What's Your "No Turning Back" Point?

[pErvinalia]

I don't think most people realise how good a place NZ is.

[Svartalf]

I'm sure Pappa knows, like every other Welshman.

[tattuchu]

Are you living in NZ these days? I love NZ. I'm drunk.

I am. It's great. I tried to get drunk but I had a poo and it broke my rhythm.

Keep drinking while you're on the toilet. There's nothing that says you have to stop
I've eaten on the toilet before. I don't mean I set up my dinner on the lid. I mean I've eaten while sitting on the toilet


Bella, sorry for derail

[hadespussercats]

Now what if such constructed ritual performances were repeated to bring an "organism" to life not for an audience, but for the performers themselves. That's what I suspect the whole "Church" thing is about, a form of once incredibly potent art ritual seemingly magical somehow.

Bookmarking this to respond later, when my son isn't climbing on me.

I enjoyed the whole post.

Crap. Gotta go.

[Bella Fortuna]

Are you living in NZ these days? I love NZ. I'm drunk.

I am. It's great. I tried to get drunk but I had a poo and it broke my rhythm.

You do realise that you should be using different orifices...

[hadespussercats]

Now what if such constructed ritual performances were repeated to bring an "organism" to life not for an audience, but for the performers themselves. That's what I suspect the whole "Church" thing is about, a form of once incredibly potent art ritual seemingly magical somehow.

Modern Western theatre wouldn't exist were it not for the Church. Passion plays were a sanctioned form of worship through storytelling, which opened a sidedoor to the acceptance of fiction (which was once considered lying, and therefore sinful), pretending or acting (another type of lying), as well as making scenery, props, costumes (which would once have fallen under the banner of 'graven images.')

[Theatre and religion are closely related in other cultures as well (See Noh drama, rain dances, wayang kulit, etc., etc.) but I'll keep focus on Western versions to keep this short.]

And there remains an intertwining relationship between Church and theatre today. I'd posit that the congregation is the Church's audience, and that it participates in the creation of the mise en scene as much as the audience in an off-Broadway theatre. Preachers and choristers and various musical performers and readers and inductees and so on and so forth put on a show. The goals of that show are generally to manipulate the emotions of all the participants (performers are more witting in their participation in the manipulation than the audience might be, but they generally are seeking some emotional transfigurement as well), and to raise money. The better they do at the first task, the more successful they are at the second. (Now my memories of Brecht are screaming for me to explain his views of theatre, which rebel precisely against the above definition. Shut up for now, Brecht.)

And theatre often forms the church function of sanctuary, for weirdos who don't fit into regular society. This is a time-honored aspect of theatre-people, who often look upon other theatre workers as their family or tribe (or cult, depending.) Even me, though I feel it less than I once did-- theatre and choir replaced Church in my heart-- my need for congregation, for working together with other people to create something... transcendent. It was a new sort of godless worship through work-- particularly, useless work-- work whose function wasn't practical. Work for art.

I'm not quite getting this down, but I'm going to quit trying for a bit.

[rasetsu]

I almost gave up before the end on reading Jonathan Livingstone Seagull while in the hospital. The Buddhist insertions were all too clumsily inserted. Still, I had nothing better to do.

I do most of my reading for critical book clubs of an atheist, philosophical or humanist bent. Thus I'm not looking to be entertained so much as to encounter new ideas and facts. Even bad books can meet that bar, and if it's really bad, I have the incentive of not wanting to be caught criticizing something I hadn't read.

In one group of mixed religious and non-religious, we were contemplating the Book of Job. I did my best to give it a novel spin, but Frank, the organizer, asked me what I thought of Job's answer, to which I had to reply that I hadn't finished the reading. There were chuckles all around.

It also depends on the audience. One of my far flung book clubs is one that I've described as, "the best book club for non-readers," as so often people would show up having not read the book. It's not a big deal. I'm not an organizer, but I tend to function as an anchor around which conversations develop, whether I've read the book or not. (Oddly enough, masterful bullshitter doesn't make it on many lists of virtues.)

[hadespussercats]

^^^ Richard Bach was very important to me in high school-- Illusions, not JLS, but all his books are similar (I went on to read pretty much all of them.)

I guess that means they're still important to me, since I grew up with them. But they don't resonate anymore, except for nostalgia. I'm glad he wrote them. I don't think I would have happened upon those useful Eastern/Buddhist concepts so early without him.

[Beatsong]

I'm currently reading Hemmingway's "For whom the bell tolls".

Awful, turgid, but strangely compelling prose. I keep meaning to give up, but I slog through each chapter.

For fuck's sake, just blow the cunting bridge up and shag the bird you annoying American cunt.

You poor naive bastard. Which cunt put you onto that pile of shite?

[Beatsong]

I can really relate to the OP because I hate starting a book and not finishing, and will usually battle on no matter what. Sometimes with non-fiction (what I mostly read these days) I'll skim read if I'm really getting bored, just so I at least know the remainder of the argument, history or whatever.

There's only one striking exception to my determination and I'm interested to see I'm not the only one. U Fucking Lysses. Started TWICE and just couldn't do it. It's like the most sadistic form of medieval torture condensed into book form. I don't know how he does it.

[devogue]

I'm currently reading Hemmingway's "For whom the bell tolls".

Awful, turgid, but strangely compelling prose. I keep meaning to give up, but I slog through each chapter.

For fuck's sake, just blow the cunting bridge up and shag the bird you annoying American cunt.

You poor naive bastard. Which cunt put you onto that pile of shite?

Me. I was trying to be smart.

[Jason]

If you want to read Hemingway you ought to stick to his short stories. The Finca Vigia collection is very good.

[Audley Strange]

I can really relate to the OP because I hate starting a book and not finishing, and will usually battle on no matter what. Sometimes with non-fiction (what I mostly read these days) I'll skim read if I'm really getting bored, just so I at least know the remainder of the argument, history or whatever.

There's only one striking exception to my determination and I'm interested to see I'm not the only one. U Fucking Lysses. Started TWICE and just couldn't do it. It's like the most sadistic form of medieval torture condensed into book form. I don't know how he does it.

Yeah I think Ulysses definitely is up there with a In Search of Lost Time and A Brief History of the Universe in the books never finished stakes. Such a fucking pity too, since they display some form of almost otherworldly genius (a word too often used generally but far far too often in the arts) I guess I'm just genuinely lucky that I never had such difficulty and enjoyed both his major works time and time again over the last 20 years.

[SteveB]

I've read Sons and Lovers. Yah, I'm pretty proud of that.

[Jason]

Thought I'd throw this out there, but when I have books I find terribly dull but should read I usually get the audiobook as well. If the reader is good it often adds colour to the otherwise drab wordscape.