Recent Reading

THE CHILDFREE CHRIST * ANTINATALISM IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

That is interesting. I am for natality, but not on an indiscriminate mass scale like today. People with good genes should reproduce. We need two kinds: partly favorable outer physique, and also those with high intelligence. To lead evolution and science forward, instead of slipping further into vulgarism.


This is nothing but eugenics. ...

What do you want instead?


Imperfection is inherent to our species. We can´t escape it, sorry. Everytime we tried to 'fine tune' and 'cherry pick' the 'best' amongst us, we fucked up real bad...
 
A couple of non-fiction books: Murder in the Bayou: Who Killed the Women Known as the Jeff Davis 8 by Ethan Brown and Killer Show: The Station Nightclub Fire by John Barylick.
 
61lmJOtcw5L._SY522_.jpg


In these last works McCarthy repeatedly brings up the subject of "the babies"—in particular, he makes the point on a couple of occasions that there is something uniquely, even inexplicably unsettling about the crying of a distressed infant.

I've long thought that the sound of a frantically crying newborn is disturbing to most people (psychopaths and the like excepted) to a degree that they are rarely if ever honestly willing to admit to. It is, after all, one of the closest things in our experience to the sound of an innocent soul in torment (by whatever meaning you attach to those terms). Hence the many attempts by alleged humorists over the years to make light of the situation, by characterizing babies as selfish, attention-seeking nuisances, by focusing attention and sympathy on the plight of bedraggled, sleepless parents, etc.

Nevertheless, the explanation that McCarthy offers here is not convincing to me. He suggests that the incessant crying of a baby is so disturbing to us because it is an expression of rage, a righteous rage initially, but quickly overcome by sorrow. To me, however, the crying of a newborn sounds much more like an expression of bewildered, pain-filled terror, like the screaming of an animal caught in a trap.
 
...
Nevertheless, the explanation that McCarthy offers here is not convincing to me. He suggests that the incessant crying of a baby is so disturbing to us because it is an expression of rage, a righteous rage initially, but quickly overcome by sorrow. To me, however, the crying of a newborn sounds much more like an expression of bewildered, pain-filled terror, like the screaming of an animal caught in a trap.

Interesting. I think both of your explanations may be true. Perhaps genetically deep down in the baby's soul there may be rage and sorrow, although it is not consciously developed. And also the pain-filled terror of the constrained animal.

But I think the jarring sound of the screaming baby can also be explained more down to earth, less metaphorically and mysteriously. It is simple biology after all. Survival of the Animal Species. Just like the deception of romance and sexual attraction is a necessary phase before the germination. The baby's scream must be jarring (by Nature's evolutionary design) to force the parents to attentively take care of its initial needs (and after the screaming phase comes the first few years of the child's coalescing awareness and irresistible cuteness and curiosity, and also being a separated part of the parents themselves, as well as being a unique individual which both receives and gives, further continues the parents's caring for it. Unless there is psychopathy or other serious disturbance.) - until the individual soul is mature enough to take care of itself.
 
McCarthy does point out that the sustained volume and intensity of the human infant’s cries of distress make little sense from an evolutionary standpoint, as most animals quickly learn that’s the fastest way to draw the attention of predators. This also doesn’t seem to confer much of an advantage as far as winning the devotion of the parents goes, especially given the notorious unreliability of human parents, who are as likely to respond negatively to such aggressive “intrusions” on their attention as otherwise.
 
THE CHILDFREE CHRIST * ANTINATALISM IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

That is interesting. I am for natality, but not on an indiscriminate mass scale like today. People with good genes should reproduce. We need two kinds: partly favorable outer physique, and also those with high intelligence. To lead evolution and science forward, instead of slipping further into vulgarism.


This is nothing but eugenics. ...

What do you want instead?


Imperfection is inherent to our species. We can´t escape it, sorry. Everytime we tried to 'fine tune' and 'cherry pick' the 'best' amongst us, we fucked up real bad...

I agree that consciously trying to 'cherry pick' genes is precarious (just like building AI is). Evolution takes care of itself, if we let it. Nature finds its own way towards the best fitted. But if we are going to feed all that cannot take care of themselves, we are instead supporting the unchecked growth of bad genes, and continued population explosion - which leads to environmental collapse. Charles Darwin was worried of this.
 
THE CHILDFREE CHRIST * ANTINATALISM IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

That is interesting. I am for natality, but not on an indiscriminate mass scale like today. People with good genes should reproduce. We need two kinds: partly favorable outer physique, and also those with high intelligence. To lead evolution and science forward, instead of slipping further into vulgarism.

This is nothing but eugenics. Surprised there are people even giving thanks to this post.

eugenics is an oxymoron, who selects the selectors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Esjc0rPj3K4
 
Aeota

Di Filippo, Paul - Aeota

This burst out as a hard boiled detective yarn. Our PI, Vern Ruggles, works a missing husband case. The same could be said for him. As a husband, he’s missing. A failure as a spouse, and as a human being; divorce papers dog him down.
The dialogue and descriptions here are purple pulp, so excessively drawn you could start giggling.
Unfortunately, the plot shifts into time travel, alternative realities, the multiverse, whatever else pops up in our author’s noggin. Full bore silliness blooms large.
If you are a loser (guilty), you will read to the conclusion and question your common sense.
 
I finished two books about comics, MetaMaus by Art Spiegelman and Watching the Watchmen by Dave Gibbons. Talk about exhaustive; highly recommended.
 
Jean-Marc & Randy Lofficier - The Handbook of French Fantasy & Supernatural Fiction

I found this a lot more exciting than the companion science fiction handbook, there's so much more in here that I would be interested in reading. It goes from medieval songs, poetry and Arthurian fantasy, to fairy stories by aristocrats with incredibly long names (some of them proto-feminists who had their works banned), gothic and decadent writers, folklore retellers, surrealists, occultists and a couple of eccentrics (including the autobiography of a man who claimed to have spent his whole life fighting invisible goblins), and then more modern forms of fantasy which unfortunately trended towards mimicking British and American fantasy (even to the extent of writers choosing English sounding pseudonyms and setting stories in America), which is not to say there wasn't plenty of interest in those later decades.

One of the main things that set France apart is the larger than life crime series like Paul Feval's Black Coats, Ponson du Terrail's Rocambole, Allain & Souvestre's Fantomas, Maurice Leblanc's Arsene Lupin, Jean de La Hire's Nyctalope, Arthur Bernede's Judex and Belphegor, and more. These newspaper and pulp serials unfortunately force book editors and translators to at least consider abridging them because they're so long and probably have lots of recapping (?) I'm not sure there are any especially attractive options for English readers who want the Rocambole saga.
Hard to imagine bigger publishers going for many of these right now, I just seen interviews with Jean-Marc where he complained about the French not keeping these stories alive in reprints or adaptations: "the French were never any good at commercially exploiting and developing their own works. The history of French popular literature is a graveyard of lost opportunities." (this quote from Taliesin blog interview)

There's a lot of vampire novels after Polidori and before Stoker, and it's amazing that some of the most famous writers in France (including Balzac and Dumas) written sequels to famous British and American stories. There's a defense of Pierre Benoit's Atlantida from the received wisdom (and lawsuit) that Benoit ripped off H Rider Haggard. My interest in Ponson du Terrail, Christia Sylf, Paul Feval, Maurice Magre, Serge Brussolo and many others deepened, but Lamothe-Langon and Paul Lacroix are totally new to me, I've got so many notes for further investigation.

As with the Handbook Of French Science Fiction, the index numbers are all wrong, there's a bunch of typos and I would have liked a list of everything available in english (not just from Black Coat Press but all publishers). But I strongly recommend this book, after reading the two handbooks I've got pretty strong grounding in what to look for now (not sure if I'll go for the cinema and television + radio handbooks). Rachilde was given only a short mention and Lea Silhol wasn't in there at all, so I imagine there so much more to discover, I really wish I had been better at learning languages, maybe someday.
 
At the moment, I am reading and thoroughly enjoying "The Master and Margarita" by Mikhail Bulgakov. It's a madcap novel, unique and unclassifiable in its own way like "The Three Imposters" or "The Man Who was Thursday".
 
Lawrence Block

Block, Lawrence - Killing Castro

Not everyone is happy now that Fidel is in power.
Consequently, a team of disparate types is commissioned for a whack job.
The five have nothing in common. Truthfully, only three are experienced killers.
Payoff for success is $100 K, no small change in 1961, to be divvied among the survivors.
Penned in 1961, when Castro was new, and already distrusted by the States, this what-if thriller crackles along. With hindsight, we know the missions (three) are doomed to fail.
Nonetheless, the book is an exciting page-turner.
Block’s misogynist tropes are evident, as well.
Great for fans of Block or caper thrillers.
 
Just finished the Cipher by Kathe Koja today. While I thought the plot dragged in the middle, I was very impressed with the prose and atmosphere. The grimy, toxic feel of the whole book was great and the sharp sense of self hatred from the first person perspective felt very true to me. I'll have to read more from Koja. Thusfar I've read almost exclusively horror fiction this year and have no plans to change this anytime soon.
 
"The Love Council" by Oskar Panizza

A picaresque drama featuring The Devil (as the hero of the story), a decrepit God, an imbecilic Jesus, a slutty Mary, a host of angels, and more. How could I resist a tale that caused the author to be tried on 90+ counts of blasphemy, resulting in a one year prison sentence? This notorious book was apparently a major influence on the Dada movement... another plus!
 
Ian Whates

Whates, Ian - The Smallest Of Things

Claire witnesses a murder. Worse, she emitted a noise, alerting the killers to her presence.
Now they are in pursuit. Claire turns to friend Chris, freelance trouble shooter.
The ensuing chase skitters across London – various Londons.
Transitioning alternation realities, different timescapes.
A novelette, brief on character development and lacking atmosphere.
Busyness and the stray gizmo now and then.
Agents on the hunt are straight out of “Dark City”.
A page turner, although the conclusion is abrupt. This feels like a pitch for a series of novels.
Cover art is superb, indicating “various” London realities.
 
sf-wrap-new-for-web.jpg


images


Shipley has a way of stringing words together that makes me laugh. He is a dark writer, though.

Kharms's short stories are a mixed bag. This book is not just short stories, but observations, thoughts, etc. (incidences). Some are really good, but a little Kharms goes a long way.
 
While I've sampled the book over many years, I'm finally reading Lovecraft's complete fiction (The Barnes and Noble edition) from beginning to end. It feels like I should have done this a long time ago, but better late then never I suppose. Some early stories had me doubting the wisdom of this enterprise, but I can honestly say it's been very rewarding to track Lovecraft's development as a writer. Favorites thus far include "The Outsider", "The Music of Erich Zann", and "The Festival". I'm about to start what most seem to consider his prime years with "The Call of Cthulhu".
 
Back
Top