ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Which is the true text order?

Here is an apt demonstration of what I meant when I said that postmodern literature is bad writing. Not only is it bad writing, but it isn't even meant to be properly read at all, only skimmed for the surface impressions made by the words. In fact, it's not even necessary for the words to be in any particular order from paragraph to paragraph.

The following three passages are the same string of words taken from the 1985 National Book Award winner. I divided the original passage into 15 strings based on the punctuation and randomized it twice. Now, without looking anything up on the Internet, see if you can tell which passage is in the correct order, Number 1, 2, or 3.
  1. We simply walk toward the sliding doors ... This is not Tibet ... sealed off ... timeless. Code words and ceremonial phrases. It is just a question of deciphering ... Another reason why I think of Tibet. Dying is an art in Tibet ... Energy waves, incident radiation ... Look how well-lighted everything is ... Not that we would want to ... Chants, numerology, horoscopes, recitations. Here we don't die, we shop. But the difference is less marked than you think. Everything is concealed in symbolism... This simple truth is hard to fathom. But once we stop denying death, we can proceed calmly to die ... Tibetans try to see death for what it is. It is the end of attachment to things. The large doors slide open, they close unbidden. We don't have to cling to life artificially, or to death ...
  2. Everything is concealed in symbolism ... The large doors slide open, they close unbidden. Energy waves, incident radiation ... code words and ceremonial phrases. It is just a question of deciphering ... Not that we would want to ... This is not Tibet ... Tibetans try to see death for what it is. It is the end of attachment to things. This simple truth is hard to fathom. But once we stop denying death, we can proceed calmly to die ... We don't have to cling to life artificially, or to death ... We simply walk toward the sliding doors ... Look how well-lighted everything is ... sealed off ... timeless. Another reason why I think of Tibet. Dying is an art in Tibet ... Chants, numerology, horoscopes, recitations. Here we don't die, we shop. But the difference is less marked than you think."
  3. Energy waves, incident radiation ... This is not Tibet ...timeless. Chants, numerology, horoscopes, recitations. Here we don't die, we shop. But the difference is less marked than you think. We don't have to cling to life artificially, or to death ...Another reason why I think of Tibet. Dying is an art in Tibet ... Everything is concealed in symbolism... Look how well-lighted everything is ... code words and ceremonial phrases. It is just a question of deciphering ... We simply walk toward the sliding doors ... Not that we would want to ... Tibetans try to see death for what it is. It is the end of attachment to things. Sealed off ... This simple truth is hard to fathom. But once we stop denying death, we can proceed calmly to die ... The large doors slide open, they close unbidden. 

Labels: ,

181 Comments:

Blogger Joe A. July 25, 2017 7:21 PM  

Holy shit. I have no idea which one is "legit."

Blogger vanderleun July 25, 2017 7:25 PM  

DOOR NUMBER 3

Anonymous Frank Lin July 25, 2017 7:27 PM  

3. And even if I'm right your point is made. Insufferable.

I'm imaging this woman - because this cannot be a man - is an a gift shop, maybe in an airport, ruminating on all things Tibet while looking at things to buy.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable July 25, 2017 7:27 PM  

Gotta be 2. If it isn't, it makes even less sense. Any way, it's crap.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 25, 2017 7:33 PM  

2

Anonymous LurkingPuppy July 25, 2017 7:37 PM  

2 puts the two sentences about doors in a more sensible order… so it's probably not the order of the original text.

Anonymous Bz July 25, 2017 7:38 PM  

Ha ha, not obvious but I'll guess number 2. It makes me think of DeLillo by the way.

Blogger idprism July 25, 2017 7:39 PM  

Gross. The excerpt is probably 2, but why fail to make a point so spectacularly while exasperating your audience with word salad. Just tell them you think shopping in a supermarket or mall is both meditative and nihilistic or whatever the heck you actually believe.

Blogger tz July 25, 2017 7:39 PM  

2?

Anonymous Difster July 25, 2017 7:40 PM  

I have no idea at all.

Blogger Jon Mollison July 25, 2017 7:40 PM  

I'll take door number 2, but I don't like it any better than 1 or 3.

This is truly rabbit-style writing. Leave it to Vox to point out the Emperor's New Book is utterly empty.

Blogger Unknown July 25, 2017 7:41 PM  

Number 2 is the only one that remotely makes sense if you try really hard. The other two just seem like a jumble of sentences. That probably means number 2 is wrong.

That said, number 3 is coherent if you ignore the first two sentences.

Anonymous Christian July 25, 2017 7:41 PM  

It's clearly #3.

Delillo's writing is not "bad". It's different than that to which you are accustomed. Your lack of taste or lack of appreciation or lack of familiarity with the genre doesn't make something bad. It makes it something you don't like. That's OK. But let's not pretend it is what you say it is.

"In fact, it's not even necessary for the words to be in any particular order from paragraph to paragraph."

Not only is it necessary the words be in a particular order, the prose would be nonsensical if they were not in their current order.

"Underground" Is Delillo's finest work. "White Noise" is good. But "Underground" is pure melody.

Anonymous Didnt like No Country Ending July 25, 2017 7:42 PM  

2. Slightly more causal flow.

Blogger Boris K. July 25, 2017 7:42 PM  

2

Anonymous VFM #7916 July 25, 2017 7:42 PM  

I'll go with 3. 2 is a red swimming thingy.

Blogger SB Wright July 25, 2017 7:42 PM  

I read the article referenced in the earlier post, so I know which one is the original. But what re-enforces Vox's point is that if I just skim over each excerpt individually several times, I could convince myself that whichever one I just skimmed is the real one. There is the exact same cheap smugness and phony acumen conveyed by quickly scanning any of the texts, and nothing deeper provided by a careful reading of the passage with the words in the author's intended order.

Anonymous MIG July 25, 2017 7:43 PM  

Number 2.

Anonymous VFM #7916 July 25, 2017 7:44 PM  

"Your lack of taste or lack of appreciation or lack of familiarity with the genre doesn't make something bad."

Oy gvey.

Anonymous Raw Cringe July 25, 2017 7:47 PM  

I actually read the link you posted to the Atlantic article, so I recognize the correct one.

Hint: It's not #3.

Blogger VFM #7634 July 25, 2017 7:52 PM  

1 makes slightly more sense to me for some reason

Blogger dvdivx July 25, 2017 7:53 PM  

If you want to illustrate why Idiocracy was a prophetic movie compare textbooks from the late 1800's to modern textbooks. That's without taking vibrancy into account. Blacks used the same textbooks then so if they graduated from high school it would mean far more than the day of everyone gets a gold star.
I have a book from the 1880's someone made side notes in, the calligraphy is simply amazing. Two colors of blue ink without any flaws or smudges. Back then medical students were expected to know English, German and Latin. Now they just import "doctors" from India and Africa.

