The Jane Fonda autobiography rukas has been going on for a bit over a week now and it seems to be petering out except for the fact that a Vietnam veteran gave her a verbal slanging at a book signing at a Costco store in Washington (state, that is -- not that awful creation called D.C.).
Your faithful correspondent, being about a half mile behind the curve as usual, has given a bit of thought to Miss Fonda and her memoirs.
It's embarrassing. It's embarrassing in two ways. The first is that Miss Fonda has really done nothing to merit the effort of writing an autobiography. She's really done nothing special with her life. Being an actress is not an achievement. Thousands of women have done it. Some have done it in the legitimate theater, some have done it in the film industry, and some have done it in the pornographic film industry. Nell Gwynne's (Charles II Protestant whore) would have been able to write a more historically interesting autobiography than Miss Fonda. At least Gwynne was close to the seat of power instead of being the consort of two media businessmen and one failed radical politician. In her choice of husbands Miss Fonda has shown herself to be template of the aspiring petit bourgeoise cheer leader than a woman who has really done much more than mouth the words of screen writers. Autobiographies are better left to people who have done something. Titles such as My Twenty years at Scotland Yard or Grant's memoirs or even Life Among the Machinists (a specialty title) make more sense. Actors are, for the most part, boring. There are exceptions such as Errol Flynn, but Flynn was a scoundrel and a drunk, and one could get the same stories from any sot at the local public house.
The second reason that Miss Fonda's memoirs are embarrassing is that they are an exercise in humiliation, and not of the religious sort. Her father was a cold man toward her, her first husband made her go out and find whores so they could engage in menage a trios, her second husband cheated on her, her third husband cheated on her, the North Vietnamese tricked her into sitting in the seat of the anti-aircraft gun, she was bulimic and anorexic. What does that tell us? Maybe she's a sucker or just not too smart or is a liar. It's the same old late 60s refrain of I'm a Victim So Love Me. It was insufferable then and is even more insufferable now.
Miss Fonda should have taken the example of the almost divine Brigitte Bardot (the first of Vadim's actress/victims and one of two blonde actresses worth a second look) and gotten on with her life after the first insult. Madame Bardot decided to make her own life and not rely on others to define herself. La Bardot has grown. Miss Fonda is stuck at the age of twenty and tries to make excuses for it.
In a sense, Miss Fonda is an unwelcome ghost from a time in American history that should be remembered only for its complete silliness. If she and her sort had come to power the US would have experienced a reign not unlike that of Robespierre during the French Revolution.
Miss Fonda now says that she is a Christian. I don't doubt her. I can only go by her word. Christians can disagree on political matters and still be Christians. Instead of spending time and ink and making the buck seling books and promoting her movie, perhaps she might have considered showing herself a Christian by confessing herself a sinner as we all are.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Sabato Gigante
The Channel 62 Los Angeles, Mexico controversy goes on.. The governor of the Golden State has said that he finds the billboard unacceptable, but, considering the world of politics, that may be because he thinks that part of his constituency has been taken from him. All politicians, no matter how noble, are grasping and hate to lose territory and/or voters. We'll see what the Guv really thinks by his actions. Talk is cheap.
Mr. Civil Rights has pointed out that the Vice President of Liberman Broadcasting was interviewed this past week by Larry Elder of KABC 790 AM in Los Angeles. Your faithful correspondent didn't hear the interview, but Mr. Civil Rights says that Mr. Liberman came off as rather arrogant.
John Ziegler of KFI 640 AM in Los Angeles apparently also managed to snag an interview with Mr. Liberman. Again, I was unable to hear it, but there may be more information at Ziegler's website which is accessible from www.kfi640.com. I haven't listened much to Ziegler lately because I got tired of hearing about a lack of a sex life and ignorable golf game.
Also, there's an online petition regarding the billboard at www.ReformUS.org. They want to get a million signatures by Memorial Day.
All I know is this. When I am in somebody else's else I conduct myself according to their rules. When someone is in my house I expect them to behave according to my rules. When someone is in my house without my permission they are a criminal.
Tomorrow is Sunday and will be a day dedicated to lighter topics.
Mr. Civil Rights has pointed out that the Vice President of Liberman Broadcasting was interviewed this past week by Larry Elder of KABC 790 AM in Los Angeles. Your faithful correspondent didn't hear the interview, but Mr. Civil Rights says that Mr. Liberman came off as rather arrogant.
John Ziegler of KFI 640 AM in Los Angeles apparently also managed to snag an interview with Mr. Liberman. Again, I was unable to hear it, but there may be more information at Ziegler's website which is accessible from www.kfi640.com. I haven't listened much to Ziegler lately because I got tired of hearing about a lack of a sex life and ignorable golf game.
Also, there's an online petition regarding the billboard at www.ReformUS.org. They want to get a million signatures by Memorial Day.
All I know is this. When I am in somebody else's else I conduct myself according to their rules. When someone is in my house I expect them to behave according to my rules. When someone is in my house without my permission they are a criminal.
Tomorrow is Sunday and will be a day dedicated to lighter topics.
Those darn Celstials!
During late tea yesterday the lovely and ever young Lady Nib asked, "When are you going to write about religion?"
Your faithful correspondent didn't have an answer. Having had a day of working around the estate and thinking about it I have decided to defer to her and answer her question by writing a little about religion.
