Hello Gentle Reader
Recently i was able to finish the pleasing novel "Kafka on the Shore," by a very talented Japanese novelists Haruki Murakami. The tale is as much metaphysical, and fairy tale quality as it is as serious and enjoyable read as well. At times i have always found that sometimes novels that deal with some form of philosophical, political, metaphysical, et cetera, undertones can often become a tedious read, because the author will focus more on those aspects of the tale/story rather then the plot as well. However Kafka on the Shore is anything but a boring and tedious read. Haruki Murakami keeps a very fresh, tale, and keeps his characters always appear to be new to you, and yet you grow some attachments to them at the same time.
Though the tale is surreal at times, and absurd, even rather shocking at times, yet a person (i am sure) will continue reading because they want to see how the events that had just happened are going to affect the future of one character or all characters. Its difficult to truly describe the feeling this novel will leave on a reader; because Haruki Murakami, is leaving a lot of the work of interpretation up to the reader themselves. what the reader gets out of this most fascinating novel is most likely going to be determined on how they read it, there opinions, and other factors that have surrounded the reader at that point in time, most likely will also influence the experience the reader is given after they read the novel.
One of the interesting aspects of the novel is that the first time a person reads the novel, they get a introduction into it. then years later, the person might read the novel again, and though the plot is the same, they get a new appreciation, some of the riddles makes sense, some of the more surreal parts or strange parts, fit into the puzzle of the novel a bit more gently rather then sitting on the edge of the puzzle, and looking awkward.
In many ways "Kafka On the Shore," is going to be like other novels of the world, that only get better and more entertaining as a person reads it. Haruki Murkami's novel will be like fine wine, as it gets older, it grows more dignified and shows a different side of itself, with every read; unlike other novels, that age like milk, and after the second time leave a soured taste in your mouth.
One thing i will say on this novel, is that, i wouldn't go in reading it, and start thinking that its about a young boy who runs away from home, to find his mother, has crazy adventures, and all the evil people are punished. its anything but that. Haruki Murakami made that quite clear, that sometimes evil people get away with their crimes, and the real people who get punished are the good people. As well as this novel does not really, tie in all the loose ends at the end, that becomes the readers job, and that's what makes Haruki Murakami's novel such a fun read, is its not going to do all the work for the reader, the reader is expected to make their own conclusions. there is a rather general plot, but the entire novel itself, is made to allow the reader to ask questions, and wonder. For anyone out there that doesn't like a novel like that, this is not one for you.
For those that do enjoy a novel that pushes you to think, and wonder, and yet are never truly given any answers, this is a novel for you. With a almost fairy tale quality (old fairy tale quality like the Brothers Grimm among others) and often absurd ideas, and surreal situations, and metaphysical questions, with a sense of reality this novel will have many questioning the novel over and over again.
Thank-you for reading gentle reader
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Science Fiction and Literary Merit
Does Science Fiction have literary merit?
Margaret Atwood, George Orwell, Kazuo Ishiguro, Kobo Abe, William Gibson, Ursula K. Le Guin, and others have or are said to have written science fiction. Though the question is: does science fiction have any literary merit.
Literary Merit apparently goes to more "realistic," or "naturalistic," novels which may take place in the past or present, but are also fictional, and have themes that are rather relevant to the plot of the novel. When a person thinks of science fiction, its set in the future which can be either far far far into the future, or in the near-future. Science fiction usually deals with advanced technology, and sometimes rather bleak futures that are caused by the current events of the present. Totalitarian governments, loss of freedoms, the human races close extinction, and of course many other aspects that are seen as bleak. though i am sure some science fiction shows some Utopia's that are shining, clean, and full of happiness. Of course those aren't read much; as Leo Tolstoy put it:
"Happiness is an allegory, unhappiness a story."
Just because science fiction is set into the future does it mean that has less literary merit?
not really. I think what people fear about science fiction is its, often compared to Fantasy. The difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction though is as Brian Aldiss wrote in a Times article called: "Why don't we love science fiction?" (a link will be provided at the end) is the following (quoted by Brian Aldiss from the article):
"In a fantasy story," Aldiss says, "there's a big evil abroad, but, in the end, everything goes back to normal and everybody goes home to drink ale in the shires. In a science-fiction story, there may be a terrible evil aboard, and it may get sorted out, but the world is f***ed up forever. This is realism. Its certainly not beach reading, unless you can find a really nasty, shingly beach."
In other words does that mean Science Fiction have literary merit because its realism in the future? In my opinion yes. It does have literary merit. Aldous Huxley, wrote "Brave New World," George Orwell wrote "1984," they had literary merit, and can be (are) considered Science fiction.
Though one wonders why the Superiors of the Literature world, look down on Science Fiction as just another bunch of "penny dreadful," novels? Most likely because of their close proximity to Fantasy. Lewis Carroll the author of "Alice Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass," are generally seen as nonsensical novels for children, and are completely illogical. however, underneath the child's amusement of the novel, of the cute quirky feelings we see a deeper hidden meaning that the child does not see but what we see. In many ways that is what Science Fiction might be like in many ways. It has the enjoyment of the plot, and also explores themes that might reflect human nature, culture, and society; yet instead of reading like a long drawn out text book, it comes across as reader enjoyable and scholar worthy.
"Frankenstein," by Mary Shelly, is often considered the first Science Fiction, and is often well regarded as a great novel. i do agree very much with that statement in many ways, for i have read the novel, many years ago. I do think that Mary shelly Had an act at creating a wonderful, tale of what it means to be human, and what it means to play the role of "God."
However, there are two different kinds of science fiction in my opinion. There is Science Fiction that has Literary Merit and explores themes of technology and sciences impact on society, the individual, families et cetera. Then there is the science fiction that would bore me to death, and remind me more of a Physics, Biology, Chemistry or general science text book from high school or even a more advanced course in the science department. You know the stuff that some really, really, really big science buff would read. But literary merit in the end and final point is not rare, or not even non-existent.
In closing, Science Fiction has literary merit, its just often pushed aside as second rate, compared to other literary genres. Though a few novelists and their novels, have pushed past that literary ghetto, and moved forward, to have influenced culture and literature itself. Its not impossible, and the merit and outstanding achievement is there, its just a matter of putting aside the prejudice and discrimination, one can see the themes and influence it can have.
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
Stay safe and stay smart
Morose-Mary
(the promised link)
wont copy on to my blog i apologize i'll figure it out how to get on here somehow. i apologize for the inconvenience
Bibliography:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2961480.ece
Margaret Atwood, George Orwell, Kazuo Ishiguro, Kobo Abe, William Gibson, Ursula K. Le Guin, and others have or are said to have written science fiction. Though the question is: does science fiction have any literary merit.
