i started male fantasies by klaus theweleit

I actually have The Little Friend around somewhere, Dale - my sister gave it to me for Xmas years ago, but it was so different from The Secret History (which I found in a bookshelf at home and read over the course of a week-end) that I never got into it. Maybe I should give it another chance? I did enjoy The Secret History.

It certainly is different from Secret History. I've read both twice. Among other things there's a great highway overpass sequence and a great watertower sequence in The Little Friend.

I have got to proofread before sending.

I once wrote a story, "Lady Stanhope's Manuscript," that drew on the real Secret History -- Procopius's. There was a passage that allowed me to invent the akephaloi, the Headless Ones, in contrast to the asomatai, the Fleshless Ones, i.e. the holy angels. It was at least a fun story to write, with some nice "bits" more or less falling into a hand I happened to have open.

the publisher foreign languages press drew a cat to go with my book order!

catto
note

The old Residents singer performing live at the Wonder of Weird tour.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The old Residents singer performing live at the
> Wonder of Weird tour.


i love the residents!

DrWho42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The old Residents singer performing live at the
> > Wonder of Weird tour.
>
>
> i love the residents!


This is an open question to all Residents fans out there on CAS.

How might you best sum up the Residents' artistic vision? What were they attempting to accomplish or state?

I come not as a well-formed, overt critic of their attempts, but one who has listened a bit--about as much as I could--and was unable to draw any definitive positive conclusions.

I honestly *did* feel that they may have been attempting an overall message, but that I was not able to clearly tune in on it. Too, the disquieting notion that they were simply trying to weird out an audience by their unstructured presentation, and reputation/mystique, also has undermined my appreciation. That they were simply attempting to shock, or perhaps were attempting to see, for their own amusement, how many would say that they could see the emperor's new clothes.

Too, there's the underlying suggestion that if they are serious, they are an iteration of the Dadaists.

So what can we say about them? From whence does their musical style evolve? Who/what influenced them, and who/what did they influence subsequently? Are their recordings thematically organized, or is it just random material that they have on-hand?

I'm open-minded enough to recognize that some very effect art works in near subliminal ways, and this is especially true in music. Was this a part of that they were attempting.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Feb 21 | 10:03AM by Sawfish.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I found a list of SF stories, that, when
> sorted by publishing date, the 1950s read like a
> compendium of the stuff I had liked.
>
> [en.wikipedia.org]
> ion_short_stories
>
> I read lots of this stuff in my formative youth,
> and now, reflecting back, those readings, and R.
> Crumb in the 60s, could explain a lot...
>

Lots of good stuff on that list. Much variation, I have only read a small part of it.

Robert Crumb, Hah!, yes I can see a possible similarity of mentality there! Crumb 1. Crumb 2. I was never a collector, but I have a few old undergrounds and fanzines. I enjoy his Silly Pigeons, like when they go to the swimming hall. Silly Pigeon 1.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I found a list of SF stories, that, when
> > sorted by publishing date, the 1950s read like
> a
> > compendium of the stuff I had liked.
> >
> >
> [en.wikipedia.org]
>
> > ion_short_stories
> >
> > I read lots of this stuff in my formative
> youth,
> > and now, reflecting back, those readings, and
> R.
> > Crumb in the 60s, could explain a lot...
> >
>
> Lots of good stuff on that list. Much variation, I
> have only read a small part of it.

Same here.

Thinking on this list, what I know of it--the stories I'm familiar with--it seems as you remarked about van Vogt; *ideas* seemed paramount at that time. Plot is a vehicle to express a new idea or a new wrinkle on an old idea.

One of the things about van Vogt that I initially liked as a kid, then later eschewed and for the most part still do, is that to advance the story, he gave no (or little) explanation of how stuff worked, just that it did, and its effect was needed at that time. Like in "War Against the Rull", there were these various kinds of ray guns that had somewhat different properties, and this was just presented as a given. I noted the same when reading "The Monster", but it seems to be appropriate for his kind of storytelling.

For Crumb, he's the guy who postulated a bright, shiny, Tommowland-like future, with everything made of rubber so that car wrecks were viewed as something like slapstick comedy, and "everyone will have *all* of *everything*"--patently impossible, but a lot like what leadership promises the electorate.

In the same strip, the only limitation was that on turning 65, a person would be hunted down and have a cyanide pie thrown in his/her face. While I sorta laughed at this at the time, I now wryly note that by this criterion I'd have been dead 8 years ago.

He ends the strip, where the pie is thrown, with a cheerful Warner Bros-like: "That's All, Folks!"

>
> Robert Crumb, Hah!, yes I can see a possible
> similarity of mentality there! Crumb 1. Crumb 2. I
> was never a collector, but I have a few old
> undergrounds and fanzines. I enjoy his Silly
> Pigeons, like when they go to the swimming hall.
> Silly Pigeon 1.

I don't recall that one. I only really read his stuff in Zap and Bijou, I think.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i just got the penguin classics edition of anti-oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia today

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Not sure what your exact struggle is here, but I
> > have noticed that you don't seem to like set
> > directions in any manner, definite assured
> > statements, or things that are precise, not
> > impressed by invented tools or perfection in
> > robotic engineering.
>
> The answer is simple, K!
>
> I'm a foul materialist.

(Lifted the above from the Topographic horror thread.)

