If Mort Divine ruled the world

[The Ozzman]

not even sure innocuous is the right word, it's clearly her going after him in that exchange.

From a standpoint of harassment level exchanges, it's innocuous. There's overt flirting going on but reading that didn't trigger anything that I would label as harassment.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The point seems to be not that they had a friendly relationship at one point, but that she deliberately quoted him out of context to make "longlegs" look like an uninvited comment on her legs when it was a natural reply regarding his own height, or calling her dollface after she texted him three times trying to meet up with him, a word she clearly had no issue with.

 

[Satanstoenail]

One of the dispatchers at my work is this insufferable passive-aggressive cunt called “Trace”, and she always calls me sweety or darl or love and it makes my skin crawl and I’m entertaining the notion of reporting her for sexual harassment. #notyoursweety

 

[CiG]

Bitches aren't worth the risk anymore if they're going to flirt with you of all things and then claim you sexually harassed them.

I hope she ends up single and alone with dried up eggs.

 

[Dak]

Same shit happened with a British college student recently. Girl accused him of rape and turns out her text msgs were full of her begging for sex from him and talking about rape fantasies to her friends - msgs the police tried to hide from the court. Shit's completely fucked.

 

[CiG]

Exactly why the whole #BelieveTheVictim horseshit can foad.

 

[CiG]

RE: Hollywood harassment/rape scandals.



Imagine this scenario gender-flipped btw.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm putting this here since it's derailing the movie thread.

Overturning of classic ideals as the ideal. Be shitty people today for tomorrow we die. It's just a sermony as the Sermon on the Mount, just in a different direction.

Dak, I do not know how else to put it to you except to emphasize your sheer ignorance in this matter. Not only is this explanation entirely too reductive to be anything like the "sermon" of modernist art (if that's the word we're using), it also fails to describe numerous works of modernist writing.

Modernism is not dismissive at all of classical ideals. In some cases, writers like T.S. Eliot and Joyce saw their work as redemptive of classical ideals (both Eliot and Joyce commented on how only those with knowledge of the classics would truly understand their work). The novels of Virginia Woolf don't depict shitty people being shitty for the sake of being shitty. Are their bad people in some modernist novels? Sure--but then, there are bad people in Victorian novels too, and in eighteenth-century novels, and in early modern drama. The morality of twentieth-century literature is nothing like "be shitty because nothing matters." I can't imagine how anyone who's actually read modernist or postmodernist fiction would think that.

I cannot stress enough how frustrating it is to see you write these asinine "theories" about twentieth-century writing when you really know little to nothing about the subject matter.

 

[Dak]

Dak, I do not know how else to put it to you except to emphasize your sheer ignorance in this matter. Not only is this explanation entirely too reductive to be anything like the "sermon" of modernist art (if that's the word we're using), it also fails to describe numerous works of modernist writing.

Modernism is not dismissive at all of classical ideals. In some cases, writers like T.S. Eliot and Joyce saw their work as redemptive of classical ideals (both Eliot and Joyce commented on how only those with knowledge of the classics would truly understand their work). The novels of Virginia Woolf don't depict shitty people being shitty for the sake of being shitty. Are their bad people in some modernist novels? Sure--but then, there are bad people in Victorian novels too, and in eighteenth-century novels, and in early modern drama.

I cannot stress enough how frustrating it is to see you write these asinine "theories" about twentieth-century writing when you really know little to nothing about the subject matter.

At least I'm not always appealing to one form of art, or isolated works when trying to set a position. I'm more familiar with the fine arts since that's what I've had the most exposure to in terms of theory and applied, even if somewhat second hand. Literature is only a small piece of the arts, and increasingly irrelevant outside of the field due to the destruction of necessary skills for simply reading them, much less comprehension, and even to a lesser degree critiquing them (in no small part due to the educational policies pushed by those more influenced by post-modernism/progressivism).

The problem is that artists as a group are intensely ignorant of matters outside of the techniques of their craft, and this ignorance permeates the creations. The people swarming the hive of a fine arts building I have to see can't even manage to regulate their sleep/wake cycles or follow basic hygiene and nutritional guidelines, much less provide insight into the complexities of the human condition. I wouldn't deign to tell a painter how to paint, or a writer how to write, in terms of technique, and would respond poorly in kind if they started critiquing organized psychology. Yet this is exactly the problem with artists: They can't help themselves but give uninformed opinions on anything that seizes their fancy. They refuse to stay in their lane, so I'll shove back. I'm sure you can point to an erudite artist or two, but these one or two are not responsible for the production of the majority of art of every type.

