13 Apr 2012 at 11:46 pm #818
“Los Angeles (CNN) — Angelina Jolie, 36, and Brad Pitt, 48, a Hollywood megastar couple since 2005, are engaged, Pitt’s representative said Friday. ‘Yes, it’s confirmed. It is a promise for the future, and their kids are very happy. There’s no date set at this time. Brad designed the ring,‘ the representative, Cynthia Pett-Dante, told CNN.”
What author could have created these two characters and scripted this plot? I love these guys. I really do.
And, for those of you in the US holding our for your next steak à cheval, your wait may be coming to an end: “A New Mexico slaughterhouse has petitioned the federal government to become the first business to offer horses for slaughter since an effective ban on the practice ended last year, according to state officials and animal welfare groups.” Or was that just a statewide ban? The last time we stayed in Paris there was a horse meat butcher just up the street, right next to a conventional butcher shop. I ate a fair bit of horse meat during my student days there, as it showed up on the cheapest menus. Did horse meat play a role in the West, or were the cowboys too sentimental about their horses? Of course, if you are raising the animals for taste, they are not likely to be of much use elsewhere, I suppose, meaning that work horses most likely didn’t taste that good. Just speculating. Hey, better than a new cannibal thread!
14 Apr 2012 at 12:41 am #820
- This topic was modified 2 years ago by Greg S..
I swear…the idea of eating horse meat makes me want to pass out.
The choice for horse meat comes and goes depending on the price of other meat. I also like to think people are sentimental…and I like to think of cowgirls as sentimental…but what we eat is always decided on cost-benefit. I imagine when cowgirls were roaming the west they had enough chances to hunt for game, fish, and their horses were worth more to them as vehicles and companions than as food.
I can imagine that in Europe the cost-benefit of eating horses versus other animals would be more an option than in a frontier or wild land…where there was plenty of game to eat. And if one worked for a rancher…some domestic animals.
I think a cowgirl might sell a horse knowing it was for profit if the horse was done for.
And then there is this :
And p.s. I love Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie…and you’re right…could any one really write up them? Who could see it coming. What a show. I thought they were waiting to get married till gay marriage was legal. I really do hope they are cast for The Counselor…they will be perfect!
14 Apr 2012 at 1:24 am #824
- This reply was modified 2 years ago by Candy Minx.
Sorry if I upset you, Candy. So, is Angelina going to play the character who makes love to a car? This really has to be a parody of the splattered owl on the windshield in, er, was it COTP? I’m having trouble getting both images out of my head.
PS: Is there only one edit possible here? I keep finding typos in my posts and love to correct them after the fact.
PPS: Or does a subsequent post block further editing?
Edit 2: Or is it a time limit? I can’t edit my first post.
14 Apr 2012 at 1:49 am #828
Shouldn’t be any limits on editing.
My Suzerain-level account shows that you edited the post thrice.
WebmasterQuote14 Apr 2012 at 6:23 am #829
Hi Marty, the Edit button disappears after a subsequent post appears. I, too, can see the edit references below all posts above, not just mine, but I cannot find the edit button now for either of my posts.
I think my “PPS: Or does a subsequent post block further editing?” may be correct.
14 Apr 2012 at 6:52 am #833
Oh I don’t feel one way or another if some one else eats horse meat…I would rather not. Parody of the splattered owl? Is there anything in that script that doesn’t parody or reference something of McCarthy’s? The Huntsville reference, the name Rowena, “he ain’t getting his money back”, and “sounded man”, distanced ending, gps tracking device for transponder,slicing open a truck, the pacing and tone of dialogue….
I would guess that if Angelina is cast she would be Malkina, the car sex loving dame. p.s. Very Cronenberg.
14 Apr 2012 at 12:04 pm #843
Not to totally sidetrack an earlier discussion, but:
I made a post as a user. Edited it.
Signed in as another user.
Posted a followup.
