Twinkle

"Sanjeev pressed the massive silver face to his ribs, careful not to let the feather hat slip, and followed her." So reads the last line of Lahiri's short story This Blessed House. Does this line underscore the fact that because Sanjeev has chosen a woman who is ensconced on the kind of pedestal we have for women in Western culture (beautiful, sexy, mysterious, stylish, capricious--see: Julia Roberts, Britney Spears, Angelina Jolie, Winona Ryder, to name a few), he is destined to be a servant rather than a master?

Stone and Wood

Plaid, Stripes and Camouflage

Remnants of a Dream

Oscar

Before it becomes irrevelant...

For any of you who partake in watching the television show gossipgirl (and for those who don't but want to see some literary jargon in action)...

The most recent episode circa Monday the 17th showcased an existentialist theme in a delightful way. Choice, which is quite Meursault-esque and that it will land a character in prison makes the connection even a bit more spooky...

Choice #1: Vanessa and Chuck invite Nate over to the gallery under the ruse that it's an emergency. Then an FBI guy steps out of the shadows wanting to talk to Nate about his father (who is back in town, after having ran away to Dominica, turns out he was planning to hold Nate and Nate's mother for ransom to make money to support himself, anyway...).

Choice #2: Nate decides to talk and reveals where his father is. He arrives before the FBI to persuade his father to turn himself in and be accountable for his actions rather than run away again.

Choice #3: Nate's father decides to go peacefully with the FBI and turns himself in.

Another interesting note with some of the feminist theory, when Nate convinces his father, he says something along the lines of "be a man" and face it. Wowsers patriarchal binary thought really is everywhere.

By the way, can't you tell I just love using ellipsis... :)

Modern art and the Argument from Intimidation

I dearly hope this doesn't give away my identity, but as I was reading I came across something I thought was really interesting. In the post about Camus's quotes, there was one that was commented on a couple of times dealing with abstract art. Ironically, while I was reading yesterday I came across another view of abstract art. It has to do with the idea of the Argument from Intimidation. Simply put, this is when someone sidesteps an argument by bringing the moral character of the other person into question. It would go something like this:

"You believe that? Well, only the immoral could fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."
Or: "Only cowards can fail to agree that life is a sewer."
Or: "Only the most primitive mind could not see that THAT idea is severely outdated."

And of course, all of these sayings would be accompanied by eye rolls, sighs, and looks of unbelief at your stupidity. With this kind of arguing, the person utilizing the Argument from Intimidation is not refuting the claim that's being made, but merely attacking the person that's making the claim. It's a shallow form of argument, and only practiced by those who really don't know what they're talking about.

That said, here's an excerpt from my book:

"As an example of an entire field of activity based on nothing but the Argument from Intimidation, I give you modern art -- where, in order to prove that they do possess the special insight only possessed by the mystic "elite," the populace are trying to surpass one another in loud exclamations on the splendor of some bare (but smudged) piece of canvas."

So this might be off topic, but I was wondering what people thought of this idea. Is modern art all it's cracked up to be? Or is it just a scam of people trying to convince both themselves and others that they're more intelligent than they truly are?