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise July 25, 2017 7:55 PM  

@13 Christian wrote:

It's clearly number three.

You clearly looked it up, you effetist snob.

Anonymous Marvin Boggs July 25, 2017 7:58 PM  

I'll guess 2.

Could you please identify the "author"? His work is something I'd like to avoid.

Anonymous DissidentRight July 25, 2017 7:59 PM  

2

Anonymous Johnny Mayonnaise July 25, 2017 8:00 PM  

@13 Christian wrote:

Your lack of taste or lack of appreciation or lack of familiarity with the genre doesn't make something bad.

Assumed lacks, not proven.

Blogger Dire Badger July 25, 2017 8:01 PM  

The Only one that seems to flow with any sort of logic is #3. 1 is virtually unreadable, and at the end of #2 I was left thinking, "What the hell is she doing in Tibet?"

Blogger VD July 25, 2017 8:01 PM  

Delillo's writing is not "bad". It's different than that to which you are accustomed. Your lack of taste or lack of appreciation or lack of familiarity with the genre doesn't make something bad. It makes it something you don't like. That's OK. But let's not pretend it is what you say it is.

It is bad. It is exactly what I say it is. It is word salad meant to be skimmed for impression rather than read for meaning.

Not only is it necessary the words be in a particular order, the prose would be nonsensical if they were not in their current order.

You don't even understand the literature you are defending.

But "Underground" is pure melody.

Exactly. It's just emotional impression. There is neither substance nor depth to it.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd July 25, 2017 8:02 PM  

None of those passages have the phrases in correct order. One of them is in the original order, and I have no idea which is original, but I am sure none are correct. There may not be any order in which those phrases could express any sane meaning.

Anonymous Uncle John's Band July 25, 2017 8:07 PM  

I'll go with 2, but it isn't a confident pick

Blogger Salt July 25, 2017 8:10 PM  

#3

Anonymous two sentries July 25, 2017 8:10 PM  

"Underground" Is Delillo's finest work. "White Noise" is good. But "Underground" is pure melody."

Fat lot of respect you have for pure melody. The book is called "Underworld," not "Underground."

I liked White Noise, to be sure, and I even liked his Oswald book. Underworld -- less like Pure Melody, and more like pure Merrie Melodies. It has it's moments (lord knows I didn't make it through the whole thing), but still. Just another guy kicking himself because he didn't have the chops to write Gravity's Rainbow.

I vote #3 (well I already had, but then I did read the thread -- but I didn't cheat, I swear!)

Here's my question: as po-mo word salad goes, ye could have picked something far more grievous than this, but ye chose a thing fairly reasonable on the intelligibility scale. Was that the point?

Anonymous Raw Cringe July 25, 2017 8:11 PM  

Incidentally, I've always enjoyed both "genre" and "literary" fiction. I find I'm having to strain my mind a little bit to understand why the "literary" po-mo writing is bad. It's pleasant, you know? Or at least I find it pleasant... But pleasantness isn't the sole measure of goodness in writing.

But then again, from a reader's point of view... should readers really be critics? Isn't it better to just take books as they come and squeeze whatever good you can out of them for yourself, without worrying about whether the the writer did an objectively good job or not? I use books to improve myself, not to learn what I should think about the writer.

I understand why a writer would want to criticize po-mo as a failure of storycraft, but if as a reader I find the meaningless melodies of word salad pleasant... then is there really any incentive for me to take my analysis any further than that?

Anonymous two sentries July 25, 2017 8:14 PM  

Damn, I had a chance to make a crack about "pureed melody" and I missed it. L'esprit de whathaveyou.

Anonymous Just another commenter July 25, 2017 8:15 PM  

Item 2, I think. But holy crap, the fact that it is not instantly clear certainly gives credence to your claim. I've seen some good stream of consciousness writing whose goal is just an impression, but that is just word salad in any order.

I like what @29 said.

My writing may lack sublime style (or even much style at all), but at least it's clear what I mean.

But suppose that for someone who emotes, but does not think, it might be fine, or even glorius. And anyone who likes that writing is not someone I'd ever want to hire and have work for me. Huh. Maybe that's the hiring test: "Here, read this, tell me what you think of it."

Blogger weka July 25, 2017 8:21 PM  

Joyce killed the modern novel. After him, stylistic experimentation was mere repetition.

But the need for story continues. While the modernists ruined music, poetry, novels, art and architecture, the people chose genre and popular styles, for they remained valid.

None of these passages isnwotrhy of consideration.

Blogger Nathan July 25, 2017 8:22 PM  

I read White Noise a while ago, and I liked most of it. I saw passages like the one above as mocking the main character being an intellectual-yet-idiot, as taleb might call them. But perhaps Delillo didnt intend that effect.

White Noise and Infinite Jest are the only two postmodern books I have enjoyed reading. I'm not sure why. Both have huge flaws, and both are absolutely unreadable at parts, but they still live in my imagination as stories.

Blogger Pseudotsuga July 25, 2017 8:22 PM  

I choose door #3, Monty. What did I win?!

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 25, 2017 8:23 PM  

If I had to read more than a thousand words of that crap I would contemplate ending it.

Blogger exfarmkid July 25, 2017 8:23 PM  

I have no freaking idea which is the original - they all cause brain leakage.

Blogger Cubby8126 July 25, 2017 8:25 PM  

I read half of the first one before I got the real point, it's pointless to read it. It's a bunch of crap that just tries to pose as sophisiticated. I'll just guess 3 because....3 is a good number.

Anonymous basementhomebrewer July 25, 2017 8:26 PM  

VD wrote:Exactly. It's just emotional impression. There is neither substance nor depth to it.

Here in lies the grim irony. Their taste in literature is the equivalent of easy listening music found in elevators, or worse yet in their minds, pop music. It's simply feel good background noise that carries very superficial meaning.

These are the same people who will lecture you on the vulgarities of action/adventure in a story. The people who are reading the equivalent of POP MUSIC.

Anonymous Deplorable Winning July 25, 2017 8:26 PM  

Dire Badger wrote:The Only one that seems to flow with any sort of logic is #3. 1 is virtually unreadable, and at the end of #2 I was left thinking, "What the hell is she doing in Tibet?"

I read #3 first, and I have to say it is definitely the correct version... relatively speaking. Then I read #2 and wow- #2 must be the correct order- everything sorta makes so much normative sense! Then I read #1, and omg, #1 really kinda holistically pulls it all together, it seems.

