| Author | Message | ||
     Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.151.150 |
Des - you said once or twice that this is your favourite film. I watched it on Saturday night on our big projector and it was very beautiful. I thought it was uneventful but it's stayed in my mind. I wonder why you like the film, what it means to you? I found it strangely reassuring, like the chap had gone to a kind of limbo place where everything is in the process of fading, like a very slow, ordered explosion. I suppose this is what life is, but here in the film it's happening before our eyes. The boy was very beautiful. He was like a mystery, like he dwelled on this fading world, managed to stay within it somehow, perhaps by the gravity of the mystery he provided to people (even though only Bogarde - and us - noticed him.). I still can't make up my mind about it. Maybe time will play a part in that decision. And it certainly stunned being such a huge image. Honestly, everyone today must order a projector (sorry to everyone I've bored about this subject - it's just it's been like some religious event for me). I could see an influence on Sergio Leone in this film btw (the influence of opera?). Was he, does anyone know? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.169.219.237 |
Hi, Tony. I watched it at the cinema (1971?) when it first came out. Major effect on me. Obsession, Unrequited Love, Philosophy of Art and my first introduction to the music of Mahler (a love that has stayed with ever since). And the gorgeous pastel-painted cinematography of Venice, the hotel foyer, the musicians on the balcony, the city's insidious sinking into Choleric decay with whitewash disinfectant... And now the film still develops with me, and at the stage in my life today, I see myself as the Dirk Bogarde character sinking in his deckchair, mascara (metaphorically for me!) dripping down my face. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.151.150 |
Reading up on the Thomas Mann story and the making of the film it actually stirs up some odd questions I'm almost loathe to ask. Has anyone been in the same boat as this chap in the film, being sttracted to someone completely not right for them? It rang bells for me because I remember once spending a sunny afternoon walking and talking with this girl who was 12 (I was 17 or 18) and feeling like I'd fallen in love, proper love. She was so wise and kind and happy it felt medicinal being around her. And the same, many years later, with the old mum of this woman I was seeing, a plump old lady in her 60s (the mum, not the gf!) who had the most magic view of the world and emanated so much kindness and warmth it made my girlfriend seem suddenly really dull. It was like these people had some perfection in them that transcended life somehow. I've felt these things for blokes, too, and it doesn't feel sexual. It feels more like the sight of some destination I can't reach in myself, if that makes sense. This has been a scary admission but I hope it's common. Thanks Des, for mentioning the film - it made me want to watch it and I'm glad I did. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.68 |
"Has anyone been in the same boat as this chap in the film, being sttracted to someone completely not right for them?" Certainly. It was true both of me and of the girl I was briefly engaged to back in 1967. We were young and desperate, I fear, but I learned my lesson and hope she did. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 220.138.164.55 |
I've found myself in this boat a few times, when I was younger. Not this time, thankfully! | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.60.173 |
Has anyone been in the same boat as this chap in the film, being sttracted to someone completely not right for them? Completely not right according to the mores of the times, yes. But there is definitely a sense of mutual attraction in the film. Not just that smile - "You should never smile like that, not to ayone, do you hear!" - they are several times on the verge of talking, e.g. in the evening scene on the balcony. It would have been very easy to start a conversation under those circumstances, and probably have raised no eyebrows, even in such stiffling company. I find myself in this boat - as Huw so eloquently phrases it - regularly. Not so much now that I'm getting older, but it still happens. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
It's life, Tony. Human are essentially physical, emotional, non-rational beings. We do crazy things in the name of vaguely defined but powerful emotions. There's no solution to this! The best course of action, I suspect, is not to admit directly in public anything that can give a tactical advantage to your enemies (if you have any) but to admit it only indirectly through the medium of fiction, or not at all. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
Has anyone been in the same boat as this chap in the film, being attracted to someone completely not right for them? Yes. I have. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Who hasn't? | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
Constantly, Tony, constantly... in fact I've made a science out of it!  | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
A more interesting question is how many of us have tried to do something about it despite knowing how easily we're going to take a major fall because of it? | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
I'm not sure it's possible to do anything about it, Weber - our emotions are what our emotions are and I don't think we can control them. For example, many years ago when I was young, wild and a little reckless, I fell for a guy who was a complete b*****d. I knew he was, but I couldn't help my feelings. I tried to wean myself off him, and ended up going out with a couple of other guys (not at the same time, I hasten to add - I did have some morals in those days!) who were sweet and kind as could be. I remember thinking "why, oh, why can't I fall in love with one of these two instead of the b*****d". But it was to no avail.  | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.180.105 |
Because they were dull. People want excitement, even if it's due to fear. Scary people represent strength, and we feel alive when we're scared, and feel safe around strength whatever form it takes. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
