here are a few pages of a beautiful book about friendship that i've been enjoying with fred.
Showing posts with label on the nightstand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label on the nightstand. Show all posts
2.08.2013
on the nightstand: Ron Paul R3VOLUTION
"Judge Andrew Napolitano recently asked, 'Why should government agents spy on us? They work for us. How about we spy on them? On cops when they arrest and interrogate people or contemplate suspending freedom; on prosecutors when they decide whom to prosecute and what evidence to use; on judges when they rationalize away our guaranteed rights; and on members of Congress whenever they meet with a lobbyist, mark up a piece of legislation, or conspire to assault our liberties or our pocketbooks.'"
"I was delighted to learn that comedian Jon Stewart, when he had former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan on his program, asked him why we needed a Federal Reserve, and why interest rates couldn't simply be set freely on the market. That was a great question, the sort of question noncomedians in America never seem to ask, and Greenspan sputtered around for a response. Even Greenspan supporters where shocked to observe how poorly he responded to a simple question about the very purpose of the institution he headed for nearly two decades."
The respect you have for Jon Stewart is mutual, Ron Paul:
"In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on needless wars, destroys the value of their dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would all be without it, there is no force that can stop them.
If freedom is what we want, it is ours for the taking.
Let the R3VOLUTION begin."
i am 100% revved up. get me a bumper sticker. i came down one morning ranting and raving about our welfare/ warfare state and JB told me i need to read some opposition or i'm going to turn into a crazy lady.
"I was delighted to learn that comedian Jon Stewart, when he had former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan on his program, asked him why we needed a Federal Reserve, and why interest rates couldn't simply be set freely on the market. That was a great question, the sort of question noncomedians in America never seem to ask, and Greenspan sputtered around for a response. Even Greenspan supporters where shocked to observe how poorly he responded to a simple question about the very purpose of the institution he headed for nearly two decades."
The respect you have for Jon Stewart is mutual, Ron Paul:
"In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on needless wars, destroys the value of their dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would all be without it, there is no force that can stop them.
If freedom is what we want, it is ours for the taking.
Let the R3VOLUTION begin."
i am 100% revved up. get me a bumper sticker. i came down one morning ranting and raving about our welfare/ warfare state and JB told me i need to read some opposition or i'm going to turn into a crazy lady.
1.04.2013
what i read in part of 2012...
...before i quit keeping track
GONE WITH THE WIND
GONE WITH THE WIND
SHEPHERDING A CHILD'S HEART*
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN*
THE KID WHO CLIMBED EVEREST
INTO THIN AIR
SEX, DRUGS AND COCOA PUFFS
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF ME? WHY DO I CARE?*
FREAKONOMICS
IDOLS OF THE <3*
SENSE AND SENSIBILITY
LORD RAVENSCAR'S REVENGE
PASSIONS IN THE SAND**
THE RUTHLESS RAKE**
PASSIONS IN THE SAND**
THE PRUDE AND THE PRODIGAL**
THE PENNILESS PEER**
THE BORED BRIDEGROOM**
MOONLIGHT OVER EDEN**
THE INCREDIBLE HONEYMOON**
FROM HATE TO LOVE**
WIDE SARGASSO SEA
TIL WE HAVE FACES*
THE BORROWERS
FORGOTTEN GOD*
* means i didn't actually finish it!!
** means it's by Barbara Cartland and i shouldn't even have the balls to put it on my list, haha!
9.11.2012
on the nightstand: liberty defined, by ron paul
readers, i want you all to become libertarians. it is easier for me to evangelize for ron paul than it is for me to open my mouth on behalf of my lord + savior.
i think it's b/c ron paul's doctrine is hitting me all at once (and b/c i am manic in my 2nd trimester of pregnancy!) rather than being something i have taken for granted all my life b/c i'm blessed to have great Christian parents.
i must urgently recommend ron paul's book liberty defined. 50 very short and easy to read chapters explaining his position on issues from abortion to foreign policy to congress to gun control to the economy. AND IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. i would sum it up as...
we have moved far far away from the constitution to a welfare/warfare state that has taken away a ton of personal liberty from people, in exchange for promising to provide prosperity and security, which no government can provide.
i understand liberal people who believe that the american government should help people at home and abroad (although ron paul has convinced me that the government cannot actually help anyone). but conservatives really need to search their <3s about where our cherished principles have led us -- ie, into huge government. we are just spending and interfering on opposite issues from democrats.
amazing stunners:
democracy means the majority can (and does) strip rights from minorities. we should be lauding our republic, not our democracy.
government has nothing to give to anyone. anything the government gives to someone, it has forcibly taken from someone else.