Your faithful correspondent is, as stated on the "About Me" clicker on this page, a Primitive Baptist. For those of you who don't know what a Primitive Baptist is I would suggest that a reading of any of John Bunyan's works would give a pretty good idea of what a Primmie is all about. P.B.'s are the more quiet faction of Baptists. They don't evangelize, have revival campaigns or even Sunday School. To describe the the beliefs of P.B.s is outside the scope of this blog. Let's just say that Primmies are not of the panicky school of Christianity, although they are conservative.
If you are a regular listener of Christian radio you may get the idea that Christians in the US are being oppressed in some way. This is nonsesnse. I repeat, THIS IS NONSENSE. Christians in the US are not being hunted down and jailed for having meetings in houses. Churches are not being shut down. People are not being denied jobs for being Christians. It is not illegal in the US to be a Christian. American Christians are the most blessed, lucky and fortunate Christians in the world.
The nation is not as Christian as we'd like, but that's just the way it is. But despite the government rulings on prayer in schools, abortion and gay marriage, Christians in the US have it good. We have the the right to state our views. We have the right to practice our religion. We are not required to pay homage to the state. And we can state, without fear of prosecution, that Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus are wrong in their theological outlook.
What American Christians seem to have forgetten is that they are, by their faith, always outsiders. In the US being a Christian is not being much of an outsider. The majority of the population give lip service to Christianity, even if they don't practice it.
Places such as China, for example, make life difficult for Christians. If a Chinese Christian does not belong to one of two of the official Chinese Christian bodies (one Protestant, one Catholic) one is considered an outlaw and is prison bait. Or is one is a Christian in the Sudan one might find one's self in a condition of slavery to a Muslim. In Iran, if one converts from the heresey of Islam to Christianity one may well find one's self a target for rocks.
American Christians have gotten soft. They have forgotten that this world is not their world. They scream over a hang nail while a pastor in China is being fed congee and regularly beaten because of his beliefs and preaching. American Christians have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, that there was a time in European history when it was illegal to be a Christian i.e., the French Revolutiom and the Russian Revolution.
This is not to say that that American Christians should fold to the domimant culture. It is the duty of the the Christian to fight against the world. But nothing is so irritating than a person who has a sliver in their finger screaming bloody murder while another person is is bleeding to death and is unable to be heard because of the sliver victim.
Check out this link:Jason Lee Steorts on Chinese Christians and the UNCHR on National Review Onlin
If you've got it as tough as, or worse than, the Chinise Christians, then you can start bitching (pardon my French).
Your faithful correspondent didn't have an answer. Having had a day of working around the estate and thinking about it I have decided to defer to her and answer her question by writing a little about religion.
Your faithful correspondent is, as stated on the "About Me" clicker on this page, a Primitive Baptist. For those of you who don't know what a Primitive Baptist is I would suggest that a reading of any of John Bunyan's works would give a pretty good idea of what a Primmie is all about. P.B.'s are the more quiet faction of Baptists. They don't evangelize, have revival campaigns or even Sunday School. To describe the the beliefs of P.B.s is outside the scope of this blog. Let's just say that Primmies are not of the panicky school of Christianity, although they are conservative.
If you are a regular listener of Christian radio you may get the idea that Christians in the US are being oppressed in some way. This is nonsesnse. I repeat, THIS IS NONSENSE. Christians in the US are not being hunted down and jailed for having meetings in houses. Churches are not being shut down. People are not being denied jobs for being Christians. It is not illegal in the US to be a Christian. American Christians are the most blessed, lucky and fortunate Christians in the world.
The nation is not as Christian as we'd like, but that's just the way it is. But despite the government rulings on prayer in schools, abortion and gay marriage, Christians in the US have it good. We have the the right to state our views. We have the right to practice our religion. We are not required to pay homage to the state. And we can state, without fear of prosecution, that Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus are wrong in their theological outlook.
What American Christians seem to have forgetten is that they are, by their faith, always outsiders. In the US being a Christian is not being much of an outsider. The majority of the population give lip service to Christianity, even if they don't practice it.
Places such as China, for example, make life difficult for Christians. If a Chinese Christian does not belong to one of two of the official Chinese Christian bodies (one Protestant, one Catholic) one is considered an outlaw and is prison bait. Or is one is a Christian in the Sudan one might find one's self in a condition of slavery to a Muslim. In Iran, if one converts from the heresey of Islam to Christianity one may well find one's self a target for rocks.
American Christians have gotten soft. They have forgotten that this world is not their world. They scream over a hang nail while a pastor in China is being fed congee and regularly beaten because of his beliefs and preaching. American Christians have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, that there was a time in European history when it was illegal to be a Christian i.e., the French Revolutiom and the Russian Revolution.
This is not to say that that American Christians should fold to the domimant culture. It is the duty of the the Christian to fight against the world. But nothing is so irritating than a person who has a sliver in their finger screaming bloody murder while another person is is bleeding to death and is unable to be heard because of the sliver victim.
Check out this link:Jason Lee Steorts on Chinese Christians and the UNCHR on National Review Onlin
If you've got it as tough as, or worse than, the Chinise Christians, then you can start bitching (pardon my French).
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Oops! I Did It Again.