The only thing a person can do, Weber, is not to give up on life, but to put the past behind you, remain true to yourself and your instincts and keep taking chances. One day one of them is bound to pay off, and even if it doesn't, think of the fun you'll have had along the way lol. Bitterness comes from taking life, and the unknowable other, far too seriously imo. One should strive never to let bad (or good) experiences change the intrinsic YOU, as it's all you got and any "change" you think you've made is always illusory. That's my theory anyway. | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
>>Because they were dull.<< Oh, I dunno, Tony. One of the sweet guys took me to see the film "Squirm" about man-eating worms, knowing full well that I have a phobia about snakes and am a little squeamish about worms too. We then stopped for a Chinese take-away (lots of slimy noodles and bean sprouts) to eat in his van afterwards. That was quite scary!  | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Here's a useful opportunity to nail the popular myth that people are attracted to "the forbidden". This remains a key principle of homophobic rhetoric: people who want same-sex relationships do so because they know it's forbidden, whereas heterosexual relationships lack the glamour of wickedness. That is a twisted lie. The shadow of moral condemnation limits, inhibits and often corrodes love. The film version of Death in Venice, to my mind, is a little anachronistic in its overtly erotic feel and its general preoccupation with visual opulence. The story isn't just about sexual obsession, it's about guilt and despair, repression and hypocrisy. The film has a poor sense of the story's meaning and context. And the boy is altogether too knowing, too ready – you're given the impression that if it weren't for the cholera epidemic they would have ended up screwing. The world of the story is blighted and benighted – that of the film is stylish and romantic. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.165.39.90 |
The world of the story is blighted and benighted – that of the film is stylish and romantic. ============== That makes it such an interesting experience, I'd say - particularly with its Philosophy of Art aspects. | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.56 |
When I said "A more interesting question is how many of us have tried to do something about it despite knowing how easily we're going to take a major fall because of it?" I meant, how many of us have tried to actively pursue the "Forbidden" attraction despite knowing the inevitable fall? | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I was forever ending up with girls from the wrong side of the tracks - i.e. Protestants - when I was growing up within the "peace walls" of Belfast. But that was mainly because they went all the way, while you'd be lucky to cop a feel after 6 months dating a good little, nun-taught Catholic girl lol. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.60.173 |
and ended up going out with a couple of other guys (not at the same time, I hasten to add  Joel, I found the depiction of mutual attraction quite realistic. You'll know better than I that boys like Tadzio do exist in real life But overtly erotic? I thought in this respect the film was quite subdued. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
You're so right, Joel, it is a lie! I insist upon wickedness within my heterosexual relationships! | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.165.39.90 |
I agree with Hubert's use of the word 'subdued' - Subdued but rich with eye-flirting. Maliciously so, perhaps, on Tadzio's part. Or just 'innocence' finding its feet as tentative 'experience'? On Dirk Bogarde's part, just a deliciously stoic laziness preventing him to take anything beyond stretching out in a deckchair. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.60.173 |
Stoic laziness? I think Asschenbach is petrified by the mere presence of this real-life young demigod, but above all he comes across as shaken beyond belief by his own feelings. It's like being in love with the sun - he cannot live without it and at the same time knows his ever-deepening attraction and involvement will destroy him in the end. Tadzio's flirtation is innocent in my view, fuelled by curiosity of course. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.180.105 |
I thought Dirk was a bit scared. As for forbidden, the sense of such a thing still lingers even when things are more accepted. Maybe it's forbidden because it frightens us personally, and we often do try to dance with fear a bit. I read about the short story and it sounds quite different. Somewhere between film and story it seems to me lies not a story about homosexuality totally but rather the loss of youth and innocence, how dead you really feel when it's gone but now and then catch glimpses of it within yourself. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.180.105 |
Hubert - and the young are often puzzlingly flattered by the attention of the older. But yes, falling in love with the sun. That seems almost literal in the film. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.165.39.90 |
Well, yes, I agree with all that, but transcending that is the actual evidence of the film - if not of the book (I've never taken this film as a rendition of the book but just a cinema film) - evidence that he patently does nothing about his unrequited love, which I put down to an intrinsic laziness finally reaching the ultimate toic laziness - death? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.165.39.90 |
My last post was in reply to Hubert - and it should be stoic not toic. The latter is something to do with toes.  | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.60.173 |
'Stoic laziness' would imply aloofness, a being in control of himself, whereas he's fighting and simultaneously surrendering to the feelings. The German text literally says - "Er will es und er will es icht" - "he wants it and doesn't want it" (quoting from memory here). | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.60.173 |
oops: "... und er will es nicht." At the end he reclines in his chair because he's too ill to do much more than just that. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.165.39.90 |
Although I wouldn't want to compare the book with the film - but treat them separately - "he wants it and doesn't want it" seems to convey what I'm trying, but so far failing, to say about the Dirk Bogarde character in DiV. Thanks, Hubert. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.46.5 |