FDR was the one who started with the fear-mongering and the promise that "the government can take care of you" both in terms of warfare (WWII) and welfare (the Depression). Both conservatives (warfare) and democrats (welfare) have just run wild with government expansion from then to now. i feel like such a renegade to think a bad thought about FDR but he totally changed our government and it has not stopped expanding since.
small government, personal liberty. this is also helping me in my interpersonal relationships. i don't approve of my sister's dating habits? well, she has personal liberty. i can attempt to persuade her but i cannot govern her. jared won't jump through my hoops anymore to make me feel good about myself? he (government) cannot provide the well-being i seek. pursuit of happiness is my responsibility and right and i have the personal liberty to pursue it.
ALSO, saddam hussein was our biggest ally in the middle east during the cold war (did you know this?!). then the u.s. ambassador gave him the go-ahead to invade kuwait and then suddenly--gulf war.
??!!
then we executed him? did you know this?
READ RON PAUL.
i think it's b/c ron paul's doctrine is hitting me all at once (and b/c i am manic in my 2nd trimester of pregnancy!) rather than being something i have taken for granted all my life b/c i'm blessed to have great Christian parents.
i must urgently recommend ron paul's book liberty defined. 50 very short and easy to read chapters explaining his position on issues from abortion to foreign policy to congress to gun control to the economy. AND IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE. i would sum it up as...
we have moved far far away from the constitution to a welfare/warfare state that has taken away a ton of personal liberty from people, in exchange for promising to provide prosperity and security, which no government can provide.
i understand liberal people who believe that the american government should help people at home and abroad (although ron paul has convinced me that the government cannot actually help anyone). but conservatives really need to search their <3s about where our cherished principles have led us -- ie, into huge government. we are just spending and interfering on opposite issues from democrats.
amazing stunners:
democracy means the majority can (and does) strip rights from minorities. we should be lauding our republic, not our democracy.
government has nothing to give to anyone. anything the government gives to someone, it has forcibly taken from someone else.
FDR was the one who started with the fear-mongering and the promise that "the government can take care of you" both in terms of warfare (WWII) and welfare (the Depression). Both conservatives (warfare) and democrats (welfare) have just run wild with government expansion from then to now. i feel like such a renegade to think a bad thought about FDR but he totally changed our government and it has not stopped expanding since.
small government, personal liberty. this is also helping me in my interpersonal relationships. i don't approve of my sister's dating habits? well, she has personal liberty. i can attempt to persuade her but i cannot govern her. jared won't jump through my hoops anymore to make me feel good about myself? he (government) cannot provide the well-being i seek. pursuit of happiness is my responsibility and right and i have the personal liberty to pursue it.
ALSO, saddam hussein was our biggest ally in the middle east during the cold war (did you know this?!). then the u.s. ambassador gave him the go-ahead to invade kuwait and then suddenly--gulf war.
??!!
then we executed him? did you know this?
READ RON PAUL.
on the nightstand: bill + hillary
CAVEAT: i am not making fun of anyone but myself and my political journey of ignorance.
i read hillary's autobiography "living history" last month and i really enjoyed it. i admit, my main motivation was to read about bill's affair, and i was not disappointed. hillary did not withhold her emotions although she certainly didn't tell all. i finished the book with respect for their marriage and their politics (!).
i was in 2nd grade when bill clinton was elected. a lot of my parents' friends were at our house in norfolk, ne, watching the election, and i remember going to bed feeling like the world was over and where was god and terrible events would begin tomorrow. of course i forgot all about the election by morning (just another epoch in my young life, learning that nothing matters, nothing will ever change and all my emotions are impotent).
then when the monica lewinski scandal happened, i did not take the time to form my own opinion (yeah i was like 12). the unanimous message from my community was that an unfaithful husband shouldn't be in office.
my point is that i thought he was a terrible person and a terrible president without knowing anything. and i'm sure his wife is not an impartial source but i did learn that they balanced the budget promptly upon entering office (my formerly beloved GW spent like crazy) (also parenthetically, i say "they" instead of "he" b/c that's how hillary describes bill's presidency, haha) AND the number of abortions went down during their administration.
