never really understood killfiles myself. Since I participate in
very few newsgroups, I like to understand the tenor of the newsgroup,
which is difficult to do if you have made half of it invisible. If I
post a message to ott.singles that I anticipate generating replies, and
it doesn't, I like to understand why it doesn't. For instance, perhaps
because I posted it at the same time that James Hall went on one of his
psychotic thousand-message rampages where he jabbers incoherently and
repeats the same buzzwords like a berserk robot. I like to understand
that my message wasn't necessarily as unprovoking (or evil) as I
thought, but that it simply suffered from asphyxiation from James
bashing the newsgroup with a million-pound shithammer.
Also, killfiling people you dislike is a kind of child's
hold-your-breath-until-you-turn-blue tactic. The motive for killfiling
someone is for one reason: so that you have the opportunity to point out
to your victim that you have killfiled them. It's a power-seizing move
by people who can garner no power from their words, like a person who
secretly fanasizes about suicide in a "They'll feel bad when I'm gone"
jealous idiot way.
> What's very funny is that the surrealists pretend that they write it all
> at random, never shaping, never doing rewrites. They sneer at such work.
> If you bug them a little, they'll reluctantly admit to rewriting -- which
> is funny. Ever notice how in writing circles people like to pretend the
> text came out perfectly the first time?
>
I still have no idea what a "surrealist" is supposed to be. I remember
reading about one of your schemes somewhere, to stick vegetables in
phone booths or something as an act of surrealism. What struck me as a
little backwards about this is that while it may have its own merit, it
is essentially you trying to give surreal experiences to other people
and then fiendishly relishing the small havoc you have wreaked upon
their everyday existence. This is also what the alt.surrealists do. I
would think it would be a nobler effort to try to inject yourself into
surreal experiences instead, and wreak the havoc upon yourself.
>
> I'm sure you must have similar feelings.
>
Yes, except I generally hate the core group and the rebel faction.
> Is there more to her than a name? Tell me more, if it suits your fancy.
> Age, measurements, turn-offs, turn-ons, etc.
>
She's 20 and a journalism student. She's an insane Mike Harris-hating
lefty like you. Her turn-offs are environmental pullution, right-wing
conservatism and caterpillars. Her turn-ons are beavers, writing, and
me. She's basically Lisa Simpson.
> Michelle has an apartment, is working on an anthropology degree, and works
> for the humane society. Her life is quite busy. My life is almost the
> opposite. I have some minor duties, my food and shelter are taken care
> of, and I can paint and write whenever I want. While I like my life, I
> often envy hers. She has a "real job" with "real hours" and "real pay".
For some reason I picture her being a family-oriented person, with
strong familial ties and values. Why do you think it is she encourages
you in your lifestyle?
> 2) Forget school, try to set up a business now, working as a counselor.
> Being a counselor doesn't require any kind of a degree.
>
What exactly is a counsellor?
> I'm becoming somewhat addicted to ThemeStream. Right now I've made over
> US$200 for posting stuff that I'd post for free on usenet. The "town
> criering" is what's been getting me the hits, actually. No wonder people
> spam usenet.
>
Themestream has done some coy eyelash-batting at me, but only because I
thought it might be amusing to compete with you for infamy, and because
I am poor now. Have you actually received any money from them? There
were two things that concerned me in their FAQ. The first was that they
can only pay you in US funds drawn on a US bank, which, unless you have
some magical trick or a very friendly bank, you can't cash. The second
was that after the preview period, their pay rates would probably
change.
Michael T. Richter
Please try harder.
Nikolaus Maack
> I've never really understood killfiles myself.
I tried using them once, long time ago. I decided to try and follow
talk.bizarre. At the time the group was crammed full of posts every day.
I figured I'd filter out the people who didn't seem interesting. Without
telling anyone, I'd nuke their asses if they posted five or six dull
messages in a row.
In the end, there were just too many boring people in the group
altogether, so I killfiled everyone -- I left the newsgroup.
> I still have no idea what a "surrealist" is supposed to be.