Blogger Cubby8126 July 25, 2017 8:27 PM  

I read half of the first one before I got the real point, it's pointless to read it. It's a bunch of crap that just tries to pose as sophisiticated. I'll just guess 3 because....3 is a good number.

Blogger MagisterGreen July 25, 2017 8:28 PM  

I'm gonna have to go with #2 for $1000, Alex.

Anonymous Roundtine July 25, 2017 8:35 PM  

#2

Anonymous Deplorable Winning July 25, 2017 8:36 PM  

Christian wrote:Your lack of taste or lack of appreciation or lack of familiarity with the genre doesn't make something bad.

Are you the multimillionaire art collector/movie producer who was big enough to stop by and educate us on the sublime nuance of Jackson Pollock's paint spills?

Anonymous Bob July 25, 2017 8:42 PM  

3 flips it but as a shorty-story fan above all else, 3 makes it into wierdness I (as a reader) want to read more about.

I know you probably didn't want to hear that but alas I am self-taught in what I like ;)

Blogger Scott Birch July 25, 2017 8:43 PM  

I choose 2. It's either 2 or 3. 1 is not it because it doesn't seem as dramatic somehow. Don't ask me to defend that previous sentence because I can't.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 25, 2017 8:47 PM  

Now, without looking anything up on the Internet, see if you can tell which passage is in the correct order, Number 1, 2, or 3.

Sorry, but that would involve reading that disgusting word salad. Even though I am sworn to mindless obedience, I refuse. Some things are worse that the punishments even you can dole out.
I'll go report to Malwyn now.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 25, 2017 8:48 PM  

Christian wrote:Delillo's writing is not "bad". It's different than that to which you are accustomed. Your lack of taste or lack of appreciation or lack of familiarity with the genre doesn't make something bad.
Poor troll. Good trolling should have some nodding relationship with reality. This is simply contradiction.

Anonymous ben July 25, 2017 8:50 PM  

Every one of those paragraphs is more effective than Optigrab. Wow

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams July 25, 2017 8:53 PM  

@13

Haven't seen such great trolling since Judeo-Christ.

"Not only is it necessary the words be in a particular order, the prose would be nonsensical if they were not in their current order."

Literally LOLed here.

Blogger Janus July 25, 2017 8:58 PM  

I Choose #3.

"But sir, don't you want to read them first?"

I was elected to lead, not to read. #3.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 25, 2017 9:00 PM  

The point of words is to convey thought from one mind to another. Whoever wrote this, whichever one is the original, is incapable of thought. Anyone who want to tell me it's good needs to tell me what the thought is.
And when you've done that, tell me why the writer could not have conveyed the thought as concisely and as intelligibly as they just did.

Even as a portrait of the incoherence of the mind of a madman or mentally retarded prostitute it fails in that the word salad actively repels thought.

Blogger pdwalker July 25, 2017 9:04 PM  

All of them are bad; verbal diarrhea pouring out on a page, like a cheetah out of hell.

#2 is the least nonsensical to me, but only barely, so that must be the wrong answer as the author clearly didn't want the passage to make any sense.

What a load of shit.

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 9:04 PM  

How does anyone read that? I can take it in small soundbites to get the gist of a comment on a blog (i love elipses), but for long form writing?

You can't communicate complexity this way. This is clearly a byproduct of a culture that champions microblogging and texting over actual books and literature.

Blogger CM July 25, 2017 9:06 PM  

WAIT! This is 1985? Microblogging can't even be his excuse!

Stupid. There is a reason I never read past the first couple decades of the 29th century.

Most of my reading is 19th century chick lit.

Anonymous Causal Lurker July 25, 2017 9:08 PM  

According to my friend Pinky, the correct one is NARF!

All three are variations of broad spectrum noise. If there's a meaning, then it's lost in the text garbage. It's the symptom. The cause is "a failure to communicate," becasue it's intended to declaim and not discuss. This makes Alice's caterpillar blush with shame.

It reaches its acme when applied to law and regulation. You are deterred from reading in detail, to uderstand the meaning. It means what the reader or writer want it to mean, at tremendous costs.

Blogger Lazarus July 25, 2017 9:10 PM  

Nobody picked #1 so I want it.

Blogger Arthur Isaac July 25, 2017 9:13 PM  

#2.....but since when is anyone worried about making sense?

Blogger Sentient Spud July 25, 2017 9:14 PM  

Going to go with 2.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft July 25, 2017 9:16 PM  

It's self-referential. It's about things being incomprehensible. In this case, it would seem to imply intentional incomprehensibility... for about five seconds. Then it starts talking about Tibet and how death is meaningless and just part of the flow of energy, and you realize that it gave an example of intent, but the rest of it shows clearly that there is no intent.

It could actually legitimately be seen as a criticism of itself... and nothing more.

#2.

Blogger WATYF July 25, 2017 9:17 PM  

It has to be #2.

Blogger tublecane July 25, 2017 9:23 PM  

@33-"Or at least I find it pleasant"

That's one thing. Most regular humans don't find it all that pleasant. Even the ones who've learned the trick of turning their brains off and skimming.

Compared to previous great art, which appealed and continues to appeal to much broader swathes of the public, postmodernism is a non-starter. (Except as couched in comedy, I'll admit, like the Marx Brothers, the Simpsons, or Warner Brothers cartoons.) A lot of people want to know why that is, so they study aesthetics and the history and conventions of different artforms. Then they report back to us on what they find. Which you may not be interested in hearing, but I am.

It doesn't really matter to your reading habits, in particular. You can go on reading what you like. If you don't care to ever look beneath the hood, you don't have to.

Only bear in mind that there's more to literature than what gives you--or anyone else for that matter--pleasure. Music can be great for putting you to sleep, for instance. But that's not all it does.

Blogger snod snodwon July 25, 2017 9:26 PM  

going with #2 as well.

Blogger Hugo Smith July 25, 2017 9:27 PM  

Number two is the most coherent.

Blogger tublecane July 25, 2017 9:29 PM  

@13-"[blank] is pure melody"

I want to ask, "What does that even mean?" But I can guess what it's supposed to mean. It's supposed to mean it transcends normal novelistic writing to give the reader a sense of the wonder he gets from music, maybe. Or it just means you can sit back and enjoy it without thinking, much like a musical passage. Which is Vox's point, actually.

But melody, I must say, though we generally accept it passively--unless we're musicologists or unusually attentive listeners--isn't as mindless as this drivel passing itself off as prose. Even if it's in bubble-gum pop, melody has musical meaning. Often it has great meaning.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora July 25, 2017 9:29 PM  

#3 is probably the correct answer, but #2 ends correctly. The difference isn't that marked.