"Here's a useful opportunity to nail the popular myth that people are attracted to "the forbidden". This remains a key principle of homophobic rhetoric: people who want same-sex relationships do so because they know it's forbidden, whereas heterosexual relationships lack the glamour of wickedness. That is a twisted lie." There ARE people who do sexual things simply because they're exotic, though! I remember Channel 4 reporting years ago about gay men and lesbians sleeping together, which is one of the top 10 funniest things I've ever heard in my life. I mean, how jaded would you have to be? | ||
| Degsy (Degsy) Username: Degsy Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 86.133.49.52 |
"Has anyone been in the same boat as this chap in the film, being attracted to someone completely not right for them?" And thus God created The Blues... | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.176.112 |
"I remember Channel 4 reporting years ago about gay men and lesbians sleeping together" Not because it's forbidden. Simply because it's daft enough to be cute. Not all sex is about passion. Some is just frivolous. Or maybe it's about bi-curious gay-identified people exploring in a context where the emotional stakes are low. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.46.26 |
I really want to see it in a comedy show. It's just the kind of scenario that Peep Show would make bleak and funny simultaneously. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.155.197 |
Anyone here see the 2004 film about Alfred Kinsey? Splendid film that illustrated how open-minded fact-gathering exploded both religious and scientific preconceptions about human sexuality. Kinsey's work established that most people are on a spectrum between absolute hetero- and homosexuality, with the 'pure' extremes being rare rather than prevalent. Fifty years on we're still struggling to absorb that theoretically and ideologically, but it hasn't stopped being true. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.60.173 |
Plus in one lifetime there can be fluctuations between those theoretical extremes, meaning that it's possible that certain individuals switch from hetero- to homosexual preference. I forget whether that is a Kinsey dictum, however. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.173.166.96 |
May I just lower the tone, but keep in line with the last few comments? Q. "What's the difference between a straight man and a bisexual man?" A. "About four pints". | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Is that from personal experience, Mick? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 85.125.12.10 |
Four pints of what? | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
> Kinsey's work established that most people are on a spectrum between absolute hetero- and homosexuality... That's absolutely true, of course. So why does homophobia actually exist? That's what I can't get my head around. Because of fear? Fear of what exactly?! Fear there would be a population collapse if everyone had gay sex instead of straight? I can't see any other basis for fear of homosexuals that makes even the remotest sense in political, economic, philosophical or religious terms. All logical factors considered, homophobia simply shouldn't exist. But it does exist. It's a weird situation really. Exuse the pun, but it seems that even the definition of "gay" is quite fluid; certainly it isn't written in stone. In some countries in the world you are only gay if you are on (so to speak) the "receiving end" of the action. A male who takes the "active" role is considered "straight" regardless of the gender of the object of his attentions. One only has to look at the Ancient Greeks to see that what mattered morally was that in sex a man was always the active partner. The passive partner was expected not to enjoy it, but simply to wait until he grew old enough to earn the right to become active too. The idea of switching roles in any other manner seemed to be out of the equation altogether for them, almost as if the Greeks didn't believe such a thing was possible. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
> Here's a useful opportunity to nail the popular myth that people are attracted to "the forbidden". To be honest, Joel, when I was younger I went out of my way to do "forbidden" things, just as a way of sticking two fingers up at the meddling, interfering busybodies around me. William Burroughs said that in Mexico in the 1940s it was possible to walk down the street in a white suit, wearing a monocle and carrying a silver cane, with a parrot on one's shoulder; and that no onlooker would bat an eyelash or make any comments. This lack of reaction wasn't because people weren't intrigued, but simply because they knew how to mind their own business. That's the kind of society I want: one where people don't comment on what other people do, where they feign disinterest. And in return for this insouciance, their own "pecularities" are ignored... | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.142.199.132 |
And why is gay such a derogatory term? All the kids use it to describe soft or uncool people, or dull things. Have we to remove it from describing things that are actually gay? I want to go back to Katherine Mansfield, who had several quite open gay relationships. People have suggested she was not gay but rather 'transgressive', open-minded. Is there a link between this sort of open-mindedness and a certain type of creativity? Gay writers do write differently, I think, and interestingly. Also, an odd thing, I've encountered a few people in life who were gay but also had such a very-straight vibe about them. Is gay really an attitude, after all, as it used to be? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.142.199.132 |
Rhys - my wife made me a full-length Dr Who scarf over Christmas, identical to the Baker one. I've yet to conjure the nerve to wear it. The sense of forbidden is in us; we need to feel we are stepping outside ourselves just to be excited (and i don't just mean sexually). I think we WANT there to be 'forbidden' people or figures. Maybe even need them, like human everests. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
> I've encountered a few people in life who were gay but also had such a very-straight vibe about them... Yes, there's no such thing as GAYDAR. That's one of the big myths of modern life. (Another is that women can multi-task and men can't; in fact our brains are almost identical and the differences are miniscule. The truth is that no one can multi-task.) | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
