HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: Theodore Dreiser
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:22:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.141027.5522@epas.toronto.edu> sfysh@epas.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Moskal Fysh) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.230731.14816@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
>>     _Sister Carrie_ is a compelling, interesting book -- one of the best I 
>>have ever read. And yet I have never heard a kind word for Dreiser's writing.
>>Can someone explain why not?
>
>It's usually called naturalism (as distinct from realism).  It is
>basically realism (everyday subject matter & use of detail) and then
>some.  It is based on the assumption that "a person inherits personal
>traits and compulsive instincts, especially hunger, the accumulative
>drive, and sex, and is then subject to the social and economic forces
>in the family, the class, and the milieu into which that person is
>born" (Abrams).  It's usually considered to have been first developed
>in the novel by Emile Zola.  Other naturalist writers are Frank
>Norris, Stephen Crane and James Farrell.
>
>I agree on your evaluation of _Sister Carrie_.  A very powerful novel.
			.
			.
			.
The question remains:  why does the Academy not
take Mr. Dreiser seriously?  Naturalism, which
he practiced, as so many things in his life, in
its bleakest form, conflicts with the long-run-
ning Occidental fashion for heroic individualism,
but we don't begrudge Tolstoy his calculation of
the vanishing gravity of a single human life.
Dreiser overwrote, but sincerely; again, we have
a plethora of examples (Hemingway, ...) to illu-
strate that this is no mortal sin.  He was not a
fun fellow personally; so?

Other Dreiser points:  thumbnail biographers
generally label *An American Tragedy* his master-
piece.  My own idea of an entertaining read is
the *Financier* trilogy (as scandalous as what I
understand the "Dallas" television serial to have
been, it far exceeds the latter in its verisimil-
itude to business reality).

Can someone better educated answer Mr. Casburn's
question?
-- 

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Torturing Politicals
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:34:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: informix.1992Nov9.223435.17061
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <WARKENT.92Nov9131714@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>>>There are things that can't be laughed at?  Topics that contain no
>>>raw material for humor?  Like what?
>> 
>> Torturing political prisoners to death. To name one thing.
>
>Definitely not funny.
>
>Other topics not suitable for humourous treatment:
>
>  Rape
>  Incest
>  Hitler
>  Cannibalism
>  Genghis Khan
>  The Spanish Inquisition

Now come on .... Hitler and the Spanish Inquisition have ample scope
for humour, as demonstrated by numerous Monty Python sketches.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: bil@burka..aix.kingston.ibm.com (Igor Belchinskiy)
Subject: Re: Erofeev-Aleshkovsky-Celine
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 19:00:42 GMT
Organization: Be. I am.

In article <1dlotvINN79t@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> br105@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey A. Del Col) writes:
>
>I think Tsvetaeva put it best "If you only knew from what rubbish poetry 
>springs!" 

Isn't it Akhmatova lines?

>Anyway, Erofeev, Aleshkovsky and Celine are a glorious, unholy
>trinity who preach "Safety last!" as their only commandment.
>
>J. Del Col
>-- 
>Jeff Del Col      *   "Cats are loners, and the paths they take in prose      
>A-B College       *    belong to them alone."   --Jacques Roubaud--
>Philippi, WV      *                             LA BELLE HORTENSE
>                  *
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Erofeev,Beckett and the Christian tradition?
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:42:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov12.134300.17378
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1dtm33INNigo@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
br105@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey A. Del Col) writes:

>As to whether Erofeev, Beckett or any other writer belongs in a Christian 
>tradition, whatever that means, I think Empson is a helpful antidote
>to such thinking.

Perhaps you could be so kind as to paraphrase the helpful words of the
Old Whisker Cheeks.  As for what *that* might mean is that certain
aspects of their work cannot be correctly explained without positive
reference to the said tradition, whereby the author's reliance on it
as a whole or in parts becomes evident, in the same way it could be
said about Donne, Erasmus, Villon, Augustine, Flannery O'Connor,
Dostoyevsky, or Baudelaire, as opposed to Chekhov, Vigny, Ionesco,
Shakespeare, Camus, Yeats, Henry Miller, or Plotinus, to pick but a
few random names.  Note that the claim is not indicative of their
personal faith or artistic merits.  I should think this to be
incontrovertible, and more or less uncontroversial.

>And also keep in mind what Tsvetaeva said  ( and this time I KNOW it's from
>her work!!)
>
>In this most Christian of worlds
>All poets are Jews
>
>Or--"The poet's a Jew" depending on how you translate it.

Well, in a certain sense this is true, too.  However, I am rather
disinclined to take the generalization of a rather mediocre poetess as
binding all of her putative peers.

