--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "drpsutphen" <drpsutphen@> wrote: > > > > When Lynch is constrained by a more traditional narrative he > > does fine with only a little weirdness coming through from > > time-to-time. > > Well, that wouldn't apply to "Twin Peaks," which was quite > consistently weird (albeit not always creepy-weird, and > nowhere near as weird, from what I've read and heard, as > much of his other work) and most certainly not a > "traditional" narrative. But (as noted) I thought he did > more than fine with it. > > > But Judy or Share, have you seen "Eraserhead"? There is no > > way you can think such a movie comes from a normal mind. > > This is a very "sick" movie. > > You know, Peter, I don't recall having made a blanket > endorsement of Lynch's work as coming from a "normal" > mind. That would be kinda silly of me, having seen only > "Twin Peaks" and, long ago, "Elephant Man." Here I was > commenting only on "Twin Peaks" in response to Michael's > denunciation thereof. > > I will say, however, generally speaking, I'm not at all > sure that the most inspired and creative artistic work > in any medium comes only from "normal" minds. By the same > token, I don't believe a mind that doesn't qualify as > "normal" is necessarily "sick." And some arguably "sick" > minds do indisputably brilliant work (e.g., Van Gogh). > > Finally, you'll forgive me if I don't accept credentials > in psychology as equally valid with regard to critical > evaluation of artistic work.
But since the good Doctor wasn't providing a critical evaluation of an artistic work but rather an evaluation of the mind behind the work, and the fact that the junkyard dog hasn't seen the work in question, I guess that earns the old mutt another big oopsie. Isn't it amazing how often toothless old mutts hallucinate? > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > > > > > If you can watch the Twin Peaks series and NOT say that son > > > > of a bitch is ill in his feeble mind then there is something > > > > seriously wrong with you. > > > > > > Must be something wrong with me, then. I thought much of > > > "Twin Peaks" was brilliant. > > > > > > And it was must-see TV at the time, too, so I had lots of > > > company. > > > > > > A lot of it was side-splittingly funny. Some of the humor > > > was creepy, but dude, this was prime-time network television, > > > so obviously it wasn't "ill" enough to make most people > > > uncomfortable. > > > > > > If it made you uncomfortable, fine, you're entitled. But of > > > all the possible descriptions of the mind of the guy > > > responsible, "feeble" is about the last one that could > > > legitimately be applied. > > > > > > IMHO, of course. > > > > > >