> The sense of forbidden is in us; we need to feel we are stepping outside ourselves just to be excited... Personally I think it's also partly to do with the (somewhat unwholesome) desire to feel superior to other people, especially to those around us. It's a sort of, "Look at me being brave enough to do forbidden things while you stay at home and just fantasise about them: I'm better than you, I'm a man of destiny, a cool dude. I'm alive but you just exist. I'm one of the elite; you're a loser!" I've encountered this many times, and been guilty of it myself. "Where's the most dangerous place in Morocco? Ketama in the Rif, eh? Better go there then; I bet you wouldn't dare. Look at me blowing you off the stage! Look at me: I've got two girlfriends; you've only got one, or none. Look at me: I've done a parachute jump. Have you? Didn't think so! I've had gay sex too, bet you are too timid to try that, aren't you. This proves I'm virile, far more virile and manly than you. I'm superior." Although this is labouring the point somewhat, I maintain it's a true impulse, partly responsible for the allure of so-called forbidden things. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.142.199.132 |
'Anthony Heilbut's biography Thomas Mann: Eros and Literature (1997) was widely acclaimed for uncovering the centrality of Mann's sexuality to his oeuvre' It strikes me as amazing that a writer can be 'mined' in that way, his engine unearthed. From Wiki, about Mann; "Throughout his Dostoyevsky essay he finds parallels between the Russian and the sufferings of Frederich Nietzsche. Speaking of Nietzsche he says: "his personal feelings initiate him into those of the criminal... in general all creative originality, all artist nature in the broadest sense of the word, does the same. It was the French painter and sculptor, Degas who said that an artist must approach his work in the spirit of the criminal about to commit a crime."[6] Nietzsche's influence on Mann runs deep in his work, especially in Nietzsche's views on decay and the proposed fundamental connection between sickness and creativity. Mann held that disease is not to be regarded as wholly negative. In his essay on Dostoyevsky we find: "but after all and above all it depends on who is diseased., who mad, who epileptic or paralytic: an average dull-witted man, in whose illness any intellectual or cultural aspect is non-existent; or a Nietzsche or Dostoyevsky. In their case something comes out in illness that is more important and conductive to life and growth than any medical guaranteed health or sanity... in other words: certain conquests made by the soul and the mind are impossible without disease, madness, crime of the spirit." | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
Interesting. Nietzsche's entire philosophy in a nutshell is simply: don't seek to evade difficulties and troubles; embrace them and turn them into positives... Amazing that he's still the most misunderstood philosopher ever. I still meet people who think he was somehow a proto-Nazi or a right winger. Bizarre! But anyway... | ||
| Carolinec (Carolinec) Username: Carolinec Registered: 06-2009 Posted From: 92.232.199.129 |
>> - my wife made me a full-length Dr Who scarf over Christmas, identical to the Baker one. I've yet to conjure the nerve to wear it.<< Tony - there's a Doctor Who convention in Sheffield in March. No-one would bat an eyelid if you wore it there! >>So why does homophobia actually exist? .. Because of fear? Fear of what exactly?! Fear there would be a population collapse if everyone had gay sex instead of straight? I can't see any other basis for fear of homosexuals that makes even the remotest sense in political, economic, philosophical or religious terms. All logical factors considered, homophobia simply shouldn't exist. But it does exist.<< But it's not *just* homophobia, is it? We could ask the same questions about why people form an irrational hatred of people of different races, different religions, different sub-cultures, disabled people, and so on. My belief is it's a lack of understanding of things which are different to us, rather than an actual *fear* of those things. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.59.115.60 |
I have thoughts about homophobia, or at least that part of it that relates to men. 1. I believe that some men believe that by simply associating with gay men, it'll be assumed that they are gay too, and they're scared of that. 2. a lot of straight men assume all gay men would fancy them... | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.59.115.60 |
Is that from personal experience, Mick? Only takes me two, Gary!  | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
I grew up in an aggressively homophobic and sexually backward community ruled by the dictates of the Church, and Irish mothers. As a result I spent my youth accepting homophobia as the norm and thinking of gay people as mentally warped. It is thus my experience that homophobia comes from social conditioning and ignorance. It was rejecting my religious upbringing and re-educating myself through literature, cinema and travel to more tolerant countries, as well as my own innate curiosity and liberal mindset that taught me the error of my ways and to see gay people as real individuals (rather than bogeymen) defined by their personalities and moral values, rather than their sexuality. Like John Magill, in Peter Mullan's magnificent 'NEDS', I was frequently called a "poofter" myself because my head was forever stuck in a book as a child. That's the kind of fucking morons I grew up among and decided at an early age I wanted no truck with... | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.60.173 |
a lot of straight men assume all gay men would fancy them Worse, if you're too friendly to men you're autimatically suspected of being gay. Women are less restricted in this respect, maybe because they are allowed to show their feelings openly. | ||
| Skip (Wolfnoma) Username: Wolfnoma Registered: 07-2010 Posted From: 216.54.20.98 |
What are "Feelings"? | ||
| Weber (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.12.129.12 |
Like an eel with extra fings added | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.165.39.90 |