Blogger buzzardist July 25, 2017 9:31 PM  

@13 I'm dying over here. You try to call out Vox's judgment that this is bad writing, while defending Delillo's prose. But in doing so, you pick #3 as the right word order. If you, a great reader of Delillo, can't pick out then correct word order, then how can you possibly defend this writing as anything but light-brained word salad aimed as giving little more than vague emotional impressions?

Delillo's writing isn't quite to the level of a Jackson Pollock painting in terms of scattering random words all over the page, but it's not far off.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 25, 2017 9:33 PM  

It reminds me of a lot of the poetry they made us read in school. Jumbles of words, usually without rhyme or meter, conveying no particular meaning, and you're supposed to read it and then sit around discussing what it meant to you. (Or more likely, making stuff up that you think will sound insightful.) I didn't like it as poetry, and it's even dumber if it's supposed to be prose.

I realize there are niche markets for all sorts of things, and that doesn't mean most people don't have to like them. Maybe there's a niche for this. But to give it a national award is an attack on literature.

Blogger Nate July 25, 2017 9:40 PM  

I would like to file a formal complaint over this ellipses abuse.

And now... that is not a hypocritical stance. My use of ellipses... is... methodical.

Blogger tublecane July 25, 2017 9:40 PM  

@42-I have to sympathize with them, though. Because they didn't know what they were doing when they chucked over convention. Even after more than a century, they can't climb out of the grave they dug for themselves.

In classical music, for instance, they finally went all the way and abandoned rhythm along with harmony, melody, and all the rest. This was couched in terms of rhythmic freedom. Rid yourself of all the conventions governing rhythm and you'd be free to use it at will. That was the idea, anyway. But they soon discovered no one was interested in free rhythm. Because rhythm without convention didn't sound like rhythm. It didn't sound like anything. They just chucked out rhythm and replaced it with nothing. You can have okay music without many elements, but without rhythm you don't even have crappy music. You just have noise.

Postmodernism doesn't generally take it that far. But it does strip itself of much of the things that make art sensible, leaving themselves nothing to do but rebuild some of the old ways so they can tear them down again. But people get sick of perpetual revolution. If they want to attract an audience, they'll have to give them something to enjoy.

The old ways of pleasing people are out, obviously. They can't build anything new, because they'd have to tear it down as they build it, lest they be moderns. And they'd rather die. So they have to appeal on the basest level possible.

If you're a composer, we're talking nursery rhyme. If you're a novelist, long strings of words over which readers can skim.

Anonymous London Derriere July 25, 2017 9:50 PM  

"You can have okay music without many elements, but without rhythm you don't even have crappy music. You just have noise."

Bach's Prelude in C major would like to see you in the principal's office.

Blogger Ed Steckel July 25, 2017 9:58 PM  

What do you think of Pynchon?

Blogger Lazarus July 25, 2017 9:59 PM  

Nate wrote:I would like to file a formal complaint over this ellipses abuse.

And now... that is not a hypocritical stance. My use of ellipses... is... methodical.



Louis Ferdinand Celine salutes you.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 25, 2017 10:10 PM  

tublecane wrote:You can have okay music without many elements, but without rhythm you don't even have crappy music. You just have noise.
No, you have "pure melody"

The "pure melody" line was just bafflegab. Music without anything but melody...

doesn't even have melody.

Blogger Panzerdude July 25, 2017 10:17 PM  

2

Anonymous Daniel H July 25, 2017 10:18 PM  

Hilarious. I think that it is 2, but I wouldn't stake a lot of money on that choice.

Blogger SirGroggy July 25, 2017 10:18 PM  

Postmodernism must be destroyed.

Blogger Lazarus July 25, 2017 10:29 PM  

London Derriere wrote:"You can have okay music without many elements, but without rhythm you don't even have crappy music. You just have noise."

Bach's Prelude in C major would like to see you in the principal's office.



If you can't identify the rhythm in that tune, you should go to the principal's office..

Blogger Lazarus July 25, 2017 10:31 PM  

SirGroggy wrote:Postmodernism must be destroyed.

Post modernism must be deconstructed.

Anonymous Tanjil Bren July 25, 2017 10:34 PM  

2

Blogger Orville July 25, 2017 10:40 PM  

And now... that is not a hypocritical stance. My use of ellipses... is... methodical. Says Bill Shatner.

Blogger Orville July 25, 2017 10:42 PM  

Speaking of which, Shatner should read this in his next spoken word album.

Anonymous Koanic July 25, 2017 10:43 PM  

I guessed #2 rightly; I checked.

It is an extended metaphor comparing Tibetan death to a shopping mall, by someone too incompetent and incontinent to construct finished paragraphs from jumbled impressions.

Perhaps his excuse is that the shift in medium from thought to language sacrifices too much fidelity to the noble original.

This self-indulgence insults the reader's powers of interpretation and independent richness of inner life.

The text reminded me of the writeprint of an East Asian with low directness, high association, difficulty articulating, low testosterone, and ESL.

Regarding Vox's theory of modern literature:

The stupid skim for meagre monkey meaning in text as in speech. Humanity is a gradient, contra Shakespeare's Jew.

My summary of postmodernism:
From Starry Night to Spotty Tampon.

Blogger Bibliotheca Servare July 25, 2017 10:48 PM  

Agreed on all three points. (It's 2; if it isn't it makes even less sense; and either way, it sucks)
Just awful. Did it win a Hugo? *grin*

Anonymous Drogue July 25, 2017 10:55 PM  

Just because you are incapable of doing something, doesn't mean that thing is "bad" or "cancer". This strikes me as a 2SD moment for you, Vox.

Blogger vanderleun July 25, 2017 11:01 PM  

I'm first in with 3. What's the prize?

Blogger ant becker July 25, 2017 11:01 PM  

What a load of wank.

Blogger NO GOOGLES July 25, 2017 11:02 PM  

I honestly figured it was #1.

This is the kind of writing that happens when you stop writing to communicate with your audience as they are, and start writing to communicate with the audience you WISH you had (arrogant pretentious literary critics).

Same thing happened to art. You can show a dock worker a Caravaggio and he will KNOW it is art, while you can show a wallpaper pattern to a modern art critic and he'll think it is art.

Blogger JCclimber July 25, 2017 11:05 PM  

Like most modern sit coms, this style of writing is meant to turn off your frontal cortex. The literary equivalent of Japanese Pachinko parlors.

Blogger JCclimber July 25, 2017 11:06 PM  

And my guess is #2. I would love to know whom of my work colleagues and others that I know enjoy this type of literature so I'll never depend on them for any thing under the sun.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 25, 2017 11:07 PM  

Drogue wrote:Just because you are incapable of doing something, doesn't mean that thing is "bad" or "cancer". This strikes me as a 2SD moment for you, Vox.
Given that you think this is a coherent thought, it's no wonder you like the original text.