Once again, your faithful correspondent finds himself in the uncomfortable position of having to apologize for errors in previous posts. These mistakes were due to insufficient research, bad information or just plain dim-wittedness. The corrections are as follows:
1.) Television station KRCA Channel 62 is owned by Liberman Broadcasting of Burbank California; not Clear Channel as originally posted. Clear Channel is reported to being the owners of the billboards on which the Channel 62 ads appear.
2.) The covers of the books in the Library of America publications come in other colors than green. There are four or five other colors. Most of the LoA books I own have the green covers. And the green is, in my opinion, by far the most pleasing color.
Thanks to Dahhhy49 and Jim Jr. for the corrections
I would urge all readers to check out what is going on at Gates of Vienna. Baron Bodissey has an interesting two part view of "Unfree Speech in Sweden," featuring the observations by an American living in Sweden. And Dymphna looks at the problems of getting any consistent information about the execution of a woman in Afghanistan.
1.) Television station KRCA Channel 62 is owned by Liberman Broadcasting of Burbank California; not Clear Channel as originally posted. Clear Channel is reported to being the owners of the billboards on which the Channel 62 ads appear.
2.) The covers of the books in the Library of America publications come in other colors than green. There are four or five other colors. Most of the LoA books I own have the green covers. And the green is, in my opinion, by far the most pleasing color.
Thanks to Dahhhy49 and Jim Jr. for the corrections
I would urge all readers to check out what is going on at Gates of Vienna. Baron Bodissey has an interesting two part view of "Unfree Speech in Sweden," featuring the observations by an American living in Sweden. And Dymphna looks at the problems of getting any consistent information about the execution of a woman in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Smile When You Say That, Amigo
A new ruckus has broken out here in the Los Angeles/Orange County area. Actually, every day brings a new ruckus, but sometimes one finds a certain ruckus more interesting than the others.
Over the weekend several billboards were erected advertising the newscast for the Spanish language television station KRCA Channel 62. The billboard features a photograph of the male and female anchors with the Los Angeles city skyline in the background, Printed on the billboard are the words:
Over the weekend several billboards were erected advertising the newscast for the Spanish language television station KRCA Channel 62. The billboard features a photograph of the male and female anchors with the Los Angeles city skyline in the background, Printed on the billboard are the words:
Los Angeles, CA Mexico
Actually, the abbreviation "CA" is crossed out. And the word "Mexico" is actually printed in red.
If one is familiar with the current debate over illegal immigration and the perceived slow motion invasion of the US by people from south of the border, one can imagine the ruckus this has caused, especially on talk radio. I find the billboard slightly blood pressure raising as it almost seems to advocate reconquista, a political philosophy among some segments of the Mexican and Mexican-American population that the Southwest of the United States be reconquered and re-patriated to Mexico. I also find it amusing. I can just imagine, in a cartoon world, a border jumper seeing the billboard and saying to his friend, "Onward to Oregon." But mostly I find it very clever. The billboard got people talking about Channel 62.
KRCA is owned by the media giant Clear Channel. The people who run Clear Channel are not stupid and they rarely make big mistakes. For the cost of three or four billboards they have managed to get a great return on their money through the controversy. I find it disgusting, but business often is disgusting. If nothing else, it proves that it is easier to upset and offend people and gain notice than it is to try to please them and gain notice.
So there you have it. I find myself suddenly a Mexican. I guess I'll have to start watching soccer and drinking Corona beer. Ugh!
Onward to Oregon.
Monday, April 25, 2005
What a Politician Won't Say
In a previous post about the English flag and the Royal Navy I made a mistake.
In the post I said that the Royal Navy ships in the Eastern Mediterranean had been ordered to not fly the flag on St. George's Day to avoid any possible offense to Turkey. That was wrong.
In actuality, the order was directed to the Royal Navy ships in Portsmouth, England. The reason is that several ships from the Turkish Navy are visiting Portsmouth.
There's such a thing as being a gracious host, but things can go too far.
In more flag related news, a group of Chinese-Americans and Chinese immigrants in Los Angeles' Chinatown have decided that it is a good idea to fly the Communist Chinese flag next to the American flag in Chinatown. Taiwan, meanwhile, is ignored. There's nothing like sticking one's thumb in the eye of a friend to appease a bully.
Perhaps one of the reasons I dislike irony in the entertainment industry is that there's so much of it in real life.
In the post I said that the Royal Navy ships in the Eastern Mediterranean had been ordered to not fly the flag on St. George's Day to avoid any possible offense to Turkey. That was wrong.
In actuality, the order was directed to the Royal Navy ships in Portsmouth, England. The reason is that several ships from the Turkish Navy are visiting Portsmouth.
There's such a thing as being a gracious host, but things can go too far.
In more flag related news, a group of Chinese-Americans and Chinese immigrants in Los Angeles' Chinatown have decided that it is a good idea to fly the Communist Chinese flag next to the American flag in Chinatown. Taiwan, meanwhile, is ignored. There's nothing like sticking one's thumb in the eye of a friend to appease a bully.
Perhaps one of the reasons I dislike irony in the entertainment industry is that there's so much of it in real life.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
What the...? Part 2
Arte Moreno did a great service to Southern California baseball fans by rescuing the Anaheim Angels from the evil Disney corporation. Some of you may remember the first couple of years of the Angels under Disney control; cheerleaders, a funky mascot, the re-naming of the Big A to Edison Field (we were supposed to call it The Big Ed).