Frankly, me either. Originally they were supposed to be about uniting the
conscious and subconscious as one. That is, through art and games, try to
understand yourself entirely. So they got hung up on all the stuff Freud
and Jung like -- dreams, automatic writing/speech, tarot, iching, etc.
Who am I, really, down there in the dark parts I don't like looking at?
Later, the idea got bent a bit -- try making other people have flashes of
insight by confronting them with weirdness. Make 'em take a new look at
the world. An onion in a phone booth is one way to startly people just a
little bit. Some people see this as a perversion of surrealism. It's
supposed to be about me exploring myself, not me making other people have
experiences. I think ideally it would be both, but, whatever.
The surrealists in the newsgroup no longer talk about "liberating the
subconscious". Like many other modern thinkers, the idea of the
subconscious really pisses them off. It doesn't exist, they say. They
don't even buy it as a metaphor for human experience. Now, instead of
liberating the subconscious, they use the buzz-phrase "liberating the
imagination" -- whatever that means.
It seems to translate into hating TV and hating corporate America and
hating capitalism -- they see all of these things as repressing the
imagination.
I still like the idea of the subconscious. Even if dissection of the
brain reveals there's no such place, it strikes me as a useful metaphor
for my experience of the part of me that isn't thinking right now.
> I remember
> reading about one of your schemes somewhere, to stick vegetables in
> phone booths or something as an act of surrealism. What struck me as a
> little backwards about this is that while it may have its own merit, it
> is essentially you trying to give surreal experiences to other people
> and then fiendishly relishing the small havoc you have wreaked upon
> their everyday existence.
Fiendishly relishing? There's no way to know what their experience is --
or even if it leaves them with an experience. I don't know.
What I do know is that I like walking around and stumbling across strange
things. Some friends and I once stumbled across a lone zucchini in a
parking garage. That was neat. Or the time I came across the "penis
mould" -- two halves of a mould for making a huge dildo -- sitting on the
Eaton's bridge. Those sorts of experiences delight me, and it would be
kind of neat to help others have similar experiences.
>wreak the havoc upon yourself.
That seems to be the sort of thing the surrealists in alt.surrealism
advocate, only, as far as I can tell, they wreak this havoc by writing bad
poetry and then doing nothing with it.
> Yes, except I generally hate the core group and the rebel faction.
I'm never too fond of rebels either, actually. Any organized group of
people depresses me.
> She's 20 and a journalism student. She's an insane Mike Harris-hating
> lefty like you. Her turn-offs are environmental pullution, right-wing
> conservatism and caterpillars. Her turn-ons are beavers, writing, and
> me. She's basically Lisa Simpson.
20? Isn't she a little old for you? I thought you were going to stick
strictly to high school kids.
> For some reason I picture her being a family-oriented person, with
> strong familial ties and values. Why do you think it is she encourages
> you in your lifestyle?
All your mental snapshots are coming out blurry, with your thumb taking up
most of the landscape. Michelle doesn't want kids, isn't keen on family
values, etc. She's more than a little horrified by the people at her work
buy into the whole "big house, three kids, and a picket fence" package.
Why does she encourage me? Because she herself wants to make art, but is
having trouble letting herself do it. She's big on photography, but finds
it hard to do photography. I'm trying to encourage her, but in the end
it's her choice whether or not she wants to push herself.
> What exactly is a counsellor?
Basically a counsellor is a therapist without a degree. Somebody comes to
me with some kind of problem, and I try to help them figure it out.
Typical therapy kind of stuff, minus the couch -- unless I want to go that
route.
[ThemeStream]
> Have you actually received any money from them?
They pay money quarterly. I came in too late to get in on the first round
of payments. The next one is in July or August, I believe.
> The first was that they
> can only pay you in US funds drawn on a US bank, which, unless you have
> some magical trick or a very friendly bank, you can't cash.
Well, I opened up an American funds account at the Royal Bank -- I've been
depositing porn profits in there. Problem solved. However, I think that
you can deposit an American check into an ordinary Canadian funds account.
You just have to speak to a real live teller type person -- I still have
to do that to deposit money into my yank account. The bank machines don't
let you make American deposits, for some reason.
