Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Yes Ann, I think you're on the right track with giving Bob special consideration - it does follow that exceptional posters deserve exceptions, doesn't it? I've never been part of a group before, so I'm kind of honored myself to be considered a member of such a spiritually evolved bunch. And, "Sheesh!" You flatter me so Ann and I send you a shy smile and promise to write your name in the sand and draw a big heart around it over the long weekend. From: Ann To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 6:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > I can only hope this means Emily and I are being considered > for full membership in the "mean girls", because, frankly, we're > finding being on the boring list---well, you know, pretty boring; don't get us > wrong, we're flattered to be on any list in Voldemort's book of lists, we just > think we've earned consideration for a higher calling.  And to prove my > personal commitment, I've ordered > my first SPANX Men's starter kit. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0QVBi112A This is a good start Bob. And although to be an OFFICIAL member you need to be participating at FFL on a regular basis you may be given a little special consideration given the fact that the QUALITY of your posts are quite high. This, and the fact that you have actually requested membership, although this will be put forward to the rest of the existing members for a vote, also stands in your favour for inclusion. We also have another male in our Club (Dr Jim) so including a second man will balance out our group nicely. Yes, all in all, I could see you fitting in quite nicely. Of course as far as Emily goes, she is a very subtle type of MG but her membership goes without saying. She has all the qualities necessary: life experience around fools and acquired knowledge of how to deal with them, an ability to spot a fake or an asshole at 100 yards and a tongue capable of giving someone a good lashing when she has a mind to. Thanks again for your interest and we'll be getting back to you shortly with our vote result. However, don't cancel the SPANX yet, even though I am virtually positive you will make the cut. > > > From: Ann > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 7:29:33 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for > Enlightenment) > > > > > May I just say that I can go to bed tonight happy? In fact, I'm positively > giddy. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > > > > > From: turquoiseb > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > > > ** > > > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a > > *Best of FFL* > > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > > picking > > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best > > Share's attempt > > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm > > going with: > > > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone > > with his > > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to > > us as > > > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > > this might > > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when > > he attempts > > > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability > > to defamiliarize* > > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > > fail at this. > > OTOH, Jud
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Ah ha haso funny. Whenever you need to do any penance Bob, stop on by. "Diligence" is a virtue, after all. Continuing luck in your adventures (if you're like me, it takes awhile to leave, so don't let me push you back to real life too early). From: Bob Price To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:02 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) I can only hope this means Emily and I are being considered for full membership in the "mean girls", because, frankly, we're finding being on the boring list---well, you know, pretty boring; don't get us wrong, we're flattered to be on any list in Voldemort's book of lists, we just think we've earned consideration for a higher calling. And to prove my personal commitment, I've ordered my first SPANX Men's starter kit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0QVBi112A From: Ann To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 7:29:33 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) May I just say that I can go to bed tonight happy? In fact, I'm positively giddy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > From: turquoiseb > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > ** > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best > of FFL* > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > picking > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best > Share's attempt > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going > with: > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone > with his > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to > us as > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > this might > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he > attempts > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability > to defamiliarize* > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > fail at this. > OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great > example of effective > defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was > familiar about him. > > I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing > > (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at > writing creatively > > ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do > that), is like watching > > someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" > jokes please). He also > appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard > words", which make > > his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers > Voldemort a creative writer > might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding > some of Kerouac's limitations, > who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's > talent as an artist). > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI > > &g
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Thank you Bob. Smile. My favorite line in the article you sent is: "A work is created "artistically" so that its perception is impeded and the greatest possible effect is produced through the slowness of the perception." The author attempts to demystify..but remember what Rilke says: "Things are no all so comprehensible and expressible as one would mostly have us believe; most events are inexpressible, taking place in a realm which no word has ever entered, and more inexpressible than all else are works of art, mysterious existences, the life of which, while ours passes away endures." Do stop by the coffee stand and hang out in the parking lot now and again. Love, Emily From: Bob Price To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnb7-nVKzLE From: emilymae.reyn To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:08:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) Bob, welcome back - are you here to restore musicality? Raise the bar a bit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > ** > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best > of FFL* > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > picking > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best > Share's attempt > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going > with: > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone > with his > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to > us as > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > this might > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he > attempts > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability > to defamiliarize* > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > fail at this. > OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great > example of effective > defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was > familiar about him. > > I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing > > (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at > writing creatively > > ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do > that), is like watching > > someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" > jokes please). He also > appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard > words", which make > > his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers > Voldemort a creative writer > might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding > some of Kerouac's limitations, > who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's > talent as an artist). > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI > >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
That would be "things are not... From: Emily Reyn To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) Thank you Bob. Smile. My favorite line in the article you sent is: "A work is created "artistically" so that its perception is impeded and the greatest possible effect is produced through the slowness of the perception." The author attempts to demystify..but remember what Rilke says: "Things are no all so comprehensible and expressible as one would mostly have us believe; most events are inexpressible, taking place in a realm which no word has ever entered, and more inexpressible than all else are works of art, mysterious existences, the life of which, while ours passes away endures." Do stop by the coffee stand and hang out in the parking lot now and again. Love, Emily From: Bob Price To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnb7-nVKzLE From: emilymae.reyn To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:08:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) Bob, welcome back - are you here to restore musicality? Raise the bar a bit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > ** > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best > of FFL* > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > picking > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best > Share's attempt > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going > with: > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone > with his > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to > us as > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > this might > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he > attempts > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability > to defamiliarize* > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > fail at this. > OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great > example of effective > defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was > familiar about him. > > I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing > > (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at > writing creatively > > ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do > that), is like watching > > someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" > jokes please). He also > appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard > words", which make > > his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers > Voldemort a creative writer > might consid
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Doc, Ravi is young and probably has no need of Spanx. Yet! From: "doctordumb...@rocketmail.com" To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 8:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) Thank you, Ann. Perhaps a picture of Bob, in SPANX, would help sway the judges? ? Also, a minor point of order - I believe that *Ravi* is ALSO a charter member of the MGC? And judging from those fitted shirts, I'd say SPANX are um, familiar to him. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > > > I can only hope this means Emily and I are being considered > > for full membership in the "mean girls", because, frankly, we're > > finding being on the boring list---well, you know, pretty boring; don't get > > us > > wrong, we're flattered to be on any list in Voldemort's book of lists, we > > just > > think we've earned consideration for a higher calling.  And to prove my > > personal commitment, I've ordered > > my first SPANX Men's starter kit. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0QVBi112A > > This is a good start Bob. And although to be an OFFICIAL member you need to > be participating at FFL on a regular basis you may be given a little special > consideration given the fact that the QUALITY of your posts are quite high. > This, and the fact that you have actually requested membership, although this > will be put forward to the rest of the existing members for a vote, also > stands in your favour for inclusion. We also have another male in our Club > (Dr Jim) so including a second man will balance out our group nicely. > > Yes, all in all, I could see you fitting in quite nicely. Of course as far as > Emily goes, she is a very subtle type of MG but her membership goes without > saying. She has all the qualities necessary: life experience around fools and > acquired knowledge of how to deal with them, an ability to spot a fake or an > asshole at 100 yards and a tongue capable of giving someone a good lashing > when she has a mind to. > > Thanks again for your interest and we'll be getting back to you shortly with > our vote result. However, don't cancel the SPANX yet, even though I am > virtually positive you will make the cut. > > > > > > From: Ann > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 7:29:33 PM > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites > > for Enlightenment) > > > > > > > > > > May I just say that I can go to bed tonight happy? In fact, I'm positively > > giddy. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > From: turquoiseb > > > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > > > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > > > > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > > > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > > > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > > > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > > > > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > > > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > > > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > > > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > > > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > > > > > ** > > > > > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > > > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > > > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > > > > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a > > > *Best of FFL* > > > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > > > picking > > > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone > > > best Share's attempt > > > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm > > > going with: > > > > > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > > > > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For > > > someone with his > > > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself > > > to us as > > > > > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > > > this might > > > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > > > > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when > > > he attempts > > > > > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he > > > becomes. > > > > > > For something to be considered art it's imperative tha
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd5dYQHoZS0 From: raunchydog To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:46:45 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) You came home! Welcome back, Bob. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > ** > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best > of FFL* > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > picking > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best > Share's attempt > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going > with: > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone > with his > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to > us as > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > this might > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he > attempts > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability > to defamiliarize* > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > fail at this. > OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great > example of effective > defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was > familiar about him. > > I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing > > (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at > writing creatively > > ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do > that), is like watching > > someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" > jokes please). He also > appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard > words", which make > > his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers > Voldemort a creative writer > might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding > some of Kerouac's limitations, > who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's > talent as an artist). > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI > > > The film "The Master" was an example for me of the way art can make the > familiar *new*; the whole film > > delivered artistically, but the scene where Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour > Hoffman) "Processes" Freddie > > Quell (Joaquin Phoenix)---for the first time, felt in some way like the first > time I meditated; my experience of > > the scene was familiar and at the same time completely new; part of it was > the suggestiveness of Dodd's > voice, but more was the scene's transition from Dodd's voice to Quell > *living* a previous experience > as if for the first time, and the familiarity it had to my first meditation > and the first superlative > > clarity of the thought (engram or, if you will, un-stressing) that reported > or noticed an artifact of my > > awareness that had just existed without thinking. > > > The art of the writing, acting, and editing were part of it, but I believe it > was the cinematography, > with its use of 70mm film (which is rare today), that more than anything else > was essential to making > > the experience possible for me. > > > Another component of the film that worked the same way for me was Joaquin > Phoenix's characterization > of Freddie Quell, which allowed me to experience---as if for the first > time---character types that I > met as a child who were friends of my father that had served with him in WW2; > JP's characteri
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Ravi, You will always be the man*. No one can make an insult sing and dance the way you can. I believe you should be required reading for anyone who believes they arrived anywhere. "With the drawing of this Love and the voice of this Calling We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, remembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest river The voice of the hidden waterfall And the children in the appletree Not known, because not looked for But heard, halfheard, in the stillness Between two waves of the sea. Quick now, here, now, always- A condition of complete simplicity (Costing not less than everything) And all shall be well and All manner of thing shall be well When the tongues of flame are infolded Into the crowned knot of fire And the fire and the rose are one." - T.S. Elliot Little Gidding (Quartet No. 4) *This forum has seen many explorers; you and Robin are two of them. From: Ravi Chivukula To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 11:13:30 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) Now where the fuck is Robin? :-) Damn that was good Bob - how can I be like you? You are one of most creative persons to have graced this list - you leave me with the dissonant feelings of delight, wonder coupled with envy !!! On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Bob Price wrote: > > > >From: turquoiseb >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > >>>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without >editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. >That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for >deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > >>>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like >my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off >on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with >something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not >busy...uh...editing. :-) > >** > >I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, >it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could >respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > >One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best >of FFL* >going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of picking >my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best >Share's attempt >to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going >with: > >"Is Voldemort a hack?" > >When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone >with his >considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to us >as > >a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; this >might >be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > >As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he >attempts > >anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > >For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability to >defamiliarize* >by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely >fail at this. >OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great >example of effective >defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was familiar >about him. > >I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing > >(writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at writing >creatively > >---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do >that), is like watching > >someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" >jokes please). He also >appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard >words", which make > >his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers >Voldemort a creative writer >might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding >some of Kerouac's limitations, >who Voldem