(interesting tangent: hillary is pro-choice because of how struck she was by government interference in family planning in china (forced abortions) and romania (no birth control, forced pregnancy tests for women at work, government monitoring of all pregnancies). she does feel that pro-life advocates should have every right to counsel and attempt to persuade women in the private sector. interesting to consider pro-choice as a small-government stance.)
when i finished the book i picked up bill's heftier autobio and skimmed it (to get to the monica lewinski part, i confess) and again came away with respect for the marriage they have built. they didn't just gloss over the affair for publicity's sake. they went to therapy once a week for years and bill says he talked about his feelings for the first time in his whole life (YIKES).
my final takeaway was WTF was going on with ken starr? my research led me to the 700pp. couldn't-put-it-down (i'm serious) THE DEATH OF AMERICAN VIRTUE, CLINTON V STARR, by respected watergate scholar ken gormley, and that whole investigation seems to be pretty freaking farcical.
what did any of the issues he was investigating have to do with the government?! he was supposed to be investigating a decades old real estate investment so why exactly did he subpoena monica lewinsky and hold her without a lawyer for a day? what did that have to do with real estate and what did the real estate have to do with the presidency?
whoa. ken starr seems to have been a nice man way over his head. a lot of his people were "politically motivated" and they would dig up something questionable outside the scope of their investigation based on their assumptions that the clintons were totally guilty of everything imaginable and covering it up, and ken's reaction would be "oh dear, well, we had to behave unethically to discover this, but now that we know, i guess we have to investigate..."
just 2 brief and insane examples of the tangled web.
1. vince foster committed suicide early in the administration. he was bill's friend since preschool and hillary's colleague at her law firm. the impartial independent counsel that was first appointed did a quick investigation (since he was peripherally involved in whitewater etc) and found that his death was obviously a suicide. that first independent counsel was too impartial for his fellow republicans, so when they took control of congress, they ran him out appointed ken starr. ken starr took a few more years and re-did the same investigation and found that his death was obviously a suicide.
2. the reason they ever approached monica lewinsky in the first place is... let me see if i can get this right:
the clinton's whitewater real estate deal in the 80's was with a man named james mcdougal. towards the end of their association he became a crazy embezzler. he hired hillary's law firm and she was in charge of the case but tried to stay out of it as much as possible to avoid any conflict of interest. one of her colleagues there, webb hubbell, came with them to washington and was also under investigation by ken starr because he succumbed to financial corruption, resigned, and another friend of the clintons gave him some work (no foul play on the clinton's part ever proved). this same friend (i can't find his name, i returned the death of american virtue to the library, so sorry!) gave monica lewinsky a job after she left the pentagon where bill sent her to try to end the affair.
got that? the independent counsel was already investigating clinton's extramarital affairs (... because?) when linda tripp that crazy lady appeared with her illegal tapes of conversations with monica. they used the friend who gave jobs to both webb hubbell and monica lewinsky as the justification for approaching her at the mall and taking her to a hotel room where they kept her for over 8 hrs, displaying their guns, making her feel like she couldn't leave or call a lawyer (even though they didn't explicitly say you may not call your lawyer), and ultimately including her in a list of women that they then asked bill if he had sex with so that they could catch him in perjury.
(3. what happened to jim and susan mcdougal based on their respective participation and refusal to participate with ken starr is maybe the most insane thing about it all. i ended my obsession before reading susan's memoir though.)