Literary Merit apparently goes to more "realistic," or "naturalistic," novels which may take place in the past or present, but are also fictional, and have themes that are rather relevant to the plot of the novel. When a person thinks of science fiction, its set in the future which can be either far far far into the future, or in the near-future. Science fiction usually deals with advanced technology, and sometimes rather bleak futures that are caused by the current events of the present. Totalitarian governments, loss of freedoms, the human races close extinction, and of course many other aspects that are seen as bleak. though i am sure some science fiction shows some Utopia's that are shining, clean, and full of happiness. Of course those aren't read much; as Leo Tolstoy put it:
"Happiness is an allegory, unhappiness a story."
Just because science fiction is set into the future does it mean that has less literary merit?
not really. I think what people fear about science fiction is its, often compared to Fantasy. The difference between Fantasy and Science Fiction though is as Brian Aldiss wrote in a Times article called: "Why don't we love science fiction?" (a link will be provided at the end) is the following (quoted by Brian Aldiss from the article):
"In a fantasy story," Aldiss says, "there's a big evil abroad, but, in the end, everything goes back to normal and everybody goes home to drink ale in the shires. In a science-fiction story, there may be a terrible evil aboard, and it may get sorted out, but the world is f***ed up forever. This is realism. Its certainly not beach reading, unless you can find a really nasty, shingly beach."
In other words does that mean Science Fiction have literary merit because its realism in the future? In my opinion yes. It does have literary merit. Aldous Huxley, wrote "Brave New World," George Orwell wrote "1984," they had literary merit, and can be (are) considered Science fiction.
Though one wonders why the Superiors of the Literature world, look down on Science Fiction as just another bunch of "penny dreadful," novels? Most likely because of their close proximity to Fantasy. Lewis Carroll the author of "Alice Adventures in Wonderland," and "Through the Looking Glass," are generally seen as nonsensical novels for children, and are completely illogical. however, underneath the child's amusement of the novel, of the cute quirky feelings we see a deeper hidden meaning that the child does not see but what we see. In many ways that is what Science Fiction might be like in many ways. It has the enjoyment of the plot, and also explores themes that might reflect human nature, culture, and society; yet instead of reading like a long drawn out text book, it comes across as reader enjoyable and scholar worthy.
"Frankenstein," by Mary Shelly, is often considered the first Science Fiction, and is often well regarded as a great novel. i do agree very much with that statement in many ways, for i have read the novel, many years ago. I do think that Mary shelly Had an act at creating a wonderful, tale of what it means to be human, and what it means to play the role of "God."
However, there are two different kinds of science fiction in my opinion. There is Science Fiction that has Literary Merit and explores themes of technology and sciences impact on society, the individual, families et cetera. Then there is the science fiction that would bore me to death, and remind me more of a Physics, Biology, Chemistry or general science text book from high school or even a more advanced course in the science department. You know the stuff that some really, really, really big science buff would read. But literary merit in the end and final point is not rare, or not even non-existent.
In closing, Science Fiction has literary merit, its just often pushed aside as second rate, compared to other literary genres. Though a few novelists and their novels, have pushed past that literary ghetto, and moved forward, to have influenced culture and literature itself. Its not impossible, and the merit and outstanding achievement is there, its just a matter of putting aside the prejudice and discrimination, one can see the themes and influence it can have.
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
Stay safe and stay smart
Morose-Mary
(the promised link)
wont copy on to my blog i apologize i'll figure it out how to get on here somehow. i apologize for the inconvenience
Bibliography:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2961480.ece
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Does Margaret Atwood Write Science Fiction?
Hello Gentle Reader
It were to appear ever since the release of "Oryx and Crake," by Margaret Atwood; a famous and stunning Canadian author, that the great debate about whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction has come about.
Yet a person now must wonder: "what is science fiction?"
Personally when I hear the term Science fiction, I think of complex theories, long winded stupid names, for technology, mankind’s pessimistic side of the distant future, as wells as mankind’s optimistic side of the distant future. Though there is more to it then meets the eyes that is for sure. Aliens, space squids, planets, space travel, time travel, "Star Wars," and "Star Trek," are among the quick idea's that pop into my head when I think of Science Fiction.
Though the question remains: "what is Science Fiction?"
According to this link here:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GPEA_enCA289CA289&defl=en&q=define:science+fiction&ei=n6qZS5PWKIHqtQOhn_CuCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE
Science Fiction is:
"Literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society."
"Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative...”
"Fiction in which advanced technology and/or science is a key element; Technology which, while theoretically possible, is not yet practical."
Point taken; Science Fiction deals (generally) with individuals and societies, that deal with the impact of technology. Okay . . . that’s pretty vague in my opinion. Margaret Atwood's novel, does deal with the biological advancements, of a not too distant future, that is possible, of a super disease that could wipe out the entire world. Remember the swine flu scare? (No Mexico we still haven't forgiven you for that!) But at the sometime, it really doesn't primarily focus, on the characters interactions with technology in my opinion. It focuses on many different levels, with a lot of interaction with characters themselves, that don't even have to deal with technology all the time. Was "Oryx and Crake," science fiction? To some it may have been, to others not; and maybe to some I was even a "slipstream," novel that crossed the borders of two different literature worlds, and combined two elements to create a "genreless," novel.
Yet the debate has continued. Ursula K Le Guinn a science fiction and fantasy author (according to 'wikipedia) has even weighed on the debate. She disagrees with Margaret Atwood on the subject, and has said that she does think that Margaret Atwood does write science fiction (though not entirely) but cannot blame Margaret Atwood for not accepting the label and being thrown into the Literature Ghetto; by the Literary Bigots of the world.
However, a very famous novelists, who won the prestigious Nobel Prize for Literature in 2007 had written a series of science fiction novels, and has not backed down from choosing to do so. her name? Doris Lessing.
Is Science Fiction placed in the Literature Ghetto? perhaps at times, but life has always shown that there are exceptions, and leniency to terms.
Yet the question remains: "Does Margaret Atwood write Science Fiction?"
The answer I find myself saying is this:
Does it matter? The point is Margaret Atwood writes novels. Her novels, are special and beautiful, and are her own, as are Stephen Kings, as are Ursula K Le Guin, as are Doris Lessing, as are Yukio Mishima, as are Jonathan Carroll as are William Gibson. The real debate is not whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction, the real debate is for these people in my opinion, is: Is Margaret Atwood selling out on us? Is she going to write bubblegum realism novels, for teenyboppers? Is she going to write the next Harry Potter franchise? that scares literary big wigs. they don't want a great author, going "Juvenille," in their eyes. they want a great author to remain where they are, and those Literature Bigots, see science fiction as a form of "Juvenille," literature. Which I highly disagree, some is yes. But not always. In fact, as Doris Lessing said in her own words:
"What they didn't realize was that in science fiction is some of the best social fiction of our time. I also admire the classic sort of science fiction, like Blood Music, by Greg Bear. He's a great writer."
Whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction, is the problem; or perhaps the world of Literature is afraid of the outcome. But what does count is that Margaret Atwood is a great writer, and will continue to be that way. She has her own way of writing, and in my opinion defies, the pigeonhole, jam jar labels of her work as "science fiction," or "literary fiction," by simply being her. The debate of whether or not she is a Science Fiction is not what scares people, its than they are afraid that she maybe, and may no longer be the Margaret Atwood that they have come to love. When truth is told she is still being her, they just don't like how they labeled her. The bottom line on the matter is no Margaret Atwood is not a science fiction author. Margaret Atwood is just writing because that’s what she loves to do. She explores themes, in her novels, and social situations, some of them may be in a not so far future, and some maybe, in the present, the point is, Margaret Atwood writes, and her work is her work. They are novels. They have themes. They have memorable characters. They make us think. Margaret Atwood is who she is, and even if she did write a Science Fiction novel, I would still enjoy her work, because it’s just Margaret Atwood being Margaret Atwood.
Take Care Gentle Reader's
Morose-Mary
It were to appear ever since the release of "Oryx and Crake," by Margaret Atwood; a famous and stunning Canadian author, that the great debate about whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction has come about.
Yet a person now must wonder: "what is science fiction?"
Personally when I hear the term Science fiction, I think of complex theories, long winded stupid names, for technology, mankind’s pessimistic side of the distant future, as wells as mankind’s optimistic side of the distant future. Though there is more to it then meets the eyes that is for sure. Aliens, space squids, planets, space travel, time travel, "Star Wars," and "Star Trek," are among the quick idea's that pop into my head when I think of Science Fiction.
Though the question remains: "what is Science Fiction?"
According to this link here:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GPEA_enCA289CA289&defl=en&q=define:science+fiction&ei=n6qZS5PWKIHqtQOhn_CuCQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE
Science Fiction is:
"Literary fantasy involving the imagined impact of science on society."
"Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative...”
"Fiction in which advanced technology and/or science is a key element; Technology which, while theoretically possible, is not yet practical."
Point taken; Science Fiction deals (generally) with individuals and societies, that deal with the impact of technology. Okay . . . that’s pretty vague in my opinion. Margaret Atwood's novel, does deal with the biological advancements, of a not too distant future, that is possible, of a super disease that could wipe out the entire world. Remember the swine flu scare? (No Mexico we still haven't forgiven you for that!) But at the sometime, it really doesn't primarily focus, on the characters interactions with technology in my opinion. It focuses on many different levels, with a lot of interaction with characters themselves, that don't even have to deal with technology all the time. Was "Oryx and Crake," science fiction? To some it may have been, to others not; and maybe to some I was even a "slipstream," novel that crossed the borders of two different literature worlds, and combined two elements to create a "genreless," novel.
Yet the debate has continued. Ursula K Le Guinn a science fiction and fantasy author (according to 'wikipedia) has even weighed on the debate. She disagrees with Margaret Atwood on the subject, and has said that she does think that Margaret Atwood does write science fiction (though not entirely) but cannot blame Margaret Atwood for not accepting the label and being thrown into the Literature Ghetto; by the Literary Bigots of the world.
However, a very famous novelists, who won the prestigious Nobel Prize for Literature in 2007 had written a series of science fiction novels, and has not backed down from choosing to do so. her name? Doris Lessing.
Is Science Fiction placed in the Literature Ghetto? perhaps at times, but life has always shown that there are exceptions, and leniency to terms.
Yet the question remains: "Does Margaret Atwood write Science Fiction?"
The answer I find myself saying is this:
Does it matter? The point is Margaret Atwood writes novels. Her novels, are special and beautiful, and are her own, as are Stephen Kings, as are Ursula K Le Guin, as are Doris Lessing, as are Yukio Mishima, as are Jonathan Carroll as are William Gibson. The real debate is not whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction, the real debate is for these people in my opinion, is: Is Margaret Atwood selling out on us? Is she going to write bubblegum realism novels, for teenyboppers? Is she going to write the next Harry Potter franchise? that scares literary big wigs. they don't want a great author, going "Juvenille," in their eyes. they want a great author to remain where they are, and those Literature Bigots, see science fiction as a form of "Juvenille," literature. Which I highly disagree, some is yes. But not always. In fact, as Doris Lessing said in her own words:
"What they didn't realize was that in science fiction is some of the best social fiction of our time. I also admire the classic sort of science fiction, like Blood Music, by Greg Bear. He's a great writer."
Whether or not Margaret Atwood writes science fiction, is the problem; or perhaps the world of Literature is afraid of the outcome. But what does count is that Margaret Atwood is a great writer, and will continue to be that way. She has her own way of writing, and in my opinion defies, the pigeonhole, jam jar labels of her work as "science fiction," or "literary fiction," by simply being her. The debate of whether or not she is a Science Fiction is not what scares people, its than they are afraid that she maybe, and may no longer be the Margaret Atwood that they have come to love. When truth is told she is still being her, they just don't like how they labeled her. The bottom line on the matter is no Margaret Atwood is not a science fiction author. Margaret Atwood is just writing because that’s what she loves to do. She explores themes, in her novels, and social situations, some of them may be in a not so far future, and some maybe, in the present, the point is, Margaret Atwood writes, and her work is her work. They are novels. They have themes. They have memorable characters. They make us think. Margaret Atwood is who she is, and even if she did write a Science Fiction novel, I would still enjoy her work, because it’s just Margaret Atwood being Margaret Atwood.
Take Care Gentle Reader's
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 11 February 2010
The Fountainhead
Hello Gentle Reader
Recently i had finished reading "The Fountainhead," by Ayn Rand. It was not a "great," book by all means. in fact i think in today's world this entire Ayn Rand, craze is a little overblown in many ways. That being said, Ayn Rand, did produce an interesting book with interesting idea's, and gave interesting characters. Did the book have to be so long? Probably not, i think the length of the book made the tale or the characters a little bit drawn out, and wind bagged, and boring, at times. There is nothing wrong with a slow paced book, but at the same time, a person needs to get the book interesting to keep the reader reading.