Anonymous Koanic July 25, 2017 11:10 PM  

> Just because you are incapable of doing something

Anyone can get high.

I was unaware that Vox's drug tolerance was so complete as to preclude intoxication. Not only is that an impressive feat in itself, it also suggests that drug legalization would be an effective method of restoring men's interest in the Christian church (as opposed to cartel neo-Aztec death cults).

If your dopamine receptor offends thee, burn it out!

Anonymous Panzer Man July 25, 2017 11:16 PM  

Remind me again, is there a fine for using a pretentious Tibet-babbler as bait for attracting feral groids?

Anonymous Brick Hardslab July 25, 2017 11:19 PM  

One?

Anonymous LurkingPuppy July 25, 2017 11:22 PM  

Drogue wrote:Just because you are incapable of doing something, doesn't mean that thing is "bad" or "cancer". This strikes me as a 2SD moment for you, Vox.
Like a hidden Markov model in the grass… write a page of brightly colored metaphors… freed from the flavorless prison of consciously grammar… we all have the dispress a button… faster than a stochastic cheetah… Vox's mouse can do it with a touch.

Blogger Mocheirge July 25, 2017 11:28 PM  

In high school I couldn't stand the poetry we had to read. No rhyme, no rhythm, just emotive brainwanking. Conveying feeeelings through sounds resembling words is a feminist perversion of language's purpose: communication.

Postmodernism is feminism is cancer.

In the musical realm, consider Tangerine Dream. Their first two albums toyed with abandoning structure, but their third (ironically named Zeit) divorced sounds entirely from temporal strictures like rhythm or repetition. Aside from the cello dronings at its start, there's not much of interest. TD must have realized there wasn't much potential in... well, in nothingness, so they added structure to their following albums and recorded a series of good to amazing stuff in the mid 70s.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( more Natural Born Kekistani than if my mother was a native of Moorhead MN and my father came from Cockram Mill VA ... so to speak ) July 25, 2017 11:33 PM  

2

it's a Marxist meditation on the similarities between consumerist culture and death, culminated in the last two sentences of the quote.

i can see the logical connection ... but the author is rather too impressed with himself.


also, as a free man, i want #2 to tell me the identity of #1.


51. Snidely Whiplash July 25, 2017 8:48 PM
This is simply contradiction.



is not.


76. Lazarus July 25, 2017 9:59 PM
Louis Ferdinand Celine salutes you.



Louis Ferdinand Celine did nothing wrong.

Blogger tuberman July 25, 2017 11:35 PM  

80. SG

"Postmodernism must be destroyed."

It all must be destroyed. All the anti-Western, anti-cultural, devolved attempts to demoralize us.

Signs are everywhere, as even normies are getting pissed in increasing numbers, and to the point they can now look beyond themselves to the greater good.

Blogger Matthew July 25, 2017 11:46 PM  

2.

Blogger Matthew July 25, 2017 11:48 PM  

SPOONER WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE YOUR MEDS.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 25, 2017 11:48 PM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( more Natural Born Kekistani than if my mother was a native of Moorhead MN and my father came from Cockram Mill VA ... so to speak ) wrote:This is simply contradiction.
is not.

Can be.

Anonymous Harold BL July 25, 2017 11:50 PM  

I like Delillo. I've read "White Noise", "Underworld" and "Libra"

Vox is right though. Some of his work is impressionistic. But to call that bad is the same attitude the Classicists had about Impressionism and Cubism. Screw'em if they can't see my vision of beauty.

It should be said that while DD can be impressionistic in his writing, his works is not hardly dedicated to that form.

My guess is that Vox doesn't like poetry either. Plus, he's probably sitting on his porch demanding the kids get off his lawn.

Anonymous Osprey July 25, 2017 11:54 PM  

#2 has the best "flow".

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( more Natural Born Kekistani than if my mother was a native of Moorhead MN and my father came from Cockram Mill VA ... so to speak ) July 25, 2017 11:55 PM  

105. Harold BL July 25, 2017 11:50 PM
My guess is that Vox doesn't like poetry either.



i think you should reference the Doggerel in the right sidebar.

Blogger Mocheirge July 25, 2017 11:55 PM  

Harold BL wrote:My guess is that Vox doesn't like poetry either. Plus, he's probably sitting on his porch demanding the kids get off his lawn.
I thought that was the neophyte VFMs' duty. The SDL only gets involved during skull harvests of repeated trespassers.

Anonymous Harold BL July 25, 2017 11:57 PM  

"Just awful. Did it win a Hugo? *grin*"

it won a National Book Award.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 12:02 AM  

Harold BL wrote:Vox is right though. Some of his work is impressionistic. But to call that bad is the same attitude the Classicists had about Impressionism and Cubism. Screw'em if they can't see my vision of beauty.
Don't lie. You might think you have, but you can't possibly have read that selection. Reading means not only forming the words in you mind, it implies that you extracted some meaning from them. There is not meaning there.

The Classicists loved Impressionism. Monet's sponsor at the French Academy was Bouguereau.

Cubism is a joke.
A bad joke.

Calling that mixed raw sewage of words that started this discussion "Impressionistic" is giving it a status that it not only never earned, its own author would reject it.

Finally, you don't get your "own vision of beauty". Beauty is not subjective.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants July 26, 2017 12:03 AM  

I agree, it's #2, but this reads like the work of a woman. One with a disordered brain.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 12:03 AM  

Harold BL wrote:It should be said that while DD can be impressionistic in his writing, his works is not hardly dedicated to that form.
Aaaaaaaand, it's a moron.

Blogger Resident Moron™ July 26, 2017 12:06 AM  

I tried to tead de Lillo's great American novel. Can't remember its name. Can't remember anything except a vague impression of real estate and infidelity. Great doorstop of a thing. I reached about a third of the way thru before my spleen migrated via my neck and throttled my brain until I relented.

A week of my life that can never be redeemed.

Blogger Resident Moron™ July 26, 2017 12:07 AM  

Vox's point is well made. Amply proven.

The dark lord is kind; at least he didn't use a sample from N K Jemesin.

Anonymous Harold BL July 26, 2017 12:07 AM  

"Finally, you don't get your "own vision of beauty". Beauty is not subjective."

Of course I do. And the way I know that is by asking you, per the rules of the blog, to answer this question: Prove that beauty is objective? Now, you may not like this question, but I know it is beautiful.

Blogger Matthew July 26, 2017 12:11 AM  

Andrew. Please. Takey the medseys.

