 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
page 1
page2
page3
page4
page5
page6
page7
page8
page9
page10
page11
page12
page13
page14
page15
page16
page17
page18
page19
page20
page21
page22
page23
page24
page25
page26
page27
page28
page29
page30
page31
page32
page33
page34
page35
page36
page37
page38
page39
page40
page41
page42
page43
page44
page45
page46
page 47
page48
page49
page50
page51
page52
page53
page54
page55
page56
page57
page58
page 59
page59
page 60
page61
page62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page66
page67
page 68
page 69
page 70
Page 71
page 72
pare 73
page 74
page 75
page76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page92
page93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page98
|
|
| QUOTATIONS 1576-1601 |
| ||||||
| 1576. Why do we so often hear this worn out cliche "bad poetry" and never "bad prose"? Why everybody is so eager to pronounce the verdict on poetic writing? Statistically, there must be at least as much bad writing in prose as in poetry, if for no other reason than that significantly more prose is written and certainly more published, sold, and read. Could it be that all bad writers gravitate to poetry and the good ones choose prose as a means of self-expression? Actually, it is easier to judge prose. No matter how experimental it is (thankfully, Joyce remains an exception) prose writing has to follow the rules of grammar and syntaxes, otherwise it simply wouldn't be read (again, how many people did read Ulysses and Finnegans Wake till the end?) Poetry, on the other hand, in the last hundred years or so has largely dispensed not only with rhythm, rhyme (and often the reason) but with the basic standards of grammar as well. Even the vocabulary isn't sacred any more. As a matter of fact, that's the whole point - as far as the poetry is concerned nothing is sacred anymore. Most of it is just a truncated, chopped prose anyway, arranged in separate lines to resemble the poetry of old on the page. How can anyone judge this being "good" or "bad" is a mystery to me. Nevertheless, many "literary" people do. And they always utter this hackneyed phrase "bad poetry" with such an aplomb and finality, and with such an air of superiority, that any protestations to the contrary seem futile. And another thing: this uncompromising harshness is always directed at the young and the unknown. Nobody dares to label with such a pejorative term the famous and the established. You just can't say it in public (or even think in private) that the emperor is naked, without being labeled yourself in return as someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. Of course, this categorical dismissal of the young and defenseless has very little to do with this or that work of poetry an hand. The real purpose of it is to demonstrate the expertise of the pronouncer, the sophistication of his esthetic sensibilities and the capacity for the honest and sound judgement. Considering that no support for such a judgement is given or expected, it is an extremely easy way to acquire a reputation of a discerning connoisseur with the impeccable taste. So, let's face it - "bad poetry" is not a pronouncement of a critic, it is a declaration of the self-aggrandizer. 1577. It is not necessarily the higher moral standards which are responsible for the higher longevity of Jewish marriages. It is more often the higher threshold for personal abuse your average spouses heap on each other. For being accustomed to the social abuse, the Jews would tolerate it in the personal relationships much longer and at the greater degree than any other ethnic group. 1578. There must be something in the innocence of a good man who never hurt anybody and therefore couldn't understand why anyone would want to hurt him, that infuriates those who just want to do it to smash his innocence. 1579. I think men overestimate their importance in the life of a woman. On the list of her priorities rearranging the furniture, changing the curtains and hanging the pictures on the wall beat sex any time. And if a woman happens to have the sufficient means she finds spending time with the interior decorator by far more stimulating than the ardent efforts of her husband. 1580. The cerebral energies even of the most capable of us are not unlimited. Consequently, when the significant amount of it is spent in execution of some project very little is left to explain why it was not entirely successful. By the same token, when a lot of ingenuity is expended on providing excuses why certain things haven't been done at all, the corresponding capacity to rectify the failure is greatly diminished. Thus, the habitual liars seldom accomplishes anything of importance for they waste too much of their brain power on lying. On the other hand, people who do things often, human nature being what it is, make mistakes and are notoriously inept to find excuses for them. 1581. There is a certain risk involved in praising someone's writing. You may begin receiving the samples of it as the gifts (the quantity of which being depended on the creative output and sense of artistic insecurity of the writer in question) and, which is the worse, could be expected to actually read them and continue to express your appreciation of their fine qualities. 