An interesting point Ayn Rand made was her views on socialism, and how it was absolutly unnecessary. The idea of collectivism, and how some times people don't know what's good for them, so they need to be forced to know whats good for them, made the work interesting in the ways that the antagonist Toohey was radically a socialist.
The interesting point was that the antagonist Toohey believed that people, needed to help each other. that it was of absolute importance that everyone help the other person out no matter what. that essentially we were our own "brothers keeper."
However, the way Toohey saw people as being each others brothers keeper, was by being forced into it. By telling them they have to help each other, that they have to do everything they can in order to help each other no matter what. Which is wrong. Socialism can only survive on a matter of choice. People do not need to be each others keeper, people can only help each other out when they themselves can afford to do that. If little Johnny is down on his luck, why on earth should someone else help him out when they themselves are just barely getting by? I don't know, and quite frankly i don't see any logic in that matter.
Of course the argument is that the rich CEO's and the wealthier people, should be helping little Johnny out because he is out on his luck. Which is fine, if they choose to help him out. If they didn't that's their own, choice. People demand freedom, and one freedom is choice. choice is a freedom that people deserve. But when people start enforcing their will, on others, that starts to cause problems.
No one likes to be told that the way they dress, the way they think, the way they look, or how they run their lives is wrong. Yet some people feel the need to enforce their views and opinions on others and make them, and make them live their lives the way they choose. that's wrong, a person can only live their life the way they choose.
So in many ways i think Ayn Rand points out that we are independent creatures; social creatures yes, but independent nonetheless. Apes, are social creatures as are elephants, they look after each other out of choice, not because they are being forced to. That's completely different.
Marx was a Utopian thinker, who had thought about the workers, and their rights. they were living in pretty rough conditions and were not being paid all that well let alone being given much to anything. But thanks to him the workers were given rights, they were living a better life. However that time of thinking and day has passed. Now there is legislature that is in place that keeps their rights in check.
Now Socialism is the idea of taking everything of everyone and displacing it out to everyone equally. China is a good example. its thriving, but at the same time, if the western nations and other nations cut off their resources and stopped giving them to China, China's economy fails. that problem, is what causes China to be a very weak nation. They are a economic parasite. Once the source of its economy is removed it will fail, and turn out like Burma or North Korea.
Socialism is unable to thrive in society, because people are independent social creatures. They demand freedoms of all choices, they demand the freedom to wear what they want, do what they want with their bodies, et cetera. They are social creatures, because they have friends (usually some don't, but they are labeled as abnormal by society and scientists) as well as the young stay with the parents until they are 18 (usually/generally).
Just because Human beings are social creatures, does not mean they do not demand a certain amount of Independence and need for Independence either. Its only natural to a degree that people run for the warmth of other people, that does not mean we need to be our "brothers keeper," at all.
Ayn Rand produced an interesting work of her idea's of politics of Independence and egotists. It gives one to think whether or not they should really drop their standards because that's what they want. Howard did not do that, and he lived a rather comfortable life, he lived by his standards and they did not fail him. However that can be risky. The most important aspect of the book i would say is that we can choose to help each other, but we are not meant to be forced to.
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
Please have a great rest of the week.
take care
Morose-Mary
Recently i had finished reading "The Fountainhead," by Ayn Rand. It was not a "great," book by all means. in fact i think in today's world this entire Ayn Rand, craze is a little overblown in many ways. That being said, Ayn Rand, did produce an interesting book with interesting idea's, and gave interesting characters. Did the book have to be so long? Probably not, i think the length of the book made the tale or the characters a little bit drawn out, and wind bagged, and boring, at times. There is nothing wrong with a slow paced book, but at the same time, a person needs to get the book interesting to keep the reader reading.
An interesting point Ayn Rand made was her views on socialism, and how it was absolutly unnecessary. The idea of collectivism, and how some times people don't know what's good for them, so they need to be forced to know whats good for them, made the work interesting in the ways that the antagonist Toohey was radically a socialist.
The interesting point was that the antagonist Toohey believed that people, needed to help each other. that it was of absolute importance that everyone help the other person out no matter what. that essentially we were our own "brothers keeper."
However, the way Toohey saw people as being each others brothers keeper, was by being forced into it. By telling them they have to help each other, that they have to do everything they can in order to help each other no matter what. Which is wrong. Socialism can only survive on a matter of choice. People do not need to be each others keeper, people can only help each other out when they themselves can afford to do that. If little Johnny is down on his luck, why on earth should someone else help him out when they themselves are just barely getting by? I don't know, and quite frankly i don't see any logic in that matter.
Of course the argument is that the rich CEO's and the wealthier people, should be helping little Johnny out because he is out on his luck. Which is fine, if they choose to help him out. If they didn't that's their own, choice. People demand freedom, and one freedom is choice. choice is a freedom that people deserve. But when people start enforcing their will, on others, that starts to cause problems.
No one likes to be told that the way they dress, the way they think, the way they look, or how they run their lives is wrong. Yet some people feel the need to enforce their views and opinions on others and make them, and make them live their lives the way they choose. that's wrong, a person can only live their life the way they choose.
So in many ways i think Ayn Rand points out that we are independent creatures; social creatures yes, but independent nonetheless. Apes, are social creatures as are elephants, they look after each other out of choice, not because they are being forced to. That's completely different.
Marx was a Utopian thinker, who had thought about the workers, and their rights. they were living in pretty rough conditions and were not being paid all that well let alone being given much to anything. But thanks to him the workers were given rights, they were living a better life. However that time of thinking and day has passed. Now there is legislature that is in place that keeps their rights in check.
Now Socialism is the idea of taking everything of everyone and displacing it out to everyone equally. China is a good example. its thriving, but at the same time, if the western nations and other nations cut off their resources and stopped giving them to China, China's economy fails. that problem, is what causes China to be a very weak nation. They are a economic parasite. Once the source of its economy is removed it will fail, and turn out like Burma or North Korea.
Socialism is unable to thrive in society, because people are independent social creatures. They demand freedoms of all choices, they demand the freedom to wear what they want, do what they want with their bodies, et cetera. They are social creatures, because they have friends (usually some don't, but they are labeled as abnormal by society and scientists) as well as the young stay with the parents until they are 18 (usually/generally).
Just because Human beings are social creatures, does not mean they do not demand a certain amount of Independence and need for Independence either. Its only natural to a degree that people run for the warmth of other people, that does not mean we need to be our "brothers keeper," at all.
Ayn Rand produced an interesting work of her idea's of politics of Independence and egotists. It gives one to think whether or not they should really drop their standards because that's what they want. Howard did not do that, and he lived a rather comfortable life, he lived by his standards and they did not fail him. However that can be risky. The most important aspect of the book i would say is that we can choose to help each other, but we are not meant to be forced to.
