A vignette from Central Park: I pass a gaggle of young women, and one is saying, “I was watching Jersey Shore, and my dad came in and thought I was watching porn!” They break into giggles.
When the world no longer speaks meaningfully to us, we shout into the void and pretend the echoes come to us from on high.
–Thus Roger Kimball
I liked it better when we didn’t pretend actors had core competencies beyond pretending to be other people and having amusingly disastrous personal lives.
–Pseudonymous commenter at Instapundit
I’m rather fond of it myself. I wonder if it is revealing that His Majesty’s artistic interests are confined almost entirely to the abstranct and nonrepresentational. It was precisely the other way with Adolph Hitler.
Although his tastes run towards highly abstract art. Symbolic art he tends to dismiss with a snort of disgust, rather as J.R.R. Tolkien was dismissive of literary allegory.
(And I can’t believe I just compared His Majesty to J.R.R. Tolkien. I feel like I need to go scrub my mouth out.)
This morning, over breakfast, he had this to say: “Rather rude of those German artists to preempt the Obama administration.”
It seems His Majesty is as contemptuous of symbolic politics as he is of symbolic art and allegorical literature. Which, come to think of it, sometimes seem like they’re all the same thing.
I don’t recall ever hearing him express an opinion on religious symbolism. He is not a believer, naturally, and I’m not sure I want to broach the topic.
FoJG T. Greer has a great post at the Scholar’s Stage on the works on his re-read shelves. You’ll want to check it out, especially his LDS material. He has several conference talks listed that I’m glad he brought to my attention.
Greer suggests that there are three kinds of books on the re-read shelves.
those read again for the sake of “intellectual learning,” as you say it, or perhaps poetically, the books that enlighten;
books reread for purely for amusement or escape, the books that entertain;
and last of all, books that gives us snap shots of the beautiful or sublime, that increase our capacity to feel sorrow for the sorrowful or inspire us to the greater deeds of greater men – or in short, the books that edify.
I think he’s right. The object of this exercise is to share with our friends here or over at Greer’s place the books you re-read,the movies you rewatch, etc., that enlighten or edify. (more…)
While Feminists are a humorless bunch, any attempts by men to explain any shortcomings are immediately shouted down as vile, sexist misogyny. It is called man-splaining. Never mind, that that happens to be men’s native conversation style and would be treating them like a man.
But if a woman, or a group of intelligent women, disagree with the party line of Feminism, and start a Tumblr called, “Women Against Feminism”, and explain that they are neither victims nor oppressed, you can expect all kinds of hell to be stirred up. I will forbear the most vicious links against them, but will share ones that are still illuminating.
Hell hath no fury is not reserved purely for men who scorn women, and the most vicious, hateful name-calling is being used against them.
Feminists are insistent they don’t understand what Feminism really is while the ‘rebel scum’ insist that modern Feminism does nothing to resemble the dictionary definition. And appearently women don’t like Fem-splaining any better than Man-splaining.
Most of the other jokes about this are even worse.
So why link such vulgar material at our genteel blog? Well, we’re observers of culture and cultural decadence, and the fact that the fertility idols of the ancient world have made a comeback seems noteworthy.
Except, given the setting, perhaps these are better described as infertility idols.
I do not know how basically decent men like Dalrymple and Derbyshire get by without a hope for a better world to come.
And, yes, I find some of Derbyshire’s pronouncements on race regrettable. He still strikes me as basically decent. I recognize that that seems a huge stretch to most people nowadays.