>J. Del Col
>-- 
>Jeff Del Col      *   "Cats are loners, and the paths they take in prose      
>A-B College       *    belong to them alone."   --Jacques Roubaud--
>Philippi, WV      *                             LA BELLE HORTENSE
>                  *         

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Defense of Ayn Rand (sort of)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:05:22

I have only read one book of Ayn Rand and wouldn't call myself a
Randian in any sense, but one of my amusements is defending those
who are wrongly attacked.

Like many writer, both on the left and the right, Rand's exposition of
her ideas is primarily critical.  Her heroes would be nowhere without
her villains.  Her fans see her villains as exemplifying stultifying
tendencies in society and like such clear models, since the people in
their own lives having these characteristics are of mixed character
and also can't be fully observed.  Everyone loves to hiss the
villains, to sympathize with the heroes oppressed by them and cheer
the heroes' striking back.  Her heroes do successfully strike back,
which is a difference from the literature of pure victimization
often considered to be morally superior.

The stultifying effects of moralism and its use as a means of
oppression really do exist in our society.  In some circumstances,
it may even be the main problem facing some people.  In this
case, imitating a Rand hero may do some good.  Often, however,
stultifying moralism is not the problem.

Very likely, on the whole, Rand is a good influence on people
oppressed by moralism, the most publicized form of which in the
educational is what is called political correctness.

Warning: If you aren't clear about the distinction between
moralism and morality, look them up in the OED.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Torturing Politicals
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Nov9.223435.17061@informix.com>
	<1992Nov9.231707.21849@wam.umd.edu>
	<JMC.92Nov9170105@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<WARKENT.92Nov10123947@ltisun14.epfl.ch>
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:10:18

In article <WARKENT.92Nov10123947@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Nov9170105@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) wrote:
   > [punny cannibal poem deleted]

   Would you recite that poem to someone whose mother was eaten by
   cannibals?  To someone whose mother, a victim of child abuse, was
   eaten by cannibals after being raped by Genghis Khan's horde and
   tortured to death by the Spanish Inquisition following her escape
   from Dachau?  I think not.
   --
   Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
		    Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.

Consider: "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Assuming that Mrs. Lincoln went to the theater many times before
April 1865, this would have been an appropriate remark, or at
least not offensive, before then.  Indeed the humor of the cannibal
joke depends on the distance of the audience from actual cannibalism.
However, does anyone know whether the judge really said to Albert
Packer, "There were only six Democrats in Colorado, and you ate
five of them."?  And what about the Albert B. Packer dining room
at some Government agency in Colorado?  NCAR?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: donz@ui.org (Don Zirilli)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: literary lions
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:57:35 GMT
Organization: UNIX International, Parsippany, NJ

In article <1992Nov11.181345.21178@grebyn.com> fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster) writes:
>
>Hmmm...lions and fire.  Sex and rage.  Biting teeth and mellifluous
>speech.  Where I'm going with all of this, I don't yet know.  But I'd
>love to hear what you have to say about lions.
>
>                                                  --Fiona Webster

Hello rab,

Posthumous here.  Posthumous O'Toole.  Just a few comments on lions.
Somewhere in Campbell's Masks of God series I got the impression that lions
are associated with the male portion of a huge metaphysical dichotomy.  You
know,

male v. female
good v. evil
God  v. Satan
Sun  v. Moon
yang v. yin  (of course, these two symbols are used to represent the unity
              of this apparent dichotomy)

I was always intrigued by Sinead O'Connor's album title "The Lion and The
Cobra" since it had a traditional sun-beast and a traditional matriarchal
beast, the serpent.

Obviously, this dichotomy view is simplistic, but I find it makes for a
great starting point.

plus if you think of 

patriarchy v. matriarchy

you'll remember all the kings who've associated themselves with lions.
Fiona herself has noted the affinity between lions and horses (a
metaphysical affinity, of course) and horses are a patriarchal symbol,
since the horse was used as a vehicle by marauding patriarchies throughout
history.  Campbell suggested that Picasso's painting "Guernica" (perhaps
too epic for quotation marks) represented the rise of a new matriarchal
order since it showed a horse and rider with a sword (a really strong
patriarchal symbol) in dire straits while the bull (matriarchal) was doing
just fine.

Aw shucks, I know Fiona had a lot more research behind what she said and I
know Campbell tended to oversimplify because he really really wanted to
find a sort of mythological General Unified Theory, but I thought the
concepts were worth throwing out (onto rab), so here they are.  Play on!

Yours,

Posthumous O'Toole

-- 
nobody/not even the rain/              	/	   /      /  /    
 /   /   /     /   /   / /     /       /    /    // /    /  /         /    
/     / / /   /   /     /   / /    / /   / / /  /  /   /      /      /
   / /   /   /	/	 / /      //    /   / /     / /      / / / 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: a posting about BOOKS (LONG but meaty)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date:  6 Nov 92 17:49:12 GMT

alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken) writes:

>Here are some books I recommend:

>1) _Sometimes a Great Notion_ by Ken Kesey.  