Signed in as first user and was still able to edit previous post.
If the edit button is disappearing for you, I’m guessing it might be a browser issue.
(Incidentally, it took me a while to figure out, at first, that the edit button was up top of a post.)
So you might try another browser. If you do, let me know. If you want to set up a special topic for it, do so, and I can delete it when the testing is done.
Or you may be able to edit via the backend “Dashboard.” It will show you all your posts, I believe, and they should be easily editable from there.
WebmasterQuote15 Apr 2012 at 8:46 am #878
I’ll give that some consideration Marty. I use IE 9.0.6. Maybe I’ll just pay more attention to my spelling.
17 Apr 2012 at 11:19 pm #905
Glad the shareholders finally found their proverbial set of balls and voted against the Citigroup exec compensation plan. Too much deference to execs for too long. Of course, in great American tradition, the vote is non-binding. Can’t wait to see Pandit lower his pay from $ 15.0 Million to $ 14.9.
25 Apr 2012 at 3:47 pm #1039
Robert Reich comes down hard on Merkel’s austerity politics:
25 Apr 2012 at 6:51 pm #1048
Hi, Greg: I’ve been mainly lurking, which I haven’t done since 2001, as the time seems right for that: The old threads ended rather abruptly, so the flow of conversation has been interrupted. The new website is grand, and I’m still trying to find my way through it. It’s a good looking site, but I’m still kind of lost in it! I’ve read other people’s suggestions, and I agree with the points made, and I’d add a few more:
There are multiple layers, whereas the old thread has the one-page-sees-all format which I prefer. In the old format, when a thread has been viewed, the color changes from blue to purple, but in this forum, the color remains tan (is this an option I have control over at my end?), and together with the layer-upon-layer format, I’d frequently ask myself if I’ve already been there, as the pages begin to look the same. In the old format, I could see by casual inspection, via several visual cues, what might have been freshly posted, but here I’d have to be more active (I think it was Candy who made this point first).
The posts record and display the occasion of every edit: is this necessary, or desirable? In the old format I’d edit a single post for typo, spelling, grammar, structure, style, changed information, additional information, etc., 33 times or more, and does anyone really care to see all that? And I haven’t posted enough here to have had the cannot-be-edited experiences some of you have had.
Some of us want our email addresses to display, and I don’t see that as an option here. But I’m happy for being able to post an icon to identify myself, the pentagram!, and to post a profile, laugh!, and I’ll experiment with the “Attachments” function in this post, something that summarizes my theory of the occult Cormac: the pentagram!
All of these are minor adjustments, and I am confident the format will be changed over time, and the forum will be once again be full of (my) chatter!
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.26 Apr 2012 at 12:20 am #105426 Apr 2012 at 4:23 am #1055
Gee, it was weird without you Ken! I actually found the drawing you made of that pentagram McCarthy legend the other day. I couldn’t believe it survived. Made a note to get it a frame!
I add….that the initial response I had to the layered format here…as being difficult has only magnified as more posts show up. I really miss being able to see all the posts on one page and navigate…and being able to see new or read posts was a more enjoyable and useful aspect than I had previously acknowledged. What Ken said.
26 Apr 2012 at 7:04 am #1056
Greg: I encountered the same inability to edit as you described in one of your posts somewhere! I don’t think it is a problem with your browser, as Marty suggested, since I could see you were able to edit some of your posts. I too was able to edit my last post, but only right after I posted it; a little bit later I lost that ability, so I think there is a time limit imposed on the editing function. I followed Marty’s suggestion and went to my “Dashboard” to try to edit from there, a hassle, but I’d do it if it was the only way I could edit. No luck; however, I discovered that, yes, I am indeed able to edit my post and even the thread title, even weeks after I posted it, but only if I were the one who initiated the thread. I found that out only because I had initiated one thread; the ability to edit in all other threads were closed to me.
