Popular Posts

Showing posts with label Bella Swan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bella Swan. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

DUSTY REVIEW: A KISS Is DANGEROUS

DUSTY BY YELLOWBELLA HERE
Garrett doesn't let me go, though. He's still kissing 

my face, closer to my mouth. Little by little, perfect 

presses…

Until his lips are on mine and his tongue is parting 

my bottom from my top. Until he's inside of me the 

only way this boy has ever been—the only way he 

ever will be. (DUSTY chapter 37)


Step back: the pattern in the tapestry
won’t tell itself till more of it is made.
Although it’s eighty-seven in the shade,
we have to work this hard making the hist-
ory we need till, trusting it, we’re free
to kiss each other better than when we
imagined kissing when we hadn’t kissed.


Now do you imagine what it might have been like to kiss him for a long long time because you didn't dare to find out
Or do you find out and let go of it?
Would you rather your lover wondered in their imagination? For a long long time?

BRANCUSI   THE KISS
THE KISS - KATE CHOPIN


“The Kiss” — Kate Chopin

BY BIBLIOKLEPT


Monday, August 20, 2012

To Love Truly Is To Want The Other Free

LOCKS representing true love forever on Paris bridges


At the heart of love à la française lies the idea of 

freedom. To love truly is to want the other free, and this 

includes the freedom to walk away. Love is not about 

possession or property. Love is no prison where two 

people are each other’s slaves. Love is not a commodity, 

either. Love is not capitalist, it is revolutionary. If 

anything, true love shows you the way to selflessness.




So please tell me where is the grey, boring, monotonous 

thought of "cheating" coming from?

The French Know

 Yet, instead of sharing the naïve joy of the world’s 
Romeos and Juliets, some Parisians have felt 
increasingly irritated. Walking on those bridges 
has become almost insufferable for them. The pain 
doesn’t come only from the fact that some bridges, 
like Pont de l’Archevêché and Pont des Arts, now 
feel as if they could collapse under the weight of 
tourists’ undying love but also from the idea 
that a lock could represent love. Such an 
idea is abhorrent to many French people.
“The fools! They haven’t understood a thing about love, have they?” 
.......Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir famously never married and 
never lived together and, although a couple in the absolute sense of the term, 
they had lasting and meaningful relationships with strings of brilliant minds 
and pretty faces. They deemed jealousy bourgeois and 
banal.

In his recent book, “In Praise of Love,” the French 
philosopher Alain Badiou 
reminds us that love implies 
constant risk. There is no safe, 
everlasting love. The idea 
that you can lock two people’s 
love once and for all, and toss 
the key, is a puerile fantasy. 
For Mr. Badiou, love is 
inherently hazardous, always 
on the brink of failure and 
above all vulnerable. Embrace its fragility, wish your 
beloved 
to be free and you might just, only just, have a chance to 
retain his or her undying gratitude, and love. But don’t 
ever 
dream of locks and throwing keys overboard, 

especially not 



in Paris.
DeLillo's Elise in Cosmopolis:


No he (Cronenberg) didn't keep the relationship between Elise and Packer the same as in the book:

What is money to a poet, she says, love the world and trace it in a line of verse. Without Elise there's no love of the world. No Elise makes the movie as detached as Eric is in it. Cosmopolis the book is a verse. Cosmopolis the movie is not, it's a movie.

Instead of words from the book, Cronenberg says he gives an actor's face.
This post is for Elise's face missing in the movie when Eric realizes he loves her and she slips away.


For Elise, the face of love. The kind of love which sprungs out mysteriously in unexpected places; which enables, is not selfish, makes one do foolish things and wear turbans, which supports and understands without asking, which gives and makes one free to be a gull at dawn, anything and everything one can be. Which makes one an overman. Even if everything and anything one is, is dead in the end. Precisely because that which one ultimately is in the end is dead .



Amor fati, nothing altered, nothing alterable.

Cronenberg thought this part was a fantasy because Cronenberg thinks love is a fantasy.

