--- In [email protected], azgrey <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "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.
I'm sure Peter is grateful for your defense; as you've
recognized, he's easily intimidated.
But since he *did* deliver a critical evaluation of the
work in question ("a very sick movie"), and since I *didn't*
mention that work at all, let alone evaluate it (or the
mind behind it), your commentary seems, I don't know, a bit
irrelevant.
> Isn't it amazing how often toothless old mutts hallucinate?
Is that what your problem is, you hallucinated what you're
commenting on? Well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.
> > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], 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.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