Another thing I discovered is that the attachment I uploaded in my last post is viewable only to people who have logged in. Not a big deal, but since people who have not logged in could read the posts, maybe they should also be able to view attachments? Since we could upload our images as attachments, maybe there is a way to upload them inline as part of the body of the post?
Candy: Yes, I remember drawing for you the basic pentagram with significances to McCarthy’s novels, similar to the one I attached above! I was playing around with a generic computer graphics program and managed to put together that chart which I might use in a future “Occult Cormac” blogpost, as suggested by the headings of that chart. The basic ideas of that chart go back a dozen years now when they first occurred to me, and I’ve used words, many words, in my posts in this forum, going back beyond the “Jadaproductions” era to the “Cyan” era!, to explain my “pentalogy” theory, but as you can see a picture explains and summarizes everything more clearly and elegantly.
26 Apr 2012 at 8:13 am #1057
I’ve gotten ussed to quickly scanning for the time lapse since the last edit on a thread. I’m wondering, however, how the archived threads will fit into the forum. Is there a way to blend out threads that have not been edited for ten days or longer? If not, will we always see the old threads, or will they end up in a separate forum, not to be edited further? These and more questions.
04 Jul 2012 at 6:25 am #1680
Looks like the existence of the (or a) Higgs boson has been confirmed:
NY Times: “A New Particle Could Be Physics’ Holy Grail”
05 Jul 2012 at 3:07 am #168305 Jul 2012 at 12:04 pm #1684
I’d love to know what kind of hoopla’s going on right now at the Santa Fe Institute over the Higgs boson. Boson? Hell, I thought that was a honcho on the main deck of a Navy ship–jes kidding. So the Brits have scored again in science, this time another star Scot, Peter Higgs.
The biggest question for me is what the boatswain (uh, I mean boson) will mean for Cormac McCarthy. Will he make something of “super-symmetry” and other ideas arising out of the boson discovery? Arguably, his works so far have shown little high science influence, though NCFOM, as I pointed out seven years ago (in my review of the novel), can be partly read in the light of Chaos and Complexity, two hallowed theories at Santa Fe.
I’ve occasionally thought that Cormac has buried math/physics elements in NCFOM and TR that only top folks like some at Santa Fe could decipher. There’s something weird about the page breaks in these novels, may be some kind of math code in them that a good crypto-analyst might be able to break. Then maybe I dreamed all this.
Even if there were a pattern, what would it mean in terms of the novels? Nice to speculate, ain’t it?
BobbyKnoxvilleQuote05 Jul 2012 at 8:52 pm #1685
Bob: A crypto-analyst may have already started in on Blood Meridian. Several years ago Chris Forbis wrote a paper, unpublished I think, titled Of Judge Holden’s hats; or, the palindrome in Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian. Somehow I was never convinced, but I found the paper interesting anyway. John Sepich has written a response as well.
wesmorganQuote05 Jul 2012 at 11:46 pm #168605 Jul 2012 at 11:56 pm #1687
The wonderful thing about McCarthy’s work is that it contains the recalcitrance for such interpretations. Some of these things may have been conscious, worked out in revision, but most of them were probably just written unconsciously, inspired by McCarthy’s genius or savant or both. I suspect that McCarthy sticks to the human universals and lets his unconscious dreams hold sway–or at least that was the way he used to write. Nowadays, sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it does not.
The allusions to MOBY DICK and such were consciously written in, but some of those things must have appeared out of the blue–which is to say, inspired from his unconscious synthesis.
Like Melville with MOBY DICK, McCarthy undoubtedly consciously put a cipher joke or two in BLOOD MERIDIAN. We batted this around no end in the old forum. The blank page which equals the Judge’s weight would have been thrown off if the pages were numbered differently. Perhaps no one is left alive to tell us whether the pagination of BLOOD MERIDIAN was arranged and insisted upon by McCarthy–except McCarthy himself, and thus far he has not been forthcoming.