Anonymous VFM #6306 July 26, 2017 12:14 AM  

answer this question: Prove that beauty is objective?

That isn't a question, retard. That is an imperative with a question mark.

Way to prove how bad writing is cancer.

Blogger Silly but True July 26, 2017 12:15 AM  

The zen assessment: enlightenment doesn't make you special.

Writing novels don't give anyone a pass on breaking literary norms. But being able to_sell_ them sure goes a long way towards cutting down the numbers of people who bitch about you doing it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 12:16 AM  

Harold BL wrote:Of course I do. And the way I know that is by asking you, per the rules of the blog, to answer this question: Prove that beauty is objective? Now, you may not like this question, but I know it is beautiful.
No, it's a dishonest and therefore ugly question.
I will, but first, prove that beauty is subjective.

Ooooo, two can play the game?

Blogger Matthew July 26, 2017 12:21 AM  

Guys.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( more Natural Born Kekistani than if my mother was a native of Moorhead MN and my father came from Cockram Mill VA ... so to speak ) July 26, 2017 12:23 AM  

117. VFM #6306 July 26, 2017 12:14 AM
That isn't a question, retard. That is an imperative with a question mark.


*finger snap and head shimmy*

oh no he di-int!

Anonymous Dirk Gently July 26, 2017 12:24 AM  

@13 Christian

"Your lack of taste or lack of appreciation or lack of familiarity with the genre doesn't make something bad."

If I don't want to eat dog feces, is that due to lack of taste... or having failed to "acquire a taste for it", or is it due to the fact that dog feces is animal waste, and is unfit for human consumption -- and my nose makes that abundantly clear to my brain that it is not something to be eaten under any circumstances? Retard.

Anonymous Harold BL July 26, 2017 12:26 AM  

"No, it's a dishonest and therefore ugly question.
I will, but first, prove that beauty is subjective."

I remind you:

"If you are asked a direct question relevant to the topic, then you will be expected to answer it in a straightforward and non-evasive manner"

You are being evasive. You are not adhering to the rules set down by the host. Furthermore, you are very rude. Goodbye.

Blogger F.D. Stephens July 26, 2017 12:26 AM  

That's a very interesting exercise. I honestly wasn't sure.

I was quite a fan of the book when it came out, but I'm tempted to re-read it to see if I have the patience any more.

Last year, I read End Zone, one of his earlier outings. Some of the writing in that is just beautiful. I thought it went off the rails in places, but I read some of the pages over and over just to see how he put them together.



Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 12:32 AM  

Harold BL wrote:Furthermore, you are very rude. Goodbye.you left out the Sirrah!

Anonymous Dirk Gently July 26, 2017 12:32 AM  

@51

"
Poor troll. Good trolling should have some nodding relationship with reality. This is simply contradiction."

This isn't an argument, it's mere contradiction. I paid for an argument!

Anonymous Frank Lin July 26, 2017 12:39 AM  

Time traveler confirmed.

Blogger Kristophr July 26, 2017 12:40 AM  

The author has created the literary version of Piss Christ. He has taken the willing gift of knowledge and culture from millions of the dead to the living, and created new sewage to try to drown this gift with.

Merely reading it has made all of us dumber.
https://youtu.be/wKjxFJfcrcA

Blogger Thucydides July 26, 2017 12:59 AM  

At least Pynchon or Gabriel Garcia Marquez have meaning behind their writings (although you have to tease it out, and some of Pynchon's stuff reads like individual paragraphs which are meaningful, but disconnected from the surrounding narrative).

But this......is simply indescribable

Blogger tublecane July 26, 2017 1:08 AM  

@110-I've not studied art history too thoroughly, and for all I know I could find out in a jiffy. But I've long been confused by the much-abused term "impressionism," and would like to know what the original point was. I mean the main visual point, not all the incidental things like subject matter. Because if you go by the way the Art World teaches it to laymen, it's all about Epater Les Bourgeois, like every other art movement which the barbarians currently in charge of our culture celebrate.

The point, I think, may be found in the idea of the snapshot. You take it all in at once, and it leaves an impression on you. Or you appreciate the impression of a single moment, or something like that. Which has nothing to do with the passage above. This is true of impressionistic music like that of Debussy at least. Which I've heard described as wishing to make you feel as if you've frozen a moment I'm time, though the music is always moving the way we metaphorically say music moves.

Its opposite would be idealistic art, best represented by Raphael. Very orderly and timeless, almost Platonic. DeLillo isn't that, but neither side he very impressionistic in the sense above. One sense in which I hear "impressionistic" often used these days is as a series of impressions made. I suppose you could say reading the above passage is like strolling through an exhibit of impressionist paintings, each having nothing to do with the other.

But that doesn't work, because he's not listing a series of disconnected things, giving you a bunch of mini-impressions. He's giving you a sense of argument, of logical progression, without there being any. To call that impressionistic is like saying arguing with a crazy person leaves impressions upon you.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 1:17 AM  

tublecane wrote:But I've long been confused by the much-abused term "impressionism," and would like to know what the original point was. I mean the main visual point, not all the incidental things like subject matter.
the idea of Impressionism is to create the image in the viewer's mind, rather than on the canvas. If you examine an Impressionist painting closely, you will find that it consists of seemingly random irregular blobs of color. Viewed as a whole, however, the irregular blobs of color resolve into an image that does not exist, as such, on the canvas.
When done well, by a master, it creates an image that can be more realistic than the idealized forms and very detailed draftsmanship of the Academe.

Anonymous ~A July 26, 2017 2:17 AM  

"Prove that beauty is objective"
-->
"The plastic surgery industry wouldn't exist if there wasn't an objective standard of beauty"

Anonymous DMV July 26, 2017 2:42 AM  

The ramblings of a smug psycho who pats himself on the back for his delightful insights into nihilism. Such soulless blather is expected from the mentally and spiritually diseased creatures of the Left who resent reality with a passion.

Anonymous Dirk Gently July 26, 2017 3:00 AM  

@115

'"Finally, you don't get your "own vision of beauty". Beauty is not subjective."

Of course I do. And the way I know that is by asking you, per the rules of the blog, to answer this question: Prove that beauty is objective? Now, you may not like this question, but I know it is beautiful.'


Ahem....
That's not beauty.
That's YOUR kink.

Blogger Mike X July 26, 2017 3:20 AM  

"It should only be skimmed for surface impressions made by words"

You didn't even post an excerpt from the book, but some kind of shortened, cut up string of association from one passage and then you accused it of looking like - a string of association. See, this is what happens when you criticize books you haven't read. You embarrass yourself.

Blogger Mike X July 26, 2017 3:28 AM  

Below is the actual excerpt from the book.

