Too full of fear to care
Too out of practice to know how
Too short term to think much at all
You're closeminded because you're afraid
You're closeminded because the only thing that matters is now
And right now you've staked out a sliver of happiness upon which you precariously balance
Upon which you desperately cling
You are the lack which is all that's left
Like magic you forever turn
Seeing or not seeing?
Instantaneous selective forgetting
98 percent unconscious
The new evolutionary edge
The new and improved insanity
Skipping back and forth along the rocks as they fall away
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Colin Wilson's The Outsider
I still haven't actually finished this one. I really haven't had time to do much reading for many months. I fear I'm going to forget what I've thought of this one before I make it to the end.
I think it boils down to being intelligent makes you nihilistic. To a large extent I think Wilson is vague and oversimplifies. When he tries to then divide things up into three types of outsiders (mental, emotional and physical) he's just going way too simplistic. I can't help but remember that he was only 24 when he wrote this book... But I like the ambition of it. And it goes on about a lot of writers. It's interesting.
I've got plenty of nihilism in me and as such it's a good book to me. It's existentialist, like Camus. Why bother doing anything? An important question to me. Ultimately he's just showing how many great writers were nihilistic. But he's maybe really oversimplifying... but then the attempt to understand means trying to simplify, so I just don't know. It is though a rich book.
I think it boils down to being intelligent makes you nihilistic. To a large extent I think Wilson is vague and oversimplifies. When he tries to then divide things up into three types of outsiders (mental, emotional and physical) he's just going way too simplistic. I can't help but remember that he was only 24 when he wrote this book... But I like the ambition of it. And it goes on about a lot of writers. It's interesting.
I've got plenty of nihilism in me and as such it's a good book to me. It's existentialist, like Camus. Why bother doing anything? An important question to me. Ultimately he's just showing how many great writers were nihilistic. But he's maybe really oversimplifying... but then the attempt to understand means trying to simplify, so I just don't know. It is though a rich book.
Curtis White's The Spirit of Civil Disobediance
This was a bit ranty and some ranting that has already been done over and over. But he did point out that atheism's "reason" is ultimately based just on an assertion no different than NT christianity. His critique of Office Space combined with some discussion n the Dysamoria blog made me ponder if humor maybe unfortunately takes all the air out of "revolutionary" talk while at the same time making it possible to stand watching/reading highly negative critiques of society. In other words being able to laugh at how effed up this world is makes us too complacent to bother changing it at the same time that being able to laugh is the only way most people will bother giving attention to anything being critical in the first place.
Change my life? He did interview Kunstler who wrote The Geography of Nowhere which I'm now reading. That is causing me to seriously reconsider my criteria for buying a house.
Change my life? He did interview Kunstler who wrote The Geography of Nowhere which I'm now reading. That is causing me to seriously reconsider my criteria for buying a house.
Joseph Conrad's The Secret Agent
Capitivating? Well, not really. Not a single character is such that you are able to care what happens to them.
Mere survival? Of course everything is eventually mere survival. Somehow the question seems to not make sense with regards to this novel. And that is good.
If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this? I don't know. And that's just gushing praise coming from me.
Plot, characters or setting? Characters. And a damm good job of that.
Will I remember this book at all? I seem to think about the secret agent here and there as I ponder whether a very few bizarre people in real life perhaps are secret agents. Why is this guy a secret agent anyway? For being such a good job of characters it's really not clear at all. But then people in real life, ultimately have such unexamined motivations quite often. Where if they ever bothered to look at themselves they might just disintegrate and blow away into nothingness.
Then there is the ending. The typical inability to comprehend one another. It could stick with me.
Lots of points for being an incredibly negative story. Conrad's most negative I've heard. He actually apologized for it being so damm negative.
But it would be nice if some of these characters were such that people referred to them with regards to the real world. They aren't quite such that that can really happen. Some things are touched upon too subtly. Other things aren't quite talked about really. Perhaps they would get in the way of primarily telling a story.
I guess it has that worry of being preachy. So instead to an extent that which could be of long term use just slips by unnoticed.
Mere survival? Of course everything is eventually mere survival. Somehow the question seems to not make sense with regards to this novel. And that is good.
If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this? I don't know. And that's just gushing praise coming from me.
Plot, characters or setting? Characters. And a damm good job of that.
Will I remember this book at all? I seem to think about the secret agent here and there as I ponder whether a very few bizarre people in real life perhaps are secret agents. Why is this guy a secret agent anyway? For being such a good job of characters it's really not clear at all. But then people in real life, ultimately have such unexamined motivations quite often. Where if they ever bothered to look at themselves they might just disintegrate and blow away into nothingness.
Then there is the ending. The typical inability to comprehend one another. It could stick with me.
Lots of points for being an incredibly negative story. Conrad's most negative I've heard. He actually apologized for it being so damm negative.
But it would be nice if some of these characters were such that people referred to them with regards to the real world. They aren't quite such that that can really happen. Some things are touched upon too subtly. Other things aren't quite talked about really. Perhaps they would get in the way of primarily telling a story.
I guess it has that worry of being preachy. So instead to an extent that which could be of long term use just slips by unnoticed.
William Golding's The Inheritors
Capitivating? No. You pretty much know they're all going to die. Sooner or later.
Mere survival? Yes.
If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this? No.
Plot, characters or setting? Mostly setting. 99.9% of this book seems to just be supplying detail about the uninteresting wilderness and I guess somewhat about the characters which... the insights about his imaginary neanderthals aren't really that interesting. A ton of writing about uninteresting stuff to just make it all feel as if it were real. So that we manage to care a bit as the neanderthals are killed.