Such elaborate mirroring as Chris points out, now, that’s another thing. Chris doesn’t even mention such things as the mirroring of the sky with what happens below to the scalphunting party. Other mirroring also comes to mind, such as the mirror sequence on the opening page of ALL THE PRETTY HORSES.
Part of this is the reader’s art. It is what makes McCarthy’s work so fascinating to those with the gift for such interpretations. It is the twilight zone, I-hate-to-see-that-evening-sun-go-down syndrome, the synchronicity of a Dolly Parton with a Dalai Lama in a Dali illustration. It’s not the same thing, but our eyes bend the light and blink it in, our ears make it rhyme.
06 Jul 2012 at 9:55 am #168914 Aug 2012 at 7:00 pm #179404 Sep 2012 at 12:27 pm #1845
- This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Richard L..
This place is very quiet since the switchover to the highfalutin new webdesign. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this place is a ghost town now. You all can retort with your sophistry proclaiming me a tosspot or ignoramus. What I observe is this, this place and the regular posting it once enjoyed has gone the way of the Do Do bird and the Hallowed Passenger Pigeon.
A real shame to my mind.
I have a conspiracy theory, it is this…that in switching over it was the agenda of the President or Honcho of this page – Not Rick Wallach – to cause just such an interruption in communication. Dare I suggest that said decision was based around limiting posts by contributors who were, according to the manifesto on the main page – “extreme layreaders” or “unclean lepers” and not lettered men and women , surely I dare.
And I don’t buy that jazz about Oswald being the only shooter in Dallas that day either. Perhaps there is even a connection between the two events…
04 Sep 2012 at 3:48 pm #1847
Well, I can only speak for myself, and I’m grateful to still be here. We’ve lost so many voices since the Society began, and more all the time. And our boy, Cormac, has changed some since then too. He is no longer poor and obscure; no longer thought to be a complete recluse; no longer a deadbeat dad; no longer so controversial, thanks to the great wealth of critical literature that has grown up around his works, explaining his ideas.
It’s like the turn-the-page riff at the end of CITIES OF THE PLAIN. He is no longer young and hungry, literally and figuratively–and of course, neither are we. I’m thankful for the Webmaster’s continued indulgence. Otherwise, we’d be like Cormac McCarthy’s fictional characters (as per Jay Ellis): No place for home.
04 Sep 2012 at 7:09 pm #1850
Grateful for your words Richard. You seem to be the most frequent contributor to these threads. Cheers to you and the Webmaster. Just my thoughts on the matter. No bad thoughts against the Webmaster or the Suzerains but maybe someone would be interested in hearing a non-scholar’s opinion. Probably that’s a silly thought.
I remember much more activity on the forums post No Country and The Road – the tail end and propulsion into Oprah interview “fame” obviously.
Cormac has changed but his letters remain.
One question about CM’s no longer a deadbeat dad …what developments were unearthed about that? Are you speaking to the fact that he has a current son whom he has not walked out on? Understand, I make no moral judgement against Cormac or anyone else for abandoning bad scenes. Hell, I’d deadbeat a dozen crapping rugrat slavelaborers for a bottle of good whiskey and a Buick with a decent engine.
Respectfully, your response seems a little sad to me. I read it as essentially you saying that Cormac is no longer exciting or worthy of debate because of his financial success and because the scholars have written books about his books that provide something the original texts did not, or rather were not clear about.
05 Sep 2012 at 2:39 pm #1854
Again I speak only for myself. It is a natural thing. Knowledge satisfies the hunger for it. There is no need to beat down doors searching for answers, as we used to do in this forum. The door stands open at the nearest university library, there in the McCarthy crit-lit section. The bookshop here is filled to the brim with insights.
Re: Deadbeat Dad
There was a time when McCarthy admitted in an interview that he had no money to pay for child support for his first son. Jay Ellis quotes the interview and discusses this in NO PLACE FOR HOME.
