Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Hate Mail - I'll Give Her The Last Word On This

You know who else doesn't think much of Patti Smith as a musician?  Patti Smith.

One thing there is not much of in M Train is music. I remark on this, and Smith nods. ‘Well, I mean, I’m not a musician. People’s concept of me is often so off the mark. In ’78, ’79, right before I walked away from public life, I experienced, in Europe, two years of what I would call being a rock-and-roll star. My last job, my band played to 80,000 people in Florence. I know what that tastes like, to be a rock-and-roll star – to have a limousine, to have girls screaming when they see you, girls trying to cut my hair, get a piece of me. But I don’t walk around with a concept of myself as a rock-and-roll star, and certainly not as a musician, because I really can’t play anything, except primitively. I sing, but almost everybody sings. I am a performer, but in my life, when I’m not performing, you know, I’m a mother, I have a cat, I’m sort of a loner, I write every day. My view of myself is more as a writer.’

Who am I to argue that point with her, having recently decided that, by right, anyone who speaks any language who writes things down in it as a writer.  That's as true as it is that anyone who speaks the language is a speaker.  Doesn't mean they have to be good at it just as anyone can pick up a guitar and intone stuff as they strum or anyone can pick up a camera and call themselves a photographer.  Doesn't mean anyone's required to pretend they think what they produce is any good.   As far as I'm concerned, she's only a rock-star.  She got that right and she doesn't even want that to define her.  Got to say, finding that made me have a bit of respect for her I didn't before.

Update:  Stupy is Trying To Revenge Himself On Me By Proving His Illiteracy

Stupy has posted the opening narration from the movie Spartacus as a means to taunt me.

In the last century before the birth of the new faith called Christianity which was destined to overthrow the pagan tyranny of Rome and bring about a new society, the Roman Republic stood at the very center of the civilized world. "Of all things fairest" sang the poet, "First among cities and home of the Gods is Golden Rome." Yet even at the zenith of her pride and power, the Republic lay fatally stricken with the disease called human slavery. The age of the dictator was at hand, waiting in shadows for the event to bring forth. In that same century, in the conquered Greek province of Thrace, an illiterate slave woman added to her master's wealth by giving birth to a son whom she names Spartacus. A proud rebellious son, who was sold to living death in the mines of Libya, before his thirteenth birthday. There under whip and chain and sun he lived out his youth and his young manhood, dreaming the death of slavery 2000 years before it finally would die.

Stupy says two things about that passage

That's absolutely beautifully written, and the actual sequence in the film that it illustrates it is wonderful.

and

But, yknow, fuck that shit, because as That Idiot From Maine© has informed us, Trumbo was a Red.

Well, Trumbo was resting on the writing of the once popular, now sadly forgotten Howard Fast, who wrote his novel while in prison when he got into trouble with HUAC. I don't know the extent to which Trumbo might have been resting on Fast's book which I've never read.  It's been a long time since I read anything by Fast but I don't remember his writing being quite as flowery as that.  I wonder what he'd have said about the passage.  I think its kind of, you know, stagey. 

[Note:  I found a pirate copy online and have quickly read the first three chapters, the second of which, I have to say is literally a gut slam of shockingly disturbing writing.  It is the most shocking description of  the casual terror-violence of Roman mass-crucifixion I've ever read.  Compared to Fast's prose, Trumbo's is . . . not as good.]

That said, apparently Stupy is unable to read what he finds so beauteous because I'm sure he would hate what it says if he understood it.  The first sentence doesn't strike me as something that would make him and his Eschaton buddies happy.

In the last century before the birth of the new faith called Christianity which was destined to overthrow the pagan tyranny of Rome and bring about a new society, the Roman Republic stood at the very center of the civilized world.

I wonder what would happen if some newcomer went to Eschaton and said something like "The pagan tyranny of Rome was overthrown by a new faith called Christianity."  I'll bet the old folks would rage and gnash their teeth if someone said EXACTLY WHAT TRUMBO SAID IN THAT PASSAGE.

Not to mention Trumbo's point that slavery wasn't overturned for 2,000 years after that, implying that Christianity had more than a bit to do with that overturning, which is simply true. I will point out that there are isolated places it happened a lot faster than that, Christian Ireland, for example. 

Of course, it being a Hollywood movie, the real history of the overturning of slavery won't fit in to 2 hours, it's extremely complex though about the only places where slavery was opposed and overturned were, in fact, places where Christianity was the primary motivation to do that.  The modern abolition movement is, in fact, by an overwhelming percentage, a Christian phenomenon.

Alas, Trumbo's ringing claim made with a perfect tense construction that slavery it finally would die was overly optimistic because slavery is still rampant in the world, today, especially notably in such Communist countries as China and North Korea, also in the post-Communist Soviets, especially Putin's Russia but in many other places in the world.   Here's a map showing the prevalence of modern slavery in different countries.

Image result for where does slavery still exist 2018



Oddly, it would seem, the places where there is the least slavery would support Trumbo's contention that Christianity would be the motivation for abolition, though some places in Eastern Europe cloud that contention, they are also places where Communism was imposed until fairly recently.  Communism, according to the map, doesn't seem to lead to the greatest success in getting rid of slavery (apart from Cuba, if I am reading the map correctly).