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Since death is all we can count on (if taxes are not your thing, there's always Dubai or life as an illegal alien in the Netherlands) I think the key to picking a female householder is finding one with a shared belief in unicorns.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCz0mLFsSFE From: obbajeeba To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Dear Bob, Greetings to you and yours. Cherishing this moment to share this message. I mischievously piled on top of Ann's post last evening due to similar requirements of need, sleep and dreams. Please give the wife my well wishes, and please tell her not to worry about anything, because, even though John was married, he too had fans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLvTq6FdOj4 and may the post limits be dropped forever, and may the members monitor each other, just like the buddy system on a course, of course. -Obbajeeba http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54sZ8TFFAmY
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnb7-nVKzLE From: emilymae.reyn To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 10:08:00 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) Bob, welcome back - are you here to restore musicality? Raise the bar a bit? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > ** > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best > of FFL* > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > picking > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best > Share's attempt > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going > with: > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone > with his > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to > us as > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > this might > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he > attempts > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability > to defamiliarize* > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > fail at this. > OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great > example of effective > defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was > familiar about him. > > I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing > > (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at > writing creatively > > ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do > that), is like watching > > someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" > jokes please). He also > appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard > words", which make > > his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers > Voldemort a creative writer > might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding > some of Kerouac's limitations, > who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's > talent as an artist). > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI > > > The film "The Master" was an example for me of the way art can make the > familiar *new*; the whole film > > delivered artistically, but the scene where Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour > Hoffman) "Processes" Freddie > > Quell (Joaquin Phoenix)---for the first time, felt in some way like the first > time I meditated; my experience of > > the scene was familiar and at the same time completely new; part of it was > the suggestiveness of Dodd's > voice, but more was the scene's transition from Dodd's voice to Quell > *living* a previous experience > as if for the first time, and the familiarity it had to my first meditation > and the first superlative > > clarity of the thought (engram or, if you will, un-stressing) that reported > or noticed an artifact of my > > awareness that had just existed without thinking. > > > The art of the writing, acting, and editing were part of it, but I believe it > was the cinematography, > with its use of 70mm film (which is rare today), that more than anything else > was essential to making > > the experience possible for me. > > > Another component of the film that worked the same way for me was Joaquin > Phoenix's characterization > of Freddie Quell, which allowed me to experience---as if for the first > time---character types that I > met as a child who were friends of my father tha
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Judy, Judy, Judy, it's always a pleasure to hear from you, regret this will only be a drive-by appearance as I'm now fully employed, and the wife expects me to work for the salary she pays me; no more management consulting for me (shouldn't complain, I had a good 27 year run pretending that was work); my present retirement strategy is to work till I drop and then meet Robin in the big Starbucks in the sky (hope Melville will be there too), and find out what the hell happened at the bombing of Monte Cassino. From: authfriend To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 7:36:36 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) BobbyBobbyBobbyBobby! What a treat to see you again. Like a big frosty tart-sweet glass of limeade, you are. Clears the palate and the sinuses. And boy, we needed that. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > From: turquoiseb > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > ** > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best > of FFL* > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > picking > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best > Share's attempt > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going > with: > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone > with his > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to > us as > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > this might > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he > attempts > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability > to defamiliarize* > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > fail at this. > OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great > example of effective > defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was > familiar about him. > > I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing > > (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at > writing creatively > > ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do > that), is like watching > > someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" > jokes please). He also > appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard > words", which make > > his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers > Voldemort a creative writer > might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding > some of Kerouac's limitations, > who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's > talent as an artist). > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI > > > The film "The Master" was an example for me of the way art can make the > familiar *new*; the whole film > > delivered artistically, but the scene where Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour > Hoffman) "Processes" Freddie > > Quell (Joaquin Phoenix)---for the first time, felt in some way like the first > time I meditated; my experience of > > the scene was familiar and at the same time completely new; part of it was > the suggestiveness of Dodd's > voice, but more was the scene's transition from Dodd's voice to Quell > *living* a previous experience > as if for the first time, and the familiarity it had to my first meditation > and the first superlative > > clarity of the thought (engram or, if you will, un-stressing) that reported > or noticed an artifact of my > > awareness that had just existed without thinking.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
