Skip to first unread message

Ron Bass

Apr 21, 2009, 9:14:45 AM4/21/09
In one of the nearby Wheelerian "Many Worlds" one of the two gay male novelists sharing the name of David Franzen-Lethem is currently writing his magnum opus The Story of O(prah) to keep his partner -- the dyad-half best known for the book published under two titles: Rudderless Brooklyn and Udderless Brooklyn -- ensorcelled. 

Dominique Aury wrote The Story of O to keep in tow her married lover whose wife was dying of cancer. As a teenager I enjoyed reading it, and happily it set me on the path to finding (at least to me) more adventurous writers such as Georges Bataille, Pierre Klossowski and Kathy Acker, and filmmakers like Jacques Rivette and Pier Paolo Pasolini. But I found the world in The Story of O far too constricting, both figuratively and literally, at least for my taste. Control can be such a bore, at least to a hippy-dippy type like me. My own early imaginary adventures took place in parallel universes and had more of an eighteenth century adventure story cast of supporting characters.

And a Materialist Boy like me always chokes on concepts like "spirit". Let there be no Gods either of light or darkness. Unless, of course, they are involved in entertaining tales like those featuring the Olympians. And in confections of this sort ethics are certainly beside the point.

Oh, if you haven't seen it, I do recommend the film version of George Bataille's Ma Mére (directed by Chistophe Honoré).


Apr 21, 2009, 3:52:33 PM4/21/09
to The View From Outside Discussion
How did I know you would have something like the Story of O(prah)?
Thanks for this post. It's pretty enlightening, and not just for the
film recommendation. ;-)

I use the word "spirit" because I refuse to give up a concept I find
useful to people who abuse it. I think I know what you mean about
gods, and I have no gods either save as a metaphors for extremely
powerful forces. Camille Paglia has a line in Sexual Personae where
she says "Eros like Dionysus is a great and powerful god." She says
it in the context of taking Eros back from people who damn the erotic
with faint praise; specifically, the faint praise of get-it-out-of-
your-system hedonism which I believe was specifically being promoted
by a group of Unitarians. (Man, I'm going by memory here, so
corrections will be appreciated.)

The bottom line is I find that if I didn't have this word, this
concept, this metaphor of a great and powerful god I would find myself
less expressive, I think.

The only place I really disagree with you is on ethics. Ethics is
what we always leave out. It's another thing we surrender to the
other side because they say it's theirs and we believe them. Ethics
provides order and a predictability to one's character for oneself.
It provides the ability to *feel integrated*. When we want that
feeling again, what are we going to do? I think most people end up
going back to the only source of ethics they know; namely, the bad
guys. So a thought-out ethic that rejects the mumbo-jumbo and says
erotic pleasure and passion are fundamental goods is I think

But as always, Ron, I respect your opinion as one you've come to after
considerable thought, which thought cannot help but inform my own. I
really appreciate your posting it here.
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages