In the flesh
CO10PI wrote: You're quite mistaken about me and my preferences. In the first place, I like what I like, and have many reasons to do so. Full stop. Except for the fact that I'm not using the language I know, so I have to express myself using terrific periphrasis just to get to the same point. Anyway, thanx for reminding me that I manage to muddle through, despite all my efforts. That's awfully sweet of you. Were you a gentleman, I wouldn't be going through all this, English included -by the way, this is my last try; either you find a latin-based language to use (preferably Spanish), or else I quit. In the second place, I'm not at all bothered by anybody's age -though we all have ours. So much so, that it's the least of what calls my attention about you. I'm a lot more concerned by the fact that you are using me as your psychiatrist, once stated you don't want to show your colours by any means. I'm starting to think I'd better stop wondering who you are, and start running from somebody who lives in the backstage, playing "Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde" fundamentalistically for himself. I don't care for people who see life that way. In the third place, you should try harder and read "Cien años de soledad". It's one of the essential books in modern literature and one of the best pieces of all times. It's not just a matter of "magic realism", but of sensibility, and sense too, and life, and human kind, and love and sex, and all that matters. It's almost as great as "El Quijote". And sorry for you, but U is far behind. If you ever try Böll, you'll understand what am I talking about: you needn't be a bore to be a great writer. Ok for Wolf and James. Very well for Camus and great for Borges. But you should try non-oscurantists to let some new oxygen into your life! Thanx for the post-card (is that how you feel?), and for the second lesson on "eclectic & good" I receive in 48 hrs. If you open your mind a little and try not to think in a Manichean way, you'll see that I say things clear and simple. Don't try to find arguments there are not. From David Still: Your English is just fine. It is though your trying to come to grips with distinctions about what is eclectic that is a bit--dare I say this: muddled. Why not simply: I like that which strikes me as good, no matter genre, period, author, etc. Clearly this seems to be the case. And no: the South American writers are nice but I get quickly bored with magic realism, including 100 years of who cares about solitude. sorry. The one major exception goes beyond mere geographical borders. Borges. Calvino, goodie goodie too. And U by Joyce linked by David Lodge in his recently published critical essays along with Virgian Wolff and H. James as dealing with consciousness, and so linked with what seems the major thrust of cognitive science these days (for which see Pinker, The Blank Slate, just out)..and a fun read is David Lodge, Thinks, a novelized attempt to deal with Ideas of congnitive science but muddled in the world of sex and relationships etc that seriously detract (though great fun) from what he is after in his more tendentious part of the novel. Louis Armstrong: It don't mean a thing if it anin't got that swing. Ah: I promesi sposi (The Betrothed)--wonderful in encompassing the Plague as in a much more limited but overly obvious way Camus, The Plague. write me. I adore you. and why worry overly about Young/old? we all age. No one gets out alive. meditate.