> The second
> was that after the preview period, their pay rates would probably
> change.
Yeah, they're supposed to drop from ten cents to two cents. It'll
be interesting to see if that does happen. I wonder how many people will
stick around, if it does?
Nikolaus Maack
Jeeze, HOW? Is there anything he could be doing that he isn't doing
already?
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
Michael T. Richter
news:8g2069$f0g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>>> I'm trying to break myself.
>> Please try harder.
> Jeeze, HOW? Is there anything he could be doing that he isn't
> doing already?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440507855/qid=958744547/sr=1-1/102-9
005949-2208002
Frankly, anybody who says he's trying to break himself who isn't broken
after a single day just isn't trying hard enough. Indeed, I suspect abject
cowardice.
--
"It seems that there are two equal and opposite mistakes one can make
about Star Trek. One is to find in it a worthy ideology - the other to
find in it an ideology worthy of refutation." -- Michael V. Voytinsky
SCK
>
> > I'm trying to break myself.
>
> Please try harder.
I like the way you can always be counted on to deliver the obvious
lines, the ones the audience all slaps their foreheads over, that all
the other actors' artistic integrity compelled them to call their agents
and have scratched from their scripts. You're like one never-ending I
Love Lucy episode.
I am becoming suspicious of all these coquettish little follow-ups of
yours. Are you in love with me?
SCK
> > I still have no idea what a "surrealist" is supposed to be.
>
> Frankly, me either. Originally they were supposed to be about uniting the
> conscious and subconscious as one. That is, through art and games, try to
> understand yourself entirely.
I don't understand why that would be called surreal. It seems more like
the opposite. Surrealism was a movement that began in France in the
early 20th century. It was the art of creating dissonant combinations of
images. Uniting your subconscious and conscious into one sounds more
like a deliberate rejection of surrealism.
> the world. An onion in a phone booth is one way to startly people just a
> little bit. Some people see this as a perversion of surrealism. It's
> supposed to be about me exploring myself, not me making other people have
> experiences. I think ideally it would be both, but, whatever.
>
I think your surrealist friends have appropriated a word they just like
the sound of. Your example of an onion in a phonebooth presented for
other people is much more in keeping with the original surrealist
movement. The original movement, as far as I know, had nothing to do
with exploring yourself. Maybe the words "self exploration" are just too
pedestrian for them and don't have the right cachet to lure in more and
more mindless pseudo-writers.
> I still like the idea of the subconscious. Even if dissection of the
> brain reveals there's no such place, it strikes me as a useful metaphor
> for my experience of the part of me that isn't thinking right now.
>
I didn't know there was any doubt about the existence of the
subconscious. My own explorations of me have left me without any doubt
about it. Too bad mine is evil.
> What I do know is that I like walking around and stumbling across strange
> things. Some friends and I once stumbled across a lone zucchini in a
> parking garage. That was neat. Or the time I came across the "penis
> mould" -- two halves of a mould for making a huge dildo -- sitting on the
> Eaton's bridge. Those sorts of experiences delight me, and it would be
> kind of neat to help others have similar experiences.
>
So, (he exhorts futilely once more), travel. Travelling is one big
stream of stumbling across strange things. That's where home-sickness
comes from, a desire to be surrounded by the familiar.
> That seems to be the sort of thing the surrealists in alt.surrealism
> advocate, only, as far as I can tell, they wreak this havoc by writing bad
> poetry and then doing nothing with it.
>
Send them to the cafe. Saturday Night is 'Bad Poetry Night', at least
they can read it for an audience of unappreciative coffee snobs,
although I think Vermin might have killed it by only reading his weepy,
lovelorn odes to Vanessa.
> All your mental snapshots are coming out blurry, with your thumb taking up
> most of the landscape. Michelle doesn't want kids, isn't keen on family
> values, etc. She's more than a little horrified by the people at
Yes, it's obvious now that I had been getting the wrong impression. But
it all makes a lot more sense now that I know who she is. I have some
familiarity with one of her ex's. I'm glad she's moved up a couple rungs
on the boyfriend ladder.
