57 seconds Props to Princess, and Trauma Queen for spotting this. And, I may have lied on the last question, there's really no way to know, no is there?
Showing posts with label Narcisism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Narcisism. Show all posts
8.3.08
Guests and Pet Peeves Re: Body Image
Our Guest accidentally reminded me of a pet peeve that I've never told my friends is a peeve -- out of politeness. When Guest arrive the other night, the first thing she asked me was, "Wow, have you lost weight?"
It's a kind-of compliment.
Because, you know, every curvy woman in the US has a patriotic duty to be dissatisfied with her body and be trying to lose weight and to gush thanks when people indicate that she might just have dropped half a pound.
It's as if simply telling a woman she looks good today, or in that dress or those pants, or just as is might ruin her humility and make her too happy and strong to contend with. Well, I'm with Nietzsche on that: give me strong contenders. Most of the US, however unconsciously or innocently (or pointedly), goes for the back-handed take-down.
I have a pal in TX, gay and male and more body-hating-conscious than most of the women I know, who would say that to me every time we saw each other. He meant it nicely, as a compliment. I love him. He's a dear friend. I never told him that when he asked that my brain went, "Huh ... thanks." I would smile and say, "No, I haven't." And that would be it. This went on for the whole six years we worked together.
The sub-text of the "compliment" is that I SHOULD be trying to lose to weight. I should be distracted from relationships, scholarship, poetry, fun, and spirit by the fact that I have a body, am female, and am therefore permanently defective in some obvious and socially embarrassing/limiting way.
Here's the thing: I Am Not Trying To Lose Weight. Never have, likely never will. I'm pretty damn happy in my flexible, strong, balanced, talented, curvy body that rarely falls ill.
I have never, in my life, asked anyone if they've lost weight. Or if their hair color is natural. Or if they wear elevators in their shoes. Or if their eyes are really that shade of violet. Or if they've had some work done recently. Or if that chest waxing hurt. And I wish that y'all would cut it out because this (probably accidental) policing of each other's bodies translates to a policing of to what ends we put our energy, dedicate our life force.
What I can tell you is that I have never been at loss for flirtations or attractions though I do not walk about the planet Knowing That I Am All That. Being too physically strong "for a girl" in high school put the hex pride, and vanity ain't pretty.
So please, just stop at "Wow."
It's a kind-of compliment.
Because, you know, every curvy woman in the US has a patriotic duty to be dissatisfied with her body and be trying to lose weight and to gush thanks when people indicate that she might just have dropped half a pound.
It's as if simply telling a woman she looks good today, or in that dress or those pants, or just as is might ruin her humility and make her too happy and strong to contend with. Well, I'm with Nietzsche on that: give me strong contenders. Most of the US, however unconsciously or innocently (or pointedly), goes for the back-handed take-down.
I have a pal in TX, gay and male and more body-hating-conscious than most of the women I know, who would say that to me every time we saw each other. He meant it nicely, as a compliment. I love him. He's a dear friend. I never told him that when he asked that my brain went, "Huh ... thanks." I would smile and say, "No, I haven't." And that would be it. This went on for the whole six years we worked together.
The sub-text of the "compliment" is that I SHOULD be trying to lose to weight. I should be distracted from relationships, scholarship, poetry, fun, and spirit by the fact that I have a body, am female, and am therefore permanently defective in some obvious and socially embarrassing/limiting way.
Here's the thing: I Am Not Trying To Lose Weight. Never have, likely never will. I'm pretty damn happy in my flexible, strong, balanced, talented, curvy body that rarely falls ill.
I have never, in my life, asked anyone if they've lost weight. Or if their hair color is natural. Or if they wear elevators in their shoes. Or if their eyes are really that shade of violet. Or if they've had some work done recently. Or if that chest waxing hurt. And I wish that y'all would cut it out because this (probably accidental) policing of each other's bodies translates to a policing of to what ends we put our energy, dedicate our life force.
What I can tell you is that I have never been at loss for flirtations or attractions though I do not walk about the planet Knowing That I Am All That. Being too physically strong "for a girl" in high school put the hex pride, and vanity ain't pretty.
So please, just stop at "Wow."
5.3.08
While I'm Procratinating: William F. Buckley, Jr.
I LOVE it that Buckely's son told the world that his dad died at his desk fingers on the keys, mid-composition, with his boots on, as son put it.
No, people, not for mean progressive-girl reasons.
I love it because that's how a thinker and writer should go out. And because the intelli-nerd in me loved how WFBjr could kick. ass.