He helped Babette push her loaded cart. I heard him say to her, “Tibetans believe there is a transitional state between death and rebirth. Death is a waiting period, basically. Soon a fresh womb will receive the soul. In the meantime the soul restores to itself some of the divinity lost at birth.” He studied her profile as if to detect a reaction. “That’s what I think of whenever I come in here. This place recharges us spiritually, it prepares us, it’s a gateway or pathway. Look how bright. It’s full of psychic data.”

My wife smiled at him.

“Everything is concealed in symbolism, hidden by veils of mystery and layers of cultural material. But it is psychic data, absolutely. The large doors slide open, they close unbidden. Energy waves, incident radiation. All the letters and numbers are here, all the colors of the spectrum, all the voices and sounds, all the code words and ceremonial phrases. It is just a question of deciphering, rearranging, peeling off the layers of unspeakability. Not that we would want to, not that any useful purpose would be served. This is not Tibet. Even Tibet is not Tibet anymore.”
He studied her profile. She put some yogurt in her cart.

“Tibetans try to see death for what it is. It is the end of attachment to things. This simple truth is hard to fathom. But once we stop denying death, we can proceed calmly to die and then go on to experience uterine rebirth or Judeo-Christian afterlife or out-of-body experience or a trip on a UFO or whatever we wish to call it. We can do so with clear vision, without awe or terror. We don’t have to cling to life artificially, or to death for that matter. We simply walk toward the sliding doors. Waves and radiation. Look how well-lighted everything is. The place is sealed off, self-contained. It is timeless. Another reason why I think of Tibet. Dying is an art in Tibet. A priest walks in, sits down, tells the weeping relatives to get out and has the room sealed. Doors, windows sealed. He has serious business to see to. Chants, numerology, horoscopes, recitations. Here we don’t die, we shop. But the difference is less marked than you think.”

Anonymous Bz July 26, 2017 3:34 AM  

I don't enjoy DeLillo much myself, because I find him too lumbering a writer for his topics and you mustn't be boring if you're writing comedy or satire ... but he at least had one of his characters be a professor in the Department of Hitler Studies. That was genuinely funny. If you squint, you can see some subsequent college novels (early Neal Stephenson, perhaps?).

Here is a review that itself displays many of the faults of postmodernism: http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/16/lifetimes/del-r-white-noise.html

What annoys me the most is not fragmentary syntax actually, but the faked and failed mystical huckster profundities that often go with it. (I do intensely dislike fake and failed stylists, like the appalling Annie Proulx in the Atlantic article.) Perhaps those are intended to just glide past in a college dorm pot haze or droning 70s self-help cult babble, but I prefer some actual insight.

Whoever brought up Celine should be thanked. Great example, great writer. But then a third of his work is apparently still banned.

Anonymous Tanjil Bren July 26, 2017 3:40 AM  

"I guessed #2 rightly; I checked."

In which case, so did I.

And I'm not sure I'm at all happy about it...

Anonymous Koanic July 26, 2017 3:47 AM  

Sounds like Mike X is right!

However, I enjoyed the puzzle version more. The gamma prating at his muse grrl sucked. No wonder he looks so soulfully constipated. He's doing a kegel squeeze to keep his balls meekly retracted. Shoulda grabbed her ass and suggested sex in the supermarket bathroom instead. She'd find more epiphany from the end of a needle.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable July 26, 2017 4:38 AM  

#3 is the only one that made sense and flowed. I have no idea what is wrong with the rest of you.

Blogger Jew613 July 26, 2017 5:03 AM  

I believe 2 is the original but I can't say for sure.

Anonymous dystonia July 26, 2017 5:04 AM  

@140 -- that was what I thought, so I immediately disqualified that as being the right answer. It's all MEGO, whichever order it's laid out in.

@100
You are #6

Blogger JaimeInTexas July 26, 2017 7:28 AM  

#2 reads best. So, the original is #1 or #3.

Blogger Iowahine July 26, 2017 8:09 AM  

two

Anonymous Athor Pel July 26, 2017 8:57 AM  

" 136. Blogger Mike X July 26, 2017 3:28 AM
Below is the actual excerpt from the book.

'blah dee blah book quote dee blah'
"



You're not helping.

No matter how many times you declare the bag of dog poo in your hand a work of art still won't make it art.

Blogger Dire Badger July 26, 2017 9:10 AM  

Pontilism is interesting, but there is no virtue in using weirdness for the sake of using weirdness... It's like making the Mona Lisa in Minecraft. Sure, it's an achievement, but what do you really achieve?

Even hideousness can have artistic Value. Compare HR Giger to ANY of Matisse' crayon masturbations. Giger is an artist.

But Pollock? Matisse? Kandinsky? Picasso? Mangled Garbage that exists only so that so-called 'elites' can lie to themselves about how brilliant they are for 'getting' art work that any peasant can see looks like something his 6 year old drew on the closet door.

Old Wines are still spoiled grape juice. Pollock 'paintings' are still just drop cloths. and word salad is still just vomiting a thesaurus on a page.

Excuse me, I am going to go re-read "Alien Game" to get that spoiled grape juice drenched drop cloth of a paragraph out of my head.

Anonymous Athor Pel July 26, 2017 9:31 AM  

Something I've noticed, authors writing in a way that makes it easier or more likely for their work to be made into a movie. Not only that but movies that are heavily influenced by music video editing styles.

The excerpt Mike X posted above reminded me of "Been Caught Stealing" by Jane's Addiction.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 26, 2017 9:37 AM  

Guessing blind without reading any of the comments, I think #2 is the original, though I must note that in part that's because it has a double-quote at the end that it looks like a hasty cut-and-paste missed. Now going back to read the comments to see if I was right.

Anonymous Avalanche July 26, 2017 10:11 AM  

@33 "It's pleasant, you know? Or at least I find it pleasant... "

Good description of a sedative!!

Anonymous Avalanche July 26, 2017 10:12 AM  

@33 "then is there really any incentive for me to take my analysis any further than that?"

Uh. Maybe because you only live once? You'll never get those drugged moments back again to use for something worth your life energy?!

Anonymous Avalanche July 26, 2017 10:15 AM  

@33 then is there really any incentive for me to take my analysis any further than that?

Maybe because you will never get those wasted drugged hours of life back again? Hours you could have spent doing something worthwhile?

Blogger Giraffe July 26, 2017 10:24 AM  

Gotta be 2.

Blogger Elwin Ransom July 26, 2017 10:31 AM  

2

Anonymous andrew k. knorr July 26, 2017 10:34 AM  

I knew immediately it was 3, after skimming the first line or two.