I can only hope this means Emily and I are being considered for full membership in the "mean girls", because, frankly, we're finding being on the boring list---well, you know, pretty boring; don't get us wrong, we're flattered to be on any list in Voldemort's book of lists, we just think we've earned consideration for a higher calling. And to prove my personal commitment, I've ordered my first SPANX Men's starter kit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0QVBi112A From: Ann To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 7:29:33 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) May I just say that I can go to bed tonight happy? In fact, I'm positively giddy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bob Price wrote: > > > > From: turquoiseb > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > busy...uh...editing.  :-) > > ** > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best > of FFL* > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > picking > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best > Share's attempt > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going > with: > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone > with his > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to > us as > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > this might > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he > attempts > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability > to defamiliarize* > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > fail at this. > OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great > example of effective > defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was > familiar about him. > > I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing > > (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at > writing creatively > > ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do > that), is like watching > > someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" > jokes please). He also > appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard > words", which make > > his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers > Voldemort a creative writer > might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding > some of Kerouac's limitations, > who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's > talent as an artist). > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI > > > The film "The Master" was an example for me of the way art can make the > familiar *new*; the whole film > > delivered artistically, but the scene where Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour > Hoffman) "Processes" Freddie > > Quell (Joaquin Phoenix)---for the first time, felt in some way like the first > time I meditated; my experience of > > the scene was familiar and at the same time completely new; part of it was > the suggestiveness of Dodd's > voice, but more was the scene's transition from Dodd's voice to Quell > *living* a previous experience > as if for the first time, and the familiarity it had to my first meditation > and the first superlative > > clarity of the thought (engram or, if you will, un-stressing) that reported > or noticed an artifact of my > > awareness that had just existed without thinking. > > > The art of the writing, acting, and editing were part of it, but I believe it > was the cinematography, > with its use of 70mm film (
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Resending as a test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8 From: Bob Price To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not busy...uh...editing. :-) ** I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best of FFL* going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of picking my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best Share's attempt to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going with: "Is Voldemort a hack?" When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone with his considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to us as a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; this might be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he attempts anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability to defamiliarize* by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely fail at this. OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great example of effective defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was familiar about him. I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at writing creatively ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do that), is like watching someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" jokes please). He also appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard words", which make his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers Voldemort a creative writer might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding some of Kerouac's limitations, who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's talent as an artist). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI The film "The Master" was an example for me of the way art can make the familiar *new*; the whole film delivered artistically, but the scene where Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) "Processes" Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix)---for the first time, felt in some way like the first time I meditated; my experience of the scene was familiar and at the same time completely new; part of it was the suggestiveness of Dodd's voice, but more was the scene's transition from Dodd's voice to Quell *living* a previous experience as if for the first time, and the familiarity it had to my first meditation and the first superlative clarity of the thought (engram or, if you will, un-stressing) that reported or noticed an artifact of my awareness that had just existed without thinking. The art of the writing, acting, and editing were part of it, but I believe it was the cinematography, with its use of 70mm film (which is rare today), that more than anything else was essential to making the experience possible for me. Another component of the film that worked the same way for me was Joaquin Phoenix's characterization of Freddie Quell, which allowed me to experience---as if for the first time---character types that I met as a child who were friends of my father that had served with him in WW2; JP's characterization of Quell had the same effect on me as a number of characters Jim Thompson (writer of "The Getaway" and "The Grifters") created that felt as new, when I read about them in his novels, but reminded me of some psychopathic cowboy's my father socialized with. I wouldn't disagree that Voldemort's posts are full of conflict (more than