No, I have no real problems with you posting your Martini Bar story to
Themestream. It is, after all, more about you than me.
Nikolaus Maack
> Are you in love with me?
Richter is single, if you want me to set you up with him. I think it
would do you a world of good.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
Nikolaus Maack
> I don't understand why that would be called surreal. It seems more like
> the opposite. Surrealism was a movement that began in France in the
> early 20th century. It was the art of creating dissonant combinations of
> images. Uniting your subconscious and conscious into one sounds more
> like a deliberate rejection of surrealism.
These dissonant combinations are supposed to break up the false reality
around you, and expose the real reality beneath it. Or so the story goes.
The surrealist movement started off as a literary thing, not a visual one,
by the way.
> I think your surrealist friends have appropriated a word they just like
> the sound of.
That's what they accuse me of doing, actually -- they're the ones who read
all the manifestos and poems and statements by all the people who were in
the original surrealist movement. I read a biography of the founder,
Andre Breton, flipped through some collection of surrealist written works,
and did some other minor research. These people eat, breathe, sleep
surrealism. Which is funny, because they get really mad when I quote
surrealist history at them -- they insist I am biased, for some reason.
Of course a good argument could be made that these "friends" of mine have
moved so far from the original notion of surrealism that they no longer
have any rights to the word.
> I didn't know there was any doubt about the existence of the
> subconscious. My own explorations of me have left me without any doubt
> about it. Too bad mine is evil.
Yes, a growing number of people say there is no such thing as the
subconscious. I suspect it's because they are repressing all evidence of
the subconscious into the subconscious. Then they have dreams about a
tiny voice inside themselves that they never can quite make out. Upon
waking they dismiss the dream -- as they dismiss all dreams -- as
gibberish.
> So, (he exhorts futilely once more), travel. Travelling is one big
> stream of stumbling across strange things. That's where home-sickness
> comes from, a desire to be surrounded by the familiar.
Hmm. I never thought of it that way before.
> I have some
> familiarity with one of her ex's. I'm glad she's moved up a couple rungs
> on the boyfriend ladder.
What kind of familiarity, might I ask, at the risk of summoning him forth
like some sort of demon? I attempted to grill him in email, and later in
a newsgroup. He is extremely unpleasant and defensive -- like an ugly,
yapping dog with a permanent, hideous, comical erection.
> No, I have no real problems with you posting your Martini Bar story to
> Themestream. It is, after all, more about you than me.
Keen.
JHall
> "Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:8g2069$f0g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> >>> I'm trying to break myself.
>
> >> Please try harder.
>
> > Jeeze, HOW? Is there anything he could be doing that he isn't
> > doing already?
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0440507855/qid=958744547/sr=1-1/102-9
> 005949-2208002
>
> Frankly, anybody who says he's trying to break himself who isn't broken
> after a single day just isn't trying hard enough. Indeed, I suspect abject
> cowardice.
Or outright lying. Both suck.
JHall
On Fri, 19 May 2000, SCK wrote:
> ...
>
> I am becoming suspicious of all these coquettish little follow-ups of
> yours. Are you in love with me?
the circle jerk.
Impossible to love you, you love yourself way cool too much.
Now being captivated that's a different horse, if not a jackass.
So what piece of your now famous routine swept wee, young Dre (oh my god
what an 80's name, how original, kinda like Mike spelled Myke) off her
pins and onto her knees and into your heart ?
Did you have Mopsy put in a GW ?
JHall
On 19 May 2000, Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> ...
> > So, (he exhorts futilely once more), travel. Travelling is one big
> > stream of stumbling across strange things. That's where home-sickness
> > comes from, a desire to be surrounded by the familiar.
>
> Hmm. I never thought of it that way before.
An aside: you figure yourself a writer ? Just what the hell did you
believe homesickness to be ? Away from the clit ?
> ...
> What kind of familiarity, might I ask, at the risk of summoning him forth
> like some sort of demon? I attempted to grill him in email, and later in
> a newsgroup. He is extremely unpleasant and defensive -- like an ugly,
> yapping dog with a permanent, hideous, comical erection.
are just one hellofaguy with all the social skills of a brick wall. Truly
ironic don't you believe ?