Edit: Most importantly, art as a medium is completely unsuitable for making a "statement" or "argument" in a serious way. It is impossible for art to rise above the level of sophistry in discourse. All art is inherently an appeal to emotion.

 

[Einherjar86]

At least I'm not always appealing to one form of art, or isolated works when trying to set a position. I'm more familiar with the fine arts since that's what I've had the most exposure to in terms of theory and applied, even if somewhat second hand. Literature is only a small piece of the arts, and increasingly irrelevant outside of the field due to the destruction of necessary skills for simply reading them, much less comprehension, and even to a lesser degree critiquing them (in no small part due to the educational policies pushed by those more influenced by post-modernism/progressivism).

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow are considered paradigmatic examples of their respective historical periods. I can name you dozens of other works from Joyce's and Pynchon's contemporaries, but what good does it do when you haven't read any of them? Why can't you take my word for this, when I take your word on the valences of contemporary psychological theory? Why am I not an expert? I won't lie, your perspective on my authority pisses me off.

Literature is far from a "small piece of the arts." It's not increasingly irrelevant, you just can't stand that it is relevant because you don't agree with what you presume are the widely-held political views of most writers. I don't think you have any grounds for this presumption, nor do I think you really know what most writers think.

And furthermore, a literature PhD has to know about other genres of art, primarily visual. You can't study modernist literature and not study Magritte, Picasso, Manet, Fritz Lang, Luis Bunuel, Abel Gance, etc. Your theory of modernist "sermons" still doesn't apply to these people.

The problem is that artists as a group are intensely ignorant of matters outside of the techniques of their craft, and this ignorance permeates the creations.

Seriously? I'd like to see evidence of this claim.

The people swarming the hive of a fine arts building I have to see can't even manage to regulate their sleep/wake cycles or follow basic hygiene and nutritional guidelines, much less provide insight into the complexities of the human condition. I wouldn't deign to tell a painter how to paint, or a writer how to write, in terms of technique, and would respond poorly in kind if they started critiquing organized psychology. Yet this is exactly the problem with artists: They can't help themselves but give uninformed opinions on anything that seizes their fancy. They refuse to stay in their lane, so I'll shove back. I'm sure you can point to an erudite artist or two, but these one or two are not responsible for the production of the majority of art of every type.

An artist or two? You're insane.

Have you ever stopped to think that the exposure to art you have is more limited than mine? You experience artists in a single university location, educated by a single academic community. You don't have a wider exposure to artists or to art; you have a myopic view of a small group of artists getting their undergraduate degrees or MFAs. Personally speaking, most people in this general group have a very immature and under-developed view of the world, and in no way represent the intellectually complex perspective of professional writers/artists.

From what I can tell, it isn't art in general that you should have a problem with, but the kind of art theory promoted in your wife's department. I'd recommend that you broaden your frame of reference before you go spouting nonsense.

 

[Dak]

I don't doubt your extensive knowledge of fiction, nor the importance of various pieces within the discipline; how technical boundaries are expanded, etc. That's your lane, and I don't veer into it. The problem is the discipline itself won't stay in its lane. I'll readily admit I'm not steeped in art; maybe I would look deeper if every contact with what passes for depth and practice in an university or in esteemed theory weren't incredibly offputting, to put it nicely. It wouldn't matter though even if I were the most learned man in art and every artist, down to the lowliest undergrad major in pottery were an intellectual paragon.

I'll reiterate my edit: Art is completely unsuited for argumentation or serious "exploration". It cannot transcend sophistry by its very nature. It is always inherently an appeal to and evoker of emotion. Even the most learned person would be hamstrung in trying to find something approximating fact or truth via art. Artists that attempt to drive political action through whatever artistic medium are simply inferior versions of Trump, in essence. Appeals to emotion to gain some form or feeling of power.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't doubt your extensive knowledge of fiction, nor the importance of various pieces within the discipline; how technical boundaries are expanded, etc. That's your lane, and I don't veer into it. The problem is the discipline itself won't stay in its lane. I'll readily admit I'm not steeped in art; maybe I would look deeper if every contact with what passes for depth and practice in an university or in esteemed theory weren't incredibly offputting, to put it nicely. It wouldn't matter though even if I were the most learned man in art and every artist, down to the lowliest undergrad major in pottery were an intellectual paragon.

