THEIR RUT LOOKS LIKE A LOT MORE FUN THAN OUR RUT.

Dearly belovéd, you are a broken record. Well, not broken--you have something stuck in a groove that causes the needle to jump back in the groove it just completed.

Still, fragment-of-macaroni-in groove or broken record, I think your plaintive posts about the burden of existence are better philosophy than "Germany receives Marx statue from China. Why?" or "Is objective morality imaginary?" and so on. Some threads generate tons of responses (like the current one on eating meat--I haven't read any of it, nothing new to say about that on either side.

Like life itself, the burden remains, and you keep asking what the point of it all is. Though I don't think you are really 'asking'. You are more 'telling', which is fine. That's how you see the world -- tell it like it is, as they used to say.

Whether burden or opportunity, life will go on until it doesn't. If we work just slightly harder, I think we have a good chance of eliminating ourselves from the equation maybe in the next century. The fewer people then remaining will hail your "GIVE UP" sign that flashes on off in bright neon colors in the middle of the desert that used to be Iowa as THE TRUTH, WORLD JUST ABOUT OVER, AMEN.

1) The labor theory of value is false. — Uber

I'm relying on Value, Price, and Profit (K. Marx). It doesn't seem false to me. Granted, production has changed since Marx's work was written. Automation (computers, robots) have greatly reduced the amount of labor required to create wealth. A great deal of wealth is produced by the manipulation of currencies, stocks, bonds, etc. -- which went on in KM's day too, but it was more localized, wasn't instantaneous (programmed buying and selling several times a second) and it wasn't globalized on line, as it is now. Wealth from finance, which isn't very closely linked to any actual physical process, is a primary source of wealth for the 1%, as Piketty showed (haven't read him, either -- just about his book).

Still, outside of the automated factory, or the automated egg laying operation, labor is still required to produce wealth; it doesn't appear without labor being applied to material. The share of the value that labor receives is still smaller than the share of the value (wealth) created.

What is wrong with that understanding?

When two people fundamentally disagree on an issue and will not back down where do you go from there? — Andrew4Handel

Why should there be any way out of an impasse? If two people fundamentally disagree, then they disagree and there probably won't be any change in either persons opinion, until the facts of the matter change.

I hate Trump. You love Trump. We are going to maintain our views until something totally new and unexpected is revealed about Trump (like, he is able to bring peace and justice to the Middle East or orders the Statue of Liberty and the Golden Gate Bridge destroyed).

Why can neither person change the other persons mind?

a. Neither of you has a compelling case for your own view
b. Both of you would rather die than agree with the other one.

Is one side of the argument right or neither? Can both be equally rational and informed?

Of course one side or both can be right or wrong and both can be equally rational and informed. Actually, this is probably the state most impasses exist in. So why don't they agree?

Because people can be obstinate, territorial, egotistical, rigid, and all sorts of other splendid things. "I said the sky is red, and just because you say it is blue is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to grant that you are right." A synonym for 'impasse' -- deadlock -- gets at the situation better, perhaps. The two sides are locked into their positions.

This usually comes with a kind of sadism, and she does seem sadistic. — csalisbury

. Not because she was racist, but because she saw all people as equally awful. — csalisbury

O'Connor was a faithful pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. She saw people unavoidably falling into sin; we can't avoid it. On the other side of falling into sin is God's grace. She gets into the "nice stuff" in a story like "A Good Man is hard to find". However, the moment of grace--as profound as it is--is short. Very short. But yes, her characters are decidedly fallen.

Someone asked O'Connor why there are so many freaks in southern literature. She said there were so many freaks "Because we can still recognize them." (I don't know whether there are more freakishly awful people in the American South than in the American North or in London, England or Shanghai. "Freakishly awful" isn't a category that demographers track, unfortunately.

This is going to sound petty, but you're leaving one thing out, and petty as it is, I think it's relevant. O' Connor was unattractive. She wasn't a good-looking person. — csalisbury

Two questions: was she unattractive? Shall we have a poll? Was she too ugly to have a normal romantic life?


Hair and glasses can undo one, and the glasses she was often photographed in (1940s-50s black plastic) were not flattering. She had a receding chin which some people like, some people don't like. But, really, she didn't need to wear a bag over her head when she went out in public.