I beg to differ. A foul materialist would hardly appreciate fine literature, or be so generously social as you are here. There is a difference between being a philosophical materialist/mechanist (or agnostic for that matter) and being materialistic. For a foul materialistic person is a complete egoist, doesn't give a damn about others. On the other hand, one doesn't even have to believe in God to be spiritual, it is rather a way of being, an approach to life and others. You don't even seem to care much for books as collectible objects, but only for their contents. I am obsessed with my book collection, I am a bibliophile, and I am also a perfectionist about certain other material belongings (such as electronics), and I am not particularly social, ... so that would make me more of a materialist than you (and me, I do believe in God!). Lovecraft was also a philosophical materialist/mechanist, but I still regard him as a spiritual person. He was also very generous with his knowledge, and endlessly helpful to others in this regard, which makes a spiritual side to his person. CAS was perhaps an agnostic, as far as I can tell, but also a very spiritual person in his imagination.

Very interesting discussion, Knygatin, if you are willing to continue...

Below:

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Knygatin Wrote:
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Not sure what your exact struggle is here, but
> I
> > > have noticed that you don't seem to like set
> > > directions in any manner, definite assured
> > > statements, or things that are precise, not
> > > impressed by invented tools or perfection in
> > > robotic engineering.
> >
> > The answer is simple, K!
> >
> > I'm a foul materialist.
>
> (Lifted the above from the Topographic horror
> thread.)
>
> I beg to differ. A foul materialist would hardly
> appreciate fine literature, or be so generously
> social as you are here. There is a difference
> between being a philosophical
> materialist/mechanist (or agnostic for that
> matter) and being materialistic. For a foul
> materialistic person is a complete egoist, doesn't
> give a damn about others. On the other hand, one
> doesn't even have to believe in God to be
> spiritual, it is rather a way of being, an
> approach to life and others. You don't even seem
> to care much for books as collectible objects, but
> only for their contents. I am obsessed with my
> book collection, I am a bibliophile, and I am also
> a perfectionist about certain other material
> belongings (such as electronics), and I am not
> particularly social, ... so that would make me
> more of a materialist than you (and me, I do
> believe in God!). Lovecraft was also a
> philosophical materialist/mechanist, but I still
> regard him as a spiritual person. He was also very
> generous with his knowledge, and endlessly helpful
> to others in this regard, which makes a spiritual
> side to his person. CAS was perhaps an agnostic,
> as far as I can tell, but also a very spiritual
> person in his imagination.

I mean, all of this makes sense to me, but I think that I see ideas of what we can call spirituality, which to me, I call it "humanity", but that they are limited in scope.

To me, two VERY major influences in my worldview are a moderately deep understanding of Darwin's ideas of the development of species--which can be extended to the *ideas* and thoughts and social behaviors a species tends to entertain--and the scope to which any given attribute applies.

E.g., scope governs at what point collectivism breaks down, as I had postulated earlier. Similarly, it seems that on this forum there are people who consider themselves moral and spiritual, and I feel that if this was real life, face-to-face, I'd like and get along well with many who post here.

And that I basically share many/most--perhaps all--the same social values you do. But where I differ with many here is that I recognize that within our hypothetical group it is perfectly fine and satisfying for me to act in this fashion, experience has shown me that it's really a fool's errand to assume that it's fine to act this way in the general populace.

This is simply because many individuals out there--maybe even most--do not share these values to the point that you can trust them to adhere to these values without fear of some form of sanction to "encourage" them to either restrain themselves, or to take responsibility for their actions.

I'm saying that they won't do either of these without fear driving them to it.

Simply put, it's fine, and I *like* to act in what you'd term a moral manner, but only within a pre-proven group. Definitely making no assumptions that the undifferentiated populace shares them to the degree that it's safe to include them.

I've had fairly wide dealings, in personal business dealings, in being a landlord, in being a teacher, to have found out the hard way that what we here may consider to be common moral behavior does not extend broadly or deeply. By many it is viewed as a set of suggestions, to be followed, or not, at whim.

Now given this, it's not possible for me to believe that there's an external source of authority that dictates in an absolute sense *which* behaviors are moral: ours or theirs. If there is one, I've seen no compelling evidence; however, I can state that I *believe* that my way is better--but that's because it's better for *me*.

And given equal access to power, the lowest common denominator wins. Bluntly, the group that has the power to inflict genocide, but refrains from exercising that power for moral reasons, can survive for only so long as they have sufficient power to deter the other group--the one that has no qualms about using such power to eliminate opposing groups completely.

If true, this sounds a lot like "might makes right", doesn't it?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh well, I can see the compromise. I agree with much, and that it's risky to be too generous with unknown people. One should not to pass over into stupidity, obviously. Integrity is also important. I also agree that "humanity" and being "spiritual" may just be different words for the same thing, in terms of generous behavior, and whether it actually has a spiritual dimension, or is just a biological social behavior, doesn't matter a whole lot in practicality. Except, when believing in the spiritual extension, one may go a little further perhaps in bettering "inner" relationships to people one has stopped seeing, or to someone who has passed away.

Thanks for this little exchange. I feel content.

Next I will shortly comment on you question about The Residents.

The Residents are both visual and musical artists. I don't think they have a particular vision or message they want to convey. But they have worked from the Theory of Obscurity, believing that the artist can do his best and most honest work when he is free from pressure and expectations from the audience. Without the pressure from people and society to behave and be normal, the artist can be more daring, and shocking, not needing to repress his neurotic fears, his ugly, shameful, or primal sides, but can let it all out in uncensored emotional catharsis. That is why they have chosen to be anonymous.

I think they even have some similarities to Robert Crumb, in not censuring themselves, not hiding neurotic or unpleasant emotions. And coming out of the same bohemian hippie era.