I have lost some faith but I refuse to get into that. Not really worth it. Duckworth here I come. But that doesn't matter too much either. It will be interesting though or it should be. I dont think too much of their books though and don't suffer from the illusion that I can change anything. It is good to practice writing. Hence this blog. I think podcasts are too hard. Probably require an Apple Macintosh top of the line. Not too keen on brands but an awareness is neccessary. For what? Dunno. Criticism at least. American Psycho has been started: so far, so good. I think it will turn out to be a classic.
Still searching for more of those author encounters/confronts/finds himself in his own work. Not as an alter-ego but as himself. Strange stuff. Difficult stuff. Not many seem willing to take it on. But I will seek.
This feels lousy so I will leave it at that.
Your dear storytelling and informative protagonist is glad to say he will give updates on the developments of 'the duck'.
Does anybody know where ducks go in the winter?
M.M.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So, here I go, making a little contribution to your new plaything!
I found an interesting passage in that book I told you about (Point Counter Point, Huxley), and I wanted to know what you think:
"[The modern civilization] take the main intellectualist axiom for granted - that there's an intrinsic superiority in mental, conscious, voluntary life over physical, intuitive, instinctive, emotional life. The whole of modern civilization is based on the idea that the specialized function which gives a man his place in society is more important than the whole man, or rather IS the whole man, all the rest being irrelevant or even (since the physical, intuitive, instinctive and emotional part of man doesn't contribute appreciably to making money or getting on in an industrialized world) positively harmful and detestable."
I quite agree with the criticism - but I couldn't think of a valid substitute for our societal system to make those "irrelevancies" more significant, because they do not, in themselves, provide the means for survival.
It also says a couple of pages on:
"The rush to books and universities is like the rush to the public-house. People want to drown their realization of the difficuties of living properly in this grotesque contemporary world, they want to forget their own deplorable inefficiency as artists in life."
I've never thought of studying as a means to get away from emotional confrontations with one's peers - but maybe it's true to a certain extent and in certain circumstances! What d'ya think?
Post a Comment