I was probably the only teenager I knew who really dug watching Firing Line. It was way good prep for grad school and academic fencing. It was fascinating, compelling, inspiring. I did not agree with WFBjr much, but I learned oodles watching him and his opponents work.
I read The National Review because I like to know what smart and "smart" conservatives are thinking and how, and because my aunt reads it, which makes it easier to debate with her. I got her turned on to Harper's and The Nation so she'd have some smart (and "smart") liberals and progressives to read.
Also, there are two degrees of separation between me and WFBjr. My grandpa spent a stint as the Buckely family's lawyer while WFB was on the Supreme Court, just until the elder son could take over doing that work, like three or four years. I didn't know this until I was about 14, at the ranch with the grandparents, watching Firing Line. My G-pa harumphed into the living room, leaning pointedly on his rather elegant mahogany cane, stood right behind me, gazed at the TV for a second, and said, "Harumph, that fellow was a jackass when he was six years old." I knew G-pa was a little vain and didn't much appreciate precocious children (me being a case in point), but Wha? This led to the storytelling in which I learned just what a major player my G-pa had been in his day (and it went beyond the Buckley's, but that's another post). I have a copy of WFB's book, or one of them, inscribed to my G-pa with thanks.
So, his passing is not just a historical matter for me. It's a matter of someone I admired (not for his opinions themselves) passing, and honorably. Which, more with the honorable, please. There's a good deal of retrospecting going on in the press, and here, for your review are a few of the retrospections: The Nation (really about how converstism these days offers no arguments), Alternet, and The National Review (where you will have to scroll down and eventually search on his name).
No, people, not for mean progressive-girl reasons.
I love it because that's how a thinker and writer should go out. And because the intelli-nerd in me loved how WFBjr could kick. ass.
I was probably the only teenager I knew who really dug watching Firing Line. It was way good prep for grad school and academic fencing. It was fascinating, compelling, inspiring. I did not agree with WFBjr much, but I learned oodles watching him and his opponents work.
I read The National Review because I like to know what smart and "smart" conservatives are thinking and how, and because my aunt reads it, which makes it easier to debate with her. I got her turned on to Harper's and The Nation so she'd have some smart (and "smart") liberals and progressives to read.
Also, there are two degrees of separation between me and WFBjr. My grandpa spent a stint as the Buckely family's lawyer while WFB was on the Supreme Court, just until the elder son could take over doing that work, like three or four years. I didn't know this until I was about 14, at the ranch with the grandparents, watching Firing Line. My G-pa harumphed into the living room, leaning pointedly on his rather elegant mahogany cane, stood right behind me, gazed at the TV for a second, and said, "Harumph, that fellow was a jackass when he was six years old." I knew G-pa was a little vain and didn't much appreciate precocious children (me being a case in point), but Wha? This led to the storytelling in which I learned just what a major player my G-pa had been in his day (and it went beyond the Buckley's, but that's another post). I have a copy of WFB's book, or one of them, inscribed to my G-pa with thanks.
So, his passing is not just a historical matter for me. It's a matter of someone I admired (not for his opinions themselves) passing, and honorably. Which, more with the honorable, please. There's a good deal of retrospecting going on in the press, and here, for your review are a few of the retrospections: The Nation (really about how converstism these days offers no arguments), Alternet, and The National Review (where you will have to scroll down and eventually search on his name).
28.2.08
Hi, My Name is PRSC, and I Am a Bookaholic
So, Shane sends me "Bookshelf and Self" from the Chronicle, two views on the morality of the bookshelf, and a response. Which, sent me on this head-run about books since lots of people send me articles that are related to books-qua-objects, or qua-sign, not reviews of things I might want to or should read. No, reminders that I am an addict who loves the smell of books, loves used books For the marginalia, every book promises a new jolt. An addict. Anyway, there are these very American views, and then a French one that I would like to consider.
View one: display no book that you have not read, Says Matt Seigleman, a blogger for Time. Stern. Honest. This is about the work one has done. I do not abide by this maxim. (though for the record, since i live in my parents' house right now, 95% of my books are in 30 or so banker's boxes in the basement, labeled "Theory Althusser -- Bataille" or "Religion Ayurveda -- Buddha Diamond" or "Poetry Sexton -- Whitman" and similar, and i can't find shit when i need it, so it's not modesty people) In regular life, I do not abide by this maxim because I never know when I will need to read that which I have not read and -- in response to another book, or for a new project, or because it has simply become Time To Read That Book. Truth is, as a hardcore reader, I often need/want to read only part of many of my books, like cirtical anthologies. Hence, indexes. And, if the book is hidden, I go have a coffee rather than look for it. Still, if you come to my (future) house and ask, incredulously, whether I have read all those books, I will answer honestly: I have read parts of most of them.
