So, SO sad news

[Tchocolatl]

S : this is usual "coheniting"

T : 'can't help it (please don't mind, I have not intention to be mean) your posts regarding BL reminds me of a child drawings about a Picasso. (This said, I think that children drawings worth some of grown up artits, in some cases, so, again no intention to be mean). I just don't know what to answer with a rational mind to this. I see. That's it.

J. ...... Too much matter to process. That would be teeeeediiiiious(zzz)...... I'll go only to few subjects. OK. If we really have the serious intention (which, of course, neither you nor I, have such an intention) to talk about democracy, first we would have to agree on an exact definition of the term. For me "real" democracy refers to the Ancient Greeks, when no slaves, women of stranters to the city could take a part to democracy. It was an affair between citizens. Democracy as we are using it these days is an amelioration to my eyes. Not perfect, almost an illusion, but...

Hitler? I refer you to Teratogen post :

"the dancing dildo"

even if I would have refer to the passage with the vibrator.

For all you "?", everything is there for you to understand, just open your eyes and/or mind. It's up to you.

I begin to understand deeply why Leonard Cohen does not explain what he is doing.... Phew....

For me, I have tried to share my view with you, I do with those who are interested, that's it, I do not want to quarrel, I do not want to crucify anybody, I wash my hands of the issue.

[jurica]

i know what you mean. it's just that you wrote: i disagree with the TWO of you. but I didn't say a thing about democracy, tyranny, freedom of speach, or any other political issue.

i'm not trying to start a discussion about democracy. i just wanted to make clear that i did not include politics in any of my posts, and that this TWO is actualy ONE.

[Kush]

I have a problem with this celebrity culture where artists are put on a pedestal and city councillors are dissed as being of no consequence and called names coz' they have a different opinion.
In fact Olivia Chow is quite accomplished and probably contributes more to society than Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan ( i think definitely so in practical terms). Artists can always write great songs about social issues etc etc....they never have any responsibility to actually do something about it.

I did a little search on her


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Chow


http://www.oliviachow.org/home.php

[Tchocolatl]

Jurica,

1) Please remimber that I read you for a relatively "long" time now, and in fact, I was saying this in regard of previous comments of yours about democracy on other threads (BTW are the next exams are well prepared - no-no do not answer, this is just a joke), and

2) because I think that these kinds of shows (or other kinds of "stupidities" they are capable of showing us on TV) are parts of the free speech of a democracy. Nothing is perfect. Some wrong things are less wrong than others. That is what I had in mind.

Now, regarding this one-(not two)-for-the-show-thing :

I did not think for a minute, even a second that you make "a team" with September_Cohen, that you two were acting in collusion or whatsoever, or that you are sharing the same ideas and/or opinions.

It appears to me, however, that both of you were glowing with youth and agressivity, each in your own individuality, which in my mind, are two beautiful characteristics, nothing to be insulted about.

I deliberatly choose to answer to both of you in just one message in order to do a the shorter post as possible. That was, maybe, confusing.

I hope this whole affair is clear, now, take care


Kush,

I must say that I think like you a lot regarding this culture of celebrity. We have went this way on other threads. It is not because Einstein is a genius in his field that he knows something about spirituality. It is not because Rochi is a Zen Master that he is good in poetry etc. etc. And this is not because somebody is a celebrity of some sorts that he/she is right. (But human beings like to follow leaders - this is OK with me as long as they did not abdict their habilities to decide to the leader - but, ay! this is all another matter, that is in connection with democracy subject - that I did not want to talk about )

To come back to the suject, in conclusion, it is not because you are recognized in a field of activity and gained a certain amount of celebrity for this, that your word is always good in every field.

This Ms. Chow may be the best city consellor of the world, I do not know, but her comments about the book were irrelevants.

As for calling people names because they have different opinions, I do not see the use of this practice, for anybody in any situation. This is a very personal opinion.

Regarding the-contest-of-the-more-useful-citizen-of-the-year. I need as good artists as possible equally with as good other members of the society as possible in all kind of fields. Cheers!

[Kush]

Tchoc I don't want to get into a long discussion over this but briefly I pretty much completely disagree with your position - on this thread and on the other.

We have went this way on other threads. It is not because Einstein is a genius in his field that he knows something about spirituality.

To come back to the suject, in conclusion, it is not because you are recognized in a field of activity and gained a certain amount of celebrity for this, that your word is always good in every field.

I very firmly believe that when one excels in a particular field he/she gains a certain maturity and a training and discipline of the "mind" to have a certain authority to speak on many issues. Life is very interconnected not disparate entities in isolation with each other. This does not mean we have to agree with Ms. Chow - just respect the fact that she may have a valid opinion different from yours. Also she is quite involved in arts...

http://s94948121.onlinehome.us/188435.h ... ion*id*val*

[Tchocolatl]

Indeed, life is not divided in such rigid little boxes and a person wich showed some success in a career is more likely to be trusted to achieve other goals with success, but it is not automatically the case for everybody.

Now this could lead us in a long and interesting discussion about how society "is working" and who is considering to be an authority and why, (sometimes it is for very strange reason in regard of logic and/or common sense) and how people are able to surrender personal responsibility in the hands of authorities because it is far more comfortable and easy and not demanding any personal efforts.

Another too heavy subject.

Still, Ms. Chow expressed only her own taste and opinion which I repeat were irrelevant in regard of the whole book.

Now, many people are feeling the same about BL. You may share the opinion of Ms. Chow herself, THIS I have nothing to say about. Opinions and taste. When one is participating to a debate (a real one I mean, not a phony show) I take them seriously only if they are using strong arguments. Not only their subjective liking or disliking, like she did. That was not serious at all, therefore I did not take it this way. Just a big joke, and a fun show to know about books.