> ...
> Keen.
yea like way cool, almost loke groovy mama.
JHall
On Fri, 19 May 2000, SCK wrote:
> ...
> No, I have no real problems with you posting your Martini Bar story to
> Themestream. It is, after all, more about you than me.
being about you 2.
Both of you run amok - one all over the face of the universe the other
within the safety of oneself.
Now if I could only melt the both into one I would be the world's finest
alchemist but would the achievement be bittersweet or sweetly bitter ?
Who cares ?
JHall
On 19 May 2000, Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> SCK (s...@igs.net) writes to MTR:
> > Are you in love with me?
>
> Richter is single, if you want me to set you up with him. I think it
> would do you a world of good.
coy, if not somewhat pretentious. Many have always believed that you
(nik) and sck were, and still are, the perfect couple. When will you
2 come to realize and understand this ?
SCK
> surrealism. Which is funny, because they get really mad when I quote
> surrealist history at them -- they insist I am biased, for some reason.
>
It seems like an exercise in futility to me. What's the point of
convincing a whole bunch of supposed "surrealists" that they aren't?
Obviously they want to believe they are, so what do you get out of it?
Judging by their messages, they are collectively too stupid to
understand reasoned explanations anyway. I have a duck that thinks it's
a chicken. No amount of convincing the duck makes it believe it's not a
chicken, it just doesn't want to. And the duck just doesn't have the
faculties to understand the value of truths.
> Yes, a growing number of people say there is no such thing as the
> subconscious. I suspect it's because they are repressing all evidence of
> the subconscious into the subconscious. Then they have dreams about a
I don't see how there can _not_ be a subconscious. I'm vaguely
concentrating on writing this e-mail to you and thinking a few other
things simultaneously, but my brain would suddenly zap me awake if
something that demanded my attention reached my senses. I am not
consciously filtering in and out the non-emergency noises going on
around me and deciding which ones to snap awake for, so who is?
I took a moment right here to pause and actively listen to what is going
on around me. While I was writing that paragraph, a fan was buzzing
about six feet from me and a loud argument in Hindi was (is) going on
somewhere down the hall. I was still physically hearing these things
before, but I wasn't consciously thinking at every moment: ignore this.
I wasn't even aware of the conversation at all, until I stopped to
listen, but my ears were still hearing it before.
> What kind of familiarity, might I ask, at the risk of summoning him forth
> like some sort of demon? I attempted to grill him in email, and later in
> a newsgroup. He is extremely unpleasant and defensive -- like an ugly,
> yapping dog with a permanent, hideous, comical erection.
>
I don't know, all those Bombshelter frat boys are indistinguishable from
one another to me. I think of them collectively as a single insane Mynah
bird screeching incoherently to itself in a hall of mirrors. I met the
bird once and they wouldn't introduce themselves. I met it once again
and they kept sending notes written on napkins to me. The one with the
buzz-cut and the begging eyes. He brought me one of the napkin notes
personally once and I shoved it into his mouth.
thepersoniam
SCK wrote:
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> > O'Rourke is just like every other hippie turned yuppie -- "I could have
> > ideals, but that would mean a drop in salary."
> >
> > You respect this guy?
> >
>
> Yes, he's a great, and especially creative writer. Although, I have no
> experience with his earlier stuff. I think aside from the ones I've
> mentioned, I've only read, "Holidays in Hell". He's also a creative
> "thinker". Turning away from the predictable sew-on badge ideals of
> hippie-dom was probably one of the best things he ever did, like being
> emancipated or finally digging his way out of a tire fire.
>
> Personally, I think he just got fed up with other peoples' stupidity.
>
> > You misunderstand me and all lefties. It's not that we don't understand
> > economics -- it's that we don't like every single decision being based on
> > how much money it will cost.
> >
>
> Everybody thinks they understand economics. You think you understand it
> intuitively, without ever having read a single book about it. You
> probably don't know what a futures contract or a mutual fund is, but you
> think you know how the economy works.
