Why you don't get published.
Now that's obscure, barely readable and reminiscent of "Transgressing the Boundaries�" by Alan D. Sokal, Social Text #46/47, pp. 217-252 (spring/summer 1996).I will reprint his first sentence: The postmodern sciences overthrow the static ontological categories and hierarchies characteristic of modernist science.
Any chance of some young men for a change, EE?
I bet you feel like a psychiatrist around here, don't ya, Sparky?Ha!
Now that's obscure, barely readable I assume everyone's aware you can click directly on any picture for an enlargement.
This is one of my favorites! *smiles"
I'm not sure I believe the fine print and her eyebrows look awfully familiar to me. Funny tho'ME
I did click on the picture. It's all psychobabble to me. I feel like Mrs V tonight. Too many questions. Too many questions. The cartoon and caption is quite funny, but all psychobabble. All Freudian stuff is psychobabble. It's like verbal phrenology. Freud needed an excuse for his drug and porn addictions. SO he invented EGO, ID and SUPEREGO to have sex with his patients who represented his Mummy (and not HaptSuShet of Egypt). I mean, whoever thinks driving a sports car is a substitute for intercourse has emotional problems or a teeny weenie.) Modern western culture glorifies the penis and places it on their best and brightest (chevrons)... But psychiatry and psychology are barely legitimate areas of discussions, let alone considering them sciences. More like pseudo-intellectual fertilizer with all of the smell and none of the substance.Of course you could solve the problem of tiny fonts by putting a penis shaped talking bubble next to her head.
I think this poor young woman is more in need of conditioner and a hairbrush.Also, some sunlight.But if you can help her, kudos, EE.I can see the session... There I am, sitting on the couch."I just have these feelings of inadequacy--it's like no matter how many times I edit, or how many queries I send out, I'm just not good enough."EE nods. "That's exactly right. Clearly you have everything figured out, and my work is done here. Please pay at the front. NEXT!"
Alternatively:EE: "Tell me about your dreams."K: "Well, the other night I dreampt that I logged onto evileditor and you had a whole post about how much you love my blog and what a great writer I am."EE: "Interesting. Go on."K: "I was really excited."EE: "That's it?"K: "Yeah."EE: "Man, I've gotta get Robin back in here. That, or Stephenie Meyer. Your dreams are just plain pathetic."I think this needs to be a writing exercise sometime, EE. There are just so many possibilities...
Is that a before or after picture?
Speaking of psychiatric problems, this is Battlestar Galactica night and both societies - Human and Cylon are falling apart in the ugliest ways possible. If you ever wanted to see how Sci-Fi can serve a plot, this is one of those long stories, almost immeasurably long but at each turn, the story is not about the science or the technology, it's about person-to-person interactions. It's about how humans deal with adversity. It's about "the love that dare not be" (not gay, but human/cylon). And it is about faith in whatever god (lower case "g") we believe that predicts the future. --A number of years ago, PBS put on a series called "Upstairs Downstairs" and I watched it very eagerly. I came to dislike the Bellamy son, James, he was indecisive, a failure, a milquetoast, and everything my scientific nature despises. He seemed so full of promise but every time he was tested, he shrank back and turned away. --At the end of the series, he disgraces the family by losing everything in the 1929 crash. He's gambled everything and lost and so he blows his brains out in a seedy hotel. The only courageous thing he'd ever done in his life. --That character was a portrait of weakness, the half-man vorever living in his father's shadow. He couldn't rise above the fray, so to speak, because he never believed he could. The character that disappointed me was the only character that I remember and might wish to see again. That's the woman in this picture. She has James Bellamy's eyes. The eyes of one doomed to failure because she has no faith in herself.Every character in BSG is crumbling, is weak, is merely human. Even the metal ones. They all look like that girl in the picture.
Ha! Good question, BT.And Kiersten - come on now - there've gotta be other dreams, girl.
My stars. I hope we aren't going to start recounting dreams.That could be very frightening.Dave, I have to disagree. I think it takes much more courage to go on living after you have screwed up like that. As long as there is life, there is a chance for redemption.Kiersten, so what conditioner would you recommend?
Hm. Looks to me like she's staring directly at EP. And she's got that "UPS just delivered my Samurai Blade Eversharp Knife Set with free apple corer" dull sheen in her eyes.So this is advertising the knife set, right?