I've just rediscovered the brief piece I wrote about 'Death In Venice' in 2004 on the old-fashioned interweb - the 2nd item down on this page: http://web.archive.org/web/20060813100421/lostpages.net/2004lostandfounddfl.html | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Nietzsche's entire philosophy in a nutshell is simply: don't seek to evade difficulties and troubles; embrace them and turn them into positives... From what I've read of Nietzsche, Rhys, I'd contend that he is simply impossible to "nutshell" - it would be as futile an exercise as nutshelling Jesus. You are surely referring to and advice-rendering his "eternal yea," where to accept any positives in your present, you simply have to accept all the long string of negatives that led up to that, both personally and in history. But that's more a definition to Nietzsche. If you take his central "eternal recurrence" (which is a sort of "message" of sorts) instead as the nutshell (which would be more logical, being more vital in his writings, even to Nietzsche himself) you could, in this daily-platitude manner, better sum him up as: Live your life as if you were going to live it over again. That's a very difficult (i.e., painful) concept to grasp, and not so simply unwound as one might think.... | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.35 |
Craig - I came up with that idea years ago! - then forgot. Does this mean I'm as clever as Nietzche? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
No. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
| ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.35 |
Maybe just a bit more forgetful then. Is he the guy who hit the guy who hit a horse and went nuts? I'd do that, too. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Yes. And he forgot things too... for the last 11 years of his life, in a near-vegetative state.... Read his, what is essentially, a horror short-short (with an oddly Lovecraftian flavor to it), "The Madman," probably one of the most central and profound things he wrote: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/nietzsche-madman.html This too could be more accurately described (though nothing is) as the "nutshell" Nietzsche.... | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 178.116.60.173 |
Nietzsche is great for these random thoughts (which some would call aphorisms), stray bits here and there as it were, but apart from his Übermensch 'theory' (if it can be called that) it's difficult to find much cohesion in his writings. Gawd knows I've tried. Schopenhauer is much more worthwhile imho. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
He didn't hit a horse, Tony. He saw a felled horse being beaten and threw himself over the horse to shield it with his body. This was the final straw for him. Overwhelmed with the tragedy and pain of life he then went nuts. Alternatively he had syphilis. The jury is out. Nietzsche for me is the most important lifestyle philosopher of the past 2000 years. (The most important analytical philosopher is Wittgenstein, or maybe David Hume) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.35 |
Ah, Rhys - I said 'Did he hit a guy WHO hit a horse'. Yes, I thought he'd protected it. It's an awful story - I have reacted to things like that, and can see his fate being mine one day. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.114.15 |
I've always liked David Hume as a person. It sounds odd, but I do feel I have a sense of the man from his ideas alone. What does "live your life as if you were going to live it again" mean? | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 80.4.12.3 |
Sorry, Tony, I misread your comment about the horse. My mistake! | ||
| Degsy (Degsy) Username: Degsy Registered: 08-2010 Posted From: 86.133.49.52 |
'What does "live your life as if you were going to live it again" mean?' I've always seen this as an anti-existentialist message from Nietzsche, in the sense that: 'if you were to (potentially) live forever' - via reinarnation, eternal recurrence, or whatever, what is it that you have within yourself that has the potential to remain immortal, is deserving of immortality... | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
I think it's more than that, Degsy. Nietzsche prefaces this question (asked a few times, but most notably) posing it as a "What if?"; and the what if is, what if a demon came to you and told you this. In other words, and as he goes on to say (explicitly), this is the equivalent of the worst horror imaginable on this Earth: that you'd live everything exactly as you have, every pain and terror lived all over again... unless, you are so powerful, living the kind of life so worthy, that you actually wouldn't mind. Thinking this as a GOOD thing? Nietzsche (again explicitly) goes on to say, that only the most strong/self-aware/free of individuals could possibly contemplate this and conclude thusly - and the conclusion is, obviously, to live your life so that you can conclude thusly.... | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
Craig is right on this point. It's fundamental to Nietzsche's whole concept of the "Uberman" (which has absolutely nothing to do with racial purity or supremacism, as some people seem to think)... Basically, Eternal Recurrence as Nietzsche conceived it is a psychological tool. If you were condemned to live exactly the same life over and over for eternity, the average person would consider this to be a terrible fate: only the person with no regrets would welcome such a situation. That person is an uberman. Nietzsche's proposition was that we use this striving as a guide to our lives: try to make yourself into an uberman, in other words try to live a life without regrets. That doesn't mean avoiding bad things: it means not resenting bad things, but embracing them and harnessing their energy for positive effects. Some people seem to think that Nietzsche believed that Eternal Recurrence was a genuine physical phenomenon. Almost certainly he didn't. It's a psychological tool; it has metaphorical meaning only. It's a guide. Nietzsche also doubted that anyone would ever be born capable of achieving a life without any regrets. The idea is merely to get as close to that ideal as possible. One of the most succint summaries of Eternal Recurrence and its consequences is contained in the very first chapter of Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Bizarrely, even people I like and respect keep getting Nietzsche wrong. I've heard him described as a supremacist (he wasn't), as a militarist (he wasn't), as "darkwave" (he wasn't), as negative (he wasn't), as aggressive (he wasn't)... Even highly intelligent people like Bertrand Russell, Simon Louvish and Simon Bestwick consistently get Nietzsche completely wrong! The first public lecture I ever gave was on Nietzsche, back in 1997 when I was a philosophy student. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