As for Time to Read That Book: books-qua-objects often come into my life as signals, post-its if you will, of thinking in the future. Part of any decent bookshelf, I think, is this reminder to myself that That Thought Is Waiting For Me. This is both inspirational, and a little bit masochistic since I'm often irked with myself that I haven't gotten to that thought or subject just yet. Something like 30% of my books are yet-to-read, and of them, about 1/2 are really for the future. The other 1/2 are books meant to round out or fill in stuff I already kinda know and need more of, I think.
View two: Ezra Klein responds to Matt, "Bookshelves are not for displaying books you’ve read,” says Klein; “those books go in your office, or near your bed, or on your Facebook profile. Rather, the books on your shelves are there to convey the type of person you would like to be." Our author Scott McLemee finds this rule equally silly,and so do I. While I am the type of person would read dense and poetically slippery Derrida, the fact that I have not read every one of the Derrida books I own in no way cancels the fact that I have read 10 out of 12. The fact that I have not read many of the feminist political anthologies I own in no way cancels the fact that I have read many such anthologies -- it's just There's More! I have a Very Impressive library of texts in and about Buddhism. I have not read most of them. Why? Because I have issues with surrender, and because what I should do is go learn it the experiential way, but I have issues with surrender... And I'll tell you as much, right before pulling one of the self and saying, "Listen to this! passage! from the Fire Sermon!!! It's amazing!" In the same way I read everyone the first and second Duino Elegies after three glasses of wine.
So, all this is rubbish, and Scott thinks so too because
Because, god help us, books lead to other books, either in Scott's psychologically interesting way (proving something moral about himself to someone he does not know) or simply because, Books Are All Connected to Each Other in a way that nerd-addicts like me find totally compelling.
Scott has a very interesting analysis of all this, and you should read the rest of it, and likely both Matt and Ezra in toto. I will not. I am skimming. Besides, one commentor put it well: real readers dip in and out of many books at once, and it's the marginalia that Really Shows Who You Are Or Want To Be Anyway. Always the "real" you is not display-able. Performable, sure, but never made completely transparent.
Now, all these views, whether they are about the sociality of books in some way or not, are moral. Show only what you are, show only what you want to be, or show yourself to be working on what you are. But, let's get real. There is no promise like the promise one imagines invested a New Book -- I digress.
French Literi Big Man, Pierre Bayard, published a book, How to Talk about Books You Have not Read. A guide to a way of presenting oneself that our Americans clearly do not approve. The Telegraph reviewer Sam Lieth ultimately sides with the Americans, but let's consider this:
View one: display no book that you have not read, Says Matt Seigleman, a blogger for Time. Stern. Honest. This is about the work one has done. I do not abide by this maxim. (though for the record, since i live in my parents' house right now, 95% of my books are in 30 or so banker's boxes in the basement, labeled "Theory Althusser -- Bataille" or "Religion Ayurveda -- Buddha Diamond" or "Poetry Sexton -- Whitman" and similar, and i can't find shit when i need it, so it's not modesty people) In regular life, I do not abide by this maxim because I never know when I will need to read that which I have not read and -- in response to another book, or for a new project, or because it has simply become Time To Read That Book. Truth is, as a hardcore reader, I often need/want to read only part of many of my books, like cirtical anthologies. Hence, indexes. And, if the book is hidden, I go have a coffee rather than look for it. Still, if you come to my (future) house and ask, incredulously, whether I have read all those books, I will answer honestly: I have read parts of most of them.
As for Time to Read That Book: books-qua-objects often come into my life as signals, post-its if you will, of thinking in the future. Part of any decent bookshelf, I think, is this reminder to myself that That Thought Is Waiting For Me. This is both inspirational, and a little bit masochistic since I'm often irked with myself that I haven't gotten to that thought or subject just yet. Something like 30% of my books are yet-to-read, and of them, about 1/2 are really for the future. The other 1/2 are books meant to round out or fill in stuff I already kinda know and need more of, I think.
