Almost...there...

I am nearing the end of Le Morte d'Arthur, am in fact on the last section, the title section. Like I said, I find the work boring and repetitive, and completely removed from the kind of characterization expected in modern works. Thought a prose work, it follows the monoglossic conventions that Bahktin depicted as the product of the Epic. And on top of that, the monoglossic viewpoint is one of supreme dickitude, but with a rancid patina of Christian piety. As usual, I find myself rooting for Morgan Le Fay, and in this work she really is supposed to be evil.

Still, the work has been useful as a rough guide to the outlines of Arthurian legend, making it easier to put together how all the different strands of Arthuriana fit together. Its really interesting to see for example, that the Wasteland is likely really Yorkshire. Which makes sense, because it was actually in that region, roughly speaking, when the Arthurian period saw major attacks from Saxons, creating the Kingdom of Bernicia within the kingdoms of Ebrauc (York) and Brineich (Southeastern Scotland, Northeastern England). Relatedly, I enjoy seeing a more concrete example of the lineage of Percival/Peredur, since Goodrich had completely confused me on that matter, presenting a variety of contradictory genealogies without comment. Still, I should probably read an earlier tale to get a more "accurate" depiction of his parentage, but the one that exists in my mind at present is pretty good, as it seems to confirm to the historical record of the figure of Peredur. Lancelot, on the other hand, and Lot as well, are getting hazier as I go along. Lot should clean up rather quickly, either settling back into place or getting a few brushstrokes to satisfactorily change him, but Lancelot is shaping up to be a very complex conundrum, probably requiring a significant amount of research to puzzle out. I am probably going to have to read the Knight of the Cart now. Sigh. Of well. Chrétien de Troyes is a lot more fun to read than Malory.

Wait, what?

I had quite a string of posts back there in a short period, and then they kind of ground to a halt. I don't know why exactly. I think I was, at the time, feeling very positive about things, and going through a particularly productive phase, and then that kind of died down. I suspect that I am slightly bipolar, and that I was going through a bit of a manic phase. And then it cooled down, and I didn't post anything for awhile. All the thoughts I was having I just kind of let sit up on the shelf, instead of spitting them out rapid fire fast like I was.

Also, work was back on, and I was getting tired and ornery from that, and just too exhausted to devote time to typing. And then I have been trying to just finish already Le Morte d'Arthur, which is a completely uncompelling book.

Also, I have been feeling obligated to posting something in response to my last post, a quick off the cuff denunciation of "feminism" that was probably a bit ill considered. Well, was ill-considered. I posted it right before heading out the door for work, and meant to update it at some point, fleshing out my reasons and thought on the topic at greater length, and make the point that it was not so much the article linked to in question that was the reason for my ambivalence than a specific point made about the way feminism has been instrumental over the past forty years in consolidating the strength of capitalism. As such, I don't really feel a part of a movement or ideology that is in a sense rooted in shunting aside a viewpoint that I think needs a wider public airing, despite agreeing wholeheartedly with the fundamental ideas upon which the feminist movement is based. (And in this case I should draw a distinction between "rooted" and "fundamental." In this case, a fundamental idea is the specific concepts underlying what is in question, the self-evident truths, while rooted refers to drawing succor from something else. Feminism is a good seed growing in bad soil, and I don't like the condition of the plant all that much, thought I think it's a lovely species.)

Anyways, as often happens when I have something specific to say that involves a lot of nuance and depth in order to express fully, and that I feel needs to be expressed ASAP, I usually just put it off until later, and not do it at all (See: the Politics series, which is practically irrelevant now). So, I plan to come back to this topic at some point, and express more of what I am trying to say about it, and the paragraph above is less than an iceberg tip, but I don't really feel like doing it now. And I need to get over that particular hump.

Yeah, I think I can now definately say I am not a feminist.

This is why.

Rhetorical Iconography

I just watched the Obama Father's Day speech. I thought the Jesus bits at the end felt tacked on, mostly there because he was in a church. So, in that sense, a little discordant as literature.

I have decided to refer to such invocations of Jesus as "rhetorical iconography." It seems like there is this tendency among the religious, or those in the habit of making arguments that they try to evoke as religious, to just stick a reference to having faith in Jesus Christ as making everything all better, and why this is so is left unsaid. The speaker/writer is not really trying to explain the importance of Jesus, or how mechanism by which faith and Jesus beings about positive developments, they are simply throwing in the reference. It's a representative rhetorical flourish meant to be considered and meditated on by the audience, in much the way an icon was meant to be studied on, as if through it's consideration some truth of the depicted would dawn upon the viewer.

Now, there is probably a good reason the reference can just be tacked in there, which is that the audience as already heard all of the reasons for why they should trust in Jesus, so why said it again? But that's actually what icons are for. You look at them, and meditate on your relation to the which is pictured; it requires some understanding of the images meaning in order for the truth to emerge from it. Since I haven't internalized these reasons, these evocations always leave me cold. They don't tell me why faith in Jesus will (supposedly) help me, and as a result I just think "whatever, man."

I wonder if I should be feeling alienated that Obama seems to think that faith, and faith in Jesus, is so important, such an edifying way of living and succeeding in life, but I figure, that's just his bag. All people have some shit that they think is the the way to be, the way to do things, whether that's Veganism, Christianity, being a swinger, hippy, "traditional" family member, gay clubber, raver, anarchist, objectivist.... People all have this tendency to form some silly tribe that bolsters their particular view of How One Should Live. Obama's is no different, and his thing happens to involve Jesus. Not really something to get bent out of shape about.

Still, I hope he keeps that kind of talk in the Church. If he starts talking like that at those huge rallies, I might have to reconsider my position.

Kicks

I bought a new pair of Converse today, as my two old pairs are completely falling apart. I got a pair of midnight blue hightops. They are keen. I love how they bounce as I walk.

But they were forty seven dollars. Forty seven dollars! Forty seven fucking dollars (with tax) for a pair of fucking canvas sneakers! And I bet the fucking things aren't even made in the US, the fucking criminals. This better just be gas and shit jacking up the price of everything. Shit, I think I bought my last two pairs for 35 each. And I could have bought a pair of One Stars at the Retail Giant for 30, minus 10 percent.

I just keep telling myself that I pay twenty dollars for a pair of pants, and I wear my shoes way more than I wear my pants. Or something. Damn it, I hate spending money.

Still, they look really friggin awesome. I keep wanting to show them off to everybody. Because I spent 47 fucking dollars on the fucking things.