>
> One thing I find interesting is that lefty types tend to be artsy types,
> which may help explain why the root of all leftist misconception about
> economics is a simple misunderstanding of math.
>
> The essential thing you don't understand is that the amount of money in
> the world is not finite. For every bathtub full of money I take, there
> is not one bathtub less for you. My wealth does not create your poverty.
> This is a difficult concept to grasp, and it is why lefty types are
> always advocating that those people with money should give so much of it
> away. You see money as a zero sum equation, where a dollar that I have
> is a dollar that a homeless person doesn't have. This just isn't true.
> There is a bottomless pit of money. Huge piles of dollars come into
> existence out of nowhere every day because money is created from nothing
> but ideas and the shifting weight of value. A dollar I have is a dollar
> I reached in and took. A dollar a homeless person doesn't have is not
> the dollar I took, it is the dollar he didn't reach in and take.
>
> This is probably an incomprehensible explanation, but it's why you
> should read more about economics.
>
> > That, and right wingers live on another planet -- one where everyone has
> > to underdtand that the two most important things in the world are MONEY
> > and JOBS. We have to beat the poor so they'll find real work. The
> > economy is king.
> >
>
> Well, the economy sort of is king. With a successful economy, you have
> at least some money to give the poor, pay for health care, buy those
> free heroin needles and condoms. Without a healthy economy, you have no
> money to do any of those things and suddenly everybody is poor and
> desperately in need of non-existent needles and condoms.
>
> > A real life example: a right wing loon told a lefty friend of mine that a
> > certain number of homeless people have to die each year. It's in fact
> > necessary that they die. Otherwise people will think homelessness is a
> > viable alternative to employment, and stop supporting the system. If
> > people see that homelessness is ugly, then they won't want to be homeless.
> >
>
> It sounds like your dumb right-wing friend is talking more about mass
> psychology than economics. I don't think most right-thinking people have
> a problem having safety nets for those who truly need it, or expanding
> those safety nets as those needs arise.
>
> Being "right wing" is more about freedom and responsibility than money.
> People should have the freedom to make choices, then reap the rewards
> from correct ones as well as suffer the lashes from the wrong ones. It
> is the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail. I agree with this
> philosophical tenet. I want to be accountable for my own mistakes,
> otherwise, my life actually belongs to some higher power who rescues me
> from repeated stupidity.
>
> However, there is a psychology to poverty. You cannot pay people not to
> be poor. Only education makes people not poor because giving someone
> money does not suddenly bestow upon them any great fiscal wisdom. For
> example, if I gave you $2000 every month, it wouldn't make you a wise
> investor. Nothing about your financial responsibility would be changed,
> you would just expand your lifestyle to enjoy your expanded disposable
> income. In other words, you'd spend it. You'd go out more often, enjoy
> more luxuries, whatever, but it wouldn't transform you into someone who
> would successfully use his wealth to create more wealth and security.
>
> > Audio books -- Jesus Christ. Just when I thought your life of drunken
> > rationalizations couldn't get any worse, you slip another rung down the
> > ladder. Aren't most books-on-tape recordings abridged (read -- GUTTED)
> > versions of the actual text?
>
> Yes, but you have to admire my willingness to be objective about my
> patheticness, unlike all your wretched friends who ascribe mythical
> beautific qualities to whatever dreary things they do. Audio books truly
> are for the lazy scourge, although I do try to avoid the abridged ones.
> And I only listen to them in the car, and have so far resisted any
> temptation to bring one into the house.
>
> In the house, I am currently reading "Giles Goat-Boy" by John Barth. I'm
> still at the comparative beginning (the book weighs more than a brick),
> but there is something almost beautiful about a main character who gets
> into ritualistic and jealous fights with his best friend (a goat) over a
> girl (who is also a goat). Mercifully, the sex scenes so far have been
> limited to descriptions of Hedda's speckled teats.
Nikolaus Maack
> Ever read 'There Is A River' by Thomas Sugrue?
Nope. Tell me more.