I dislike the theory that a lack of physical beauty or the presence of a physical deficiency (like a degree of deafness) determines the kind of people we are. Of course, it has something to do with it, because we live in a social context and it will affect us. But it shouldn't. Really, it shouldn't.

What else in her life may have kept her out of the dating/mating game? For one, she was afflicted by Lupus, a painful, not-too-common chronic autoimmune disorder that can result in organ failure (which was the cause of her early death at 39). She also needed to use crutches to get around, because of lupus. I don't know when she was diagnosed with it.

To get a better grasp of her literary work one would probably have to read her substantial literary criticism writing, which is quite interesting--as little of it as I have read.

It's been a long time since I read all of O'Connor's works (maybe 40 years, give or take). I just don't remember enough about most of them at this point. I don't remember any stories where the warm sun shine of grace pervades a whole story. And I haven't read her work in sequential order to measure how her writing changed over time.

Here’s a thing: does this story correspond to a particular stance on 60s civil rights? — csalisbury

That's a very good question. She was dead by 1964 (age 39). As far as I know, O'Connor wasn't a civil rights campaigner. Her world was fairly small, I think. She had lupus (from which she died) and stuck pretty close to home. She was a Catholic southerner, something of an outsider. Most of her characters have glaring faults, whether it's spiritual faults, false pride, predation on the simpleminded, or what have you. People trip over their own delusions. But O'Connor also understood Grace.

My impression is that she was unlikely to look at black people as an amorphous oppressed group. She was a very sophisticated, educated woman. A black character in her stories is likely to fall prey to self-delusion, just like their white brothers and sisters. She probably viewed real blacks that way too -- as likely to be as full of bad faith as her white neighbors.

Also interesting that of the four stories recently talked about here, two (the other is the Oates) involve domineering mothers and a “be careful what you wish for” tragedy — csalisbury

As somebody once said, "Your mother knows which of your buttons to push; after all, she put them there.

So, my dad was raised in an ultra-WASPy family, disdain for blue-collar people through and through. — csalisbury

We don't talk about it much, on TPF or in real life, but as some people say, "The only war is the class war." Most people don't see class as a problem because they think class is a dead issue. If you think we are in a post-racial society, as some people do, it's also possible not to see racism. Or, for others, it's possible not to see racism because it is ubiquitous.

The mother thinks about class as well as race. If the son thought about class much, he would realize his status is uncomfortably ambiguous: maybe he has an education (which is a leg up in class) but he doesn't have the connections or the ambition to go with it.

Given her class inheritance, she's pretty much compelled to construct a fantasy in which she is not as humbled as she in fact is. (Who the hell does want to deal with all that?) The son is going to have a harder time of it. He's not going to be have the shelter of a fantasy world, and he won't have many means to make life better, either.

Why does the son have such poor prospects?

1.2k
↪Πετροκότσυφας
The greatest irony of course was that: "He could not push her to the extent of making her have a stroke". Funny!
Missed that, so good. — csalisbury

Funny until the last line of the story when actually she had the stroke (or heart attack):

The tide of darkness seemed to sweep him back to her, postponing from moment to moment his entry into the world of guilt and sorrow. — ETRMC

Propositions beginning with 'all' and 'never' are always suspect because nothing is ever true in all circumstances. However...

Luck certainly plays a large role in individual success and failure. Like...

...When and where a person was conceived, gestated, and born
The genes of the ancestors are a matter of luck, as is the manner in which the parents genetic contribution combined at the time of conception.
...An unlucky child will be gestated in the womb of a woman who drinks, smokes crack, shoots up heroin, has AIDS and lives downwind from a lead refinery.
...If everything else is favorable, it makes a difference where one was born. It's one thing to be a genius born in Manhattan, something else to be a genius born in the middle of the Sahara desert.
...An otherwise favored person may lack the psychochemistry that yields a calm, steady, enthusiastic, ambitious worker.

Time and chance happen. Life sucks. It's not fair. Get used to it.

The global economy is not in an immediate crisis — Uber

Two things... #1, we aren't very good at predicting the next economic crisis. Only in retrospect have we seen crisis coming.