Thank-you for reading Gentle Reader
Please have a great rest of the week.
take care
Morose-Mary
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Thomas Bernhard
Hello Gentle Reader
i once again apologize for writing this on Saturday, my Internet was not working on Thursday (the usual blogging day) and Friday i forgot. i am really forgetful i suppose you could say.
The other day i came across a author/play write, by the name of Thomas Bernhard. An interesting character is all i can say really, i have been unable to read his work, yet, but i plan on reading some of his novels for sure. It sounds like that Mr. Bernhard was quite a controversial figure in his time. Of course its hard to really say, if Thomas Bernhard actually cared if he was a controversial figure or not. That of course is what makes Thomas Bernhard such a fascinating author, is that he did not give a damn about what people thought of his work, or the criticism, of his work, or what critics say. I think Bernhard just simply believed that if people are to stupid to accept his work, as it is, and just leave it alone, then they are to stupid to do anything.
In some ways i think Thomas Bernhard, did not care if his work was gaining praise or being criticized. in many ways he wrote simply because he enjoyed it, and if people did not like it, i don't think he bothered with them.
What made Thomas Bernhard such a fascinating person, and his works, the way they were, is most likely because he spoke with a frank form of a speaking, not sugar coating anything, and just allowing his work to flow from his pen, not wasting his time, with paragraphs, and such. in many ways perhaps Thomas Bernhard was a Austrian Samuel Beckett. interesting enough as i search Amazon.ca and look at the criticism and praise of his works, some journalist/critic of a magazine/news paper/news source, had said the following:
“Here is a novelist with uncommon talents of a sort possessed by Kafka, Musil, and Beckett.” —Saturday Review
(you can find the above quote here: http://www.amazon.ca/Gargoyles-Novel-Thomas-Bernhard/dp/1400077559/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b )
Even if they Saturday Review had criticized Bernhard's work, as "vulgar," or "depressing," i am sure he would have shrugged it off, and called the person a fool or a "incompetent," neanderthal. What makes the fact that Bernhard was apathetic towards his reviews, and critic's is, that i don't think he cared for a lot of praise either, as far as anyone knows (other then Bernhard himself) he just wrote, because he enjoyed it, and did not care about anyone else thought of his work.
That apathetic attitude is probably why Bernhard has made comments like:
"a brutal and stupid nation … a mindless, cultureless sewer which spreads its penetrating stench all over Europe."
The nation he talks about in the above line is Austria is home, and native land. that of course caused a huge issue in Austria, but what can expected that Austria was more or less angry by his opinion of his country. whether or not he cared what the general public thought only he would know.
Though Thomas Bernhard, wrote works, of pain, suffering, suicide, isolation, death et cetera, he always stated in interviews that he loved life. Which (in my opinion) is quite true, because i think Thomas Bernhard, understood that life amounted to death, and would always end with death, whenever it happened. So by understanding that simple idea, i think Thomas Bernhard, was able to live a life comfortably, and peacefully, by accepting his own mortality rather then hiding or running from it, or heaven forbid people to do it, challenge there own mortality.
Thomas Bernhard, was a writer, that challenged society, challenged the world, challenged war, challenged life, and challenged human existence and life itself. In all it could be said that Thomas Bernhard never truly cared, whether he lived or died, or existed or just slept in a eternal peace (or suffering). In many cases one could say that Bernhard, just wished to enlighten people on their own ignorance and selfish desires. Though he went around doing in a less then pleasurable way of of talking and rather simply, demanding people their open their eyes on their own, rather then he being forced to do it for them. In may ways, though he spoke of the opposite of what his message may have been; Thomas Bernhard, spoke of life and enjoying it before death happens, before suicide, or before depression. Thomas Bernhard could been as the accuser, or the objector of everything people try to tell themselves, all the lies they feed themselves, everything.
I hope i did do Thomas Bernhard some justice with this blog/essay.
here are some Quotes by Bernhard:
"Everyone, he went on, speaks a language he does not understand, but which now and then is understood by others. That is enough to permit one to exist and at least to be misunderstood." — Thomas Bernhard (Gargoyles: A Novel)
"Art altogether is nothing but a survival skill, we should never lose sight of this fact, it is, time and again, just an attempt -- an attempt that seems touching even to our intellect -- to cope with this world and its revolting aspects, which, as we know, is invariably possible only by resorting to lies and falsehoods, to hyprocrisy and self-deception, Reger said. These pictures are full of lies and falsehoods and full of hypocrisy and self-deception, there is nothing else in them if we disregard their often inspired artistry. All these pictures, moreover, are an expression of man's absolute helplessness in coping with himself and with what surrounds him all his life. That is what all these pictures express, this helplessness which, on the one hand, embarasses the intellect and, on the other hand, bewilders the same intellect and moves it to tears, Reger said." — Thomas Bernhard (Old Masters: A Comedy)
"Lawyers make nothing but confusion...A lawyer is an instrument of the devil. In general, he's a fiendish idiot, banking on the stupidity of people much more stupid than himself, and by God he's always right." — Thomas Bernhard
( all quotes were found here: http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7745.Thomas_Bernhard )
take care Gentle Reader
i hope that some of you find Thomas Bernhard interesting and may read some of his works someday. I personally plan on reading "The Limeworks," first.
Thank-you for taking the time out of your day to read my Blog Gentle Reader it means a lot.
Morose-Mary.
i once again apologize for writing this on Saturday, my Internet was not working on Thursday (the usual blogging day) and Friday i forgot. i am really forgetful i suppose you could say.
The other day i came across a author/play write, by the name of Thomas Bernhard. An interesting character is all i can say really, i have been unable to read his work, yet, but i plan on reading some of his novels for sure. It sounds like that Mr. Bernhard was quite a controversial figure in his time. Of course its hard to really say, if Thomas Bernhard actually cared if he was a controversial figure or not. That of course is what makes Thomas Bernhard such a fascinating author, is that he did not give a damn about what people thought of his work, or the criticism, of his work, or what critics say. I think Bernhard just simply believed that if people are to stupid to accept his work, as it is, and just leave it alone, then they are to stupid to do anything.
In some ways i think Thomas Bernhard, did not care if his work was gaining praise or being criticized. in many ways he wrote simply because he enjoyed it, and if people did not like it, i don't think he bothered with them.