?????
bill clinton did not have personal integrity, but pretty much none of this investigation should ever have happened.
what i learned from my reading about the clintons provoked a lot of thought about SMALL GOVERNMENT, the motto of conservatives. i begin to think that the clintons lived out this motto more than the conservatives during their extremely partisan-ridden terms. balanced budget, pro-choice from convictions that government should be limited v. corrupt and off-topic MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-MILLION $ INVESTIGATIONS...
i hope you are now interested in small government b/c my next "on the nightstand" will feature my new favorite book of all time, LIBERTY DEFINED BY RON PAUL.
and i leave you with this special treat: http://textsfromhillaryclinton.tumblr.com/
i read hillary's autobiography "living history" last month and i really enjoyed it. i admit, my main motivation was to read about bill's affair, and i was not disappointed. hillary did not withhold her emotions although she certainly didn't tell all. i finished the book with respect for their marriage and their politics (!).
i was in 2nd grade when bill clinton was elected. a lot of my parents' friends were at our house in norfolk, ne, watching the election, and i remember going to bed feeling like the world was over and where was god and terrible events would begin tomorrow. of course i forgot all about the election by morning (just another epoch in my young life, learning that nothing matters, nothing will ever change and all my emotions are impotent).
then when the monica lewinski scandal happened, i did not take the time to form my own opinion (yeah i was like 12). the unanimous message from my community was that an unfaithful husband shouldn't be in office.
my point is that i thought he was a terrible person and a terrible president without knowing anything. and i'm sure his wife is not an impartial source but i did learn that they balanced the budget promptly upon entering office (my formerly beloved GW spent like crazy) (also parenthetically, i say "they" instead of "he" b/c that's how hillary describes bill's presidency, haha) AND the number of abortions went down during their administration.
(interesting tangent: hillary is pro-choice because of how struck she was by government interference in family planning in china (forced abortions) and romania (no birth control, forced pregnancy tests for women at work, government monitoring of all pregnancies). she does feel that pro-life advocates should have every right to counsel and attempt to persuade women in the private sector. interesting to consider pro-choice as a small-government stance.)
when i finished the book i picked up bill's heftier autobio and skimmed it (to get to the monica lewinski part, i confess) and again came away with respect for the marriage they have built. they didn't just gloss over the affair for publicity's sake. they went to therapy once a week for years and bill says he talked about his feelings for the first time in his whole life (YIKES).
my final takeaway was WTF was going on with ken starr? my research led me to the 700pp. couldn't-put-it-down (i'm serious) THE DEATH OF AMERICAN VIRTUE, CLINTON V STARR, by respected watergate scholar ken gormley, and that whole investigation seems to be pretty freaking farcical.
what did any of the issues he was investigating have to do with the government?! he was supposed to be investigating a decades old real estate investment so why exactly did he subpoena monica lewinsky and hold her without a lawyer for a day? what did that have to do with real estate and what did the real estate have to do with the presidency?
whoa. ken starr seems to have been a nice man way over his head. a lot of his people were "politically motivated" and they would dig up something questionable outside the scope of their investigation based on their assumptions that the clintons were totally guilty of everything imaginable and covering it up, and ken's reaction would be "oh dear, well, we had to behave unethically to discover this, but now that we know, i guess we have to investigate..."
just 2 brief and insane examples of the tangled web.
1. vince foster committed suicide early in the administration. he was bill's friend since preschool and hillary's colleague at her law firm. the impartial independent counsel that was first appointed did a quick investigation (since he was peripherally involved in whitewater etc) and found that his death was obviously a suicide. that first independent counsel was too impartial for his fellow republicans, so when they took control of congress, they ran him out appointed ken starr. ken starr took a few more years and re-did the same investigation and found that his death was obviously a suicide.
2. the reason they ever approached monica lewinsky in the first place is... let me see if i can get this right:
the clinton's whitewater real estate deal in the 80's was with a man named james mcdougal. towards the end of their association he became a crazy embezzler. he hired hillary's law firm and she was in charge of the case but tried to stay out of it as much as possible to avoid any conflict of interest. one of her colleagues there, webb hubbell, came with them to washington and was also under investigation by ken starr because he succumbed to financial corruption, resigned, and another friend of the clintons gave him some work (no foul play on the clinton's part ever proved). this same friend (i can't find his name, i returned the death of american virtue to the library, so sorry!) gave monica lewinsky a job after she left the pentagon where bill sent her to try to end the affair.
got that? the independent counsel was already investigating clinton's extramarital affairs (... because?) when linda tripp that crazy lady appeared with her illegal tapes of conversations with monica. they used the friend who gave jobs to both webb hubbell and monica lewinsky as the justification for approaching her at the mall and taking her to a hotel room where they kept her for over 8 hrs, displaying their guns, making her feel like she couldn't leave or call a lawyer (even though they didn't explicitly say you may not call your lawyer), and ultimately including her in a list of women that they then asked bill if he had sex with so that they could catch him in perjury.
(3. what happened to jim and susan mcdougal based on their respective participation and refusal to participate with ken starr is maybe the most insane thing about it all. i ended my obsession before reading susan's memoir though.)
?????
bill clinton did not have personal integrity, but pretty much none of this investigation should ever have happened.
what i learned from my reading about the clintons provoked a lot of thought about SMALL GOVERNMENT, the motto of conservatives. i begin to think that the clintons lived out this motto more than the conservatives during their extremely partisan-ridden terms. balanced budget, pro-choice from convictions that government should be limited v. corrupt and off-topic MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-MILLION $ INVESTIGATIONS...
i hope you are now interested in small government b/c my next "on the nightstand" will feature my new favorite book of all time, LIBERTY DEFINED BY RON PAUL.
and i leave you with this special treat: http://textsfromhillaryclinton.tumblr.com/
8.02.2012
on the nightstand | the borrowers
just a quick on the nightstand post to say that when i reread the borrowers months ago, i suddenly freaked b/c instead of identifying with the main character, 14 yr old Arrietty, I WAS IDENTIFYING W/ HER MOTHER, the anxious, bitchy and materialistic Homily.
is juvenile fiction lost to me now?? all the best books (boxcar children, anne of green, series of unfortunate events) star orphans, and that makes me sad about freddy so i can't handle it!
aha!! i can pretend to be Ma Ingalls in the Little House books. except i've never been demure, courageous or hard-working a day in my life! i can aspire to her.
is juvenile fiction lost to me now?? all the best books (boxcar children, anne of green, series of unfortunate events) star orphans, and that makes me sad about freddy so i can't handle it!
aha!! i can pretend to be Ma Ingalls in the Little House books. except i've never been demure, courageous or hard-working a day in my life! i can aspire to her.
7.31.2012
on the nightstand: luther on galatians
"Let us then diligently learn to judge between these two kinds of righteousness [passive v active], that we may know how far we ought to obey the law. Now we have said before, that the law in a Christian ought not to pass his bounds, but ought to have dominion only over the flesh[...] But if it shall presume to creep into thy conscience, and there seek to reign, see thou play the cunning logician, and make the true division[...] Say thou: O law, thou wouldest climb up into the kingdom of my conscience, and there reign and reprove it of sin, wouldest take from me the joy of my heart, which I have by faith in the Christ, and drive me to desperation, that I might be without all hope, and utterly perish. This thou dost besides thine office: keep thyself within thy bounds, and exercise thy power upon the flesh, but touch not my conscience; for I am baptized, and by the Gospel am called to the partaking of righteousness and of everlasting life, to the kingdom of Christ, wherein my conscience is at rest, where no law is, but altogether forgiveness of sins, peace, quietness, joy, health and everlasting life. Trouble me not in these matters, for I will not suffer thee, so intolerable a tyrant and cruel tormentor, to reign in my conscience, for it is the seat and temple of Christ the Son of God, who is the king of righteousness and peace, and my most sweet savior and mediator: he shall keep my conscience joyful and quiet in the sound and pure doctrine of the Gospel, and in the knowledge of this passive and heavenly righteousness."
5.27.2012
mrs. dalloway
just ate up virginia woolf's mrs. dalloway. i tried to read it in college but quit, bored, before luncheon (the novel takes place on one single june day). i am pleased to reach what i hope will be the first of many levels of enjoyment of virginia woolf as i grow up.
this is the page i dog-eared.
it rasped her, though, to have stirring about in her this brutal monster! to hear twigs cracking and feel hooves planted down in the depths of that leaf-encumbered forest, the soul; never to be content quite, or quite secure, for at any moment the brute would be stirring, this hatred, which had power to make her feel scraped, hurt in her spine; gave her physical pain, and made all pleasure in beauty, in friendship, in being well, in being loved and making her home delightful rock, quiver, and bend as if indeed there were a monster grubbing at the roots, as if the whole panoply of content were nothing but self love! this hatred!
clarissa dalloway's anger problems can't hold a candle to mine. she only suffers this one bout of rage all day! ah, "at any moment the brute would be stirring."
but how exquisite is a single exclamation mark at the end of a run-on! can you imagine diagramming this sentence in 5th grade english class?
this is the page i dog-eared.
it rasped her, though, to have stirring about in her this brutal monster! to hear twigs cracking and feel hooves planted down in the depths of that leaf-encumbered forest, the soul; never to be content quite, or quite secure, for at any moment the brute would be stirring, this hatred, which had power to make her feel scraped, hurt in her spine; gave her physical pain, and made all pleasure in beauty, in friendship, in being well, in being loved and making her home delightful rock, quiver, and bend as if indeed there were a monster grubbing at the roots, as if the whole panoply of content were nothing but self love! this hatred!
clarissa dalloway's anger problems can't hold a candle to mine. she only suffers this one bout of rage all day! ah, "at any moment the brute would be stirring."
but how exquisite is a single exclamation mark at the end of a run-on! can you imagine diagramming this sentence in 5th grade english class?
4.03.2012
on the nightstand | wide sargasso sea
i guess "on the nightstand" posts are where i blithely dismiss important works of literature and entire fields of criticism.
today i will blithely dismiss Wide Sargasso Sea. this book is the prequel to Jane Eyre, written from the point of view of [spoiler alert] bertha antoinetta mason. that wasn't really a spoiler.
i did not really enjoy this book. i thought the idea was fantastic and the book was blah. she gets lost part way through her own story. on the other hand... it is true that lostness is at the <3 of [spoiler alert] madness.
the burning question for me was, which came first, Wide Sargasso Sea or Gilbert + Gubar's Madwoman in the Attic, a book of criticism named for bertha antoinetta mason?
i'm looking it up right now, and the answer is... wow! Wide Sargasso Sea, 1966! Madwoman in the Attic, 1979. That means it truly was a fantastic idea!
4.02.2012
on the nightstand | sense + sensibility
i read sense and sensibility a few weeks ago. i always loved the emma thompson adaptation but struggled with the novel. this time was different.
i realized the novel hardly takes itself seriously. the point is 100% to make fun of teenagers by marianne's terrible behavior. how fun!
emma thompson did an ah mazing job with the screenplay, because there is hardly any dialogue in the first 3rd of the novel. well done.
i also skimmed through the criticism in my norton edition (hoity toity voice). there was essay that was a blast from the past: "Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl." oh literary theory. basically Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick says that marianne is autoerotic (addicted to masturbation) and that elinor is in love with her. but not in those words. she says it in these words:
"It is the naming of a man, the absent Willoughby, that both marks this as an unmistakably sexual scene, and by the same gesture seems to displace its "sexuality" from the depicted bedroom space of same-sex tenderness, secrecy, longing, and frustration. Is this, then, a hetero- or a homoerotic novel? No doubt it must be said to be both, if love is vectored toward an object and Elinor's here flies toward Marianne, Marianne's in turn toward Willoughby. But what, if love is defined only by its gender of object-choice, are we to make of Marianne's terrible isolation in this scene; of her unstanchable emission, convulsive and intransitive?"
anyone read that whole paragraph? i have no problem with writing that kind of b.s. i did it for my entire educational career. i like writing critical papers. but i hope no one expects me to believe the above, or worse, to think about it while reading, or to live by it. even just the wordy phrase "no doubt it must be said to be both" makes me wish i was dead.
i guess i don't like most theory. i guess i'm an author's intent kind of girl. what do y'all think?
i realized the novel hardly takes itself seriously. the point is 100% to make fun of teenagers by marianne's terrible behavior. how fun!
emma thompson did an ah mazing job with the screenplay, because there is hardly any dialogue in the first 3rd of the novel. well done.
i also skimmed through the criticism in my norton edition (hoity toity voice). there was essay that was a blast from the past: "Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl." oh literary theory. basically Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick says that marianne is autoerotic (addicted to masturbation) and that elinor is in love with her. but not in those words. she says it in these words:
"It is the naming of a man, the absent Willoughby, that both marks this as an unmistakably sexual scene, and by the same gesture seems to displace its "sexuality" from the depicted bedroom space of same-sex tenderness, secrecy, longing, and frustration. Is this, then, a hetero- or a homoerotic novel? No doubt it must be said to be both, if love is vectored toward an object and Elinor's here flies toward Marianne, Marianne's in turn toward Willoughby. But what, if love is defined only by its gender of object-choice, are we to make of Marianne's terrible isolation in this scene; of her unstanchable emission, convulsive and intransitive?"
anyone read that whole paragraph? i have no problem with writing that kind of b.s. i did it for my entire educational career. i like writing critical papers. but i hope no one expects me to believe the above, or worse, to think about it while reading, or to live by it. even just the wordy phrase "no doubt it must be said to be both" makes me wish i was dead.
i guess i don't like most theory. i guess i'm an author's intent kind of girl. what do y'all think?
3.31.2012
on the nightstand | barbara cartland
confession. i just finished a major barbara cartland binge.
don't judge.
if you don't already know who barbara cartland is, then your life is free of the worst written, most barf-tastically cheesy romance novels of all time built entirely upon archaic and pretty offensive gender stereotyping. sexist and sexy (actually, they are pretty clean. the sex is marital and euphemistic)!!
there are basically 3 plots. my favorite is the forced/blackmailed arranged marriage. i especially like a little bit of parental abuse b/c i am messed up like that (wow did i just post that?!).
the girls are all skinny (often malnourished) w/ small chests. they have eyes too big for their (often <3-shaped faces). they don't know what sex is and they are scared of men and marriage, but are they ever ready for love! the men, on the other hand, wear very tight-fitting clothes and have very sordid pasts, with numerous jaded love affairs. and that is natural and they never apologize, because they are men. but what they were always searching for, in their <3's, was the vague youthful idealism that they find in the girl who idolizes them. also buddhism, horses, estates, etc.
yay! i just love arranged marriages!
i don't even remember any more but i think in one week i read
Lord Ravenscar's Revenge
Passions in the Sand
From Hell to Heaven
The Ruthless Rake
The Prude and the Prodigal
The Penniless Peer
The Bored Bridegroom
The Dangerous Dandy
A Fugitive from Love
Moonlight over Eden
The Incredible Honeymoon
From Hate to Love
and that is not scratching the surface of this body of work. Dame Barbara was PROLIFIC. she wrote hundreds of these magical novels. she dictated them. i can just see her, be-furred, lounging in a pink canopied bed, petting pugs and intoning with a melodious voice as a little typist with cat-eye glasses types with her pointer fingers. she wrote >24 novels in one year. twice.
don't judge.
if you don't already know who barbara cartland is, then your life is free of the worst written, most barf-tastically cheesy romance novels of all time built entirely upon archaic and pretty offensive gender stereotyping. sexist and sexy (actually, they are pretty clean. the sex is marital and euphemistic)!!
there are basically 3 plots. my favorite is the forced/blackmailed arranged marriage. i especially like a little bit of parental abuse b/c i am messed up like that (wow did i just post that?!).
the girls are all skinny (often malnourished) w/ small chests. they have eyes too big for their (often <3-shaped faces). they don't know what sex is and they are scared of men and marriage, but are they ever ready for love! the men, on the other hand, wear very tight-fitting clothes and have very sordid pasts, with numerous jaded love affairs. and that is natural and they never apologize, because they are men. but what they were always searching for, in their <3's, was the vague youthful idealism that they find in the girl who idolizes them. also buddhism, horses, estates, etc.
yay! i just love arranged marriages!
i don't even remember any more but i think in one week i read
Lord Ravenscar's Revenge
Passions in the Sand
From Hell to Heaven
The Ruthless Rake
The Prude and the Prodigal
The Penniless Peer
The Bored Bridegroom
The Dangerous Dandy
A Fugitive from Love
Moonlight over Eden
The Incredible Honeymoon
From Hate to Love
and that is not scratching the surface of this body of work. Dame Barbara was PROLIFIC. she wrote hundreds of these magical novels. she dictated them. i can just see her, be-furred, lounging in a pink canopied bed, petting pugs and intoning with a melodious voice as a little typist with cat-eye glasses types with her pointer fingers. she wrote >24 novels in one year. twice.
my abs. favorite part is the cover art.
{and what do i find but a blog devoted exclusively to Barbara Cartland covers!!}
these are the two i want to print and frame poster-sized in my bedroom. jared?
now i'm going to go to bed and read The Saint and the Sinner.
now i'm going to go to bed and read The Saint and the Sinner.
1.26.2012
on top of the world.
i am on a Mt Everest kick.
?
i just finished the kid who climbed everest about bear grylls (man vs wild). very good.
now i'm reading into thin air by krakauer about the 1996 Everest tragedy -- um, did you know he was there? i didn't realize that, and... i definitely got like 1/3 into the book last year before quitting. how shameful that i didn't even realize the author was there?! i'm able to get much more into it now after bear gryll's easier read.
jared and i also discovered a show documenting an expedition up Everest. it has the worst thing, though, at moments of tension. a deep voice intones "ever ever ever ever rest rest rest." the worst.
why on earth am i on an Everest kick? I DONT KNOW! i think it's immoral and irresponsible to do anything so risky. jared is only allowed to climb Mt Everest if freddy and i both die. he said ok, if you both die, i'll do it. i said good, then you'll be joining us soon. not that i doubt his capabilities or fitness. it's so interesting; climbing Mt Everest doesn't really involve much climbing. i mean, you don't have to be a skilled climber. you just have to be spirited and committed enough to put one foot in front of the other when you might die and your brain IS dying from lack of oxygen. but i guess maybe skilled climbers are more likely to have the love for mountains.
i guess you feel sort of stripped away and elemental. that's kind of a good feeling. but what's the point? childbirth (even with epidural!!) is like that -- a simplicity of purpose. but it ends and the experience of childbirth itself doesn't really change a person, i don't think (it's the child). does the experience of Everest really change a person?
well, i guess there is the death-defying aspect of climbing Mt Everest. i can't really speak to that. that might change a person.
i hope, dear reader, you weren't awaiting my big finish where i tie my ramblings into a big, beautiful bow of thematic wonder. i got nothing. i'm just genuinely curious about the passion to climb Mt Everest, and i wonder am i just lazy?
{i'm linking this post to "just write" at the extraordinary ordinary!}
?
i just finished the kid who climbed everest about bear grylls (man vs wild). very good.
now i'm reading into thin air by krakauer about the 1996 Everest tragedy -- um, did you know he was there? i didn't realize that, and... i definitely got like 1/3 into the book last year before quitting. how shameful that i didn't even realize the author was there?! i'm able to get much more into it now after bear gryll's easier read.
jared and i also discovered a show documenting an expedition up Everest. it has the worst thing, though, at moments of tension. a deep voice intones "ever ever ever ever rest rest rest." the worst.
why on earth am i on an Everest kick? I DONT KNOW! i think it's immoral and irresponsible to do anything so risky. jared is only allowed to climb Mt Everest if freddy and i both die. he said ok, if you both die, i'll do it. i said good, then you'll be joining us soon. not that i doubt his capabilities or fitness. it's so interesting; climbing Mt Everest doesn't really involve much climbing. i mean, you don't have to be a skilled climber. you just have to be spirited and committed enough to put one foot in front of the other when you might die and your brain IS dying from lack of oxygen. but i guess maybe skilled climbers are more likely to have the love for mountains.
i guess you feel sort of stripped away and elemental. that's kind of a good feeling. but what's the point? childbirth (even with epidural!!) is like that -- a simplicity of purpose. but it ends and the experience of childbirth itself doesn't really change a person, i don't think (it's the child). does the experience of Everest really change a person?
well, i guess there is the death-defying aspect of climbing Mt Everest. i can't really speak to that. that might change a person.
i hope, dear reader, you weren't awaiting my big finish where i tie my ramblings into a big, beautiful bow of thematic wonder. i got nothing. i'm just genuinely curious about the passion to climb Mt Everest, and i wonder am i just lazy?
{i'm linking this post to "just write" at the extraordinary ordinary!}
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)