#2, somewhere down the line is the diminishing supply of petroleum that can be extracted by less energy than the oil itself contains. This won't be a "falling off a cliff" crisis, because the returns on drilling and extraction will taper off. The petroleum crisis will also not happen in the next 5 or 10 years. But at some point in the not-distant future, the "secret sauce" that has driven the world economy for the last century will become more and more difficult to get at a reasonable cost. The collapse of the petroleum industry will be a very big crisis. [There will be lots of oil in the ground as we slowly fade into the sunset, but economic feasibility will rule out spending $1 of energy to get 40¢ worth of energy out of the ground.]

It will be a very big crisis for two reasons: #1, petroleum and natural gas are the critical feed stock for transportation, chemicals, plastics, heating, and manufacturing of all kinds. Without inexpensive petroleum, the current world economy will pretty much grind to a halt. (Coal can't take the place of petroleum, and all the renewable energy in the world won't produce chemical feedstocks.)

Then, if that wasn't crisis enough, there's global warming, population, etc. And there are some less well known potential problems too. Peak phosphate production is about 20 years away, and without a growing supply of phosphate, everything else being equal, there won't be enough fertilizer to maintain crop production for 8+ billion people.

I'm 71, so I won't be around to see the denouement, but the interplay of these various factors -- too many people, too much heat, not enough petroleum, fresh water shortages, agriculture shortfalls, industrial problems of supply, and so forth, should produce synergistic crises that will be hell on wheels.

Whether Marx was right or wrong will be the least of our concerns.

Maybe a thread, yes. You should start it. I don't subscribe to the "great man" theory of history. There are great men and women, yes, but as you said, major developments come from a community more than individuals, process more than event. Even if a maverick comes up with a 100% unique idea of great significance, a community has to respond or... pffft, it disappears.

Good intellectuals borrow. Great intellectuals steal. — frank

That may be true. But maybe this famous quip is more appropriate for artists. Pablo Picasso is widely quoted as having said that “good artists borrow, great artists steal.”

I really don't think that the story is about racism as such. It is about peoples ability or lack of ability to adapt to change — Sir2u

People have difficulty adapting to change, true enough. But which changes were going on in the south in the late 50s, early 60s, that an author might have found significant for a story? Hint: it wasn't changes in agriculture or industry.

mass sociopathy — Akanthinos

I don't think what Europe went through in the 20th century was "mass sociopathy". Certainly there was some substantial mass sociopathy going on in Germany from 1924 onwards, but it emanated from very specific sources.

Most Europeans were not sociopathic; they were driven to a state of "craziness" by war, depression, agitation, and war again. War in Europe didn't well up from the masses, it was imposed on the masses by their various governments.

Similarly, Americans aren't sociopathic either. We, like billions of other people, are subject to the dubious policies of state and corporations, and their propaganda. Some of these policies are "crazy". Trump isn't the first president to promote crazy policies, but he is certainly doing it now in a big way.

Either pulling out of, or threatening to pull out (coitus interruptus) of Paris Climate Change Agreement, NAFTA, the Pacific area trade agreement, the Iran nuclear agreement, and so on, are all "crazy" and further destabilize social congruence. His huge tax cut (mostly for people who are already wealthy) and cuts in social spending (which benefit the poorest) are more of the same. I do not have a lot of confidence and affection for some of these agreements, but I don't like the rash way they are being threatened, ignored or exited. Brexit is destabilizing too -- to more than just British retainers.

Hopelessness among semi-skilled middle aged workers is one of the drivers behind the opiate addiction epidemic. Pushers are doing their bit too, of course, as are suppliers.

That's the sort of thing I meant.

Uber had suggested Marx was one of the most influential intellectuals in human history. Human history is in the range of 5000 years during which time the most influential intellectuals were those who devised the solar calendar, initiated irrigation for crops and learned to smelt copper and iron. Is Marx a member of that club? Not yet. Tune in a thousand years from now for a reassessment. — frank

This reminds me of the apocryphal story about Chou En Lai, Premier of the PRC between 1949 and 1975. Asked whether he thought the French Revolution was a good thing, he said: "It's too early to tell." There's no evidence that he actually said any such thing, but it is a good story.

