'Scuse me - polly loggies for not having writ for ages...

[johnny9fingers]

Not that I've been doing an awful lot, or have had little time to write: merely that the inclination to share my experiences and opinions seems to be sporadic at best.

However, I did read the P. D. James novel "Death comes to Pemberley" last week, among other works of fiction and fact. It had been recommended to me by a number of people, all of whom knew that "Persuasion" is one of my most reread novels.



Sequels to "Pride and Prejudice" abound, I understand: though I have never read more than a few pages of any without discarding the offensive thing promptly. Baroness James is a better writer than those who have tried before her, and deserving of more consideration, so I laboured my way to the end of her novel.

It just goes to show that Austen, like Wodehouse, is inimitable. Lady James gives us a more modern and realistic take on the period, though she strays into Downton Abbey territory with an overemphasis on life "below-stairs". Also, introducing characters from "Persuasion" appears both incongruous to the original P & P story arc whilst simultaneously playing to a knowing gallery of fan-fiction readers.

At least it is a better sort of best-seller than the fifty shades of wife-beating wealth-and-power-worshipping misogyny disguised as erotica which has apparently become the book du jour for contemporary women: which tells me a lot about the sort of modern women who read it. That fifty shades was written by a woman just makes it worse, I suppose.

Sometimes I despair of modern culture. I do not dislike pr0n, in fact I like pr0n. It's just I like my pr0n to be equal-opportunity and non-exploitative in nature, and specifically, I find wealth-and-power-worshipping pr0n distasteful and degrading to the idea of sexuality. If folk want to be fucked by an obscenely large bank balance, why object to the actions the bankers have taken over the last few years? Why object to the asset strippers, the wealth creators collectors (for that is what they do, they collect wealth for themselves at the expense of others) or the oligarchs, or plutocrats?

Oh, that's right: in the modern world folk don't have any objections to these folk whatsoever. In fact they aim to emulate them in as many ways as possible.

And this is why I feel disinclined to share my thoughts and opinions. It seems I don't quite have the required values for the post-Reagan/Thatcher modern world, and am loathe to rant at empty stalls. One instinctively knows when one is sidelined.

Comments

[david-deacon.livejournal.com]

At least it is a better sort of best-seller than the fifty shades of wife-beating wealth-and-power-worshipping misogyny disguised as erotica which has apparently become the book du jour for contemporary women: which tells me a lot about the sort of modern women who read it. That fifty shades was written by a woman just makes it worse, I suppose.

You haven't heard about its provenance, then? Fifty Shades of Grey was originally a Twilight fanfic about Bella Swan and Edward Cullen. The author later expanded it to book-length and changed the names. Both books are set in the Pacific Northwest, both books have wealthy, controlling men and passive women.

My girlfriend loves the book, but then, what do you expect--she's into bondage and submission. Which suits me fine. She says she gets hot just *reading* Fifty Shades of Grey. So we've sort of been using it as a textbook. It's better-written than Twilight--but so's the back of my toothpaste tube.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I have little objection to S&M pr0n as long as it it equal footing, so to speak: but I dislike the valorisation of money when linked to it.

The reason I mentioned fifty shades in the same piece is that both it and "Death comes to Pemberley" are evidently pieces of fanfic: but to me one has slightly more worth.

Just me being an old curmudgeon, I suppose.

[david-deacon.livejournal.com]

"Slightly"? You are being generous--to Fifty Shades of Grey. It is edgeplay for bored housewives who aren't getting any at home.

[felephant.livejournal.com]

Do you know the anarchist Marxist philosopher Robert Paul Wolff? He has a blog (robertpaulwolff.blogspot.co.uk) which is excellent. I think you'd like it.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I'm not an anarcho-Marxist by any means: more of an old-fashioned Macmillanite High Tory Aristo, but that puts me to the left of our present Labour Party.

I looked at professor Wolff's blog and found it immensely enjoyable. I wonder if I have met him previously. Will enquire further.

Much obliged for the pointer.

[felephant.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well his utopia is Marxist, but he's very down-to-earth about it. He wants every little thing to move consistently to the left, and sees every movement as a victory. So you'll be totally on board with him except that he'll keep going when you think you've gone far enough.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

My utopia would be something along the lines of Iain M Banks's Culture which is probably not too different from Wolff's.

However, the world in which I live, where have and have-nots mingle, I think places an onus of responsibility on those that have, of which I am one.

For example, I know I am my brother's keeper, metaphorically speaking.

(As for the actual Bro, he has been my keeper too from time to time, inasmuch as when I was a struggling muso he was one of the ones who ensured I was fed and watered and had a roof over my head.)