Gimme A Break

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The school sends a kid in to be evaluated for an unspecified problem. The referral form only says 'contract evaluation." So I interview the kid, he seems fine, and I ask him 'why did they send you to see me?"

He has no idea.

So I bring mom in and ask her the same question.

Mom then pesters junior to fess up, and they get into a contest about which of them has the problem. Junior says mom is the one with the problem, not him.

Finally I call a time-out and ask mom why the kid thinks she has a problem. She doesnt want to talk about it, 'its silly.'

I pester her a little and she says, "I'm having Elvis' baby.' I say, 'He died 10 years ago.' She says,'It happened just before he died.'

 

[Recidiva]

The school sends a kid in to be evaluated for an unspecified problem. The referral form only says 'contract evaluation." So I interview the kid, he seems fine, and I ask him 'why did they send you to see me?"

He has no idea.

So I bring mom in and ask her the same question.

Mom then pesters junior to fess up, and they get into a contest about which of them has the problem. Junior says mom is the one with the problem, not him.

Finally I call a time-out and ask mom why the kid thinks she has a problem. She doesnt want to talk about it, 'its silly.'

I pester her a little and she says, "I'm having Elvis' baby.' I say, 'He died 10 years ago.' She says,'It happened just before he died.'

Yes, there is a difference between "slightly neurotic" and "big time whacko"

 

[Stella_Omega]

The school sends a kid in to be evaluated for an unspecified problem. The referral form only says 'contract evaluation." So I interview the kid, he seems fine, and I ask him 'why did they send you to see me?"

He has no idea.

So I bring mom in and ask her the same question.

Mom then pesters junior to fess up, and they get into a contest about which of them has the problem. Junior says mom is the one with the problem, not him.

Finally I call a time-out and ask mom why the kid thinks she has a problem. She doesnt want to talk about it, 'its silly.'

I pester her a little and she says, "I'm having Elvis' baby.' I say, 'He died 10 years ago.' She says,'It happened just before he died.'

A living non-sequeteur!

A friend of mine was one of the three psychologists for one large city's entire school system. He drank himself to death-- carefully and with all due knowledge of what he was doing. It took him so damned long... horrible to watch.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA

What you report was once common. I think these guys get bored with the patients. After a 1000 people, or so, it dawns on you that people are not very interesting, their problems are all the same, and they refuse to change. Professionals have trouble accepting the fact their schooling was a colossal waste of time and money.

I knew it was time for a career change when a drunk called me threatening to blow his brains out, and I said go for it-and hung-up. Then he called me back to say "I'm serious!" And I said, "Me too. Bye." I made him so mad he refused to shoot himself.

 

[Recidiva]

STELLA

What you report was once common. I think these guys get bored with the patients. After a 1000 people, or so, it dawns on you that people are not very interesting, their problems are all the same, and they refuse to change. Professionals have trouble accepting the fact their schooling was a colossal waste of time and money.

I knew it was time for a career change when a drunk called me threatening to blow his brains out, and I said go for it-and hung-up. Then he called me back to say "I'm serious!" And I said, "Me too. Bye." I made him so mad he refused to shoot himself.

Partially why I chose to NOT become a therapist. So many of the problems addressed in therapy can't be solved by talking or listening. They're fixed by doing, or they're not fixed at all, they're only survived.

I believe in action, so my patience with talking as a solution to anything is...slim.

It's like becoming a cop. You help people, sure, but you're also exposed to all the available suck in your community.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Dammit, I missed Luna.

James-- I started writing a booklist and it started turning into an essay. It's not only erotica, but pleasurable books.
So I cut it short-- but here's parts of it, at least;
for stylists;
William Burroughs-- "Naked Lunch is okay, but "Nove Express" and "The Ticket that exploded" are more typical of his mature style. "The Wild Boys" is simply amazing writing-- the (gay) sex is very graphic.
Nabakov; :"ADA" is erotic. "Pale Fire isn't-- but is so deeply layered that you laugh (I laughed) with pleasure all the way through it.
Russell Hoban; "Riddley Walker" isn't particularly erotica but is fabulous writing, and "The Mouse And His Child" likewise--- the second book is pretty much PG, the first is very adult.
Carl Sandburg-- "The Rootabaga Stories" is a collection of bedtime stories for children. They are also some of the most evocative prose-poems ever writtten in America, and create a fairy-tale cycle for the Plains states. Plus, I can read these convoluted sentences aloud and never trip over my own tongue. That's amazing, and an example of what talent and skill can do together.
John Crowley; "Little, Big" isn't erotica per se, but it's such an odd, interesting book. It took me three tries to get through it-- but something about it kept making me go back and try again. It's speshul.

Richard Adams wrote a book called "Maya" that gets pretty graphic...

That's it off the top of my head. for now! .

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STELLA

Thanks.