Come now. Irrigation wasn't invented by a brilliant intellectual. Neither was smelting and alloying metal, making glass, inventing stirrups, the wheel, the plow, etc. These were collective developments made over time. Very smart, inventive people have always lived, certainly. Maybe some Neanderthal and homo sapiens geniuses both discovered the method of making a very strong pitch-glue out of birch bark, but it is more likely that this knowledge was collective. We don't know, and will never know how these technologies came about.

No western thinker in the last 5000 years belongs to the age when basic technologies were invented. There are Greece, Rome, Babylonia, Egypt -- but then there is a long hiatus. Intellectuals from the Renaissance forward belong to the current epoch, not to the classical ages.

Where does Marx stand? He stands tall among the tall social thinkers of the Enlightenment. Is Marx the greatest thinker of all time? Of course not. Neither is Adam Smith, Ricardo, the various stars of the Enlightenment, and so on.

Marx brought some new insights into history and economics. They are important. Marx was also a preacher offering a salvation program. Unfortunately, Saint Karl didn't have the opportunity to vet the evangelists who picked up his testament and ran with it. I doubt if Marx could have stomached Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. He would probably have liked someone like the American marxist Daniel DeLeon better--DeLeon wasn't interested in having a blood bath of a revolution.

Dual citizen or resident alien? The American culture tends to drive Europeans insane. Have you suffered from that? — frank

You are probably aware that European culture was driving people insane in the 20th century -- WWI, WWII... Europe's craziness doesn't make anybody else's craziness better, but it can give you some perspective.

Does American culture drive people insane? Fromm thought so (The Sane Society, Erich Fromm).

Glad we ended up lucky in the end. — Posty McPostface

Not too lucky: The United States and Russia still have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out civilization. (Plus what the UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have).

Well said.

What would you name as significant examples of that influence? — frank

I don't know at this point whether you agree or not with the points Uber made above.

Another significant thing: Marx identified class conflict (between workers who produce wealth and the rich folk who accumulate it) as one of the drivers of history. Class conflict is a dangerous thing because it has the potential to topple political and economic structures.

One of the dominant features of the American economic and political system is and has been the suppression of class conflict. The result (so far successful) has been the sharp surge of economic inequality. During the progressive era on up to the end of WWII, when class conflict was more intense, the distribution of wealth was somewhat more egalitarian. Now we are back to the conditions of the Gilded Age of the robber barons (late 19th century).

Supposedly the campuses are infested with militant Marxists. I don't believe it. The Marxists in their ivory towers are a very, very long way from the reality of the working class. If the best our current marxists can do is riot over transsexual pronouns and other identity issues, they might as well be sent to far northern Siberian coal mines to rot.

When we read a published story that has become 'accepted' as a good piece of literature (or history, science, psychology...) we are generally inclined to believe that the author is offering us an insightful, true or real picture. Quite often, of course, the author has gotten things right. But we shouldn't take it for granted.

In this week's Guardian book review, Joanna Trollope says that "Most well-known authors seem to have got married life unbelievably wrong; they could write about it, but couldn’t do it." She was talking about a book that explored the marriages of some famous writers during the inter-war period (20th century).

No one should read Cat Person or Babysitter (and truck loads more) with the assumption that the authors offer exceptional insight into human experience. They may, but just as likely, they may not. We have to test the story against such experiences as we have, for whatever they might be worth.

I haven't been able to interest anyone in reading Flannery O'Connor, who did offer pretty good insight (imho). I could also suggest Muriel Spark, who some people think was very insightful, and others thought was not. But I won't. I'll just add this from O'Connor's critical writing:

"There's many a bestseller that could have been prevented by a good teacher." and "Everywhere I go, I'm asked if the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them."

The short story as Rorschach Test. One can read all sorts of things into the story. Everybody does this; #metoo. I tend to prefer stories that clearly reflect the author's understanding of the world. Babysitter doesn't do that particularly well. But that is my preference, not the last word in Lit Crit.