I'm no Nietzschean scholar, Rhys, so I'd just like to ask: how is he on ethics/morality? What makes me ask is this: living a life without regrets may well involve impinging upon others and maybe even preventing them from living a life without regrets. I suddenly have an image of 6 billion balloons being inflated inside a box. The box would break. So might society. Does Nietzsche discuss this problem? Is living without regrets contextualised and limited by communal considerations? Is this the bit Hitler got wrong? | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
This is the crux of the problem, Gary. What's right and good and empowering for an isolated individual might well become destructive when applied by everyone simultaneously... The same problem applies to Max Stirner and other advocates of unfettered individualism, egotistical nihilism, etc. Yes, Nietzsche did discuss the problem of ethics. His most original work is in the field of ethics. On the Genealogy of Morality is his key text. He defined so-called conventional morality (the morality of our own society) as "slave morality", in which we are in thrall to ressentiment (rather inadequately translated as 'resentment')... We resent those who are in a better position than us: this feeling is the source of all our frustrations and woes. He advocated "aristocratic morality" as a superior form of morality to "slave morality". The aristocrat feels no resentment because he/she is above such feelings. They have no use for resentment because they aren't frustrated; and the reason they aren't frustrated is because they don't regard the tribulations of life as negatives, but as sources of positive energy. For such people, resentment is superfluous. Unfortunately the word "aristocrat" conjures up visions of snotty upper class bigots, but it's not that kind of aristocrat that is meant here. It's just an unfortunate choice of word. Nietzsche's aristocrat is merely someone with a big enough heart not to feel resentment, to accept the world as it is, including all the bad things, but not passively (from a position of weakness) but actively (from a position of strength). He recommends, for instance, that we turn our hatreds into contempt. If you hate something it's because you fear it: your hatred is an acknowledgement that it has power over you, that it can harm you. If you feel contempt for something, it means that thing is beneath your consideration. It can't harm you. As for the breaking of society, there's no easy answer to this, but one thing that Nietzsche was utterly against was the authority of external systems. Hitler stood for everything he was against. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
Nietzsche's opposition to authority is something that figures such as Lenin, Hitler and Bestwick just can't seem to get their heads around... | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 92.41.22.14 |
Rhys, from what you're saying Nietzsche came up with the perfect psychological tool for defeating envy in the individual, while the incident with the horse shows he wasn't above charity. That makes him a top bloke in my view. I wonder what you make of Kirillov's theory (in Dostoevsky's 'The Devils'/'The Possessed') that the individual's own Will is the ultimate reality and that by defeating fear of death and choosing to end his life without a care he has proclaimed himself God. I would say that belief in individual linear existence as all there is "proves" Kirillov correct but to accept the illusory nature of individualism and to embrace the (in my view more logical) concept of an infinitely conscious universe, that creates its own eternal variety of numberless realities shows Kirillov to have been tragically misguided - with Peter Verkhovensky the arch devil egging him on. Nietzsche's superman theory would appear to be more grounded in reality as rather a philosophical attitude by which to live one's life, and make one's moral decisions, than a concrete theory of the nature of reality. Does any of this tie in with John Fowles' book of philosophical musings 'The Aristos' (1964)? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
>>>Nietzsche's aristocrat is merely someone with a big enough heart not to feel resentment, to accept the world as it is, including all the bad things, but not passively (from a position of weakness) but actively (from a position of strength). I dig this a lot. I do feel that a lot of what bedevils us as people is envy. However, misery isn't relative. A man living in the gutter would still be unhappy surrounded by men who live in the gutter. The body has certain needs which are irrelevant to psychology and meaning. I would suggest that latter-day discontent is an extension of envy into the sphere of non-essential attributes. That is, in the past, a homeless, moneyless man might envy a fed and sheltered one and have every existential right to do so. Whereas now, a man without a Porsche envies a man with a Porsche and has no right to do so, because he's sheltered and fed and probably drives a solid little Ford anyway. (As for smashing his face in, that's quite a different matter.) | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
>>>>The aristocrat feels no resentment because he/she is above such feelings. They have no use for resentment because they aren't frustrated; and the reason they aren't frustrated is because they don't regard the tribulations of life as negatives, but as sources of positive energy. For such people, resentment is superfluous. Another thing I've always felt is this: envy is a failure of 'lived world' imagination. That is, the envious man does not understand that everybody is in the same shitty boat and that external symbols of contentment/power, etc, are just that: bogus symbols designed to signify to others a better lifestyle. (Indeed, the very act of signifying - the need to do so - is borne of unhappiness.) For me, the ultimate paradox in life is this: there's a great deal of happiness to be derived for truly realising how unhappy life is. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
And why? Because it shatters slave morality/envy/resentment. Ergo, Nietzsche was right. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