But Arte got some crazy bug under his cap about re-naming the team from the Anaheim Angels to The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The whole thing doesn't make sense for the following reasons:
1.) The Angels home field is in Anaheim; not Los Angeles. The distance from Anaheim to Los Angeles is about twenty mile by freeway. On a good day the journey takes the better part of an hour.
2.) The name is repitious. If one translates the new team name into English it comes out The Angels Angels of Anaheim.
3.) The new name denies the history of the Angels. The team has played many more years in Anaheim than it ever did in Los Angeles. It would be like calling the LA Dodgers the Brooklyn Dodgers of Los Angeles. In fact, it makes more sense to call the Dodgers by the latter name (the Dodgers played more years in Brooklyn than they have in LA) than to call the Angels by Moreno's new moniker.
I realize what Moreno is trying to do. He's trying to make the team a regional team for the LA/Orange county area. But he's managing to get on the wrong side of a lot of Angels fans from Orange County who really don't want a lot to do with Los Angeles.
If Moreno insists on this nonsense he'll be having to bus the spectators in from LA. Not a good idea.
But Arte got some crazy bug under his cap about re-naming the team from the Anaheim Angels to The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The whole thing doesn't make sense for the following reasons:
1.) The Angels home field is in Anaheim; not Los Angeles. The distance from Anaheim to Los Angeles is about twenty mile by freeway. On a good day the journey takes the better part of an hour.
2.) The name is repitious. If one translates the new team name into English it comes out The Angels Angels of Anaheim.
3.) The new name denies the history of the Angels. The team has played many more years in Anaheim than it ever did in Los Angeles. It would be like calling the LA Dodgers the Brooklyn Dodgers of Los Angeles. In fact, it makes more sense to call the Dodgers by the latter name (the Dodgers played more years in Brooklyn than they have in LA) than to call the Angels by Moreno's new moniker.
I realize what Moreno is trying to do. He's trying to make the team a regional team for the LA/Orange county area. But he's managing to get on the wrong side of a lot of Angels fans from Orange County who really don't want a lot to do with Los Angeles.
If Moreno insists on this nonsense he'll be having to bus the spectators in from LA. Not a good idea.
How ironic!
For more than a few years your faithful correspondent has wondered why he has found contemporary comedy and television situation comedy not very funny. For a long time it was assumed that not being a regular viewer of visual chewing gum might be the reason. You, perhaps, can understand what I mean. At one time Necco Wafers was the greatest candy in the universe. Now they're barely edible.
But, after having taken a little time (and a little was quite enough) to study the question by watching the current crop of comedians and situation comedies, I think I have come up with an answer.
The answer is: Irony.
Modern comedy is based on irony. Irony is considered more sophisticated than a good joke or a good story. Irony allows the comedian to sneer and let the audience sneer with him (or her) at the yokels.
But the problem is that comedic irony is to real comedy what Zema was to ale. Irony is a cheap and easy drunk. Real comedy is a strong drink that takes a strong constitution. Comedic irony is foppish; the stuff of those who wave their hankies about when a waiter leaves who has been wearing Three Flowers hair lotion. Ironic comedy is precious. It titters and twitters, purses its lips and rolls it's eyes like a French hairdresser.
Call me a chauvinist or lowbrow, but I like a good laugh. A real big laugh. I like a good story or a good pun or a good story on the way to a good pun. I think that Gilligan's Island is funnier than Seinfeld. I think Fred Allen was funnier than Garrison Keillor. I think almost anything by Benny Hill is funnier than anything on Saturday Night Live. Steven Wright (just his pronunciation of the word "behemoth" in Resevoir Dogs is funny) is funnier than Adam Sandler. But maybe I'm a goon. I just find traditional Anglo-American comedy preferable to the faux sophisticated stuff that passes for comedy in the US today.
Irony has its place. But its place is rightfully associated with pity or just by itself. Guy DeMaupassent and Anatole France were masters of the irony and pity school of writing. They realized that most ironic situations were more tragic than comedic.
But perhaps the whole attraction to ironic comedy; the laughing at other's tragedies or shortcomings instead of laughing at willful shortcomings or willful idiocies.
But if I knew so damn much I'd be writing TV comedies for a living instead of not laughing at them.
But, after having taken a little time (and a little was quite enough) to study the question by watching the current crop of comedians and situation comedies, I think I have come up with an answer.
The answer is: Irony.
Modern comedy is based on irony. Irony is considered more sophisticated than a good joke or a good story. Irony allows the comedian to sneer and let the audience sneer with him (or her) at the yokels.
But the problem is that comedic irony is to real comedy what Zema was to ale. Irony is a cheap and easy drunk. Real comedy is a strong drink that takes a strong constitution. Comedic irony is foppish; the stuff of those who wave their hankies about when a waiter leaves who has been wearing Three Flowers hair lotion. Ironic comedy is precious. It titters and twitters, purses its lips and rolls it's eyes like a French hairdresser.