(fwiw my copy - used bookstore - has all sorts of sober, analytic notes (feminine handwriting) in the margins, but under the final paragraph it just says 'What the hell?!') — csalisbury

"What the hell?!" probably applied to the whole story. Buying used books is good ecology and economy.

if open-endedness is too much, then - and I don't mean this flippantly - there's also a robust guideline-centric community when it comes to casual sex - the sadomasochism community. S&M gets a lot of caricatur-y bad press (and I'll admit that I have trouble seeing it as a final resting point, relationship-wise) but it seems like a potentially healthy way to unambiguously structure the otherwise-confusing power dynamics of sex and romance. — csalisbury

This sounds reasonable in theory. Any reasonably intelligent, slightly psychopathic person could learn how to inflict the requisite blows (and they are real blows) and humiliations as the "master" in the S&M scene. Maybe one could accept being tied up and beaten, whipped, etc. as a "slave" but one would have to be extra-extraordinarily tolerant of abuse.

S&M are a pair of "paraphilias" that happen to be complementary. One either is born with or learns very very early whatever it is that leads to sexual satisfaction being connected to something non-genital (like people who have a sexual fixation on shoes). For the most part, paraphilias are not a social problem because participants are self-selecting. (This does not apply to paedophilia.) S&M isn't a problem, but unless one is endowed with that paraphilia, 99.99% of the population are not going to enjoy being whipped--literally, and most people will not like doing the whipping either.

S&M is a specialty, except that one is more born with it than gets a degree in it.

Otherwise, it's a great idea. There are lots of rules and regs, there are organizations one can join, various web sites that sell S&M supplies (whips, chains, slings, hoods, paddles, tit clamps, ball stretchers, etc.), and arrange hookups. Just be sure you are totally turned on by this scene before you show up for a beating meeting.

a complex deconstruction — Baden

fabulist — Wikipedia

metafiction — Wikipedia

Alarm bells ring.

I will admit to not being fond of complexly deconstructing things, metafiction, fabulism, and such. This isn't the first piece of fiction of this species that I've read, and I just don't happen to like it very much. I usually prefer a much more linear plot.

09"]And though I agreed with you about "Cat Person", I now think you are a complete philistine. How things change![/quote]

And right you are. Some days I'm a genuine Renaissance Man, other days an idiot savant, and every now and then, a philistine--and more besides. I should note, I've enjoyed some very non-linear movies--just to let you know I'm not a complete philistine, and some of them were not in English and I still thought they were good.

If you, Gaelic fellow, haven't read and enjoyed -- actually marveled at -- Ulysses, you are not eligible to call me a Philistine, or a Palestinian, either§ I'll have you know I attended and enjoyed the opera, Four Saints in Three Acts, libretto by Gertrude Stein. En Gard:



Hey, I've even seen this quoted in a political opinion piece and got the joke:

CHORUS I
Saint Teresa seated and not surrounded. There are a great many persons and places near together. Saint Teresa not seated.

So, I'll retract the sentence "The characters seem to be vehicles for the author's masturbatory fantasies", and I didn't say the author went "to all that trouble simply to reveal himself as some kind of a perv". Even if these were masturbatory fantasies (a statement I withdrew above), I don't find anything perverted about them.

In my days as an English Major, Babysitter could probably have been described as a "literary travesty"--travesty not being a pejorative term.

My guess is that future posters will laud Babysitter as "well written" "inventive" (probably not innovative, since he didn't invent this form), perceptive, insightful, even if "laud" is a word they never use. I can stand it.

The scene where the partygoers attempt to stuff Mrs. Dobson back into her girdle (using butter to lubricate the lard) is nothing if not burlesque. Girdles used to be a bigger thing than they are now. My mother (born in 1907) wore girdles. I think by the 1970s the policy was more along the lines of just let it all hang out.

I'll also grant that as a plot slicer and splicer, Coover does manage to keep control--the spliced material "works". That doesn't make it a landmark in literature, but it works. In less unskilled hands the technique would end up produce an incomprehensible mess.

§I tried. I really did. It, like St Theresa, is not surrounded.

This is off topic, but this is the way I think we are: Layered.

READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP

[5] Adults are biologically complete, have more

and less mastered the parts of culture most relevant to them, and gradually integrate unique self and specific culture as they age--a never-ending process.
[4] Infants are born into the foundational levels of animal existence and swiftly progress both in individual learning from their unique standpoint and in their appropriation of the culture surrounding them.
[3] Our species creates, transmits, elaborates, and learns culture. This layer builds on the previous two layers, and is as dynamic and complex as the biological layers.
[2] On top of the foundational layer of biology are the characteristics of the species: still biological but bearing features unique to that species.
[1] The foundation layer is biology; the untaught, persistent, insistent drives that keep individual animals and species in business.