JULIE SAYS: I think it takes much more courage to go on living after you have screwed up like that.I agree, but in the case of James Bellamy in Upstairs/Downstairs, he has no more courage than to "save his family from disgrace" by committing suicide. He's blown everything. he was not a war hero. he failed at love. He's nver stood up to his father. And now, he's used the servants money to speculate and lost. He does what he feels is proper - take a gun and eat it. That is the sum total of his courage. And that is why his character is so magnificently weak. It took me a few years to understand the power of his weakness. The glory of it. How it illuminates the behavior of every other character. The other characters have flaws but they cope with them. James never copes, never rises to the occasion. He only fails. My thoughts and feelings are your - there is always hope - But James Bellamy only saw duty and social standing that he couldn't live up to... The plots make clear the his father is not perfect. His father fails at things, makes bad judgments and experiences losses, but his father is living up to nothing. James wants so desperately to live up to his father, to his family and to society's expectations that it is too much. he is too weak. And the writers understood his flaws and let him fail. James is not a heroic figure, but a weak and vacillating character. I think that we are used to Shakespeare presenting failing characters as noble and noteworthy. King Lear and even the weasel of a hunchback Richard for two examples. But here, we have a character presented in all his glorious weaknesses, his faults laid bare. And in the end, he dies the cowardly way by his own hand not wanting to face his ultimate failure.
Oh for fuck's sake, Dave.One of the differences between psychologists and outsiders is that psychologists are able to hold a constructive debate about Freud, one that recognises his weaknesses as well as his contribution, rather than resorting to anal-stage abuse.I recognise your need to pretend you're an expert on everything, but it's the need that's coming across, not the expertise.
Jesus, Dave, sometimes you are SUCH a bonehead. Do you put any forethought into your posts at ALL? To say that suicide is EVER a courageous act—no matter how much a person has failed (even in a TV show)—is pretty mean-spirited. You know, I'm beginning to think you're just one of those people who values having your say more than you value treating others with a little kindness.
I didn't argue that suicide was a courageous aact in real life. I would never do that. I was having fun at Freud in my first and second posts and joining EE in his humor on psychiatrists. Beyond that, I had just watched the latest BSG installment and made comments in a different light. I am not making a philosophical argument for life and living, I'm making an argument that the most compelling character in a 5 year long series was the weakest spine in the bunch. And that the series benefited from it. Should all of our characters be upright, able people? Don't some of them have faults that bring about their ignominious ends? To end in the weakest manner possible? Are characters always redeemed before they die, or can they die as sniveling, cowardly fools?I argued that the character James Bellamy only saw one path to his "salvation" and that was suicide. The writers didn't ennoble him like Shakespeare did with Hamlet or Macbeth or Lear, the writer created a weak man, who made weak decisions, and died in a weak way. That character portrayal is what illuminates the behavior of all the other characters. As they strive and battle adversity, James sits back and wallows in failure. Would it be wrong to "save and redeem" him at the end? NO, but then, he would diminish the other characters. Now lay off the personal attacks. I'm hurt at both comments from Buffy and Freddie. I didn't attack anyone. I said nothing about any other minion. I merely disagreed. I may be forceful about an issue, but that doesn't give you the right to call me "bonehead" like that. That's argument by insult. And to say ...resorting to anal-stage abuse ... I recognize your need to pretend you're an expert on everything... is truly impolite and rude.
I consider this matter closed for two reasons: !: Family matters demand my presence this weekend, I will not be back online until late Sunday night. 2: If you seriously want to discuss characters, then don't resort to personal attacks.
~ "my work is done here" ~That's brilliant, Kiersten. I like your suggestion of the writing exercise, too. There's a lot of scope with EE as the psychiatrist/psychotherapist.
Okay, Dave, I'm sorry I called you a bonehead. That was too much, I agree. But I'm not sure I buy the argument that you were merely waxing eloquent on the subject of characters in fiction or on TV. If that's what you were doing, you didn't make that clear. You made rather inflammatory comments about psychiatry and psychology and then went on to use a character as an example of how suicide can sometimes be a courageous act. First it was all-encompassing comments, then suddenly it was one illustration limited to the scope of this one TV show. There's a disconnect there.
I didn't attack anyone. I said nothing about any other minion.Dave, dear, you certainly did attack -- and more than just impolitely or rudely -- by inference, when you spat on a profession embraced or otherwise touched by a number of known minions and likely many other lurkers when you proclaimed:But psychiatry and psychology are barely legitimate areas of discussions, let alone considering them sciences. More like pseudo-intellectual fertilizer with all of the smell and none of the substance.You, too, could have expressed your opinion without resorting to name-calling (the euphemisitc "fertilizer"), and in a much clearer, more logical, more imperical manner -- the way science teaches.
That should, of course, be "empirical" manner.
I'm sorry I called Dave a bonehead. I flew off the handle and should have followed my own advice and thought about what I wrote before posting. The statements about suicide hit a raw nerve with me. Perhaps that was obvious. The crux of my argument was that Dave should have had some forethought about posting his thoughts on a subject as touchy as suicide—especially after making sweeping negative statements about the sciences that do a lot in helping to prevent it. At any rate, you won't hear any more name-calling from me.
Freddie, I understand your point. I apologize.
Oh, good, Dave. Glad we're moving on!
Post a Comment