Call me a chauvinist or lowbrow, but I like a good laugh. A real big laugh. I like a good story or a good pun or a good story on the way to a good pun. I think that Gilligan's Island is funnier than Seinfeld. I think Fred Allen was funnier than Garrison Keillor. I think almost anything by Benny Hill is funnier than anything on Saturday Night Live. Steven Wright (just his pronunciation of the word "behemoth" in Resevoir Dogs is funny) is funnier than Adam Sandler. But maybe I'm a goon. I just find traditional Anglo-American comedy preferable to the faux sophisticated stuff that passes for comedy in the US today.
Irony has its place. But its place is rightfully associated with pity or just by itself. Guy DeMaupassent and Anatole France were masters of the irony and pity school of writing. They realized that most ironic situations were more tragic than comedic.
But perhaps the whole attraction to ironic comedy; the laughing at other's tragedies or shortcomings instead of laughing at willful shortcomings or willful idiocies.
But if I knew so damn much I'd be writing TV comedies for a living instead of not laughing at them.
What the....?
Occasionally your faithful correspondent looks beyond the oceans on either side of the US.
While reading through one of the newspapers originating in the United Kingdom it was discovered that either April 22 or April 23 was St. George's Day in Great Britain. St. George, as we all know, is the patron saint of England. The English flag is a white flag with a red cross on it. Think of the Danish flag backwards. The flag of the United Kingdom is the Union Jack, which features the crosses of St. George, St. David (Wales), St. Andrew (Scotland) and St. Patrick (Ireland) all overlaid on a blue field.
It is traditional on St. George's Day to fly the English flag in England and on the ships of the Royal Navy. This year the British government instructed the ships of the Royal Navy on deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean not to fly the St. George's (English) flag this St. George's Day. The reason is because flying a flag featuring St. George's cross might offend the Turkish government and people, and remind them of the Crusades.
I hope the Turks will have the same consideration when their ships and airplanes arrive in Italy and Austria. I'm sure they wouldn't want to remind the populations of those countries of the Turkish attempts of invasion by flying the Crescent flag.
Or am I being silly?
While reading through one of the newspapers originating in the United Kingdom it was discovered that either April 22 or April 23 was St. George's Day in Great Britain. St. George, as we all know, is the patron saint of England. The English flag is a white flag with a red cross on it. Think of the Danish flag backwards. The flag of the United Kingdom is the Union Jack, which features the crosses of St. George, St. David (Wales), St. Andrew (Scotland) and St. Patrick (Ireland) all overlaid on a blue field.
It is traditional on St. George's Day to fly the English flag in England and on the ships of the Royal Navy. This year the British government instructed the ships of the Royal Navy on deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean not to fly the St. George's (English) flag this St. George's Day. The reason is because flying a flag featuring St. George's cross might offend the Turkish government and people, and remind them of the Crusades.
I hope the Turks will have the same consideration when their ships and airplanes arrive in Italy and Austria. I'm sure they wouldn't want to remind the populations of those countries of the Turkish attempts of invasion by flying the Crescent flag.
Or am I being silly?
Eldritch?
The publisher, The Library of America, has done the nation a great service by re-publishing a good selection of classic American works ranging from collections of essays to short story collections to novels. The physical books are what hardcopy books should be. They are made of good acid-free paper, the pages are trimmed, the covers are of a pleasing green and each book has a sewn in ribbon book mark.
I recently bought the Library of America edition of a collection of stories by H.P. Lovecraft. If you're not familiar with Lovecraft, he was a writer of what are often called "weird tales" that were published mostly in pulp magazines such as Weird Tales and Strange Tales during the early 20th century. He was associated with Robert E. Howard (the author of the Conan the Barbarian stories), August Dereleth (the author of the Solar Pons stories) and Robert Bloch (the author of Psycho). There are two movies that come to mind that were based on Lovecraft stories -- The Dunwich Horror, which was made in the early 70s, and Re-Animator, which was made in the late 80s or early 90s. Neither film was very faithful to the source material.
It's always dangerous to read short story collections by one author straight through, the reason being that unless the author is varied in his or her topics and themes, such as Maugham or London or Hemingway, one runs into the situation of feeling that one has waded through the swamp of one story while reading another. Once one has read about the first quarter of the Library of America edition of Lovecraft's stories one has read the best. The first one fourth of the stories are of the straight horror type. After that they fall into the Cthulhu Mythos, which, if one is not familiar with it, can get pretty grating if one doesn't have the taste for "unearthly geometry," "shuggoths," "the Old Ones," or "the mad Arab, Abdul Alhazred." Reading the story At the Mountains of Madness makes one wonder if Lovecraft hadn't suffered some sort of psychological trauma at an exhibition of early cubist paintings.
Granting that Lovecraft was a pulp writer, one can't expect him to get out of his furrow of phraseology and word usage as one would expect, oh, I don't know, the lesser educated Jack London to do. In fact, Lovecraft's style is an attempt at an older writing style than London's. Lovecraft seems to have aspired toward a style somewhere between Regency and Victorian. Jane Austen's style is less jarring on the modern ear. Lovecraft seemed to have felt the need to use the word "eldritch" in ninety percent of his stories. It's too bad that he didn't try writing Old English a la Beowulf. If he had he might have gotten away from his obsession with "weird geometry" and stuck with horror stories, which he was pretty good at churning out.