Name a contemporary artist who you feel is intervening in politics in a distracting way.

I'll reiterate my edit: Art is completely unsuited for argumentation or serious "exploration". It cannot transcend sophistry by its very nature. It is always inherently an appeal to and evoker of emotion.

This isn't true at all. In fact, I'd argue that some of the best works of art resist any appeal to pathos. Some readers (or viewers) might have emotional reactions, but the works that stand the test of time are those that return their audiences to uncertainty over their convictions.

This doesn't mean that art doesn't contain truths, but that it encourages its readers to participate in a conversation that privileges no one side. I tell my students this every semester, because they insist on saying things like "Pynchon argues": authors don't argue anything, they don't preach a view or an ideal or a political stance (good ones, anyway--which is why Ayn Rand is a shit writer). Authors present a multitude of views, they present a dialogue, and challenge their readers to navigate that dialogue.

Art is only unsuited for argumentation to the extent that art shouldn't promote any single argument; it should promote a multitude of arguments.

 

[Dak]

Name a contemporary artist who you feel is intervening in politics in a distracting way.

There's far too much subjectivity and dilution and obfuscation through various degrees of participation to even begin to charge any artist, particularly contemporarily, with intervention. This is the same problem with democratic politics. No one vote is to blame, all the way up to any particular Senator.

More blame lays at the foundation in such a dispersed environment of responsibility, as they are the appeal for authority for those that come after. Another problem for artists is they have no actual skin in the game; that is, responsibility for the consequences of the outcomes they advocate for do not fall back on them. Sure, artists are persecuted when they present work against a tyrannical regime, but that is not skin in the game in the same manner. They are held responsible for pissing off power, not for outcomes they advocated for. An important difference. This is not a problem limited to artists. It is a cancer on/of modernity.

This isn't true at all. In fact, I'd argue that some of the best works of art resist any appeal to pathos. Some readers (or viewers) might have emotional reactions, but the works that stand the test of time are those that return their audiences to uncertainty over their convictions.

This doesn't mean that art doesn't contain truths, but that it encourages its readers to participate in a conversation that privileges no one side. I tell my students this every semester, because they insist on saying things like "Pynchon argues": authors don't argue anything, they don't preach a view or an ideal or a political stance (good ones, anyway--which is why Ayn Rand is a shit writer). Authors present a multitude of views, they present a dialogue, and challenge their readers to navigate that dialogue.

Art is only unsuited for argumentation to the extent that art shouldn't promote any single argument; it should promote a multitude of arguments.

Fiction is narrative, and the target of the narrative is emotion. Otherwise you write non-polemical non-fiction. I haven't read Pynchon, but he does argue. Even if he doesn't have an answer, he wants people to question the things he questions, and he introduces uncertainties as per his dislikes and uncertainties. And bears no consequence for anyone he ruins in doing so. Zeno did this, and would still take an arrow to the knee (or supposedly lost his head).

PS: Ayn probably was a shit writer. I have yet to waste my time reading her. I can/could get the necessary information without weeding through the obfuscation of her narratives.

I'm not anti-emotion by the way in any way, but it has no direct connection to fact, and does at least as much harm as good - which persons like myself have to play cleanup for. I consider narratives playing with fire, and generally by figurative pyromaniacs, even if by accident of ignorance in however many cases.

The following isn't even remotely my wife's most technical piece, nor one of the ones which she won an award for, but it is my favorite piece. What is the narrative or the dialogue in this:

 

[Einherjar86]

Fiction is narrative, and the target of the narrative is emotion.

No, it's not. Why do you think this?

Narrative isn't subjective, despite being composed by an author. Expression isn't automatically phenomenal perception or representation. Narrative isn't a record of experience or a presentation of personal beliefs, and it doesn't by definition plumb emotional depth. Emotion isn't its target. I don't know why this is your impression.

Otherwise you write non-polemical non-fiction. I haven't read Pynchon, but he does argue. Even if he doesn't have an answer, he wants people to question the things he questions, and he introduces uncertainties as per his dislikes and uncertainties. And bears no consequence for anyone he ruins in doing so. Zeno did this, and would still take an arrow to the knee (or supposedly lost his head).