What made Thomas Bernhard such a fascinating person, and his works, the way they were, is most likely because he spoke with a frank form of a speaking, not sugar coating anything, and just allowing his work to flow from his pen, not wasting his time, with paragraphs, and such. in many ways perhaps Thomas Bernhard was a Austrian Samuel Beckett. interesting enough as i search Amazon.ca and look at the criticism and praise of his works, some journalist/critic of a magazine/news paper/news source, had said the following:
“Here is a novelist with uncommon talents of a sort possessed by Kafka, Musil, and Beckett.” —Saturday Review
(you can find the above quote here: http://www.amazon.ca/Gargoyles-Novel-Thomas-Bernhard/dp/1400077559/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b )
Even if they Saturday Review had criticized Bernhard's work, as "vulgar," or "depressing," i am sure he would have shrugged it off, and called the person a fool or a "incompetent," neanderthal. What makes the fact that Bernhard was apathetic towards his reviews, and critic's is, that i don't think he cared for a lot of praise either, as far as anyone knows (other then Bernhard himself) he just wrote, because he enjoyed it, and did not care about anyone else thought of his work.
That apathetic attitude is probably why Bernhard has made comments like:
"a brutal and stupid nation … a mindless, cultureless sewer which spreads its penetrating stench all over Europe."
The nation he talks about in the above line is Austria is home, and native land. that of course caused a huge issue in Austria, but what can expected that Austria was more or less angry by his opinion of his country. whether or not he cared what the general public thought only he would know.
Though Thomas Bernhard, wrote works, of pain, suffering, suicide, isolation, death et cetera, he always stated in interviews that he loved life. Which (in my opinion) is quite true, because i think Thomas Bernhard, understood that life amounted to death, and would always end with death, whenever it happened. So by understanding that simple idea, i think Thomas Bernhard, was able to live a life comfortably, and peacefully, by accepting his own mortality rather then hiding or running from it, or heaven forbid people to do it, challenge there own mortality.
Thomas Bernhard, was a writer, that challenged society, challenged the world, challenged war, challenged life, and challenged human existence and life itself. In all it could be said that Thomas Bernhard never truly cared, whether he lived or died, or existed or just slept in a eternal peace (or suffering). In many cases one could say that Bernhard, just wished to enlighten people on their own ignorance and selfish desires. Though he went around doing in a less then pleasurable way of of talking and rather simply, demanding people their open their eyes on their own, rather then he being forced to do it for them. In may ways, though he spoke of the opposite of what his message may have been; Thomas Bernhard, spoke of life and enjoying it before death happens, before suicide, or before depression. Thomas Bernhard could been as the accuser, or the objector of everything people try to tell themselves, all the lies they feed themselves, everything.
I hope i did do Thomas Bernhard some justice with this blog/essay.
here are some Quotes by Bernhard:
"Everyone, he went on, speaks a language he does not understand, but which now and then is understood by others. That is enough to permit one to exist and at least to be misunderstood." — Thomas Bernhard (Gargoyles: A Novel)
"Art altogether is nothing but a survival skill, we should never lose sight of this fact, it is, time and again, just an attempt -- an attempt that seems touching even to our intellect -- to cope with this world and its revolting aspects, which, as we know, is invariably possible only by resorting to lies and falsehoods, to hyprocrisy and self-deception, Reger said. These pictures are full of lies and falsehoods and full of hypocrisy and self-deception, there is nothing else in them if we disregard their often inspired artistry. All these pictures, moreover, are an expression of man's absolute helplessness in coping with himself and with what surrounds him all his life. That is what all these pictures express, this helplessness which, on the one hand, embarasses the intellect and, on the other hand, bewilders the same intellect and moves it to tears, Reger said." — Thomas Bernhard (Old Masters: A Comedy)
"Lawyers make nothing but confusion...A lawyer is an instrument of the devil. In general, he's a fiendish idiot, banking on the stupidity of people much more stupid than himself, and by God he's always right." — Thomas Bernhard
( all quotes were found here: http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/7745.Thomas_Bernhard )
take care Gentle Reader
i hope that some of you find Thomas Bernhard interesting and may read some of his works someday. I personally plan on reading "The Limeworks," first.
Thank-you for taking the time out of your day to read my Blog Gentle Reader it means a lot.
Morose-Mary.
Friday, 15 January 2010
Mervyn Peake and His Three Novels
Hello Gentle Reader
I understand that I have missed another Blogging date and for that I apologize sincerely with all my heart. Things of late have been shaky, here, and in all just general chaos of life, and its rather hectic schedules, among other aspects. For that I apologize.
Though other then myself apologizing for my inadequacy of not posting, as I should have been I have good news. The novels "Titus Groan," "Gormenghast," "Titus Alone," all which were written by Mervyn Peake have been read, and enjoyed. The first two novels, were splendid I really enjoyed them, and found the control, that Mervyn Peake, has over, the English language to be superb, and by far, wonderful. However one can tell that at the last novel, that Parkinson's disease was beginning to take its toll, and was/is the death of Mervyn Peake. I feel bad, for it, I enjoyed the world, very much, but I also felt very bad: because reading the work, I found myself, seeing Mervyn Peake at the best time (in my opinion) and then I watched him slowly degrade into his death.
It’s unnerving, to say the least, to watch the talent of a great person, escape their fingers, and escape their mind.
As much as I was thoroughly entertained and even thought provoked, I found himself, sad in the end, to know that both the series end's there (incomplete) and that Mervyn Peake perished at the age of 57 by the monstrosity of Parkinson's Disease.
So now I begin to read "The Fountainhead," by Ayn Rand and after I am finished it, I will begin to "In Search of Lost Time: 'Volume 1 Swans Way, and Volume 2 Within A Budding Grove," and after that I have no more books that need to be read. However I am sure along the lines from there and until here I will find something, that I will most likely want to read.
The good news keeps coming (at least I think this is good news that is) the thought has crossed my mind, on many occasions on many accounts, and I would like to do it. Though I have not been able to do it of late, without an idea that I can properly work with I think I found one that I can work with and hopefully entertain you my gentle readers with. So the idea is hopefully to serialize a story/novel in the blog.
Once a mouth I hope to put up (parts) chapters and allow the story to progress like that as well. However of late, since things have been so hectic and so crazy it'll be hard, but I will certainly try. So I look forward to getting the first part/chapter done for next month so that can be serialized.
I will say this though, the idea of "Magical Realism," has floated around me for quite sometime, and I would like to give this a try if I may.
For those who are not familiar with Magical Realism, I’ll explain the best I can.
Magical Realism is the literary genre that is different from Fantasy in the ways that it is fantastic elements incorporated in realistic situations. For example:
"The Wizard of Oz," Dorothy is transported to the Land of Oz, which is a completely different world or universe in its own. That makes Fantasy.