  I read an interview with Kesey in a local newspaper a few weeks ago
when he came through town on a tour to plug his latest book.  Among
other things, he admitted he tried marijuana back in the sixties, but he
claimed that he never exhaled.
From: faunt@dustbin.cisco.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Musing about Ransome
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:28:56
Organization: cisco Systems, Menlo Park, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: dustbin.cisco.com
In-reply-to: oliver@dougfir.CS.Berkeley.EDU's message of 3 Nov 1992 17:01:34 GMT

I like the "fantasy" books the least of all.  Other than that, I think
my favorite is the one I read last, although WDMTGTS is quite possibly
the one I've reread the most.  I keep thinking about what might have
happened in "Coots in The North" that is not written.
I'm reading WH out loud to my partner now.

nit: 1930 is not "turn of the century".

I have all the addresses for the Arthur Ransome Society, if anyone
else is interested.

Swallows and Amazons, forever (Coots, and Scarabs, too).
From: wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: <None>
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:37:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: ohstpy.14637.2b00fea0

In article <JMC.92Nov10231704@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> In article <anand.721448494@cds705> anand@Cadence.COM (Anand Bemra) writes:
> 
>    jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> 
>    [taking a stab at communism, socialism ]
>    >The proposition that another system might work better just had a
>    >very extensive trial and was found disastrous.  
> 
>    At this rate, John McCarthy would blame the Japanese if the
>    Sun were not to rise in the east tomorrow. 
>    Communism failed because of the bureaucratic, all encompassing 
>    centripetal State and not because of lack of private property.
> 
>    anand
> 
> The lack of private property is related to the "all encompassing
> centripetal State".  Note that communism didn't just fail in one
> country; it failed in 16 with quite different histories.  I count
> 16 unless Anand wishes to claim that communism is succeeding in
> some of those countries where it has not yet lost power.
> 
   The "all encompassing cetripetal state" which arose in the xUSSR and
its eastern european "brethren" had more to do with Stalin and perhaps
Beria than with the theory of property, I think.  In fact, I am 
surprised that someone is asserting that there wasn't private 
property in this part of the world.  Perhaps I am misreading Dr 
McCarthy's 1st sentence, but he sure does seem to be saying that.  
   In any case, much of the debate about the implications of the collapse
of the ancien regime there seems (to my profoundly impartial ears)
to take one of two forms: 
i) Those guys {had socialized medicine, 
had collective farms, had secret police, wore pants}.  Those guys
failed.  Let us learn from their mistakes. Let's go buy some bonds.
[this argument is often made without any attention to 
the relevance of the statement in {} to the society which 
is supposedly doing the learning]
ii) Hey, that wasn't communism over there.  We need to {ban advertising,
build a public transport system, shoot the bankers}.  Haven't you read
{Marx, Chomsky, whoever}?  Let's go for falafel.
    As far as I'm concerned, both arguments are demagoguery.  Big policy 
decisions informed by ideology rather than the relevant facts are a 
crapshoot.  
						-Luke
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Truth According to Mickie Medved
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:58:24 GMT
	<1992Nov6.162401.17124@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
	<BALDWIN.92Nov6144236@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil>
	<14604.2afbc388@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu's message of 07 Nov 92 14:24:24 -0400

In article <14604.2afbc388@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>
wagner@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes (quoting me):
>> All humor above the level of knock-knock jokes is based on the
>> misfortune of others (or, sometimes, of ourselves).  There are a
>> number of theories about this, but I'll spare you.
>
>I've heard this line before, and I don't like it.  I don't like it because
>humor is a many-splendored thing, good for quiet musings in field and forest,
>good for debates in bars, and good for laughing.  So I don't like it when
>somebody goes and says that all humor is the avatar of some Higher Principle,
>especially when the higher principle applies cleanly only to pie-in-the-face
>humor.
>	A counterexample:  There is a honeymooners episode where Norton
>spends about two minutes gleefully peeling an orange.  Busts me up every 
>time I see it.  Jackie Gleason liked it too.  Whose misfortune has hit 
>our respective funny spots?  Norton seems pretty happy, and there's no-one
>else in the room.

I could be a smartass here and note that I qualified my statement with
"above the level of knock-knock jokes," but I'd never take a cheap shot
like that at a classic comedy like "The Honeymooners."

Instead, I'll retract the word "all" and say that "A great deal of all
humor above the level of slapstick is based on the misfortune of
others."  Where do you draw the line?  I don't know, but generic
"torture of political prisoners" doesn't even register on my
too-tasteless meter.  Maybe make it specific and human, like "torture
and murder of Steven Biko," and I start to get uncomfortable.