Your "giant Samoan gay man" closest friend can choose or not choose to have casual sex, as he pleases. This is a choice individuals can make. I have gay and straight friends who also chose not to have casual sex. Quite possibly, they couldn't find the opportunity, were too risk averse, accepted a cultural rule that says 1 sex partner per lifetime, or some other such sick, perverted thing.

When gay men (who are created by and raised in a heterosexual milieu) step into the envelope of gay culture, a different set of values, behaviors, expectations, and so forth comes into effect. Because it is not mediated by broad, long-standing cultural norms gay cruising tends to serve the fulfillment of basic urges. (But it isn't entirely chaotic. Norms are established.)

To the degree that families do not prepare men and women to competently seek partners in the required, approved manner, straight people also find themselves in an envelope where official guidelines do not apply. A straight bar full of young men and women on the loose is a much more chaotic envelope of social interaction than a Baptist church social or a cocktail party for the Sydney or Adelaide Bar Association.

The characters in Cat Person were both operating within an envelope where vague rules are mixed in with vague romantic notions common in our culture. When things don't work out well, (as they often do not) individuals tend to interpret the poor outcomes in terms imported from the main culture.

So, two people fumbling in the dark (literally and figuratively) who fail to have a good time may seize upon interpretations from the culture at large which aren't suitable within the envelope. The author, in this case, applied exterior standards, the way many people do, and arrived at a yet more unsatisfactory resolution.

I read somewhere that Robert Coover is a convicted fabulist. He's also been apprehended while writing metafiction.

A teenager shows up for a babysitting job. The parents (Harry and Dolly Tucker) leave and the children misbehave in predictable fashion, but after some playtime, television, and junk food, they fall asleep. The babysitter washes the dishes, straightens up the house, does her homework, and doses off in front of the television. The parents return. Not much of a story.

Except, of course, there is a much larger cast of characters performing the author's erotic fantasies about the babysitter, Harry Tucker, Jack, her boyfriend, and Mark, Jack's friend. Then there are the imagined monstrous children, and the bath in the Tucker's large tub that is never taken.

Coover has a quaint fantasy about Dolly Tucker who loosened her girdle, but then can not get it back on. She ends up on the floor, coated in butter while the other guests attempt to stuff her back in.

The story has the feel of one version of 1950s suburbia--not a bad thing here. Many of the author's fantasies play up to suburban fears of naughty babysitters (naughty = taking baths or watching TV with a boyfriend while on duty), sexually adventurous boys and the bad girls who they entertain, parties at which the adults smoke and drink and later regret, pinball machines, middle-aged people past their primes, and so forth.

The characters seem to be vehicles for the author's masturbatory fantasies, and say really nothing about actual, real people.

As such, it was a moderately amusing story, but it is no reflection on reality. This is just sliced and diced phantasy.

I don't find a difference in these two formulations.

"the lack of belief that gods exist" — Jerry

"the belief that no god exists" — Jerry

What I do find is that the first statement is passive and the second statement is active. Active statements are more vigorous than passive ones, and are preferable. The most direct statement would be "I do not believe god(s) exists."

Your statement about agnosticism is confusing and is contradictory.

It sounds like you do not know whether gods exist, which is a common meaning of agnosticism

Women are deluded about all sorts of things. For example, women are deluded about what men think they owe women. (Hint: Not-too-much to as-little-as-possible.)

So women are more deluded in their approach to casual sex? — TimeLine

Replace the question mark with a period and you have the facts.

what do you mean being men — TimeLine

In your extensive self-lauded experiences, professional and otherwise, you might have perhaps, possibly, noticed that men and women are different. When gay men have sex, their biologically inherited small male investment in reproduction, enables them to have casual sex without the expectation of further involvement. Gay Liberationists thought that was a good thing -- casual (and quite possibly splendid) sex enjoyed with no expectation of further involvement, unless desired. Women's liberation flirted with this idea too, but it didn't work well in straight situations. Women's biological inherited large female investment in reproduction inclines them toward bonding and on-going partnered cooperation.

These inherited tendencies are, of course, not absolute.

Straight men who desire an on-going relationship with a woman and perhaps with their children, adapt an approach like unto that of women: Sex is combined with an assessment of on-going sex supply, potential for amusement, child-bearing, and child rearing.

Gay men assess on-going sex supply and potential for amusement, in either order. Faster, cheaper, simpler, better.

Are you suggesting gender differences? — TimeLine

I not suggesting gender differences, I'm declaring gender differences.

↪Bitter Crank Do you think, Bitette, that you probably lack an understanding of what the story means given you've enjoyed penis for supper for these long years? — TimeLine

Real class.

No, because the problem of establishing relationships is the same among gay people as it is among straight people. Gay men may have a more casual attitude toward sex (being men) but in the search for more complex relationships, we, like straights, entertain delusions.

I think your assessment is on the right track. I don't know how old Mad Fool is, but it could be maturation that he is experiencing.

Here is a video which vividly displays the danger in becoming overly interested in comic books, super heroes, and Hollywood. Or Ballywood, or wood in general.

I've been unable to feel pain or any negative emotion like anger, jealousy, sorrow. — TheMadFool

How about the positive emotions of joy, excitement, curiosity, etc.?
If you are experiencing a flat affect across the emotional range, then I would agree with Unenlightened that it sounds like depression. Have you been actually, and formally "depressed" (like, diagnosed) before?

Other signs of depression are:

inability to concentrate
difficulty with memory
sleeping poorly or sleeping too much
substantial weight gain or weight loss
thoughts about suicide (recurrent, with or without a plan)
lack of energy
and then, inability to feel positive emotions. But this is just one symptom of several that one would expect to see in a depressed person.

What you should do...? Where should you go? That depends on what you are doing now and where you are now. As the cat said to Alice, "If you don't know where you are going, then it doesn't matter how you get there."

So, what has been going on in your life over the last couple of years? Does this trend of less labile emotions cover the last few days, weeks, months or years? How old are you? (age makes a difference in how we respond). So does psychological stability. If you were formerly unstable and emoting all over the place, then this trend towards less emoting is perhaps a good thing. If you are 40 years old now and comparing yourself to when you were 30, the change is probably normal.

The world is full of sorrow and at some point we have to find a way of distancing ourselves from its immediacy if we are to be of any use to anyone. "Distance" doesn't mean callousness or indifference. It just means your reactions are not so immediate.

I can't tell whether this is a negative trend. Edit: Just a guess from a non-expert, but it's probably not nirvana.

I think this only works if you are interested in casual sex only, which perhaps would suit some people, and worth following. The problem is people usually want significant others. This is where humans are utterly hopeless with poorly designed social systems to solve the problem of finding, signaling interest, and maintaining a relationship with significant other to have sex and other experiences with. With no set rules, the system gets bogged down with meta-analysis and confusion. Then you people simply falling back into tropes as the prisoner's dilemma sets in. Anyways, as we both agree this creates much unhappiness. Writers use this unhappiness and confusion to write mediocre short stories and soap operas. They seem to be the only ones benefiting. — schopenhauer1

Casual sex is a good thing but the methods for obtaining it are not the basis for long-term relationships, except that sometimes a casual sex partner turns out to be the love of one's life, or at least one's life long sex partner in a more or less satisfactory relationship.

Obtaining and maintaining long-term-to-life-long satisfactory relationships is difficult no matter what. For one thing, we change over time and recalibration is required. For another, we cling to delusions about what a perfect life should be like. White picket fences and roses, the little cottage, an attentive partner, and rosy cheeked children is a delusion. (There are also delusions about the perfect work place, the perfect car, the perfect neighborhood, etc.)

We have unreasonable expectations (not delusions) about a prospective mate. We have unreasonable expectations about sex. We have unreasonable expectations about life in a relationship with another adult who has ideas as unreasonable as ours.

Happy people, or happier people, or at least reasonably happy people either started with fewer delusions and lower expectations or they learned how to adjust.

The conditions people experience in 2018 are NOT exceptional. Happy marriage has always been problematic (given that people have always been problematic). Lucky children had parents who were responsible people who kept their noses to the grindstone and were reasonably kind to each other and to their children.