Magical Realism does not move the character to a new world, but rather uses the world at hand with magical elements, that are other wise normal, in the situation. the mundane are normal or not looked at, as fantastic, they just are. so novels like
"The Wind Up Bird Chronicle,"
and
"Kafka On the Shore,"
and
"The Trial,"
and
"The Time Travelers Wife,"
and
"The Alchemist,"
are all Magical Realist, and not fantasy because they are not escapist, they allow the reader to look into themselves, and human existence. Magical Realism differs from author to author, and opinion to opinion. so I’ll do my best, and hope for the best. Here is hoping you are entertained.
Take Care
and
thank-you for taking the time of your day to read my blog
Morose-Mary
I understand that I have missed another Blogging date and for that I apologize sincerely with all my heart. Things of late have been shaky, here, and in all just general chaos of life, and its rather hectic schedules, among other aspects. For that I apologize.
Though other then myself apologizing for my inadequacy of not posting, as I should have been I have good news. The novels "Titus Groan," "Gormenghast," "Titus Alone," all which were written by Mervyn Peake have been read, and enjoyed. The first two novels, were splendid I really enjoyed them, and found the control, that Mervyn Peake, has over, the English language to be superb, and by far, wonderful. However one can tell that at the last novel, that Parkinson's disease was beginning to take its toll, and was/is the death of Mervyn Peake. I feel bad, for it, I enjoyed the world, very much, but I also felt very bad: because reading the work, I found myself, seeing Mervyn Peake at the best time (in my opinion) and then I watched him slowly degrade into his death.
It’s unnerving, to say the least, to watch the talent of a great person, escape their fingers, and escape their mind.
As much as I was thoroughly entertained and even thought provoked, I found himself, sad in the end, to know that both the series end's there (incomplete) and that Mervyn Peake perished at the age of 57 by the monstrosity of Parkinson's Disease.
So now I begin to read "The Fountainhead," by Ayn Rand and after I am finished it, I will begin to "In Search of Lost Time: 'Volume 1 Swans Way, and Volume 2 Within A Budding Grove," and after that I have no more books that need to be read. However I am sure along the lines from there and until here I will find something, that I will most likely want to read.
The good news keeps coming (at least I think this is good news that is) the thought has crossed my mind, on many occasions on many accounts, and I would like to do it. Though I have not been able to do it of late, without an idea that I can properly work with I think I found one that I can work with and hopefully entertain you my gentle readers with. So the idea is hopefully to serialize a story/novel in the blog.
Once a mouth I hope to put up (parts) chapters and allow the story to progress like that as well. However of late, since things have been so hectic and so crazy it'll be hard, but I will certainly try. So I look forward to getting the first part/chapter done for next month so that can be serialized.
I will say this though, the idea of "Magical Realism," has floated around me for quite sometime, and I would like to give this a try if I may.
For those who are not familiar with Magical Realism, I’ll explain the best I can.
Magical Realism is the literary genre that is different from Fantasy in the ways that it is fantastic elements incorporated in realistic situations. For example:
"The Wizard of Oz," Dorothy is transported to the Land of Oz, which is a completely different world or universe in its own. That makes Fantasy.
Magical Realism does not move the character to a new world, but rather uses the world at hand with magical elements, that are other wise normal, in the situation. the mundane are normal or not looked at, as fantastic, they just are. so novels like
"The Wind Up Bird Chronicle,"
and
"Kafka On the Shore,"
and
"The Trial,"
and
"The Time Travelers Wife,"
and
"The Alchemist,"
are all Magical Realist, and not fantasy because they are not escapist, they allow the reader to look into themselves, and human existence. Magical Realism differs from author to author, and opinion to opinion. so I’ll do my best, and hope for the best. Here is hoping you are entertained.
Take Care
and
thank-you for taking the time of your day to read my blog
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Multiculturalism of Canada – A Mistake Beyond Repair
Hello Gentle Reader:
Do you have one of those grandmothers who think that duct tape will fix every little problem and issue? Well to be honest I don’t, but if you do I feel your pain; because Canada’s government is now slowly and surely learning that there policy on Multiculturalism is slowly cracking up, and more and more chinks (Chink: a crack, cleft, or fissure) are appearing on the so called “cultural mosaic,” that has become Canada’s identity.
The issue has been described in quite a few articles:
This link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2009/08/16/10476011-sun.html
As the article points out:
“”The Chinese of Markham have little interaction with the Indians of Brampton, or the Pakistanis of Mississauga, or the Sri Lankans of Scarborough, or the Somalis of Islington," warned Singh, adding you can "forget about" integration with "mainstream white society.””
That was not what the idea of Multiculturalism was about. Multiculturalism was about taking the time to allow others to feel at home, within Canada when they immigrated here. The thought about moving to another country (in some cases) is a huge hope filled lifter of spirits, but when they get here, they see the busy and fast moving society that I love. So the government decided that it was time, to help these poor and unfortunately souls out and allowed them to keep their language and culture while they lived here. Well now days, younger generations like myself must put up with this idea of people, not speaking English or French, and cannot even write in Canadian language. Well this may come to a surprise of a few people is this Canada. It’s not a lot in my opinion to speak English or French (depending where you live) and be able to live with in mainstream life. If people want democracy so bad, and want to live in a democracy so bad, then I think they might as well, learn to adapt to what’s the idea of Canada.
Multiculturalism is destroying Canada, not furthering it. It is allowing us to become a breeding ground of terrorism, radicalism, and fundamentalism. Why does this concern me a real Canadian? This infringes on my right to have my rights heard. I don’t want to loose my rights, to some one else because they cry racism when they are denied the idea of killing someone.
If in another country; lets call it “fandmuokisinaztan,” is staying that its okay to eat another person, and someone leaves that country and becomes and immigrant here in Canada, they then decide they are hungry and eat another person, the person is getting charged, and then the immigrant then cry’s out the most used word in the English language: “Racism!” So the politicians of Canada stops for a moment, and reconsider if they want to try the immigrant, while the rational and sane citizens say try the bastard, the politicians afraid of being considered racist if they do, let him go, and he goes on his merry way. Two months later he is back in court, for eating a baby. The court begins to put him on trial he cries racism again. This is such a joke, that us as Canadians are afraid to protect our citizens because we would be considered “racist,” under the idea of being Multicultural.