the envious man does not understand that everybody is in the same shitty boat and that external symbols of contentment/power, etc, are just that: bogus symbols designed to signify to others a better lifestyle. Then why, Gary, is there never a voluntary emigration from these supposed positions of contentment/power? For example: one does see emigration from, say, the pleasures of binge eating to stricter diets, or emigration from the pleasures of multiple sexual partners to committed monogamous relationships - there is neither a denial of pleasure in the former, nor a misunderstanding of greater benefits to be gained, in the latter (judging by pure numbers). But not so in cases of these very "external symbols": does the Porsche driver ever voluntarily give it up for the simple Ford? Never. Does the man living on the mansion on the hill ever voluntarily give it up for the simple life in the suburbs? Never. Does the man with exceeding riches give up the bulk of it to his suffering neighbors, and instead live a spartan life, free of all such burdens of wealth? (Ha!) Never. The truth is, that these very "We're all in the same shitty boat"-isms, are clever ways the more powerful further subjugate the weaker, and so keep themselves safe and secure in their positions of power. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
We are all in the same shittty boat when it comes to what really matters. We all have bodies which fail us. We all struggle with relationships. We all struggle to be understood. We all struggle to remain motivated. We're all going to die. None of us know where we come from. Etc. All the rest is just window dressing. Money and power merely maximises our capacity to wrestle with these issues. And yes, who'd want to give it up? These issues need all the leverage we can muster. But none of us - neither Warren Buffet nor the bloke who cleans the toilets in my town - is any closer to mastering them and never will be. It's that 'shitty boat' I was referring to. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 09-2010 Posted From: 86.165.39.90 |
Gary sums it up nicely. | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 92.41.31.37 |
But what really matters in life? To remain true to oneself and one's moral values and refuse to play the game by others' rules or to bow to the practical realities of ingratiation, playacting and biting one's tongue in order to "succeed" and "make something of oneself"? It's a decision we are all forced to make - some much earlier than others - and once one steps over the line of doing what is expected, rather than what one feels to be right, then the Will has been surrendered, the head has been allowed to rule the heart, and the potential superman is revealed as merely a man. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.30.169 |
Thanks for the information on Nietzsche, fellows. It impelled me to the library today: "Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it is even becoming mob." | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 99.126.164.88 |
Yes indeed, Rhys was very good at summing up Nietzsche up there! You're right, of course, Gary... unless, you're only saying that so that you can feel guilt-free about your avariciously stroking your ever-swelling coffers of greed....  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
>>>>>>But what really matters in life? To remain true to oneself and one's moral values and refuse to play the game by others' rules or to bow to the practical realities of ingratiation, playacting and biting one's tongue in order to "succeed" and "make something of oneself"? It's a decision we are all forced to make - some much earlier than others - and once one steps over the line of doing what is expected, rather than what one feels to be right, then the Will has been surrendered, the head has been allowed to rule the heart, and the potential superman is revealed as merely a man. This is all very pretty talk, but it fails to factor in the economic necessity which is EARNING A LIVING, which in the great majority of cases is anathema to the sentiments expressed therein. My feeling is that one of the most significant motivators for the acquisition of wealth is to be captain of one's own (shitty) boat. Psychological transformation is all very well, but as Yeats and Merleau-Ponty and others knew all too well, consciousness is only such because it's wedded to a body, a body which hungers, which needs shelter, which yearns for stimulation and comfort. Freedom is only possible, therefore, once a certain threshold of material comfort has been achieved. Check out Abraham Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' - a vital corrective to idealist theory about the capacity of man to achieve self-actualisation. I therefore suggest that the rich man has a far greater chance of becoming Uberman. I'm reminded of Shaw's greatest line: Higgins: "Good God, man, have you no morals?" Doolitte: "Can't afford em, gavna." I'd be very surprised if Nietzsche didn't discuss all this stuff. He was working at a time when philosophy was fusing with politics. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
But, as I said above, it's all just pissing in the wind. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
In other words, mustn't it just piss Rupert Murdoch off when he looks in the mirror and sees a failing 80 year old? | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.35 |
Rhys; Diane Arbus referred to those odd deformed/special need people she photographed as 'aristocrats' because they had had these huge trials in life and had overcome them. I wonder if she had heard of Nietzsche. Also, they generally don't have to work. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.35 |
And I know it sounds daft, but isn't the film Titanic Nietzschian? We watched it on the projector last night and it was the dialogue that affected me more than the action (my oldest son; 'They should make a ride of this at Disney. And 9/11.'). I took 'live your life as if you are reliving it' to mean it in an sf way - 'if you had the chance to live your life again what would you do?' Just imagine you ARE and behave accordingly. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