Certainly, the analysis of this BL is not easy to do.

First, it is too difficult just to read it for many people. They can not bear it.

Second, like everything Cohen is doing, it is far more complex and even more disturbing than what the façade is showing

Third, it is touching to many more "serious" subjects than the ones Teratogen is captivating about.

And, again, with this example of Ms. Chow comment, I understand why Cohen does not try to explain, just saying that he was writting this outside his Hydra house, with the sun stricking hard on his head.

I guess it is to make uncomfortable people comfortable in a surge of compassion, because how could you explain something to a person that can not even bare nor want to be confronted with? Difficult.

He said also that he was a bad bad teacher. I guess he has no patience to explain.

"It speaks by itself" like DH.




He was the one who passed long hours in a monastery, and a whole life doing his own things in his own way, a deeper man than the majority, never stop too long to explain anything. I like the story of Anjani Thomas in this regard.

[linda_lakeside]

I felt sure from the beginning that B'ful Losers would not win. Rufus Wainright was supposed to defend it originally.

The one positive thing that comes out of Canada Reads is that we learn more about Canadian authors than any bookstore clerk could tell us. I've found, in the past, that just about any book on the list is quite readable. There is a relatively new Canadian writer named Anne Marie MacDonald, I don't know if she's on this year's list but she should be in future. Fall on Your Knees was an excellent book, I thought. Her latest As the Crow Flies I've not yet started - although I tried. I guess I just wasn't in the mood for that particular book.

Anyway, there certainly is some lively debate during these discussions. That's the thing about radio - we can only hear it, if it were a TV special, the women would be in evening glamour gear and the men would be fighting.

I agree with Tchoco pertaining to the difficulty of 'defending' B'ful Losers against the others, it is not an easy read. And with Cohen, there is always something beneath the text, or a 'read between the lines' complexity that is very difficult to analyze in the short period of time in which they (the panelists) have.

Anyway, as Atwood lost the Giller or Booker or Governor General's Award or some award recently, it is likely that she will win. That's just my opinion on the politics of it, not my subjective view of Oryx and Crake. Which I don't think should win, however I haven't read a couple of them but will when it's over. I feel badly that Carol Shields didn't have a book in, I thought someone might pick one of hers for 'sentimental' reasons, I did like Shields quite a bit.

This was supposed to be a quick 2 line post. I just don't know when to stop typing.

Linda.

[tomsakic]

What did I expect. Not to win, but to be dismissed with such words in first circle... I mean, those people are non-educated and ingnorant morons. Like, ""not only depressing but completely void of hope." Jurica is right, what they mean, that litearture must be "nice" and "have a story"? She was disturned, oh my, poor one, she was disturbed by rude scenes while she was trying to read it. That's so pathetic. I can't believe there still exists such people without single idea about literature.

[tomsakic]

I knew he will not go well when Rufus drop out. I think he would done much better job and that ridiculous reading the rape passages performded by Mrs. Chow would pass just like that. But what can we expect when city councelor decides what the best literature for our children would be. I agree, she obviously didn't hear for Naked Lunch or Hunter Thompson at all. She was disturbed, poor lady. well, that can only say somethign about the book, the similar description it got when it was originally published, by similar keepers of public order.

Margaret Atwood doesn't deserve nothing for Oryx and Crake.

[jurica]

I very firmly believe that when one excels in a particular field he/she gains a certain maturity and a training and discipline of the "mind" to have a certain authority to speak on many issues. Life is very interconnected not disparate entities in isolation with each other. This does not mean we have to agree with Ms. Chow - just respect the fact that she may have a valid opinion different from yours.

she does not have a valid opinion. i don't even think she has ANY opinion on the subject. she was just saying something that will make her look good in the eyes of the conservative community.

i didn't say a thing about BL being good or bad book, AND i didn't call her names because she doesn't like the book. i called her names because she said something utterly stupid.

... and what is this 'freedom of speach' issue? i thought this was the opposite. where's Cohen's freedom to depic reality with all of it's ugly sides?

[Tchocolatl]

Yep Ms. Bythelake (if you permit me) just a show (I tought it was a TV show!!!!! Much more interesting, a TV show, it woud have been! We could have seen them throwing the books to each other heads, as a solid argument! - Yep, just a show (radio or wathever) and no need to dress in black for what happen to BL there, I repeat! And yes it has the positive side of making people talk, think and react! Great.

Tom, Roch Carrier is not exactly what I would call a non-educated and ignorant moron. The show is not serious, that's all. It is clear that this is to amuse and promote books as leisure activity, than to discuss about them seriously.

As for me, I'm in tune with Antoni Tapiès.

"L'Art est une source de connaissances, tout comme la science ou la philosophie." Antoni TAPIES

And it MUST be disturbing.

[tomsakic]

I didn't think on him (anyway, I never heard for those people until this morning, excpet for Rufus). But ignorant is eveyrone who reads "rape scene" from the book and then says it's so disturbing. The correct word is "petit bourgeois" I think, that's it. That's Mrs Chow.

[peter danielsen]

I've read Bl several times, I find it deeply moving in its poetic language, wildy funny in it humour, joyfully pagan in its sacred imagery, overwhelming in its description of the collapsing mind, etc.

Let these "judges" read nice comforting poetry, and smirk with the rest of the flappy liars of the aquarian ages.

[tomsakic]

Yeah, Peter You put it the shortest way.

[Tchocolatl]

Your last posts Tom and Peter are celestial music to me.

And, still, there is so much more to say about BL.

Now I dream that someone comes with evidences against the hopelessnes in BL (other irrelevant comment).

Dreams, dreams, dreams.