05 Sep 2012 at 8:44 pm #1855
Many thanks again Richard. I was not aware of that McCarthy interview or Mr. Ellis’ No Place For Home. I will seek out a copy as soon as possible.
06 Sep 2012 at 1:37 am #1856
Smeaevans: For a very neat account of McCarthy’s journey from culthood to critical canonization I’d recommend reading Senor Wallach’s foreward to David Holloway’s ‘The Late Modernism of Cormac McCarthy’. Why? Well the changing critical reception of McCarthy (whether this was the championing of him as a supreme ‘local colourist’ or the now dominant view that he is a masterful post-structural ironist)is reflected perhaps ( I wasn’t there at the forum’s beginning) in the more dominant ideological positions of the forum itself. I was at a literature conference last year where the keynote speaker said – after a long speech celebrating the presumed supersession of the Marxist paradigm – that “we are all Deleuzians now.’ This desiring machine desired only an end to such smugness.
There are, thankfully, enough dissenting positions here to keep things lively. Perhaps the silence has something to do with people being a litte exhausted with defending their positions; are now quietly finding a way back out of the cul-de-sac. Changing one’s mind in order to consider different approaches: I know that’s why I shut up from time to time.
By the way, I’d recommend Holloway’s book in its entirety. Bloody expensive, though.
cantonaQuote29 Sep 2012 at 5:58 pm #205509 Oct 2012 at 3:23 am #2182
I hope Rick had nothing to do with this contest:
“A 32-year-old man downed dozens of roaches and worms to win a python at a Florida reptile store, then collapsed and died outside minutes later. Edward Archbold was among 20 to 30 contestants participating in Friday night’s “Midnight Madness” event at Ben Siegel Reptiles in Deerfield Beach, authorities said. The participants’ goal: consume as many insects and worms as they could to take home a $850 python. Archbold swallowed roach after roach, worm after worm. While the store didn’t say exactly how many Archbold consumed, the owner told CNN affiliate WPLG that he was ‘the life of the party.’
‘He really made our night more fun,’ Ben Siegel told the station.”
22 Oct 2012 at 4:22 pm #2259
- This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Greg S..
R.I.P. Russell Means.
31 Dec 2012 at 9:06 am #2759
Happy New Year, folks! “Should auld acquaintance be forgot…” Here is an interesting website: http://archive.org/, in particular its “Wayback Machine” function, which “takes one back” to historical presentations of websites and webpages it had saved through crawling. Type in this website (i.e., “CormacMcCarthy.com”) to bring up a calendar; click on one of the highlighted dates and see a surprise. For example, the latest date would bring one, through several links, here! The earliest date is sometime in 1997, just months after I began reading McCarthy and discovered the Cormac McCarthy Society online, when the website was still hosted by Prodigy, if I recall correctly. The Wayback function also takes one back to the “cyan” days in addition to the “Jadaproduction” days. Not all webpages from those dates were crawled and saved, so there are dead links, but enough is there to trigger some pleasant memories. Enjoy!
01 Jan 2013 at 2:10 pm #2760
Happy New Year Ken, and all…
Ken that was a lot of fun thank you for those links. When I used to go to the site…my heart would begin to pound I would so anticipate reading the comments. I was so excited to find conversations about the novels and other readers.
02 Jan 2013 at 4:31 pm #2765
Thanks for bringing those links to our attention, Ken.
Today my hardcover copy of YOU WOULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT WATCHES sits squarely on my Cormac McCarthy bookshelf. Has that new car smell too.
This time last year, I was geared up to root for the the Marlins. This year I’m geared up to root for the Jays, some of them the same players. I skipped playing Fantasy Baseball last year so I could use the time to read more books, and indeed I set a personal record in that regard, something I’m not likely ever to do again.
Both the Lousiville Cardinals and the Kentucky Wildcats play basketball tonight, and a bit later Louisville takes on Florida Gators in the Sugar Bowl. Baseball spring training is just 6 weeks away. I’ve ordered R. A. Dickey’s book, which has gotten good reviews. It will be interesting to see how it all works out.
On the Charlie Rose show today, he showed interview highlights from the celebrities who have died during the calender year: Andy Griffith, Gore Videl, Carlos Fuentes, Ben Gazarra, Nora Ephron, and many more. I’m glad I saw it.
Then I watched the Charlie Rose Show from December 13, 2002, which featured, among others, Christopher Hitchens and Yann Martel. Hitchens was adamant that there were WMD’s in Iraq and that we would be greeted there with open arms, that it was almost unanimous that the Iraqi people wanted us to come in and force a change of administration. Later, Yann Martel was interviewed about LIFE OF PI, the novel which had won the Booker that year. Interesting stuff.
12 Feb 2013 at 8:27 am #2962
There are various news stories about the stranded Carnival cruise ship in the Gulf of Mexico; here’s one: NY Daily News:
“…temperatures inside the boat are quite hot…. Several passengers have set up makeshift tents on the Triumph’s decks in an effort to keep cool.”
“…the plumbing failed and people were defecating in bags and urinating in showers…. sewage running down the walls and floors”
“It’s like a bunch of savages on there…. people are fighting over food and stuff.”
“Civilization” is merely a veneer, and a thin one at that, as this case demonstrates (it’s only been a day or two!), for the underlying reality of savagery: this is the world of The Road, also of Lord Of the Flies, J. G. Ballard novels, etc.
12 Feb 2013 at 12:07 pm #296320 Feb 2013 at 6:34 am #3008
Columbia physics professor strips down to underwear during class as part of presentation:
NY Daily News, article and video
Columbia Spectator (school newspaper) article
Emlyn Hughes is not only a tenured professor, but also the deputy chairman of the physics department (now renamed physical department?).
Well, stuff like this didn’t happen when I studied physics at Columbia in the Dark Ages (at about the same time Hughes was studying physics at Stanford). And that’s why a four-year degree at Columbia nowadays costs about a quarter of a million dollars, whereas my four years at Columbia College cost about one-tenth of that, if even. If I remember correctly, tuition alone (i.e., excluding fees, books, dorm, etc.) in my freshman year was about 1% of that: $2,500, which seemed so expensive to me at the time, and I wondered how I’d ever repay my student loans. College costs have outpaced the general inflation rate by a wide margin year after year. I’d be priced out of Columbia, and most private colleges, if I were to go to college nowadays.
My objection against Hughes’s presentation is not that it is disturbing, the way some of the students have reacted, but that it is devoid of meaningful content. I had a grand time in many of my classes because the material itself was so interesting and the teacher’s presentation was enlightening. Quantum mechanics is interesting without any dressing up, but Hughes’s presentation is not at all rigorous, but rather stripped-down and threadbare. The school’s review board is rightfully debriefing him.
Any professors around here plan to incorporate Professor Hughes’s teaching methods anytime soon?
I wonder if McCarthy knows Hughes.
21 Feb 2013 at 9:06 am #3024
Since we are about the same age, Ken, we can compare your tuition with my “best buy” state university education. I think I started paying USD 250 a semester tuition (in-state) in the fall of 1976. I just checked the “best-buy” website to find that the annual tuition for in-state is now USD 7,694. Total in-state costs, including tuition, for one year are USD 22,340. If you happen to be out of state, then annual tuition is USD 28,446 with total costs of USD 43,848. The compounded annual in-state tuition increase is just under 8% (I figured this out with just two semesters of undergraduate math — what a bargain). That rate is outrageous.