Zeno wasn't a fiction writer, and Pynchon doesn't argue. There's no argument in V., or Gravity's Rainbow, or The Crying of Lot 49, or Bleeding Edge... I don't know how to convince you of this beyond telling you to read Pynchon, but if you do I would defy you to figure out what the hell he wants anyone to question. It's not a polemical book and it isn't advocating any one mode of questioning. I'm serious, this line of thinking is entirely off-base.

The following isn't even remotely my wife's most technical piece, nor one of the ones which she won an award for, but it is my favorite piece. What is the narrative or the dialogue in this:

I mean, there's something there, and I'd be happy to go off on a tangent. I'm no proponent of authorial/artistic intention, but I'm sure your wife has a sense of structure that informs the imagery.

 

[Dak]

No, it's not. Why do you think this?

Narrative isn't subjective, despite being composed by an author. Expression isn't automatically phenomenal perception or representation. Narrative isn't a record of experience or a presentation of personal beliefs, and it doesn't by definition plumb emotional depth. Emotion isn't its target. I don't know why this is your impression.

Zeno wasn't a fiction writer, and Pynchon doesn't argue. There's no argument in V., or Gravity's Rainbow, or The Crying of Lot 49, or Bleeding Edge... I don't know how to convince you of this beyond telling you to read Pynchon, but if you do I would defy you to figure out what the hell he wants anyone to question. It's not a polemical book and it isn't advocating any one mode of questioning. I'm serious, this line of thinking is entirely off-base.

Zeno was presenting a narrative, and asking questions is eliciting the same questioning in others. The implicit argument is to not accept whatever is questioned. Just based on the wiki I can identify some such argument by Pynchon but you would probably argue the wiki is wrong and I need to read it for myself and I'd be wrong anyway if I did read it because he isn't doing whatever I'd say he's doing.

I mean, there's something there, and I'd be happy to go off on a tangent. I'm no proponent of authorial/artistic intention, but I'm sure your wife has a sense of structure that informs the imagery.

It represented a felt emotion. A felt emotion by itself is not an argument or a dialogue. It's singular, subjective, and doesn't purport to hold some position which must be accepted or rejected. This sort of work is not considered worthy of graduation, even if remastered on a technical level. My wife has been explicitly required to generate work that contributes to "the conversation" on some bullshit, and this isn't some provincial wish.

 

[Einherjar86]

Zeno was presenting a narrative, and asking questions is eliciting the same questioning in others. The implicit argument is to not accept whatever is questioned. Just based on the wiki I can identify some such argument by Pynchon but you would probably argue the wiki is wrong and I need to read it for myself and I'd be wrong anyway if I did read it because he isn't doing whatever I'd say he's doing.

Zeno wasn't presenting a narrative, he was presenting a series of logical thought experiments. Not only do these two things entail different modes and conventions, they're entirely different genres. Zeno's writing doesn't have a narrator, which is a necessary component of narrative.

Maybe you're thinking of narrative not in the literary sense, i.e. a specific mode of fictional storytelling, but in the more psychological sense, i.e. a process of connecting events in a logical and coherent manner. That's fine, but it's not an aesthetic operation. It's a cognitive function of phenomenal perception. When I talk about narrative art, it's very different from narrative as an effect of cognition.

Speaking of wiki articles, here's the wiki on narrative in literature:

But novels, lending a number of voices to several characters in addition to narrator's, created a possibility of narrator's views differing significantly from the author's views. With the rise of the novel in the 18th century, the concept of the narrator (as opposed to "author") made the question of narrator a prominent one for literary theory. It has been proposed that perspective and interpretive knowledge are the essential characteristics, while focalization and structure are lateral characteristics of the narrator.

It represented a felt emotion.

I'm sure it did. It's a nice piece.

 

[Dak]

Zeno wasn't presenting a narrative, he was presenting a series of logical thought experiments. Not only do these two things entail different modes and conventions, they're entirely different genres. Zeno's writing doesn't have a narrator, which is a necessary component of narrative.

Maybe you're thinking of narrative .....in the more psychological sense, i.e. a process of connecting events in a logical and coherent manner. That's fine, but it's not an aesthetic operation. It's a cognitive function of phenomenal perception. When I talk about narrative art, it's very different from narrative as an effect of cognition.