1582. If my poetry doesn't always sounds "right" to the English ear that is precisely the effect I'm trying to achieve. I think that traditional English verse, which is often rather stiff, can only benefit from some admixture of the melodious Russian rhyming, with which I'm familiar by virtue of my birth and upbringing. The English poetry should not be viewed as one of those sacred British institutions deemed necessary to be preserved forever in their original forms as if some antique objects in the museum. Cross-fertilization with the other poetic technics, the Russian in the specific case I plead, can only improve its aesthetic qualities. After all the Russian poetry has been vastly enriched at the beginning of 19th century by Alexander Pushkin who used the knowledge of the contemporary French and English poetry to transform the Russian one. His success in doing so had earned him the title of the founder of the modern Russian language and the preeminent Russian poet, primus inter pares for all times. There is no reason to believe that English verse can't undergo similar transformation and for the better. However, not for a second I assume to be the one capable of accomplishing this monumental task. It clearly requires the dedicated efforts of the native English poets and not a transplanted one like me. 1583. There are those who buy books and those who read them, and they are not necessarily the same people. For some buying a book is an accomplishment in itself, a completed act, self-contained and separate from reading it. 1584. So many pretty girls, so few beautiful women. Oh, how quickly the bloom is off. 1585. I could never fully understand or identified with the fear of growing old so many people suffer from. And now I think I know why. Even as a child I wasn't childish, playful, carefree. One may say I was "old"while still young. But such state, as I discovered lately, has its advantages. Being already "old" I haven't experienced as acutely as others the symptoms of growing old and remained largely unchanged psychologically and emotionally. As a result, now when I'm old I'm "young". At the beginning I was not as "young" as the others, but now I am not as "old" as they are - what was taken then is given back now. 1586. Recently I immersed myself into P.G.Wodehouse's inimitable tales of Jeeves and Wooster. I experienced it in three different forms, the original form of the written text, the dramatized form of film and as the audio books. The least satisfaction I received from the film version, even the superb ones made by BBC and staring the "inimitable" Stephen Fry as Jeeves and Hugh Laurie as Bertie Wooster. The more brilliant the original text the more it is mutilated and diminished when translated to the screen and nothing could be done about it. The greatest pleasure I experienced by listening to the audio tapes. When read by the skillful actors the book becomes alive. It adds immensely to the text. And in this case the better the text the more its beauty is revealed when one is listen to it instead of reading. Which made me realize how much esthetically were lost in the process of transformation from the oral to written culture. And though I always liked to read and can't imagined my life without books, I often envy the people who listened to Homer reciting Iliad and Odyssey. The little children, who are most natural and sincere in their aesthetic preferences, even after they learned to read still want to listen to their favorite stories, again and again. After many years of schooling as we grow up we forget many joys of childhood and among the most regrettable loses is the joy of listening to the book. 1587. I do judge the others, but as a compensation, in a kind of fair exchange, I offer myself to be judged by them as well, whether they want to or not. Nay, I usually initiate it, for while not suffering from the low self-esteem, I do feel to be inadequate in many respects, often lacking in qualities I believe to be important. Is my willingness or even eagerness to expose myself to the judgement of the others just an excuse to indulge in similar activities against them? I hope not. It may actually be the other way around. Perhaps I'm addicted to the emotional and intellectual striptease. Some people want to expose their bodies. I want them to see my soul. And you can only keep the attention of an audience by making them feel it's not just about you but about them as well. Thus, you judge in order to be judged which gives an opening to self-revelations, if that's what you want. And I do want it. Besides, since humans are judgmental creatures by nature I don't think anything wrong with following this universal impulse for as long as one is willing to be exposed to the similar treatment, though I found, unlike me, very few actually are. So, I don't feel so bad in comparison. After all, it's like a boxing match, you hit your opponent but in return he has an equal chance to inflict similar pain on you. And, of course, both follow the same rules of fair play in the name of common decency, hopefully. Though the reality could sometimes be far from ideal. 