I made a fateful decision to take two semesters of advanced physics my freshman year to leave open the possibility of pre-med. The only high point was my professor, Horst Kessemeier, from Vienna if I recall correctly, who one day brought his violin to school and demonstrated angular momentum (or similar) by sitting on a rotating stool and playing a note that caused him to spin in circles. That was high entertainment and, compared to your Columbia guy, clean fun. What a bargain. Too bad I flunked the second semester (electromagnetics and optics). I wasn’t cut out to be a doctor anyway, much less a physicist.
Seriously, though, even old school friends of mine complain about the cost of sending their kids in-state to my old uni. If you have two or three kids, it really ads up. And we’re talking about undergrad. I probably would not have had the nerve to leave the straight and narrow path and take liberal arts courses if my father or I had to incur serious debt for my education.
At least my university recently has made a commitment to insure that low-income students who are admitted can graduate debt-free. That is admirable.
For further reading I recommend:
The Economist: Not what it used to be
What I find particularly disturbing is the simultaneous erosion of the quality of academic careers. Tenured posts are reserved for a minute fraction of candidates while the rest often are doomed to a nomadic existence of limited contracts with few or no benefits. Something is rotten.
25 Feb 2013 at 10:37 am #304025 Feb 2013 at 10:41 am #304125 Feb 2013 at 11:31 am #3042
Well, yes, it is partly the format, but mostly because “the fighting Cormackians,” like the author himself, have aged or at least matured. Some have been lost forever. Then too, there is now this great wealth of crit-lit about McCarthy’s works, making them less mysterious and more accessible. We get fewer and fewer scholars airing potential interpretations here. There was a time when few knew the name Cormac McCarthy. Now it is rare to find someone who doesn’t know the name, and often they have read one or two of the novels.
Academia itself has changed and is changing even more as universities become more corporate and money-driven. The internet has changed publishing and reading habits forever. Most of this seems bad to us old timers, but there may be some good in this too.
Fashions change, but the classics remain classics because they are universal mirrors that reflect back upon all times. And McCarthy’s works are classics.
25 Feb 2013 at 11:36 am #304426 Feb 2013 at 9:56 am #3054
I’ve thought about the new format change, and I think that the change has nothing to do with the silence on forum. As usual, we blame the technology and not the users. Being guilty myself on occasion, I can firmly say that we(layman and professionals alike) like to re-write McCarthy’s books here on the forum and in print. We “chatter”- however, we don’t get to the narratives. When we get “tired” or feel our individual interpretation has been hammered-home or when we “scream” loud enough we feel as if we’ve “discussed” something. In a way the “organic” format has been able to handle the looming specter of theory, however, our ideas about interpretation are still a bit off-base. Speaking for myself, I truly think we are still looking at the tip of the iceberg; the iceberg, of course, being McCarthy’s writings. As soon as we realize the “author” is alive, I think we can get some more dialogue going.
“The rest is silence”-
MikeQuote07 Mar 2013 at 12:02 pm #3188
Greg: I finally got around to reading the two articles you linked, about the costs and financing of a college education nowadays. I then did a geeky thing for my own edification: I went into the Bureau of Labor Statistics website to obtain historical annual Consumer Price Index data to calculate various cumulative inflation rates from the 1970s! The decade of 1974-1983 was a period of runaway inflation, at 10%+ per year for some years, and 6%-9% in the other years. Hence, it would make a big difference if you establish the base at, say, 1974 instead of 1979. Enough of this geek talk! Any way you look at it, college education costs have soared way beyond general inflation by a wide margin, by 12x as compared to 3.5x-4.5x from the 1970s to today.
One big problem I sensed even in my college days is the bureaucratization of college. At the time I felt that the college was capable of existing and sustaining itself even if it cut out all students and teachers, and I feel that’s even truer today. Compensation for teachers (excluding tenured) remains low, while administrative compensation has soared, along with a staff growing twofold relative to teachers, so a big part of the soaring costs of college is funding the bureaucracy.