I never liked that speech in Titanic by the Jack character. All that, I never know where I'll be or under what stars I'll sleep, etc. Romantic nonsense. One week of howling wind and relentless rain and he'd be queuing up for employment like the rest of us poor saps. This reminds me of a Greek fable, I think, about the Stoics. Some state leader was riding through the desert and chanced upon a chap sitting in the sun, poorly dressed and eating scraps of food. The state leader, taking pity on this chap, loomed above him and said, "Please, sir, let me give you whatever you desire." At which point the seated chap looked up and said, "Great! Get out of the way of the sun, then!" A charming story, and one which attempts to illustrate that contentment can have a simple basis. But my point is this: that story occurred in Greece, where sunshine reigns supreme. What about lands in which the climate is decidedly less conducive to embodied well-being? Please don't take my allusion to the weather literally. I'm simply making the point that the world makes a number of demands on all of us and that self-actualisation/freedom must be positioned within these various contexts. And money/power helps. But ultimately, I say again, we're all lassoed to the world and there's only one escape route. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.35 |
But Gary - people have done that. And died. The kid that left home for those very reasons and ended up a skeleton in an old school bus, miles from anywhere. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
Also, while I'm on the subject, the Jack character seemed to conveniently forget the fact that he looked like Leonardo DiCaprio. I wonder whether Rose would have taken to this amiable chancer, and whether Jack would have been quite so luckyinlife, if he'd looked like Peter Beardsley . . . | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
Well, if dying is a risk you're willing to take, go for it! Personally, however, I'll err on the side of remaining alive, thanks. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
Would Nietzsche call me a coward? Should I give up the day job and starve in a garret? Am I refusing to exercise will-to-power? If so, I'll call him a nobhead. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.35 |
Oh, I wasn't saying that it's righ to sidestep life, just that we sometimes do feel it inside us that we would like to. But yes, it's just a film. But films - however cackhanded - still have the power to press certain buttons. BTW look at this; I love the way bad translation can somehow show strange truths; http://ettigerejpqr.spaces.live.com/Blog/ | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
> This reminds me of a Greek fable, I think, about the Stoics. If you're referring to Diogenes of Sinope, he was a Cynic rather than a Stoic and his quip about getting out of his sun was made to his admirer, Alexander the Great. There are considerable points of philosophical difference between the Cynics and the Stoics, but please don't entice me into that path! Your point about the weather is well made though, Gary. You've put your finger on the sun-kissed nub of the issue. It's possible to live a poor outdoors life far more easily in a warm country than in a cold wet rainy country. One of the ancient philosophers I most admire was Epicurus. He advocated the simple life. In fact he decided there were only three rules for simple happiness: (1) independence (enough money to minimise the intereference of governments and bureaucrats), (2) friends, (3) occasional time out for contemplation... It is possible to live an Epicuream lifestyle. I tried it myself three years ago in Spain, in a small community. We had no electricity, running water was a stream and I slept outdoors in a hammock. We grew our own food, traded the surplus for other things with other farms, made our own entertainment etc. There are some photos of my time there, if anyone is interested, here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhysaurus/page10/ The thing about the bloke who went to Alaska and died of starvation was that he wanted not an Epicurean life as such, but a rugged outdoors hunter's life, so he was expecting ice and cold, etc. I much prefer balmy temperatures myself! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
Epicurus is my man, then! Thanks for correcting my patchy knowledge, Rhys! Of course my allusion to the weather - the conceptual point - should be transferred to different kinds of social organisation, too. The weather is just a useful heuristic/metaphor here. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
Actually, no, I want more than Epicurus advocated. I want a range of modern conveniences. I'm a bad Epicurean. Mind you, maybe if ancient Greece had had washing machines, old Eppy would have added a fourth rule to his list: 4) all mod-cons | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
We had a washing machine in the community I stayed in. It was bicycle powered! Here it is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhysaurus/797431723/ This calls for a jingle. Ready? Now feet that do laundry can be soft as your brain in mild green anarchist living! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
Why did you come back, Rhys? Just as a matter of idle interest. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
For a woman. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
Ah. Your biography will contain great un-embroidered truths. | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
I'm seriously toying with the idea of going again, at the end of this year. This time maybe to a project called Auroville: http://www.auroville.org/ It's not a place I can just walk into, though. I'll have to apply and pass the introductory period successfully. To get there I need the money for my airfare. I'm hoping to raise the airfare just from the sale of my books. For instance my strongest collection to date is now available for pre-order. It's called The Brothel Creeper and is available from Gray Friar Press (you are probably familiar with them, Gary, bearing in mind they are you). For more details click here: http://www.grayfriarpress.com/catalogue/brothel.html Anybody who likes my fiction should seriously consider buying this book, as any royalties I receive from its sale will go towards my airfare to a new Epicurean life! Alternatively, if you hate my guts, buy this book and help to get rid of me by packing me off to South India. You know it makes sense! It's win-win situation, folks! The Brothel Creeper. You know it makes scares. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.31.7.247 |
It's as if we planned this whole thread as a marketing opportunity! | ||
| Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus) Username: Rhysaurus Registered: 01-2010 Posted From: 212.219.233.223 |
Yes, rather. Airfares to India aren't too bad at the moment. £500 should cover it. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.153.144.35 |
Yes, it has, like so many threads here, become something of a chimera. Now - back to the subject of plasticene. |