In reading over the stories (and after a while they have a curious somnambulent quality which makes them good for bedtime reading) it suddenly hit your faithful correspondent that in his later writings Lovecraft was writing for a circle of friends instead of the public in general. There are references in the stories to stories written by friends and in order to get the fully intended impact of the references one would have to have read those stories. It's not unlike an outsider eavesdropping on the conversation among the regulars at a bar. One can get the big picture, but when the regulars refer to "Shorty's problem" one knows neither who Shorty is nor what his problem is.
But to get to cases. The best stories in the LoA volume of Lovecraft stories are: The Statement of Randolph Carter, Herbert West - Reanimator, The Horror of Red Hook, Pickman's Model, and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. For almost everything else get out your weird protractor and your unnatural trig tables, and be prepared to figure out was a shuggoth is. Or is it suggoth?
I recently bought the Library of America edition of a collection of stories by H.P. Lovecraft. If you're not familiar with Lovecraft, he was a writer of what are often called "weird tales" that were published mostly in pulp magazines such as Weird Tales and Strange Tales during the early 20th century. He was associated with Robert E. Howard (the author of the Conan the Barbarian stories), August Dereleth (the author of the Solar Pons stories) and Robert Bloch (the author of Psycho). There are two movies that come to mind that were based on Lovecraft stories -- The Dunwich Horror, which was made in the early 70s, and Re-Animator, which was made in the late 80s or early 90s. Neither film was very faithful to the source material.
It's always dangerous to read short story collections by one author straight through, the reason being that unless the author is varied in his or her topics and themes, such as Maugham or London or Hemingway, one runs into the situation of feeling that one has waded through the swamp of one story while reading another. Once one has read about the first quarter of the Library of America edition of Lovecraft's stories one has read the best. The first one fourth of the stories are of the straight horror type. After that they fall into the Cthulhu Mythos, which, if one is not familiar with it, can get pretty grating if one doesn't have the taste for "unearthly geometry," "shuggoths," "the Old Ones," or "the mad Arab, Abdul Alhazred." Reading the story At the Mountains of Madness makes one wonder if Lovecraft hadn't suffered some sort of psychological trauma at an exhibition of early cubist paintings.
Granting that Lovecraft was a pulp writer, one can't expect him to get out of his furrow of phraseology and word usage as one would expect, oh, I don't know, the lesser educated Jack London to do. In fact, Lovecraft's style is an attempt at an older writing style than London's. Lovecraft seems to have aspired toward a style somewhere between Regency and Victorian. Jane Austen's style is less jarring on the modern ear. Lovecraft seemed to have felt the need to use the word "eldritch" in ninety percent of his stories. It's too bad that he didn't try writing Old English a la Beowulf. If he had he might have gotten away from his obsession with "weird geometry" and stuck with horror stories, which he was pretty good at churning out.
In reading over the stories (and after a while they have a curious somnambulent quality which makes them good for bedtime reading) it suddenly hit your faithful correspondent that in his later writings Lovecraft was writing for a circle of friends instead of the public in general. There are references in the stories to stories written by friends and in order to get the fully intended impact of the references one would have to have read those stories. It's not unlike an outsider eavesdropping on the conversation among the regulars at a bar. One can get the big picture, but when the regulars refer to "Shorty's problem" one knows neither who Shorty is nor what his problem is.
But to get to cases. The best stories in the LoA volume of Lovecraft stories are: The Statement of Randolph Carter, Herbert West - Reanimator, The Horror of Red Hook, Pickman's Model, and The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. For almost everything else get out your weird protractor and your unnatural trig tables, and be prepared to figure out was a shuggoth is. Or is it suggoth?
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Long-leggety beasties
Being able to pray ex tempore, whether silently or vocally has always been difficult for me. Every time I try to pray not using a set prayer I feel a little like what Martin Luther must have felt when he tried to say his first Mass. My brain just locks up and I basically spend a lot of time kicking the dirt with my heel and saying "Ah. Well. Um," before finally squeaking out words of adoration, confession, thanks and supplication. But I soldier on as best I can. I've been doing a lot of this soldiering on of late and it hasn't gotten any easier.
I've found that the use of set prayers from books like the Book of Common Prayer and The Valley of Vision useful in organizing my thoughts and setting things in an orderly manner. The thing about using set prayers is to really pray using them and not just read the words as if they were a magic formula. I usually modify the prayers a bit to make them more personal and to more closely express my thoughts.
What brings this to mind is that I was recently re-acquainted with an old Cornish prayer:
"From ghoulies and ghosties and long leggety beasties,
"And things that go bump in the night, Good Lord, deliver us."
At first glance the prayer looks like the product of an unsophisticated and superstitious mind. But could there be more to it than a plea for protection from mythical entities? Could it be a prayer to be released from fear? Even today one occasionally hears of depression referred to as "the black dog." The creatures mentioned in the prayer could be regarded as metaphors for those fears and memories and obsessions that we experience but have no names for.
But, then again, maybe not.
I've found that the use of set prayers from books like the Book of Common Prayer and The Valley of Vision useful in organizing my thoughts and setting things in an orderly manner. The thing about using set prayers is to really pray using them and not just read the words as if they were a magic formula. I usually modify the prayers a bit to make them more personal and to more closely express my thoughts.
What brings this to mind is that I was recently re-acquainted with an old Cornish prayer:
"From ghoulies and ghosties and long leggety beasties,
"And things that go bump in the night, Good Lord, deliver us."