 

[oggbashan]

Q

I would recommend reading Quiller-Couch (Q) On Reading and On Writing.

Apart from being a Professor of English he was a popular author in his day. His essays are simple to read but worthwhile.

Og

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So... here's a question.

If we're to say that "damn the rules" and "literary criticism is isolated and opinionated"... then aren't we just left with "popularity" to determine the best works of human literarure.

And in that case, isn't the Bible mighty damn high on the list (possibly top 3)?

 

[Recidiva]

So... here's a question.

If we're to say that "damn the rules" and "literary criticism is isolated and opinionated"... then aren't we just left with "popularity" to determine the best works of human literarure.

And in that case, isn't the Bible mighty damn high on the list (possibly top 3)?

I will go with you on this if we classify the Bible as fiction

 

[elsol]

So... here's a question.

If we're to say that "damn the rules" and "literary criticism is isolated and opinionated"... then aren't we just left with "popularity" to determine the best works of human literarure.

And in that case, isn't the Bible mighty damn high on the list (possibly top 3)?

Though not an argument against the bible... you left out longevity.

If you're book is still around and being read 20 years later, you obviously did something right. If they're teaching your book 500 years from now, then you can take it home that you're the shit.

 

[bluebell]

Though not an argument against the bible... you left out longevity.

If you're book is still around and being read 20 years later, you obviously did something right. If they're teaching your book 500 years from now, then you can take it home that you're the shit.

Hey Mister. Nice to see you 'round these heah parts.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So... here's a question.

If we're to say that "damn the rules" and "literary criticism is isolated and opinionated"... then aren't we just left with "popularity" to determine the best works of human literarure.

And in that case, isn't the Bible mighty damn high on the list (possibly top 3)?

Neither of those statements is completely true, anyway.

There are plenty of useless rules. Many of these are generally agreed to be outmoded in academia, and ignored in public use regardless. The English language is ever-changing.

There are isolated opinion-mongers who call themselves literary critics, but we can't say that all criticism is crap because of them-- any more than we can judge all Christians by the fundies, or all celebrities by Paris Hilton.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I will go with you on this if we classify the Bible as fiction

How about "mythology"? That's meeting halfway on it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

How about "mythology"? That's meeting halfway on it.

That's where I would put it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Bible isnt entirely fiction. Most of the people and events were real. But the writers embellished and borrowed and inflated and invented some of it. You can say the same about Hillary's biography.

 

[Recidiva]

How about "mythology"? That's meeting halfway on it.

That'd be fine, I'll take it.

I think you have to take into account that the Bible also qualifies as a marketing tool. Sorta like free samples of coke at a party. It is a subsidized industry.

I think I have at least three bibles. Family heirloom, study copy, pretty copy...stuff like that.

I was having a discussion yesterday with my daughter on the subject, about how if you want or need to sell something (in this context it was about a person wanting to be an actor) - you have to self promote. Even here on Lit I've noticed if my stories get up to the highest rated stories list, in short order I'll be one-bombed off. I can determine my current capped scores by where the cutoff is for that list. I want my stories to stand on their own merits, therefore I will lose this game unless I self promote to counteract the bombing. I'm not willing to do that, it's a lesson in "fair" competition. I think "fair" competition is often a myth.

I combined this with an idea I just nabbed from "Numb3rs" - A games condition theory that postulates that a sane, reasonable person often works at a disadvantage. If you're stuck in a game of head-to-head competition, such as playing a game of chicken - do you rationally follow the rules of the game, both head straight toward each other and both die? Or does the determined person have something worth dying for and the rational person...willing to lose this round because it's not worth it? To a large extent, self promotion to me is not worth it, so I'm not playing.

Wanting an idea to stand on its own merits isn't enough if you want it to survive. You have to protect it, you have to constantly reissue it. You have to insist. You possibly have to lie, cheat and steal to counteract competition. Publishing houses for churches (Church of Scientology, at least) will often buy its own books for the sales ratings. The Christian church will pass out copies and consider them sales. We can see how this works in search engines and website hits. The more hits, the more revenue...even if the hits are false. It creates buzz. It's a confidence game. (*cough* Scouries *cough*)

When you're in competition with other ideas, you also have to take into account competing ideas, and competing ideas willing to not only self promote, but undercut other ideas.

I think the Bible has got it goin' on - cultural niche - heirloom, recorded family history, pretty, useful, relevant...

It's also got stuff in it that wouldn't even make it through Lit's submission rules. Lots of underage sex, racism, violence, scandal, murder, torture, miracles.

It's also got some of the best thoughts ever thunk.

It's also got people willing to die or kill or anything in between for it. Lots of them.

But you can't measure the merits of a book by top sales. You have to take into account marketing. Or else we'd think that McDonalds was the pinnacle of American cuisine.