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:19901 rec.arts.poems:11170 soc.culture.french:8405 talk.religion.misc:20856 alt.feminism:4160
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.poems,soc.culture.french,talk.religion.misc,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Advice to the World Weary
Keywords: Boris Vian, Bison Ravi
Date: 11 Nov 92 10:18:51 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <BxJ7x2.IG2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu 
(Don Beaver) writes:

>Perhaps your discussion of women/men/child-molesting, your cute 
>snob song and the ensuing battle of quips are more appropriate 
>to alt.hasty.pudding.revue than to alt.feminism?

With a name like "beaver" I wouldn't talk.  In my case, however,
the "nourrice" was a former Miss Finland, so if you were in my
shoes wouldn't you want to...  But, blame Zeleny for adding them
to the newsgroups line, rec.arts.books is known for its decadence.

-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.meta
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Wittgenstein's PI
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:57:16 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <Ef0mgdS00iUzM99owN@andrew.cmu.edu> bg13+@andrew.cmu.edu (Benedicta Gray) writes:
>The pompous-sounding Mr.Zeleny's "joke" aside: A nice reasonable
>hardback version of the Philosophical Investigations with English facing
>German text is available from Great Expectations - (708) 864 3881. 

Is it the one with the green cover? Only the ones with green covers
levitate when read by candle light. 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: gwr@hedonist-1.lanl.gov (Graham W. Redgrave)
Subject: Re: The Eudaemonic Pie
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:50:13 GMT

Marko Amnell Raves to my Ranting:
|> the Rant:
|> 
|> >And don't forget to put down your cattle prod (oh, sorry, "sword"), too.  Who
|> >made you liberator of the bored?  Who told you they wanted to be liberated?
|> >_My_ humble guess is they just want a new, more glamorous sedative. 
|> 
|> They're free to pump their veins full of any substance they want.
           ^^^^
<Sigh.>  At the risk of pounding dead horse meat and sounding like this discussion
means more to me than it does, the _whole_point_, old boy, is that they _are_ free, 
regardless of what you have to say about it; their drugs, their responsibility, 
right?  If you don't ask someone before you try to liberate him, you deny him
his freedom more severely than do his drugs ...

|> 
|> >you sound like Clayton Cramer from the 18th century.
|> 
|> And Clayton sounds like such an amiable fellow, too.

Yeah, I know I was being a jerk, and I suppose you have the right to point it
out:  why should I hide behind Claytonisms ("I wasn't really attacking you,
Marko, just your idea...why don't you damn Idealists get your heads out of your
asses and read the shit I post once in a while....") or Amnellisms ("Look at
the poor sap, doesn't he look funny taking me seriously, chuckle, chuckle")?
You pissed me off, and I told you why.  I'm not interested in scoring points
for the best net.name-calling, especially when there are better things to talk
about (like rose quotes -- I've been saving them since you started that thread).
Besides, what's a little piss between r.a.b.elaisians?

|> 
|> >What's worse is the fact that you used someone else's post as the target of
|> >your tirade, as if, by impugning another's spirit, you could elevate yourself
|> >to the circle of the chosen (whoever they are).
|> 
|> Choose thyself.

Sorry, the jaded subtlety of this little barb escapes me...guess I'm not quite 
boorish (oh, right, "bored") enough yet to get it ...

|> 
|> And I thought that Americans wouuld have gotten used to self-aggrandizement
|> after all these years.  Perot, Trump, Trumpanova, Michael Jackson, how many
|> big egos do I have to name?

Am I American?  Perhaps.  Perhaps my only-partially-Yankee ego is oversensitive
to its own Cadillac size; perhaps I just can't bear to watch such pseudo-
ideological dick-waving without pulling out my own.

|> 
|> >Yours cordially, despite an overabundance of bile,
|> 
|> Ah, yes... Now, excuse me while I try to stop laughing.

You're excused for that, anyway.  I wouldn't want to be in the same room with
all that superior chuckling, especially so close to the end of the milennium.

|> -- 
|> Marko Amnell
|> amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
|> Graduate Student in Philosophy

-- 
Graham Redgrave    |    --  I don't speak for the government, 
gwr@life.lanl.gov  |        but I wish the government would speak for me ...  --
From: maverick@acacia.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: A Literary Mr. Toad's Wild Ride
Date: 6 Nov 1992 18:40:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: acacia.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <9211061743.AA25783@cfdev1.shearson.com>, mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
|>  
|> FIFTH BUSINESS by Robertson Davies.

One of my high-school history teachers made the mistake of
saying, "To many questions about 19th-century European history,
the answer is Metternich", and we didn't let him forget it.
"Where was the treaty signed which ended the Franco-Prussian
War?"  You get the idea.  So why don't I scream out loud when
I see Mark recommending this book YET AGAIN?  Because I like
it quite well myself....

	Vance