Russ2's comments (member since Sep 16, 2007)

Russ2's comments from the Constant Reader group.

Perhaps I'm the empiricist among us, but I think that (conceptually thinking, of course) if each of us prepared two lists, one of books we considered "literary", the other of books we considered "non-literary," then our lists would not look that much different, no matter how we described in words how we decided which book went on which list -- if, that is, anyone can decipher that garbled non-literary thought.

I think we can each know it when we see it, but describing "how" or "why" is not so easy, as this discussion demonstrates.

And, Dana, I think I'm with you in suggesting an open mind about reading. I read a variety of literature, literary and pop, and enjoy what I choose to read for whatever reasons, even though I too am sensitive to the differences in writing that I see.

Harking back to the early discussion -- Joe, I think -- I prefer to spend my unlimited retirement time reading what I enjoy, literary or non-literary.

One more opinion for the bon-fire.

I'm still trying to make up my mind about Auster. Enjoyed The Book of Illusions very much, and others much less.
I can't figure out whether he is half full or half empty. One day I'll get really serious about reading his works to resolve the matter. But so far I'm not that motivated, based on what I have seen.

I think it is one of the ultimate examples of a book that rewards rereading (and close analysis) -- having read it at least half a dozen times now, myself -- especially if one wants to get to the "how" of how he did create characters and a plot line that some of us feel so conflicted about.

Baxter, Carol and Pontalba have my concurrence that this is a work of genius by Nabokov and that it was predated by some very provocative movie scenes made with Shirley Temple.

As a way-far-out conjecture, for the first time I am caused to wonder if the Shirley Temple scenes might have seeded Nabokov's imagination for Lolita. There are "lap scenes" in both places, with provocation by the girl, for example. And it might not have taken much to give VN an idea that his fertile imagination could run with in creating the trademark nymphet of his book.

A maximum push got me to 32,600, a couple days ahead. So I took a day to rest. Dumb! Hope that doesn't prove fatal. But ideas are beginning to flow back into my empty brain. So tomorrow to the grindstone again.

Thank you, Carol, for your kindness in saying. I do hope to be part of this group for a long while to come and not to wear out my welcome.

Gabrielle,
Please give it time. Time heals all wounds, as they say. "Almost entirely, anyway" I would add. I share your views, and your views about having posted your views, and it has been only with great effort that I have said as little as I have said on this topic. But, please don't jump to any irrevocable decisions, and please don't attribute more (negative) significance to things than they deserve. Your feelings will moderate and smooth out, and this is not such a bad place after all.
Please take these thoughts as coming from someone who has been out of step more often than most people, and who has been kicked around from pillar to post because of it (mostly elsewhere).
The Net is a strange place and I have found that keeping a low profile avoids many problems; or, at least, that a previously high profile has produced issues and resentments I would never have thought possible.
So please take time off if need be, to relax, and then feel free to join in again, sadder and wiser, with a new view of your colleagues here.
Sincerely
Russ

Many thanks, Denise,
Still chugging ahead, including a poem to boot. (!)
Half done looks pretty good; but half to go still looks very daunting.
All encouragement helps, though, so one foot in front of the other . . . . nose to the gridnstone . . . shoulder to the wheel . . . and just anyone try to do any writing in that position. :)

And Erin, that sounds like the way. I can't imagine doing both things, myself -- at all! So I salute you. Grit your teeth and do it. It all adds up.

Again,
Many thanks

No further comment.

Thanks kindly accepted, even if it took a certain voluntary suppression of my own personal more conservative views in this generally liberal environment.

Still plugging ahead. Midmonth goal of 25,000 words coming up in a few days. At 22,000 right now, so there is hope of making it to half-way at least. Then the race to the end.
Dreams, dreams, dreams.
:)

Anyone else?

Great list, as usual.
Jan, Feb, March, April will keep me solidly busy, in a good way. :)
Many thanks for this best of all forums.

The use of metaphor is a slippery thing, it seems to me. We easily view ourselves as members of our society and, as easily, come to view "society" in the large as a single entity that, like an individual, has views, has feelings, takes actions, is responsible, and so on.

. . . . as when some of us say "society" is responsible for the crime and then perhaps extend their individual empathy or sympathy to the actual person whom "society" caused to pull the trigger.

Idle musing overnight within the framework of that manner of speaking (I think synecdoche is the term) has led me to wonder whether it would be equally valid, or invalid, to say that "society" was the victim of the crime, and deserves our empathy and sympathy and condolences equally as well as when we extend heartfelt individual feelings to the survivors and the bereaved, and are outraged that one or more of our members has been murdered.

Is it not appropriate that "society" take measures against predators against its body?

Who deserves our empathies?

Just asking.

aTheresa, I think you miss my point, instead of vice versa. By using the word "process" I thought I was explicitly indicating that the process was on-going, not static. That we both agreee the process is dynamic is wonderful.

But I thought the OP for this discussion concerned a paricular execution and a particular criminal. And there are only the existing laws for defining his crime and handling his punishment. Next year there may be new laws, and the year after yet more and different laws. They will presumably be the then best (democratic) efforts to handle the crimes and punishments of their times. So?

At no point do I propose calling the whole thing off and stopping the process, as you try to insert into my mouth.

If anything, I am opposed to punishing or exonerating people by laws, so called, which are not written and which don't have the force of law, but are just someone's well-meaning thoughts in the circumstances.

What about the criminal insane, or the mentally challenged adults who commit murder,you advocate that they know what they are doing and should be executed. And that is all I am going to say.

First degree murder reguires knowledge and fore thought in order to warrant a death sentence.

Carol, Is it too much to suggest that the democratic process has already made the provisions it deems appropriate for such cases as you mention?

In my simple understanding, the death penalty was established by the democratic process that establishes the laws we live by. I find it very hard to complain about the democratic process, or about the death penalty if that is what the democratic process has decided is appropriate.

I also believe that the criminal is responsible for his crime, not society. He has earned his execution by his own diligence, and I would leave it at that.

Thanks, Sherry, very much! Rounding 8000 now, on schedule but still need the encouragement. I see the brick wall looming.

At first I thought "Not a single one!"
But then I saw Karen Armstrong's The Case for God. which is already on my shelf. Usually she is not quite my cup of tea because she always strikes me as rather distant and aloof in her treatments of the subject. This time it seemed she might be little more positive and friendly toward the Man Upstairs, so I added it to my shelf and I'll get around to it first, before her others.

Good split. Makes it seem almost easy.

In a wild fit of misguided enthusiasm, I have just signed up for the first time and reached my first day's goal with 2524 words. But I can see that now the hard part begins. :(
I pray for strength. :)