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Yes, Bob Price, let us imagine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhq-yO1KN8 From: Bob Price To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 9:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment) From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not busy...uh...editing. :-) ** I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a *Best of FFL* going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of picking my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone best Share's attempt to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm going with: "Is Voldemort a hack?" When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For someone with his considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself to us as a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; this might be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when he attempts anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the ability to defamiliarize* by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely fail at this. OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great example of effective defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was familiar about him. I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative writing (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at writing creatively ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do that), is like watching someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left foot" jokes please). He also appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard words", which make his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers Voldemort a creative writer might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding some of Kerouac's limitations, who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's talent as an artist). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI The film "The Master" was an example for me of the way art can make the familiar *new*; the whole film delivered artistically, but the scene where Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman) "Processes" Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix)---for the first time, felt in some way like the first time I meditated; my experience of the scene was familiar and at the same time completely new; part of it was the suggestiveness of Dodd's voice, but more was the scene's transition from Dodd's voice to Quell *living* a previous experience as if for the first time, and the familiarity it had to my first meditation and the first superlative clarity of the thought (engram or, if you will, un-stressing) that reported or noticed an artifact of my awareness that had just existed without thinking. The art of the writing, acting, and editing were part of it, but I believe it was the cinematography, with its use of 70mm film (which is rare today), that more than anything else was essential to making the experience possible for me. Another component of the film that worked the same way for me was Joaquin Phoenix's characterization of Freddie Quell, which allowed me to experience---as if for the first time---character types that I met as a child who were friends of my father that had served with him in WW2; JP's characterization of Quell had the same effect on me as a number of characters Jim Thompson (writer of "The Getaway" and "The Grifters") created that felt as new, when I read about them in his novels, but reminded me of some psychopathic cowboy's my father socialized with. I wouldn't disagree that Voldemort's posts are full of conflict (more
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Is Voldemort a hack? (was The Prerequisites for Enlightenment)
Now where the fuck is Robin? :-) Damn that was good Bob - how can I be like you? You are one of most creative persons to have graced this list - you leave me with the dissonant feelings of delight, wonder coupled with envy !!! On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Bob Price wrote: > ** > > > > > From: turquoiseb > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 7:58:43 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Prerequisites for Enlightenment > > >>>And for your information, I dash off things here and send them without > editing them because most of the time I'm just having fun with them. > That, and the audience I'm writing for doesn't meet my standards for > deserving edited copy -- they're not paying me. > > >>>For paying customers, I edit. Non-paying customers who don't like > my unedited posts can go suck eggs. Non-paying editors who get off > on editing my posts for me should pay *me*, for providing them with > something to do on those days when they're off work and thus not > busy...uh...editing. :-) > > ** > > I was thrilled with last weeks *posting without limits*, > it gave me a sense of power and control knowing that I could > respond to any and all of the 1500+ posts that I just finished reading. > > One of our illustrious contributors suggested that we might consider a > *Best of FFL* > going forward, and with that in mind I set myself the difficult task of > picking > my favorite subject for the week; it was a challenge (how could anyone > best Share's attempt > to prove she speaks in tongues), but a decision had to be made and I'm > going with: > > "Is Voldemort a hack?" > > When I read Voldemort's posts I ask myself: "Where's the art?". For > someone with his > considerable output on FFL, who puts so much effort into selling himself > to us as > > a creative writer, art seems conspicuously absent from his contributions; > this might > be less true if you consider manual (or phonebook) writing a creative act. > > As he makes clear above, Voldemort is a writer of manuals, and, IMO, when > he attempts > > anything more than that, the word "hack" pretty much nails what he becomes. > > For something to be considered art it's imperative that it have the > ability to defamiliarize* > by making the familiar, unfamiliar and *new*; Voldemort's posts completely > fail at this. > OTOH, Judy's choice of the word "hack", to describe Voldemort, is a great > example of effective > defamiliarization---it gave me a new experience of something that was > familiar about him. > > I also must agree with Judy that irony is the life blood of creative > writing > > (writing phonebooks, not as much), and reading Voldemort's attempts at > writing creatively > > ---when he is so handicapped in the irony department (narcissism will do > that), is like watching > > someone with no hands attempt to show off his penmanship (no "My left > foot" jokes please). He also > appears to be unable to go beyond cliche and what Martin Amis calls "heard > words", which make > > his offerings, on this forum at least, quite artless. Anyone who considers > Voldemort a creative writer > might consider rereading Hemingway (if you are interested in understanding > some of Kerouac's limitations, > who Voldemort attempts to emulate---without demonstrating any of Kerouac's > talent as an artist). > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abc819rT6wI > > The film "The Master" was an example for me of the way art can make the > familiar *new*; the whole film > > delivered artistically, but the scene where Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour > Hoffman) "Processes" Freddie > > Quell (Joaquin Phoenix)---for the first time, felt in some way like the > first time I meditated; my experience of > > the scene was familiar and at the same time completely new; part of it was > the suggestiveness of Dodd's > voice, but more was the scene's transition from Dodd's voice to Quell > *living* a previous experience > as if for the first time, and the familiarity it had to my first > meditation and the first superlative > > clarity of the thought (engram or, if you will, un-stressing) that > reported or noticed an artifact of my > > awareness that had just existed without thinking. > > The art of the writing, acting, and editing were part of it, but I believe > it was the cinematography, > with its use of 70mm film (which is rare today), that more than anything > else was essential to making > > the experience possible for me. > > Another component of the film that worked the same way for me was Joaquin > Phoenix's characterization > of Freddie Quell, which allowed me to experience---as if for the first > time---character types that I > met as a child who were friends of my father that had served with him in > WW2; JP's characterization > > of Quell had the same effect on me as a number of characters Jim Thompson > (writer of "The Getaway" and > > "The Grifters") created that felt as new, when I read about them in his