Will I remember this book at all? Am I changed at all by it? I probably read it ten years ago and just don't remember having done so.
Still I like Golding for being such a negative guy. I guess.
Mere survival? Yes.
If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this? No.
Plot, characters or setting? Mostly setting. 99.9% of this book seems to just be supplying detail about the uninteresting wilderness and I guess somewhat about the characters which... the insights about his imaginary neanderthals aren't really that interesting. A ton of writing about uninteresting stuff to just make it all feel as if it were real. So that we manage to care a bit as the neanderthals are killed.
Will I remember this book at all? Am I changed at all by it? I probably read it ten years ago and just don't remember having done so.
Still I like Golding for being such a negative guy. I guess.
Fiction Book Criteria
Capitivating?
Mere survival?
If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this?
Plot, characters or setting?
Will I remember this book at all? Am I changed at all by it?
(subject to change...)
Mere survival?
If it had been me, could I ever have bothered writing this?
Plot, characters or setting?
Will I remember this book at all? Am I changed at all by it?
(subject to change...)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
I think back to the most unbelievable episodes in my life where I was treated just awfully by people and I suppose it was primarily the result of people mistakenly judging me very negatively.
I've been treated like a criminal a few times. But without a trial, without ever being told what I even supposedly did wrong. I had my scientific career destroyed on this basis. Escorted out without explanation and blacklisted without ever finding out why.
I recall an episode that happened to me when I was 13 where the way an adult treated me just boggles the mind (a school teacher). In both cases, I guess what happened is these people got some evil notion into their heads about me. And were absolutely sure they were right.
With respect to the just about uniform indifference I've received in my life (such as everyone gets) I figure it's a matter of caution. Every person is a potential danger. Who knows, maybe I'm an awful person?
This is how it is for everyone. We're all not very good at judging the character of people and so we err on the side of assuming the worst. You may not survive being wrong even a single time about someone. So we err towards the worst assumptions. We view people with suspicion. We aren't open with them. Most often we give them indifference at best. Guilty till proven innocent, (and why bother proving that?)
I walk towards a dog to pet it and stumble, suddenly this dog (which was previously friendly) thinks I'm attacking and bites me on the knee. Ever after it barks and growls viciously when I walk by.
People default to racism because they're so bad at judging who's really a threat to them.
We keep our shields up and keep people out. Some people go their whole lives this way unable to really let anyone in, some get married and still manage to stay this way.
And when we do mistakenly assume some negative thing, the ugliness just bounces back and forth growing with each bounce. Personally I think most of my negative thoughts about people are the direct result of them jumping to awful conclusions about me.
This awful awful article: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/8-toxic-personalities-to-avoid-461078/
which I think was written by Satan himself, is urging people to go ahead and assume the worst of people. It says they're probably too closeminded for you to even bother talking about whatever it is they're doing that bothers you. So don't even bother. Just dismiss them as toxic human beings.
I suppose there is a point where you've got to give up on someone. I too have done so. But that point of course should be after you've repeatedly attempted to talk to them about such issues. My personal experience has been almost without exception that people instead just dismiss the person as "toxic" without ever talking about the disagreement; just like that article advocates.
I suppose there are certainly endless closeminded people in this world. And people are less likely to talk to an imposing, intimidating man when they've got differences. Perhaps I just can never really understand how full of fear people are and how attacked they feel if someone criticizes them?
I've been treated like a criminal a few times. But without a trial, without ever being told what I even supposedly did wrong. I had my scientific career destroyed on this basis. Escorted out without explanation and blacklisted without ever finding out why.
I recall an episode that happened to me when I was 13 where the way an adult treated me just boggles the mind (a school teacher). In both cases, I guess what happened is these people got some evil notion into their heads about me. And were absolutely sure they were right.
With respect to the just about uniform indifference I've received in my life (such as everyone gets) I figure it's a matter of caution. Every person is a potential danger. Who knows, maybe I'm an awful person?
This is how it is for everyone. We're all not very good at judging the character of people and so we err on the side of assuming the worst. You may not survive being wrong even a single time about someone. So we err towards the worst assumptions. We view people with suspicion. We aren't open with them. Most often we give them indifference at best. Guilty till proven innocent, (and why bother proving that?)
I walk towards a dog to pet it and stumble, suddenly this dog (which was previously friendly) thinks I'm attacking and bites me on the knee. Ever after it barks and growls viciously when I walk by.
People default to racism because they're so bad at judging who's really a threat to them.
We keep our shields up and keep people out. Some people go their whole lives this way unable to really let anyone in, some get married and still manage to stay this way.
And when we do mistakenly assume some negative thing, the ugliness just bounces back and forth growing with each bounce. Personally I think most of my negative thoughts about people are the direct result of them jumping to awful conclusions about me.
This awful awful article: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life/8-toxic-personalities-to-avoid-461078/
which I think was written by Satan himself, is urging people to go ahead and assume the worst of people. It says they're probably too closeminded for you to even bother talking about whatever it is they're doing that bothers you. So don't even bother. Just dismiss them as toxic human beings.
I suppose there is a point where you've got to give up on someone. I too have done so. But that point of course should be after you've repeatedly attempted to talk to them about such issues. My personal experience has been almost without exception that people instead just dismiss the person as "toxic" without ever talking about the disagreement; just like that article advocates.
I suppose there are certainly endless closeminded people in this world. And people are less likely to talk to an imposing, intimidating man when they've got differences. Perhaps I just can never really understand how full of fear people are and how attacked they feel if someone criticizes them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