For some time now, I’ve believed that a truer classroom education can be had outside the institutionalized college, with just informal gatherings of teachers and students, cut out the administrative middleman, especially in this day and age with the internet — hey, I learned a lot over the last decade just hanging out here! Of course, there is no “accreditation” that prospective employers require which a college could provide, but I think that’s a different issue: employability rather than enlightenment. A real education is invaluable yet inexpensive; a formal education is bogus and overpriced.
That physicist and performance artist continued with his pointless presentation in his follow-up lecture, though he kept his pants on, but he disallowed students’ use of cameras in class and had student IDs checked at the door to bar access of those who didn’t pay to attend — sounds more like a rock concert in the 1970s than a science class. The only thing he revealed is that his class is bogus. This is a general science class required of all students, usually taken in the freshman year. (This was not a required course when I was a student there; the course didn’t even exist.) This is a 4-point course, and at slightly more than $1,500 per point, and with slightly more than 1,000 entering freshmen, the university rakes in more than $6 million per year from this course (spread over two semesters), so why dispose of such a sweet deal? Doesn’t matter if students get nothing out of it.
No, you didn’t fail physics; you were just emulating McCarthy! My professor demonstrated angular momentum sitting on a rotating chair (as yours did) while holding and spinning and shifting a bicycle wheel. He kept his pants on.
23 Apr 2013 at 5:56 pm #3325
“A rockingchair by the window where an old woman sat slumped…A second shot had marked a date on a calendar on the wall behind her that was three days hence.” (NCFOM 147)
I was reminded of that description from No Country when I saw this photo of the bullet hole in the calendar at Andrew Kitzenberg’s residence in Watertown, where Kitzenberg was an eyewitness to the gun battle between police and the Boston Marathon suspects in the middle of the night last week:
26 Jul 2013 at 9:38 pm #3689
About a decade ago, Christopher D. Campbell published in The Cormac McCarthy Journal his paper: “Walter De Maria’s Lightning Field and McCarthy’s Enigmatic Epilogue: “Y qué clase de lugar es éste?”
05 Aug 2013 at 10:55 am #3715
I cannot search this site. I try to enter search terms in the top right hand corner ‘search area’ and the site basically freezes. Can anyone address this? Is the site functional to others? Does this indicate a problem with my computer, perhaps?
SmevansQuote08 Jan 2014 at 10:13 pm #4940
New York Daily News: Cormac McCarthy’s ex-wife busted after pulling gun from vagina:
“The Santa Fe couple [Jennifer McCarthy and boyfriend] was feuding over space aliens when Jennifer McCarthy unholstered a handgun from her vagina and threatened the man… The woman started having sex with the handgun, her boyfriend told cops, and asked him, ‘Who is crazy, you or me?.’”
The source of this article is credited to this report from The Smoking Gun:
“McCarthy went into her bedroom and later emerged “wearing lingerie and a silver handgun in her vagina.” She then proceeded to “have inner course with the gun”… After removing the gun from her vagina, McCarthy pointed it at her boyfriend’s head…”
Now I’m starting to wonder if The Counselor is somewhat autobiographical…
ADD: It’s now reported in many papers, and there’s even a parody; now that’s fast!
And this event announcement from today’s Metro Pulse has a badly timed headline: Cormac McCarthy International Conference Goes Down Under. Sorry, Rick, etal., that I’m laughing at this, though I’m sure you’re all working hard to put this conference together!
09 Jan 2014 at 7:27 am #4942
We know life imitates art and art returns the favor. But…
The only thing that makes it news is the Cormac McCarthy connection.
The only criminal act here is a he-said threat of domestic violence.
The “arguing about aliens” bit suggests a Jerry Springer Show teaser, a press release. A ploy, perhaps the boyfriend’s idea, to make money off the Cormac McCarthy connection? Now, that’s crazy. We’ve seen more detailed stories than this one turn out to be hoax or hype or both.
Since we have no certified pictures of Jennifer McCarthy we have nothing to compare it to. Hence the picture could be anyone. There are just too many loose ends here.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.