1588. Modernism is a revolt of mediocrity against genius. The hereditary nobility seldom aspired to the artistic glory. But the emerging middle class of 19th century confused the ability to acquire knowledge with the talent to create art. And when its artistically inclined representatives discovered that though one, through the hard work (the members of this class are so proud of) can learn, for example, all about music making and appreciation of it and yet unable to create anything as beautiful as Mozart did, Modernism has been invented to enable the talentless to deceive themselves and increasingly others that what they produce are equally significant, only in the new, revolutionary form. The delicate beauty of Rimsky-Korsakov's "Scheherazade" with its intricate arabesque of sounds, the soaring, seemingly unbound imagination of Grieg's "Peer Gynt", its heights of joy and depth of sorrow, where had all this gone? Why our times don't produce such splendor and magnificence? Biologically we haven't changed in the last 100 years. Of course, each generation has only a precious few geniuses but it is inconceivable that some should have them all while the others none. I can see no other culprit but Modernism as being responsible for preventing the flowers like Rimsky-Korsakov and Grieg to brake through the oppressive concrete of its stifling conformity to the contrived originality and artificial innovation of form. 1589. At the time of war the well run medical services represent significant military assets and can tip the scales in favour of one side against the other. Foe example, Canadian doctor Norman Bethune by organizing medical services in Communist army played an important part in Mao's war against Chan Kai She. I have no reason to doubt that he was driven by the highest possible humanitarian motivations. Nevertheless, the end results of his actions were military and political and therefore not neutral. Consequently, the same principle applies to MSF -Medicine without borders - no matter how sincerely they profess their impartiality. 1590. For some people freedom of speech means not knowing what they are talking about. 1591. While from people "like us" we would often accept insults and injuries even the kindness and help of those who are different is treated with suspicions and ingratitude 1592. The main principle Canadian Government employs when choosing whom among the prospective immigrants to let in is called "point system". According to this system certain number of points are given for the age of the applicant, certain number for the educational level, for English or French language proficiency, etc. When the sum total of these points exceed the established number (I believe it's 70 at present) the one who obtained it is considered to be worthy to become a Canadian, and those who didn't are rejected. Without stretching the analogy too far I suspect that some women use similar system in choosing the prospective mate. So much "points" are given for looks, so much for inelegance, for sense of humor, for economic status, for generosity, etc. Again, when sum of these "points" (not in a literal sense, of course) reaches certain level, which for each woman (unlike in the case of government) is, understandably, different, the man is viewed as desirable for a purpose of permanent relationship, ending, if everything goes well, in matrimony. 1593. Being sick all my life with one thing or another, I actually envy people who are ruining their health. At least they have something to ruin to begin with. 1594. Every religion is anxious to recruit new members and to increase its numbers. In this a religion is like a spiritual "pyramid scheme" with the new converts providing constant infusion of "faith's capital" for the current members whose beliefs are thus being justified by the fact that the new adherents embrace them. 1595. It is not that I have less and less to say. It is that fewer and fewer are willing or able to listen. 1596. A single, most important contribution the English middle class made to our civilization from the 19th century and on is the creation and perfection of the most elaborate, most intricate art of social interaction. To an outsider it is truly wonderous to behold and impossible to imitate. But to think that the best and the brightest of this remarkable in many respects nation devoted so much of emotional and intellectual energy to such an essentially superficial pursuit makes one lament this extraordinary waste. 