“Love is not a state, a feeling, a disposition, but an exchange, uneven, fraught with history, with ghosts, with longings that are more or less legible to those who try to see one another with their own faulty vision.” - Judith Butler

In The Bluest Eye, Toni Morrison writes (and I have quoted this many times), “Love is never any better than the lover. Wicked people love wickedly, violent people love violently, weak people love weakly, stupid people love stupidly. There is no gift for the beloved. The lover alone possesses his gift of love.”
In Mourning Diary, Roland Barthes writes (he is speaking of emotional intelligence), “…intelligence is everything that permits us to live superlatively with another person.”
This is where knowing how to treat someone well and wanting to treat someone well converge.
From Masha Tupitsyn: 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

And So The Lion Fell In Love With The Lamb - Isaiah, Twilight

The Lion In Love - Aesop

And it was all those mediocre untalented directors who pulled your fangs Rob.

That you traded your body thrusting, thrusting, thrusting for so they could ride on your back to the box office NOT as it turned out.

Just as you have conspired - knowingly or not - with Cronenberg to defang DeLillo by ringing that fucking NYSE bell this morning.

Occupy do not ever forgive him for this. Do not ever forgive either one of them for this. 

Cronenberg will get his "30 pieces of silver" in financing for his next film for this.

Rob will get maybe some acting acclaim.

THE USUAL for bending over to take it up the ass. 

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Hospitality of the Matrix: Philosophy, Biomedicine, and Culture - Irina Aristarkhova - Reading Through Lacan


Irina’s new book, Hospitality of the Matrix: Philosophy, Biomedicine, and Culture is a refreshing and bold addition to a truly progressive feminist theory in North America.  I will be completing a series of interviews with Irina about her new work, which draws on Luce Irigaray(one of my favorite theorist working in the field of Lacanian psychoanalysis and Feminist theory).  The synopsis reads as follows:
The question “Where do we come from?” has fascinated philosophers, scientists, and artists for generations. This book reorients the question of the matrix as a place where everything comes from (chora, womb, incubator) by recasting it in terms of acts of “matrixial/maternal hospitality” producing space and matter of and for the other. Irina Aristarkhova theorizes such hospitality with the potential to go beyond tolerance in understanding self/other relations. Building on and critically evaluating a wide range of historical and contemporary scholarship, she applies this theoretical framework to the science, technology, and art of ectogenesis (artificial womb, neonatal incubators, and other types of generation outside of the maternal body) and proves the question “Can the machine nurse?” is critical when approaching and understanding the functional capacities and failures of incubating technologies, such as artificial placenta. Aristarkhova concludes with the science and art of male pregnancy, positioning the condition as a question of the hospitable man and newly defined fatherhood and its challenge to the conception of masculinity as unable to welcome the other” (see the link above).
About the Author
Irina Aristarkhova is associate professor of women’s studies and visual art at Pennsylvania State University, University Park. She edited and contributed to the volume Woman Does Not Exist: Contemporary Studies of Sexual Difference and to the Russian translation of Luce Irigaray’s An Ethics of Sexual Difference.
This book inspired me to come up with a thought experiment with some of my graduate students after a seminar.  We thought of the idea of opening up a seminar by asking a man the following question:  ”If it were possible, would you give birth to a baby?”  This question is provocative because it asks a man to think about an alien creature entering and growing in his body, which by extension gives birth to the core idea of Irina’s radical notion of “hospitality” because if you are not willing to have your body invaded by a foreign body (literally) than how does this relate to the kernel notion of openness to the other?  And further,  we might ask: How does this relate to the fundamental notion of masculinity?  Does the domain of masculinity, for example, contain within it an open-ness?  Irina and I will discuss these and other basic questions like the future of Women’s Studies in North America, the truth of Feminism, and, of course, psychoanalysis (Lacan style)!
Also I’m thrilled to announce that my friend, and one of Europe’s greatest Feminist thinkers,  Professor Katerina Kolozova will publish her book _The Cut of the Real_ in my book series I co-edit at Columbia University Press!