View two: Ezra Klein responds to Matt, "Bookshelves are not for displaying books you’ve read,” says Klein; “those books go in your office, or near your bed, or on your Facebook profile. Rather, the books on your shelves are there to convey the type of person you would like to be." Our author Scott McLemee finds this rule equally silly,and so do I. While I am the type of person would read dense and poetically slippery Derrida, the fact that I have not read every one of the Derrida books I own in no way cancels the fact that I have read 10 out of 12. The fact that I have not read many of the feminist political anthologies I own in no way cancels the fact that I have read many such anthologies -- it's just There's More! I have a Very Impressive library of texts in and about Buddhism. I have not read most of them. Why? Because I have issues with surrender, and because what I should do is go learn it the experiential way, but I have issues with surrender... And I'll tell you as much, right before pulling one of the self and saying, "Listen to this! passage! from the Fire Sermon!!! It's amazing!" In the same way I read everyone the first and second Duino Elegies after three glasses of wine.
So, all this is rubbish, and Scott thinks so too because
My experience (which can’t be unique) is that some books end up accumulating out
of a misguided attempt to win the approval of authors already well-entrenched on
my shelves. A few years back, for example, Slavoj Zizek started to insist that I had to be familiar with the work of Alain Badiou – a French poststructuralist philosopher whose work I had never heard of, let alone read. Well, OK, sure. Thanks to some busy translators, Badiou volumes started crowding in, next to all the Zizek titles.
But in short order, Badiou lets it be known that I am expected to understand something about mathematical set theory — and furthermore should come
to appreciate one particular approach to formalizing the basic axioms.
Because, god help us, books lead to other books, either in Scott's psychologically interesting way (proving something moral about himself to someone he does not know) or simply because, Books Are All Connected to Each Other in a way that nerd-addicts like me find totally compelling.
Scott has a very interesting analysis of all this, and you should read the rest of it, and likely both Matt and Ezra in toto. I will not. I am skimming. Besides, one commentor put it well: real readers dip in and out of many books at once, and it's the marginalia that Really Shows Who You Are Or Want To Be Anyway. Always the "real" you is not display-able. Performable, sure, but never made completely transparent.
Now, all these views, whether they are about the sociality of books in some way or not, are moral. Show only what you are, show only what you want to be, or show yourself to be working on what you are. But, let's get real. There is no promise like the promise one imagines invested a New Book -- I digress.
French Literi Big Man, Pierre Bayard, published a book, How to Talk about Books You Have not Read. A guide to a way of presenting oneself that our Americans clearly do not approve. The Telegraph reviewer Sam Lieth ultimately sides with the Americans, but let's consider this:
Most of any books we've read, we have forgotten; many books are skimmed or half-read; our knowledge of those books - and of books that we haven't read - is mediated through commentaries on them, our discussions with other readers, our apprehension of where they sit in the canon, and our personalised mis-rememberings. So, he argues, we need not feel too guilty about not having read certain books; and it is reasonable to express views on those you haven't. He introduces at the outset a neat notation system that he uses to footnote any of the books he mentions: SB for "books I have skimmed", HB for "books I have heard of", FB for "books I have forgotten" and UB for "books unknown to me".
Most English speaking reviewers seem to go the same way. Bayard is poking a hole in the notion that there is some moral good in reading, or, to be more precise, that there is a Competition to be morally good, and the proof of goodness is how Much one has actually read. Really? What about all those scholarly articles downloaded from databases that are so neatly hidden on your harddrive, and which you may have read not nearly all? He's thinking salon-talk, he's really thinking about performance, and he's thinking too that there's more to know than one can. Ever. Even what one once knew.
And what is this competition about? It's academic nerd suave, social cache. I for one have mostly Books I have Forgotten. I have to re-read, or re-skim them all the time. In fact, I can hardly remember Who wrote them, and therefore am not good that the great academic pasttime of name dropping in conversation. I know what it said, generally, somtimes. I know what I want to say about it, but the author and title are really fuzzy. (It's the ideas in them, not the book or person, that I'm with, and let's just skip how embarassingly metaphysical That is for now.) It seems to me it's not about Truth in Self-Re-Presentation. It's good old American One-Upping. The question seems to be: to bluff, or not to bluff? And we all know that the bluff can pay off.
And why the unit of the book? One learns in preparation for one's qualifiying exams that reading the Whole of every book on your areas lists is simply not possible, not if one wants to graduate. Part of that lesson is a honed sense of selectivity -- of what I might call Deep Skimming.