1) can't be 1 because "Tibet . . . timeless" is too much of a cliche

2) can't be 2 because postmodernists are against "symbolism," symbolism is modern.

3) Gotta be Delillo.

Blogger S. Misanthrope July 26, 2017 11:03 AM  

A goat.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 11:23 AM  

Dire Badger wrote:Compare HR Giger to ANY of Matisse' crayon masturbations. Giger is an artist.


Geiger is not an artist. Geiger is a very fine draftsman.

Blogger RobertT July 26, 2017 12:18 PM  

I'm told this is how people read articles. They scan them for ten seconds. If it seems to come from credible sources, they believe it; if not they forget it. It doesn't work for me. Despite the fact I do everything I can to weed out lousy books, I continually buy them anyway.

Blogger Mike X July 26, 2017 12:28 PM  

@145 I am not "declaring" it anything. I am supplying the actual text as is found in the novel, instead of the above random string VD presented as a direct quote.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 12:43 PM  

Mike X wrote:instead of the above random string VD presented as a direct quote.
Do you deny that the random string of gibberish is in the book, as quoted?
Your declaration is that the book is not as presented. Is the quote accurate?

Blogger Rez Zircon July 26, 2017 1:08 PM  

I pick #3 solely because it ends with an actual concept, sort of, but otherwise it has no particular merit.

Now I shall read the comments...

Mike X has a point, but I think the complete quote would have been as effective -- it displays more order, but it beats the concept to death, in case we're too dumb to understand it. Or maybe because the author didn't have it clear in his own head and is using his own writing to wrestle with it. Or both. It's wordy to the point of being cluttered.

I've been pointing out for decades that "whole word recognition" is exactly how the most reading-disabled dyslexics read: recognize part of a word, then guess at the rest; whole word recognition actively teaches a reading disability. I've also observed that one big reason we have so many poor writers today is because we have so many poor _readers_.


BTW, you want real demoralization, check out The Gap series by Stephen R Donaldson. (Who only has one book, but keeps rewriting it as he pursues the concept of demoralization to its logical conclusion.) By comparison, GRRM is a tyro.

Anonymous Arkanaught July 26, 2017 1:18 PM  

Snidely... "Everything is concealed in symbolism ... The large doors slide open" ≠ "Everything is concealed in symbolism, hidden by veils of mystery and layers of cultural material. But it is psychic data, absolutely. The large doors slide open..." so Mike X is correct, it is not in the book as quoted.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit July 26, 2017 1:26 PM  

@156 Geiger is a mediocre artist and an excellent craftsman.

There, I fixed it.

And since no-one else has answered him properly

@33 You wrote your own answer as to why you "ought to take your analysis further, if you were being honest.

I use books to improve myself...

You are training your appetites, and your habits of thought to unreason and poor craftsmanship.

Read Tom Simon's essay "Style is the Rocket" and C S. Lewis's short book (long essay) The Abolition of Man.

Anonymous Raker Tooth July 26, 2017 1:28 PM  

Somewhat OT: just watched most of the latest Darkstream, don't have time to read the comments; but I had a thought (it happens): more sophisticated way of "nothing matters/do what you want". Perhaps if people are taught to get an impression, and all impressions are equal, then this mindset can be used on other cultural institutions. One needn't experience the cold dark abyss of "nothing matters" if one can rewrite the founding texts. Religion is like a buffet, a big scoop of that, two slices of the other, ahhh, just the way I like it. Same for that musty old document the constitution.

Blogger Mike X July 26, 2017 4:24 PM  

@159 It doesn't appear in the book. Read it and see for yourself.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 4:29 PM  

Mike X wrote:Read it and see for yourself.
Sorry, I don't take orders from morons or homosexuals.

Anonymous Dipper Pines July 26, 2017 4:41 PM  

Snidely, you are wrong. The actual passage from the book is quite different from what Vox posted.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 5:24 PM  

How does that make me wrong?

Blogger Jaycephus July 26, 2017 5:24 PM  

Speaking of bad post-modern writing, is this as bad as it looks...?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lynnemthomas/disabled-people-destroy-science-fiction-uncanny-ma?ref=home_popular

I'm not sure that going on four years of 'destroying' science fiction is a constructive goal for a 'science fiction' magazine.

Anonymous Dipper Pines July 26, 2017 5:45 PM  

Sindley; the random string of gibberish is not in the book

Blogger Jaycephus July 26, 2017 6:32 PM  

@115

Harold BL wrote:"Finally, you don't get your "own vision of beauty". Beauty is not subjective."

Of course I do. And the way I know that is by asking you, per the rules of the blog, to answer this question: Prove that beauty is objective? Now, you may not like this question, but I know it is beautiful.


You invoked the rules of the blog regarding getting an answer to a direction question on the topic at hand, and then your question is "Prove that beauty is objective"

PALOL

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 26, 2017 7:36 PM  

Sindley; the random string of gibberish is not in the book
I don't recall ever claiming it was. I was responding to another's claim that it was.

Blogger Eric Steiger July 26, 2017 10:21 PM  

2

Anonymous Subdural July 27, 2017 12:07 AM  

The real choice is obvious. So this post ended up being an admission that you lack the patience to read difficult texts.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 27, 2017 12:35 AM  

Subdural wrote:The real choice is obvious. So this post ended up being an admission that you lack the patience to read difficult texts.
No, it ended up being a test. A test of intellectual pretense and ability to think, that you failed by claiming absolute gibberish was a "difficult text."

Blogger tublecane July 27, 2017 12:50 AM  

Yes, "difficult" implies you'll understand something after the effort you put in. Deciphering gibberish isn't like cracking the Rosetta. There's no payoff.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 27, 2017 12:57 AM  

Look, all you guys with Lit degrees, that BS you regurgitated back to your professors, it doesn't work outside the college. It's rather obvious BS, and nobody thinks you're clever or smart or wise or insightful for repeating what some Marxist pedophile taught you to repeat.

Blogger PayliTuzu July 27, 2017 2:43 AM  


The blog was absolutely fantastic! Lot of information is helpful in some or the other way. Keep updating the blog, looking forward for more content...Great job, keep it up.
goldenslot

Blogger Mike X July 27, 2017 3:15 AM  

Yes, my Marxist pedophile reptilian interdimensional professors taught me a lot of BS, such as "read the book before talking about it"

Anonymous Oneofthecrowd July 27, 2017 4:16 AM  

All three remind me of my favourite classical author, Lorem Ipsum.

Blogger The Aardvark July 27, 2017 5:32 PM  

#2 is the most sensible.
It cannot be #2.

Anonymous Anonymous July 28, 2017 12:28 PM  

could be 2 or 3 but I will guess 2

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts