So, SO sad news

[Kush]

I don't think my point was about BL itself but to give respect to someone with a different opinion, to try to see where he or she is coming from. But thats OK...its not a big deal.

[Tchocolatl]

Kush, I do believe it must be disturbing to talk about rape. I would be very worry about a person saying it is not a disturbing subject (does this person is in touch with the reality?). It is something you do not wish to happen to you or to people that you are loving and caring for and if you are more sensitive, to anybody in the world. It is unbearable. But many unbearable things happened in life. You can choose to burry your head in the sand, and let this happen and happen again, and you can choose to do something about it. But first you have to be able to stand and face the subject.

And I do believe there is many other disturbing sides in BL - emotively speaking. The kitsch/porno portraits (or fresco?) just to stress this aspect of BL that is painting in red all over the book. And I do believe this must be regarded with the emotional charge it is transporting.

No problem.

The problem begins when an adult can not overpass his/her taboo about sex, etc and/or her emotion in order conduct a full logical analysis.

Her comments were irrelevant.

To insult her because her comments were irrelevant also, but this is not excusing the irrelevance of the comments.

[peter danielsen]

concerning hope in BL, I think tom waits sings :"if you live in hope you're dancing to a terrible tune", and Lc in an interview 1993 was asked "is there no hope?" and he answered straight away :"No! there is no hope. Just get yourself strong and cherfull, and learn how to duck"

[Tchocolatl]

Hum... and I would say worst : Life itself is dancing to a terrible tune. To the end of Love. (OK, OK, a little easy but I have the good excuse that this is real (as far as I can understand reality, yes, I know)

For hope, it is like for the rest : what is the exact meaning are we giving to the notion we are talking about? (first)

Your LC's quote fits my ostrich theory : no hope if you bury your head in the sand. The hope is where he said.

Now this is not so easy.

[tomsakic]

I do believe it must be disturbing to talk about rape. I would be very worry about a person saying it is not a disturbing subject (does this person is in touch with the reality?). It is something you do not wish to happen to you or to people that you are loving and caring for and if you are more sensitive, to anybody in the world. It is unbearable. But many unbearable things happened in life. You can choose to burry your head in the sand, and let this happen and happen again, and you can choose to do something about it. But first you have to be able to stand and face the subject.

And I do believe there is many other disturbing sides in BL - emotively speaking. The kitsch/porno portraits (or fresco?) just to stress this aspect of BL that is painting in red all over the book. And I do believe this must be regarded with the emotional charge it is transporting.

The problem begins when an adult can not overpass his/her taboo about sex, etc and/or her emotion in order conduct a full logical analysis.

Her comments were irrelevant.

I'm glad we finally put it in right words, and saved this discussion of sideways to politics etc. I know I over-reacted but I still can't believe that in public discussion, held by public personas, you can talk about literature in such way of "I was so disturbed by this scene / this is no good book". Tchoclatl, you told it best. Here's to you

[tom.d.stiller]

Dear Leonard
Please don't pass me by again
With that glass in your hand
And your shirt all white
From the laundry

Cheers Tchoc! Cheers Tom! Cheers Leonard! (That's three cheers for all!)

tom

[tomsakic]

tom

There's more accurate description of the debate at Canada Reads Site. Like

Bill points out that when it was published in 1966, the publisher could have been thrown in jail, and recalls that while Robert Fulford called it the most revolting book ever written in Canada , he went on to say it was also the most important. Roch tries to mollify Molly by declaring it a great book, but not suitable for all readers and therefore not the best book for Canada Reads.

That's frank and not "petit bourgeois". But Mrs Chow attacked Cohen's attitide to women in the book generally

Third day began so:

As round three begins, it becomes obvious that Bill deeply mourns the loss of Beautiful Losers, describing it as ecstatic, brilliant and hymn-like. Which author will join Leonard Cohen on the shelf today?

[tomsakic]

And the last day began with our panelist again:

First back on the shelf was Beautiful Losers. Molly Johnson ponders why it was the last novel Leonard Cohen wrote, while Bill reveals that he finds it bravely shocking even today.

And the winner is.... NOT Margaret Atwood bacuse Oryx and Crake is too negative, especially for young people?? Jee, it's no surprise that BL was voted out the very first day!

Actually it all went great. Leonard's novel is in the end the most praised by the moderator, "still challenging" and "still provoking as it was when it was written"

The book Canada Reads is Rockbound by Frank Parker Day, originally published in 1928

[tom.d.stiller]

Back to the roots? Or just: root beer instead of intoxicating drinks? Prevent the populace from getting an overdose of Real Life? Let's pretend the 20th century never happened? Canada re-reads?

"Old lady judges..." (not quoting it all over again)

I'm not angry. But they didn't judge the books, they sentenced themselves to another "twenty years of boredom".

tom

[tomsakic]

It's funny. I must now defend Margaret Atwood. I mean, she wrote the novel about global cataclism which happens because of over-polution and genetic experiments. Earth and whole population dissaperas in the Smokey Holocaust. Of course there's no hope in the book, in such book. But there can't be hope in the book at all, can't it - you must read it in implicit author's level - of course that whole book, as such, without any hope in its end as it's written, is the warning, the sign of hope, if I may attach such social function to piece of literature / art. And when you don't know to recognize that, you're only prooving that you're non well educated or wise.
So this was only very populistic propaganda for re-election of Mrs Chow.

[tom.d.stiller]

You don't have to defend Atwood against me, however. I agree with your assessment. Public appearance adds to political popularity.

tom

[Tchocolatl]

quickly... tomd this reminds me the joke of the 3 Scots at the pub. What 3 Scots ask to the waiter at th pub? One beer with 3 straws.

Another joke is the hushing about the subject "polititic" as the fresco in BL is intricating with it from beginning to the end. Too funny to read "offense
virgins" that does not want to mix BL and politics.

But I know : if you want to stay light, avoid to talk about sex, religion and politic. Thus BL is the contrary of being it light, it is heavy with those 3 subjects.

Many more comments occured to me. No time. Sorry. See (read) you later, alligator(s).

[Paula]

Nice picture Tom. I have one complaint I really hate ties they have no purpose in life.

[Tchocolatl]

Good point Paula. I like ties because some are real ornements but I've always wonder how in the world the use of ties came to men. Ties, maybe were useful to tie the collar tight around the neck, before the venue of zipper, velcro. And the central heating in British cottages. Who knows?

Another very general comment that occured to me about Beautiful Losers was that it is a box containing a bomb that tick-tacking and can explode any time, more probably many times in the face of the reader, and this is what the author meant to do.

Too many detailed comments to bring them out briefly.

[September_Cohen]

Ok ok ok....I didn't spit on democracy. It was only a sarcastic image that only those who understand Quebec/canadian dissension culture can understand.

Everytime a quebecker novel speaks about a Free Quebec...an autodafe is following soon.

And cohen's novel speaks about it.

So quebec is a minority badly deserved by canadian democracy....that is why a use the image.

This is not a question of hope.
It's a political question.....and Olivia chow is the Wife of the Neo-Democratic Party leader ; Jack "The smile" Layton......at the national level.

Of course a national party won't back up a novel which explicitly speaks about the Quebec freedom.

D'ya know what I mean???