At first glance the prayer looks like the product of an unsophisticated and superstitious mind. But could there be more to it than a plea for protection from mythical entities? Could it be a prayer to be released from fear? Even today one occasionally hears of depression referred to as "the black dog." The creatures mentioned in the prayer could be regarded as metaphors for those fears and memories and obsessions that we experience but have no names for.
But, then again, maybe not.
Delve!
We at the Bloody Nib household do not have cable television, so we are limited to the Los Angeles area television stations for our television news, Having occasionally seen cable television news I think I would not be too far off the mark to say that there really isn't much difference between the two beyond the fact that CNN, FOX and MSNBC are much better at beating dead horses and then trying to resurrect them.
Television news excels in shallowness. The same holds true for radio news and newspapers. Car chases and entertainment news don't deserve in-depth coverage. They are what they are. Other stories, in order to be properly understood and appreciated, require a bit of digging to get beyond the often misunderstood surface. The war in Iraq, the situations in the Sudan and the Congo, Social Security reform and any story having to do with religion are examples of stories that are deep stories that are treated with amazing shallowness on television news broadcasts.
A lot of hot air has been expelled over the war in Iraq, but what have we really learned from the news? There are people trying to kill our troops. Our troops are battling to bring a form of democracy to Iraq. Some people there like us; some don't. Some people here think we should be there; some don't. Most of the coverage is based upon pictures of things blowing up, people shooting or people protesting. There's been very little of the rebuilding and infrastructure that has taken place by the US. But it makes better footage to show a burning HumVee than a water treatment plant being built.
But this isn't a post about Iraq. Stories from the Sudan and Darfur make it appear that we're watching an episode from the novel The Four Feathers and that somehow Queen Victoria should do something about it from the grave instead of the UN kid-gloving the problem. The Congo? A sex scandal by UN troops there that makes the Catholic priest sex scandal look like amateur hour is barely covered. The coverage of the death and funeral of John Paul II, while taking up a lot of air time, was laughable. One on-site correspondent actually stated in a report that JPII was the first "non-Catholic" Pope to head the Church in over 500 years.
It's the type of thing to make one wonder if people in the television news business take the news seriously. But, of course, television news is a money making business and its main job is to get eyes to watch it and buy the products advertised. Television news basically throws out a batch of headlines with moving pictures, and in no particular order. Consider the fact that a story about an apartment fire resulting in the deaths of several people will often be immediately followed by something like: "Wow, Grandma! Cosmetic breast implants grow in popularity among senior citizens." It's enough to make one scratch one's head and mutter, "What the ...?"
I have a quote written in my notebook by Robert J. Foster. I don't know who Mr. Foster is and I don't remember where I got the quote, but I'd like to see the quote taped over the computers of news writers and news readers:
"Superficiality is the curse of our age. The doctrine of instant satisfaction is a primary spiritual problem. The desperate need today is not for a greater number of intelligent people or gifted people, but for deep people."
But maybe that's a non sequitur to my point, but I don't think so.
How 'bout them Angels?
Television news excels in shallowness. The same holds true for radio news and newspapers. Car chases and entertainment news don't deserve in-depth coverage. They are what they are. Other stories, in order to be properly understood and appreciated, require a bit of digging to get beyond the often misunderstood surface. The war in Iraq, the situations in the Sudan and the Congo, Social Security reform and any story having to do with religion are examples of stories that are deep stories that are treated with amazing shallowness on television news broadcasts.
A lot of hot air has been expelled over the war in Iraq, but what have we really learned from the news? There are people trying to kill our troops. Our troops are battling to bring a form of democracy to Iraq. Some people there like us; some don't. Some people here think we should be there; some don't. Most of the coverage is based upon pictures of things blowing up, people shooting or people protesting. There's been very little of the rebuilding and infrastructure that has taken place by the US. But it makes better footage to show a burning HumVee than a water treatment plant being built.
But this isn't a post about Iraq. Stories from the Sudan and Darfur make it appear that we're watching an episode from the novel The Four Feathers and that somehow Queen Victoria should do something about it from the grave instead of the UN kid-gloving the problem. The Congo? A sex scandal by UN troops there that makes the Catholic priest sex scandal look like amateur hour is barely covered. The coverage of the death and funeral of John Paul II, while taking up a lot of air time, was laughable. One on-site correspondent actually stated in a report that JPII was the first "non-Catholic" Pope to head the Church in over 500 years.
It's the type of thing to make one wonder if people in the television news business take the news seriously. But, of course, television news is a money making business and its main job is to get eyes to watch it and buy the products advertised. Television news basically throws out a batch of headlines with moving pictures, and in no particular order. Consider the fact that a story about an apartment fire resulting in the deaths of several people will often be immediately followed by something like: "Wow, Grandma! Cosmetic breast implants grow in popularity among senior citizens." It's enough to make one scratch one's head and mutter, "What the ...?"
I have a quote written in my notebook by Robert J. Foster. I don't know who Mr. Foster is and I don't remember where I got the quote, but I'd like to see the quote taped over the computers of news writers and news readers:
"Superficiality is the curse of our age. The doctrine of instant satisfaction is a primary spiritual problem. The desperate need today is not for a greater number of intelligent people or gifted people, but for deep people."