1597. Abstract paintings, abstract music (like jazz or modern classical compositions), abstract art in general in all its manifestations has its uses. It "abstracts" one from reality, it disengages one from feeling it or thinking about it. And though it doesn't bring the joy, the rupture, the ecstasy of the real world, it spares one from the pain, the anguish, the torment of it as well. It neither gives, nor takes. It leaves one indifferent, undisturbed, almost disembodied - abstract. The soul rests in a state of non-existence. And this craving for rest is the source of attraction to the abstract art for so many in this, so-called modern and weary age. 1598.It is impossible to express one's uniqueness through consumption, though many labor under the delusion that it is. For anyone can and may, if means are available, consume anything. Anyone can drive Ferrari but only one car manufacturer can produce it. Anyone can wear the most exquisite and expansive jewelry but only few can design it. And this principle applies to any imaginable form and item of consumption. Consequently, one is a unique individual not because of what one consumes(no matter how impeccable his or hers taste may be) but what one produces. For the act of consumption doesn't bring anything new into the world, the act of production does. Of course, one can buy a masterpiece and hide it in the vault where nobody can see it but himself. But then such claim to uniqueness as the owner of one of a kind work of art cannot be substantiated publicly and this is the only one that counts. For one cannot be unique privately. Uniqueness is relative. Unique in comparison with what? This is a paradox of uniqueness - it has to be public. But as soon as it is public in a form of consumption, as soon as the others can see your unique possession they consume it as well and your uniqueness as a consumer vanishes and that's the only one you possessed. There is only one artist who painted Mona Lisa but many people owned it and millions saw it. It is the makers that are unique not the takers, producers not consumers. The woman who when arriving at a party find, to her chagrin, that there is another woman wearing exactly the same dress ( the dress she thought was one of a kind) is the obvious case on point. 1599. It's sure very comforting to believe that when we die we shall meet again people we loved who passed away before us. But somehow we never think about that if this is true then we will also meet those we hated. 1600. A lot of marriages fail because the spouses mistakenly confuse the marriage licence with something akin to academic tenure, i.e. the status of having an almost unlimited freedom to think and to act as one pleases without fear of being fired. Now, it is assumed as given that during a courtship the future spouses try to present their best side and to conceal the worst. But it is also quite common that when the battle is won both just want to relax, to "exhale" and to be themselves again. The problem with this that this is usually not a pretty site to behold. For most of us, most of the times when we relax and being ourselves are petty, selfish and vindictive and therefore are hard to put up with. Hence, the ever increasing rate of divorce. So, perhaps the better strategy to decrease it is to keep pretending, no matter how exhausting it is, to be something we are not. There is one thing to be said about hypocrisy - it's surely makes one's life much easier. 1601. Who corrupted whom? I would argue that it were the Germans who "corrupted and poisoned" the Jews and not the other way around, as Hitler maintained and used as the corner stone of the Nazi policy to physically exterminate Jews in order to purify German race. Having watched the German movies made in the last 50 years by the great German directors like Fasbinder, Herzog, von Trotte, and having read the great German writers like Heinrich Mann and Heinrick Boll (and everyone is familiar with the recent and not so recent German history), I came to a conclusion that the Germans in general are not a psychologically healthy nation, that there is some madness running in the German "blood", and this madness historically and culturally well predated any possibility of Jews being responsible for this. Moreover, it is invariably the omnipresent and omnipotent ruling majority that assimilates the powerless minority. The Jews have always been a tiny insignificant minority in the German society, and the most convincing proof of their total cultural assimilation is Yiddish, the German dialect which became the vernacular of the Eastern European Jews. The people who lose their language and adopt someone else's lose their cultural identity, (witness the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh), for the first thing they do to reclaim their lost identity is trying to revive their indigenous language. Also, speaking demographically and anthropologically, few, if any, Germans look like Middleastern Semites, having dark skin, black curly hairs, black eyes and curved noses, while a lot of Easter European Jews have distinct Northern European features, like being blond and blue eyed. So, even genetically, the contribution of "German blood" into the Jewish population was enormous, while the reverse phenomenon practically non existent. Which proves my point, that if any corruption and poisoning took place, it were the Germans who done it to the Jews, and not the other way around. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00567 |