I will note that the map and the Global Slavery Index are not uncontroversial, even the definition of what is and isn't slavery is argued.  But that's for another series of posts.  Maybe in February, again.  There's still slavery in the United States, it's been totally abolished in almost no places.

14 comments:

  1. She thinks of herself more as a writer than a musician? Holy shit -- STOP THE FUCKING PRESSES!

    Seriously, who didn't already know that? Oh wait -- that would be Sparky.

    BTW, you fucking moron, a) she's just being modest. And b) nobody gets to have fronted as many wonderful albums as she's made by not really being a musician.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No idea, I don't like her music and I'm unimpressed with her lyrics and that's all I've ever commented on. At least she, unlike you, is undeceived about being a musician. Only you consider yourself a writer too, though you're more a repeater of conventional POVs and slogans.

      So, you think you are a better judge of her musicianship than she is. Or do you think I made that up even though I gave a link. If you were any stupider you'd be unable to find your mouth to feed yourself.

      Delete
  2. Philistine bigoted asshole ("Patti was Mapplethrope's beard") says what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who am I supposed to be bigoted against, Stupy? As to my comment, I finally decided to look up what I base that on.

      Art didn’t make the rent, so Smith kept clerking and shoplifting, and Mapplethorpe began to hustle on the East Side near Bloomingdale’s. (He continued to have sex with Smith, and told his parents that they had been married in a strawberry field in California.)

      http://nymag.com/arts/music/profiles/63035/index1.html

      Delete
    2. I don't know if that's the period in which Mapplethorpe brought the clap home to her, which I've read he did. Classy guy, RM.

      Delete
  3. "Of course, it being a Hollywood movie, the real history of the overturning of slavery won't fit in to 2 hours"

    Earth to Sparkles: The Dalton Trumbo/Stanley Kubrick/Kirk Douglas film of SPARTACUS, in its original release version, which is a masterpiece if only for the Alex North score, has a running time of 184 minutes. Last time I timed that, that's quite a bit more than two hours.

    Try again, shithead. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simps, I know you're mentally deficient but you do add to that a really bad habit of mixing apples with road apples.

      YOU are the one who brought up Trumbo's opening speech in the movie, TRUMBO is the one who wanted to introduce more than 2000 years in the struggle against slavery into it, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID "and the actual sequence in the film that it illustrates it is wonderful".

      I'm the one who pointed out "Of course, it being a Hollywood movie, the real history of the overturning of slavery won't fit in to 2 hours, it's extremely complex . . . " The fucking movie could have been the greatest 4-hour feature movie ever made and it still wouldn't have been adequate to do what you claimed was done in it. Of course, if you want the educational comic-book version of the history of abolitionism, which is all you could possibly take of it, you would probably even rather watch the movie of that.

      So, why aren't you addressing my point, Stupy, that Dalton Trumbo said, in no uncertain terms, in the speech you lauded that Christianity was what overturned "the pagan tyranny of Rome". And far more than just implied the historical truth that Christianity was, in fact, the foremost force in what success abolitionism has had. If you acknowledge that is what Dalton Trumbo said, I might say something you find easier to swallow. Only marginally easier to swallow since it's, as well, about monotheistic religion's essential role in opposing slavery.

      Delete
    2. Oh, and now that I've more or less proven that Patti Smith was Mapplethorpe's beard, when are you going to eat it. That is, eat your words on that.

      Delete
  4. "N"ow that I've more or less proven that Patti Smith was Mapplethorpe's beard"

    Delusional, self-congratulatory and bigoted is no way to go through life, son.

    I should add that you know as little about Patti Smith as you know about any of the rest of the popular music of the second half of the 2oth century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was using her to pretend to his parents that he was straight, that makes her his beard, that's the definition of the word, the use of someone by someone who wants to pretend they are not who they are or are doing what they're doing. He was pretending to his parents that he was married to her. Patti Smith could have been as unaware of what he was doing as they were, I would imagine that she found out quite a bit from him giving her gonorrhea that was a surprise to her. If not she was just going along with his deception.

      You haven't told me what is bigoted about anything I said. And I didn't imagine that newspaper article that I linked to, that was there. You're the one who can't see reality for your celebrity worshiping ways, Stupy. I think our differences can be defined in very simple terms, you're an ignorant sap for the celebrity and pop kulcha industry, the merely reputable instead of the respectable, an uncritical sponge for fashionable fiction, I'm not.

      Delete
  5. Right. Nobody knew Mapplethorpe was gay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, Simps. You are so simple minded. In the period when the were shacked up a Catholic boy trying to pass as straight TO HIS CATHOLIC PARENTS, you figure that never happened. You are so clueless. If they ever made a board game about you it would have to be called CLUELESS. The goal of the game would be to get it wrong.

      Delete
  6. Get back to me when you've read Patti's memoir of her relationship with Mapplethorpe. Or actually don't, because you wouldn't understand a word of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like you've read it. I mean like you've ever read any book.

      Too bad you're illiterate. Howard Fast's book that that movie was based on is pretty good, though I recognize it's a novel, it's nothing like history. In the only historical sources, Spartacus's motive in the fictitious accounts from far after, liberating slaves isn't mentioned. His motives and those of his fellow revolutionaries isn't clear, that noble motive is attributed to him as a wishful thought.

      Delete