Well certainly you are right about that. But this isn't a defense, imo, not only because the psychological sense is my discipline, but because the psychological sense is the understanding for anyone lacking the combination of your IQ and level of advancement in your discipline, which is 99.99(repeating)% of humans.

I'm sure it did. It's a nice piece.

Well I thank you for her. Obviously I agree.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well certainly you are right about that. But this isn't a defense, imo, not only because the psychological sense is my discipline, but because the psychological sense is the understanding for anyone lacking the combination of your IQ and level of advancement in your discipline, which is 99.99(repeating)% of humans.

Actually, based on this, it is a defense:

a) I've been talking about narrative art, and how it doesn't promote a subjective argument; I've been saying that narrative art, i.e. narrative in an aesthetic sense, is not subjective. Fictional narrative is not an argument or singularly motivated form of writing.

b) I'm pretty sure that if you ask most people, they'd say that "narrative" refers to fiction. Most people prefer not to think that they compose their everyday experience into an internal narrative.

Well I thank you for her. Obviously I agree.

You're welcome.

EDIT:

In other news, Cornell West publishes a savage yet simultaneously collegiate takedown of Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Guardian:

It is clear that [Coates's] narrow racial tribalism and myopic political neoliberalism has no place for keeping track of Wall Street greed, US imperial crimes or black elite indifference to poverty. For example, there is no serious attention to the plight of the most vulnerable in our community, the LGBT people who are disproportionately affected by violence, poverty, neglect and disrespect.

The disagreements between Coates and I are substantive and serious. It would be wrong to construe my quest for truth and justice as motivated by pettiness. Must every serious critique be reduced to a vicious takedown or an ugly act of hatred? Can we not acknowledge that there are deep disagreements among us with our very lives and destinies at stake? Is it even possible to downplay career moves and personal insecurities in order to highlight our clashing and conflicting ways of viewing the cold and cruel world we inhabit?

I stand with those like Robin DG Kelley, Gerald Horne, Imani Perry and Barbara Ransby who represent the radical wing of the black freedom struggle. We refuse to disconnect white supremacy from the realities of class, empire, and other forms of domination – be it ecological, sexual, or others.

The same cannot be said for Ta-Nehisi Coates.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west

 

[viewerfromnihil]

In other news, Cornell West publishes a savage yet simultaneously collegiate takedown of Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west

Read it yesterday. I was surprised at how scathing it was. Coates may be no revolutionary on the front lines like West, but calling Coates a fetishist of white supremacy is a bit much. West's critique was also rather narrow in its scope. He seems to base this op-ed primarily on Coates's most recent book and neglects the contradictions to his assertions found in Coates's previous writings (Personally, I don't find the contradictions entirely problematic. Attitudes and reasoning are contextual). Coates is a pessimist, sure. Fetishist? Ouch. The first thing that popped into my mind when I read that though was Coates's self-reflection in Paris when, in the midst of following a stranger around the city, he realized he didn't have to be on edge as if he were putting himself into danger, with the parallel being the streets of Baltimore on which the book begins.

Here's Coates's rebuttal on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/942524465346310144

I agree with West's argument on some points, but not every black thinker should have to be a black radical without being utterly shamed by the revolutionaries. Practically speaking, I don't get it, but then it's also not intended to be practical.

Also, for the record, I haven't read We were Eight Years in Power, save the excerpt published in the Atlantic as "The First White President."

 

[Dak]

Actually, based on this, it is a defense:

a) I've been talking about narrative art, and how it doesn't promote a subjective argument; I've been saying that narrative art, i.e. narrative in an aesthetic sense, is not subjective. Fictional narrative is not an argument or singularly motivated form of writing.

b) I'm pretty sure that if you ask most people, they'd say that "narrative" refers to fiction. Most people prefer not to think that they compose their everyday experience into an internal narrative.

I mean that it's not a defense because the relationship between the work and some lit departments isn't representative of the relationship between a work and basically anyone else, never mind the relationship between the author and the work.

In other news, Cornell West publishes a savage yet simultaneously collegiate takedown of Ta-Nehisi Coates in The Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-coates-neoliberal-black-struggle-cornel-west

The whole "fetishist" attack is kind of cringe-ish to me, but if it applies, Coates is a fine target as it relates to "whitey". Cornell is doing the same thing though, just "intersectionally".