- In the New Yorker, Jorie Graham’s “Later in Life,” with its long indent looks helical, but it’s not really. There is great motion in the thing, especially the section in which the cry goes up, “Up it goes,” and there’s a nice juxtaposition of short lines to draw my eyes down and also beg me to think up, to climb back to where I was reading before. I wonder if I am too easily impressed at Graham’s play between line and language.
- Also re:poetry, Heather Christle wonders whether the “I” can be as full as “you.” I say yes.
- You should be reading Mind Hacks. Two recent posts include a brief history of gay conversion therapy, which I’ve remarked on before, and an introduction to surrogate sex therapy, which treats sexual dysfunction via a third party (a sexpert, if you will). (I’m certain there’s a porn site, probably even occupying the Internet next door, that has made zillions of dollars with this very conceit: “Dear Porn Star, I need to show my girlfriend I love her. Can you teach me how?” Zillions of dollars, indeed.) I wonder if anyone’s tried gay sex conversion surrogate therapy? Also, frontal lobotomies!
- In a long post lamenting the prevalence of defensive faith, Krister White describes His Needs, Her Needs, which he studied in a class in college: “The goal: for women to act defensively so as to avoid the inevitable affair their husbands would have if they didn’t get enough sex. This was pushed in our class; men were to appease the women emotionally in order to have their love banks filled sexually. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that a marriage built on the hope of avoiding affairs is likely a pretty stale excuse for true relationship.” I’d add that, in addition to being a defensive stance, the formula is also economic. Men and women exist distinct from each other, and each produces something the other wants; in order to satisfy demand, they exchange their supply. It might be a wise way to approach the world if a) men and women were actually distinct, and b) sex and emotional connection were actually products to be exchanged.
- Caleb Crain broke the law! Miscreant.
- Philip Jenkins (yes, this Philip Jenkins), attends a conference on Muslims, promoted by Tony Blair and attended by Gordon Brown. In spite of the truly cringeworthy moments, at least the Brits are seeking in ways that don’t involve détente.
Comments
For as long as it’s up, “Later in Life,” by Jorie Graham:
by greg—Jul 31, 09:26 AM
Thanks for articulating another drawback to that model; I’d been trying to put my finger on it over the last couple days and feel that you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head. Relationships are so multifaceted that it seems to cheapen them by such reductionism.
by krister—Jul 31, 11:46 AM
2: It cheapens relationships and individuals alike. Why do men ever want to be so reduced—and to reduce so much? Women, too? I know it’s partly for the sake of shorthand, but shorthand never holds…
Sometimes I wonder whether it just illustrates an enduring truth that synecdoche is the primary mode of pop psychology.
by greg—Jul 31, 02:31 PM
Then, of course, there’s those who would get all empirical about it, and reveal that there’s some justification to the simplistic observations about sex differences, though the motives behind those observations vary in 237 different ways.
(FYI, I’m totally reading the PDF tonight!)
by greg—Jul 31, 02:49 PM
you’ve got way too much time on your hands! I’ll just wait for your cogent synopsis here. :)
by krister—Jul 31, 03:13 PM
I agree with your comment in #3; however, there would be little way to market a book, though, if we didn’t claim that it applied to everyone (!). What’s the alternative besides resorting to Bushisms like, “It’s complicated…” or “This is a hard job…”? Don’t tell me you’re for getting rid of all Oprah-sponsored pop psychology!
by krister—Jul 31, 03:20 PM
On further though, one could justifiably define a loving relationship as a system of exchanges, but to do so adequately one would need to emphasize exchange primarily in the mode of gifts, and to a lesser extent that of bartering (of course bartering happens; it’s just not as fundamental as the poppsych books make it to be; if it is, then I’d wager that relationship’s more competitive than good).
Marketing can work if it’s turned toward a privileging of similarity-in-difference; but you’re right, that’s the hard way compared to erasing all difference…
by greg—Jul 31, 09:45 PM
Lewis Hyde’s The Gift would be an appropriate thing to bring into the conversation here. I’d do so in more detail if I weren’t so freaking tired.
by Laura—Aug 2, 10:00 PM
Indeed:
by greg—Aug 3, 07:42 AM