What are you reading?

[Faust]

Isn't that poem using erudite references along with the matter of fact description of what is going on and modern use of imagery coupled with free associations. I'm not a Ginsberg specialist by any means but it is definitely more complex than it appears at a first reading. I like Rimbaud and Saint-John Perse so what do I know?

Yes, I think he was influenced by The Wasteland.

[Fuuma]

Yes, I think he was influenced by The Wasteland.

I'm sure we can all agree on T.S. Eliot then, hopefully no controversy here.

[Faust]

I certainly prefer prose to verse but I absolutely don't hate most poetry. What i want from Howl is some plain sense, that's the only way I can describe it...stringing together images to create an idea is all fine and well, but IMO the art in writing verse is that double layer, the outward of plain sense and the inner with the message. I think a beautiful example of this is The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. I am a diehard Eliot fan.

ETA: funny that Eliot was just mentioned as I was writing this. The Wasteland is difficult but great. Whatever influences Howl drew from it were misguided and poorly executed, in my opinion.

But The Wasteland, unlike Prufrock has no plot! It is also a collection of meditations on the contemporary (to T.S. Eliot) world, very loosely woven together, and also does not make sense on the surface.

[Faust]

All right, fair enough.

[skecr8r_l8r]

You go to school and when you return you guys left post-modernism entirely. Damn, I really wanted to argue a little bit here.

I can't follow MonaDahl's points in relation to Howl. I think you are way off, and seem to miss the essence - the howl - and try to focus on the literary qualities in comparison with other poems. The themes _are_ only to be found in certain lines, many of the others are "crazy" off-topic tangents. That is _part of the style_. You can't criticize something you don't even understand, or maybe more precise, criticize lines that are not written just to be taken out of contest. Do you think every line is supposed to mean something in itself? I don't, really, a lot of it is style, mood, atmosphere, melody, and flow. There is lots of sense in Howl, and I suggest you grab it off the shelf and re-read here now if you haven't. But that isn't really the point of it; it's like an exclamation mark and a question mark intertwined into one. It's a reflection, and all reflections are blurry some places unless you know what they are supposed to reflect.

Baah, I hate my english but I guess I can't put it better with the time I have.

[Magician]

Aside from an academic book on hypnotism, nothing.

Someone please recommend something for me! I'm open to anything. I need to play around less online, and read slightly more edifying material. So I guess please recommend something that is at least vaguely of artistic merit.

[Faust]

Aside from an academic book on hypnotism, nothing.

Someone please recommend something for me! I'm open to anything. I need to play around less online, and read slightly more edifying material. So I guess please recommend something that is at least vaguely of artistic merit.

That's a rather broad request. Maybe you can narrow it down somehow?

[Magician]

^ How about contemporary American authors? This is an area of which I really know nothing about.

[maldoror]

which academic book on hypnotism? is it any good? I've read gauld's a history of hypnotism, but am looking for a good book on technique and theory, especially concerning autohypnosis.

[Magician]

which academic book on hypnotism? is it any good? I've read gauld's a history of hypnotism, but am looking for a good book on technique and theory, especially concerning auto-hypnosis.

It's Pacquin's Reality is Plastic It's a very practical book, with an emphasis on technique rather then theory or background. I'd say the best way to learn is to get a copy of the Erickson text (the big, definitive psychological text) and then get a companion text like Realty is Plastic. I especially like the emphasis on rapid induction and the fact that it includes full starter scripts.

It's great for what I want, which is on the performance/ stage hypnosis side, but you may need something a bit more comprehensive if you are interested in say the therapeutic aspects.

[Faust]

^ How about contemporary American authors? This is an area of which I really know nothing about.

Don DeLillo - Mao II
Philip Roth - American Pastoral
Cormac McCarthy - The Road
Charles Bukowski - Post Office

This is off of the top of my head. I am sure someone else can recommend more.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

How to incarnate the power of drugs without being an addict?(Burroughs) or
How to get drunk on pure water?(Miller).



Maybe the question to pose to the literary work is not "What does it mean?"(interpretation)
but rather "How does it function?"(experimentation).

Marcel Proust suggested that his readers use his book as an optical instrument,
"a kind of magnifying glass" that would provide them with
"the means of reading within themselves," in much the same way that
Joyce described his works as machines for producing "epiphanies."

I'm still reading Mieke Bal, so Faust no need to be lost, as I think
skecr8r_l8r got us mixed up.

[Magician]

Don DeLillo - Mao II
Philip Roth - American Pastoral
Cormac McCarthy - The Road
Charles Bukowski - Post Office

This is off of the top of my head. I am sure someone else can recommend more.

Thanks. I've read a good amount of McCarthy, as well as Roth's Portnoy saga so I'll probably try DeLillo. Aside from hearing the name I don't know anything about him.

[skecr8r_l8r]

How to incarnate the power of drugs without being an addict?(Burroughs) or
How to get drunk on pure water?(Miller).



Maybe the question to pose to the literary work is not "What does it mean?"(interpretation)
but rather "How does it function?"(experimentation).

Marcel Proust suggested that his readers use his book as an optical instrument,
"a kind of magnifying glass" that would provide them with
"the means of reading within themselves," in much the same way that
Joyce described his works as machines for producing "epiphanies."

I'm still reading Mieke Bal, so Faust no need to be lost, as I think
skecr8r_l8r got us mixed up.

Nicely written, I personally think that it is a bit of both. But in the sense of the reading that leads to association-epiphany-catharsis, I wholeheartedly agree.

Isn't that why we read (and write?) in the first place?

And, guess I did mix you two guys up - apologies.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Thanks Mister, one could make a valid claim for "meaning is use", this would probably provide the "bit of both" ...

No worries on the mix up!