So many Canadians are fed up with being multicultural, and being told at a young age, that it’s good to love other cultures. I do love other cultures, but I don’t love cultures that are going to try and destroy and ruin my way of life. If I so decide to love a man or a woman, or decide to wear a shirt that says, “fuck you,” on it, and watch porn, I decide that because that’s my right. If someone doesn’t like that, fine by me, though the problem is and always shall be is they don’t think anyone should like that. I don’t like “gangsta,” (which is not a word) rap, so I don’t buy the music, and I don’t support the artists; there end of my rap problem so to speak. I would never try and say no to someone who like sit, if they buy the CD that’s their business. However someone always says that’s not right, and try’s to take that away. The PMRC led by the lovely Tipper Gore tried to do that. Anyhow, other cultures are fine, but the culture of the mother country is what matters. You interact with everyone, you speak English, you have a job, you pay taxes, you have a family you can speak with et cetera.
Multiculturalism has been nothing but a hindrance upon Canadian society; the idea of the country tearing apart at the seams and grouping into their own communities based on race, sexuality, religion, et cetera appears to be more real then ever. Multicultural society or a failed society doomed to fall to pieces? A question worth an answer, but answer only time can tell. However, the lack of participation and action by the Canadian government, and the growing frustration’s of the rational mainstream Canadian people, is growing more and more alarming as time passes, what will happen in the future? Will this country fall apart, because no one is willing to stand up for him or herself or shall we expect another revolution, and turn into some insane country bent on one culture, and one identity? Who knows, and I don’t for sure, however its one thing that history taught me is: the longer you ignore the problem, the worst it gets; kind of like an infection . . . you never know, you could loose your finger or toe if its not treated; but here is hoping Canada does not loose itself.
Take Care Gentle Reader
Morose-Mary
Do you have one of those grandmothers who think that duct tape will fix every little problem and issue? Well to be honest I don’t, but if you do I feel your pain; because Canada’s government is now slowly and surely learning that there policy on Multiculturalism is slowly cracking up, and more and more chinks (Chink: a crack, cleft, or fissure) are appearing on the so called “cultural mosaic,” that has become Canada’s identity.
The issue has been described in quite a few articles:
This link: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2009/08/16/10476011-sun.html
As the article points out:
“”The Chinese of Markham have little interaction with the Indians of Brampton, or the Pakistanis of Mississauga, or the Sri Lankans of Scarborough, or the Somalis of Islington," warned Singh, adding you can "forget about" integration with "mainstream white society.””
That was not what the idea of Multiculturalism was about. Multiculturalism was about taking the time to allow others to feel at home, within Canada when they immigrated here. The thought about moving to another country (in some cases) is a huge hope filled lifter of spirits, but when they get here, they see the busy and fast moving society that I love. So the government decided that it was time, to help these poor and unfortunately souls out and allowed them to keep their language and culture while they lived here. Well now days, younger generations like myself must put up with this idea of people, not speaking English or French, and cannot even write in Canadian language. Well this may come to a surprise of a few people is this Canada. It’s not a lot in my opinion to speak English or French (depending where you live) and be able to live with in mainstream life. If people want democracy so bad, and want to live in a democracy so bad, then I think they might as well, learn to adapt to what’s the idea of Canada.
Multiculturalism is destroying Canada, not furthering it. It is allowing us to become a breeding ground of terrorism, radicalism, and fundamentalism. Why does this concern me a real Canadian? This infringes on my right to have my rights heard. I don’t want to loose my rights, to some one else because they cry racism when they are denied the idea of killing someone.
If in another country; lets call it “fandmuokisinaztan,” is staying that its okay to eat another person, and someone leaves that country and becomes and immigrant here in Canada, they then decide they are hungry and eat another person, the person is getting charged, and then the immigrant then cry’s out the most used word in the English language: “Racism!” So the politicians of Canada stops for a moment, and reconsider if they want to try the immigrant, while the rational and sane citizens say try the bastard, the politicians afraid of being considered racist if they do, let him go, and he goes on his merry way. Two months later he is back in court, for eating a baby. The court begins to put him on trial he cries racism again. This is such a joke, that us as Canadians are afraid to protect our citizens because we would be considered “racist,” under the idea of being Multicultural.
So many Canadians are fed up with being multicultural, and being told at a young age, that it’s good to love other cultures. I do love other cultures, but I don’t love cultures that are going to try and destroy and ruin my way of life. If I so decide to love a man or a woman, or decide to wear a shirt that says, “fuck you,” on it, and watch porn, I decide that because that’s my right. If someone doesn’t like that, fine by me, though the problem is and always shall be is they don’t think anyone should like that. I don’t like “gangsta,” (which is not a word) rap, so I don’t buy the music, and I don’t support the artists; there end of my rap problem so to speak. I would never try and say no to someone who like sit, if they buy the CD that’s their business. However someone always says that’s not right, and try’s to take that away. The PMRC led by the lovely Tipper Gore tried to do that. Anyhow, other cultures are fine, but the culture of the mother country is what matters. You interact with everyone, you speak English, you have a job, you pay taxes, you have a family you can speak with et cetera.
Multiculturalism has been nothing but a hindrance upon Canadian society; the idea of the country tearing apart at the seams and grouping into their own communities based on race, sexuality, religion, et cetera appears to be more real then ever. Multicultural society or a failed society doomed to fall to pieces? A question worth an answer, but answer only time can tell. However, the lack of participation and action by the Canadian government, and the growing frustration’s of the rational mainstream Canadian people, is growing more and more alarming as time passes, what will happen in the future? Will this country fall apart, because no one is willing to stand up for him or herself or shall we expect another revolution, and turn into some insane country bent on one culture, and one identity? Who knows, and I don’t for sure, however its one thing that history taught me is: the longer you ignore the problem, the worst it gets; kind of like an infection . . . you never know, you could loose your finger or toe if its not treated; but here is hoping Canada does not loose itself.
Take Care Gentle Reader
Morose-Mary
Thursday, 15 October 2009
The Nobel Prize for Literature . . . . .
Hello Gentel Reader
On October, 8th, 2009 the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature was anounced. The winner of this year's prestigouse literary award is: Herta Müller.
"who, with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed"
For that reason, Herta Müller was awared the Nobel Prize for Literature. May Herta Müller enjoy the prize as she deserves and may her work, be renowed, and read far and wide, for everyone to enjoy.
Congralutions to this years Nobel Laureate in Literature.
Take Care Gentle Reader
and thank-you for reading
Morose-Mary
On October, 8th, 2009 the winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature was anounced. The winner of this year's prestigouse literary award is: Herta Müller.
"who, with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed"
For that reason, Herta Müller was awared the Nobel Prize for Literature. May Herta Müller enjoy the prize as she deserves and may her work, be renowed, and read far and wide, for everyone to enjoy.
Congralutions to this years Nobel Laureate in Literature.
Take Care Gentle Reader
and thank-you for reading
Morose-Mary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)