But maybe that's a non sequitur to my point, but I don't think so.
How 'bout them Angels?
Sunday, April 17, 2005
The Next Pope
Not being a Roman Catholic it really shouldn't matter much to me who the next Pope is, but I do have an opinion. The reason is because that over one billion people consider themselves Catholics and define their Christianity by what the Catholic Church says.
As a conservative Christian I would much prefer a conservative Pope. There are many things with which I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, but I find myself in much more agreement with conservative Catholics than liberal Catholics. Liberal Catholics are about as Christian as Unitarians, which is to say, not much. Conservative Catholics, for all their Marianism and such, are much more close to orthodox Christianity than the Hans Kung crowd.
In looking ove the list that the touts are putting out I would much prefer Cardinal Ratzinger than any of the other front runners. Ratzinger is of the opinion that the RC Church is the one true church and that all Christians outrside the church are pretty much lost. I disagree with him on this. But he's not a man to fold his stand to prevailing Western standards.
The Christian world is under enough pressure from the world at large. For much of the world the Roman Catholic Church is the Christian world. If the next Pope is of the deep ecumenical crowd or a weak willy he will be showing Christianity (to the world) as a reed bending in the wind.
Times being what they are, showing a willingness to conform the faith to the times and the world is tantamount to showing that one's faith means nothing. Ratzinger is a strong man. In my reading of his works I believe that he is a Christian first and a Catholic second, The election of Ratzinger would result in family feuds within the faith, but feuding families pull together when there is an outside threat. Christians have more to worry from the outside at the moment and don't need a termite working from within.
As a conservative Christian I would much prefer a conservative Pope. There are many things with which I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church, but I find myself in much more agreement with conservative Catholics than liberal Catholics. Liberal Catholics are about as Christian as Unitarians, which is to say, not much. Conservative Catholics, for all their Marianism and such, are much more close to orthodox Christianity than the Hans Kung crowd.
In looking ove the list that the touts are putting out I would much prefer Cardinal Ratzinger than any of the other front runners. Ratzinger is of the opinion that the RC Church is the one true church and that all Christians outrside the church are pretty much lost. I disagree with him on this. But he's not a man to fold his stand to prevailing Western standards.
The Christian world is under enough pressure from the world at large. For much of the world the Roman Catholic Church is the Christian world. If the next Pope is of the deep ecumenical crowd or a weak willy he will be showing Christianity (to the world) as a reed bending in the wind.
Times being what they are, showing a willingness to conform the faith to the times and the world is tantamount to showing that one's faith means nothing. Ratzinger is a strong man. In my reading of his works I believe that he is a Christian first and a Catholic second, The election of Ratzinger would result in family feuds within the faith, but feuding families pull together when there is an outside threat. Christians have more to worry from the outside at the moment and don't need a termite working from within.
Under Way
This is my first post on the Bloody Nib blog. Once I get this blog thing and composing business down the motto for this blog will be, "He was born with the gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad." I don't know if the first part of the motto is true. I'll have to ask my dear mother about that. I'm sure she'll disagree. She's told my lady wife that I was born old and serious.
This blog will be about the Christian religion, politics, society, beer and occasionally tobacco.
My opinions are probably what Mark Twain called "Cornpone" opinions. In other words, one's opinions depends on where one buys one's cornpone.
I'm a machinist, an autodidact (which isn't worth much) and I'm fifty-two years old. I have been married for thirty-one years to a lovely wife with whom I attended high school and who has kept me out of more trouble than she realizes. I have a cocker spaniel who's a goofball and food vacuum and who is a source of constant amusement.
I'm a native Californian but consider myself an upper Southerner or lower Midwesterner since California has become an annex of New York City. I like the Anaheim Angels and the St. Louis Cardinals.
I'm a Primitive Baptist in religion, a conservative in politics, a drinker of ale as opposed to lager or pilsner, and I like to smoke English and Scottish blends in my pipe.
I'm just another guy confused by the modern world and I'm still wondering why I know who Paris Hilton is and why more people don't read Jane Austen.
These are the blogs I like to read:
The Belmont Club :
The Daily Demarche
Patterico's Pontifications
www.michelle malkin.com
So there you have it. Just another blog to ignore.
This blog will be about the Christian religion, politics, society, beer and occasionally tobacco.
My opinions are probably what Mark Twain called "Cornpone" opinions. In other words, one's opinions depends on where one buys one's cornpone.
I'm a machinist, an autodidact (which isn't worth much) and I'm fifty-two years old. I have been married for thirty-one years to a lovely wife with whom I attended high school and who has kept me out of more trouble than she realizes. I have a cocker spaniel who's a goofball and food vacuum and who is a source of constant amusement.
I'm a native Californian but consider myself an upper Southerner or lower Midwesterner since California has become an annex of New York City. I like the Anaheim Angels and the St. Louis Cardinals.
I'm a Primitive Baptist in religion, a conservative in politics, a drinker of ale as opposed to lager or pilsner, and I like to smoke English and Scottish blends in my pipe.
I'm just another guy confused by the modern world and I'm still wondering why I know who Paris Hilton is and why more people don't read Jane Austen.
These are the blogs I like to read:
The Belmont Club :
The Daily Demarche
Patterico's Pontifications
www.michelle malkin.com
So there you have it. Just another blog to ignore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)