So, to hell with all this worry and moralizing and post-strucutral undoing. Books, for book nerds, are very like every other thing we buy. They are useful to us, they represent us accurately or not (what health food do you buy and not eat?, what 'cool album' did you buy and not listen to?, do you really Like your suit?), they are markers of our aspirations (as noted by Ezra) and our aspirations are as real of us as what we are, they are status objects, and depending on contexts are objects for intimiation or overwhich we bond as friends, and they are very very pretty and smell good, and how I love the oddly shaped ones!.
My books, before they were boxed and categorized like the phone book (thanks Karen), were on shelves in general categories: Religion/Myth/Yoga, Poetry, Lit Crit, Theory, Philosophy, Fiction, Unassimilable. Working Books were on my desk (which had a book shelf on top!) and were changed out as projects moved along (now they're in my room, next to my desk). Inside of those categories, they were not alphabetized. I found them by color of jacket, then by title. Authors? Schmauthors.
Hence, Skye and others send me these pics of books organized by color. They're very attractive this way. (some artist noted in the last did up a whole used books store by color...... holy cow!) I would do that inside of categories and I think my scholaraly life would progress just fine -- let the associational magic happen! Then, this is even better, you can make bookshelves out. of. books! Make the shelves out of Books You Will Never Read, or Never Read Again Because They Sucked (as lots of books do -- don't write the scathing review, display your disdain and superiority by using the books as the wood they are!!!). And, rather orgasmically, build stairs that store books!!! Oh. pant. How much more room is That!!!
Now, back to, ahem, writing a book.
1.10.07
Stop Reading My Blog...
Because I have not read yours in a LONGFREAKINGTIME. Today is the first day in, oh, since way before I went to NY, that I have stopped a) teaching/grading/prepping/camping at Amy's in Eureka half the week, b) writing things I rather not, c) dating (because I have finally admitted to myself that we are dating) M of the kind heart and wide brain, or d) trying to maintain my local friendships to email my exotic friends or read their blogs.
So, if you are friend of mine with a blog that I have not read, and then sent you an email to say, "What is up, there?" and you should have said, "Jeeeze, PRSC, read up, will ya?"; then you are hearby ordered not to read this space for a while.
To make up for my shortcoming, or perhaps just to assuage my conscience, here's what my amazing friends are up to:
At Flooded Lizard Kingdom, there's a new baby. (yeh, missed that) And a new dog.
At Lioness's blog, there's a trip to MN, acceptance to Dublin with me, and the terror of a full time grad program in social policy. (I'm not in envy, and should have known all this, that's two against me)
At The Wood Report, Wood has been in movie lately that you can link to from her blog and totally should.
At the mystk: hey, the man's in Korea, that's just entertaining no matter what.
JasonKyle is making plans of which PRSC is most proud.
Jasmine Blossom has been cooking and railing at the injustice of the world (she's good at that).
JB also runs Unseen Orchard and will cook you gourmet foods in your home and clean up after. Hire her.
Dylan Edwards at Studio NDR makes the most wonderful comics, and feeps, and fun, and should be making a living as something other than a wage slave (but shouldn't we all), and you should buy something from him.
They also all have smart and interesting and relevant and clever things to say, go read their blogs and ignore me for a while. I have it coming.
Back to work.
So, if you are friend of mine with a blog that I have not read, and then sent you an email to say, "What is up, there?" and you should have said, "Jeeeze, PRSC, read up, will ya?"; then you are hearby ordered not to read this space for a while.
To make up for my shortcoming, or perhaps just to assuage my conscience, here's what my amazing friends are up to:
At Flooded Lizard Kingdom, there's a new baby. (yeh, missed that) And a new dog.
At Lioness's blog, there's a trip to MN, acceptance to Dublin with me, and the terror of a full time grad program in social policy. (I'm not in envy, and should have known all this, that's two against me)
At The Wood Report, Wood has been in movie lately that you can link to from her blog and totally should.
At the mystk: hey, the man's in Korea, that's just entertaining no matter what.
JasonKyle is making plans of which PRSC is most proud.
Jasmine Blossom has been cooking and railing at the injustice of the world (she's good at that).
JB also runs Unseen Orchard and will cook you gourmet foods in your home and clean up after. Hire her.
Dylan Edwards at Studio NDR makes the most wonderful comics, and feeps, and fun, and should be making a living as something other than a wage slave (but shouldn't we all), and you should buy something from him.
They also all have smart and interesting and relevant and clever things to say, go read their blogs and ignore me for a while. I have it coming.
Back to work.
6.5.07
5.5.07
Meyers-Briggs, narcisism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