Getting back to Cat Person:

Who is the intended audience of the New Yorker Magazine?

About a million people bought the New Yorker in 2015, mostly by subscription. How are the subscriptions geographically distributed?

Despite its title, The New Yorker is read nationwide, with 53 percent of its circulation in the top 10 U.S. metropolitan areas. According to Mediamark Research Inc., the average age of The New Yorker reader in 2009 was 47 ... The average household income of The New Yorker readers in 2009 was $109,877 ...

According to Pew Research, 77 percent The New Yorker's audience hold left-of-center political values, while 52 percent of those readers hold "consistently liberal" political values.[41] — Wikipedia

Compare that to Sports Illustrated with a circulation of 3,155,000:

Average Income: $60,913
Average Age: 37
Percent Male: 77%

Obviously a much different audience than the New Yorker.

The New Yorker is read by an aging, fairly prosperous New York dominated audience. Sports Illustrated is younger, less wealthy, geographically dispersed across the US, and (not surprising) mostly male. Suppose @Cat Person had appeared in Sports Illustrated. What kind of internet reviews and commends would the story be getting? Probably a lot different than the New Yorker generated commentary.

@Cat Person was published for a particular demographic, and reactions were typical of a narrow slice of the public as a whole.

All this adds up to more reasons why this story is unimportant. It's "chick lit" for New Yorker and L.A. types.

What does Bitter Crank think? — schopenhauer1

Bitter Crank thinks that CSalisbury's phrase "manic-pixie quirk well" will come in handy for some devious purpose, as yet unknown.

Other than that, Cat Person has absorbed more energy than its agreed-upon mediocrity merits.

Crank is reading an excellent Sci Fi piece by Cixin Liu, The Three Body Problem trilogy in an English translation by Ken Liu. Much better than Cat Person. The Three Body problem belongs to the Trisolarians. Their three-sun system produces constant instability, and they -- having become aware of earth because of a foolish astronomer's actions during the Cultural Revolution, have decided that Earth would be a better place for them to live, so they are on their way to wipe us out and take over the planet. It will take them about 400 years to arrive. In the meantime they have sent entangled protons to the earth (which unfold to higher dimensions, turning them into super-smart spies with instant communication abilities).

Earth is trying to figure out how to survive, given the advanced's civilization's numerous advantages.

This stuff has been happening since the beginning of time — schopenhauer1

Probably not quite that long -- something less than 13.xx billion years. I'm guessing that the first tedious dating story happened about 324,071 years ago. And every human has added to the immense pile of tedious dating experiences.

But yes, modern dating seems to have turned into its own kind of unhappiness. That's because our routinely super-educated young folk insist on analyzing the meta aspects of rituals which lead to people getting properly laid. A metaanalysis of these rituals invariably leads to intensely unsatisfactory sexual experiences. The secret to getting properly fucked is to stop thinking about it and just do it. Of course it's an act of disgusting animality -- but that who we are, that's what we do. So get busy.

Just do it and enjoy every minute of it, and when you are all done and washed up, have had a smoke and a beer, go to sleep. In the morning think about something else. Do not engage in restaurant-review-criticism of your sexual partners. If it felt good, schedule a rematch. If it didn't, get back to the bar or go on line and find the next study partner with whom you can gain carnal knowledge.


In other news, I have come up with a new slogan for Christ Church's refugee project:

Jesus is coming: stay where you are

You don't need to flee to Europe or the United States. Salvation is en route, so stay at home where god can find you. God gets confused trying to keep track of overly mobile people, flying here, driving there, even riding donkeys. Help god, stay put.

Flannery O'Connor wrote another short story that, at least used to be in freshman lit anthologies: Everything That Rises Must Converge. It takes place on a bus on a hot summer night in the south; there are four characters: a black woman with her 4 year old child, and an older white woman with her recent college graduate son. It's a simple set up but it is loaded with years -- and generations -- worth of hatred.

The characters are presented, established efficiently, and moved into position, and the inevitable storm breaks and tragedy ensues. So much is condensed into such a short moment.

Give it a read from the link above if you like. It's from the early 60s, so it's a bit dated -- but not all that much. Women aren't wearing hats, these days. If there are criticisms of the story, they will be altogether different than those of the Cat Person.