Diogenes wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:56:13 +1100, Hammo <ha...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>> On 6/11/09 1:51 PM, in article >> 2af9fdf0-2c5e-40af-8080-289b71ab1...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "theo" >> <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 10:44 am, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:57:29 -0800 (PST), theo
>>>> <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote: >>>>> Pirsig should never have been released from the asylum... >>>> Can you explain why you say that, Theo? (I presume that any reply >>>> will be referenced back to ZATAOMM.) >>> What do you want? Page number references where he says he was/is >>> totally mentally unstable? IMHO, having read the book twice, once on >>> release and again a couple of years ago, the man had a mental >>> breakdown and rambled on about it in a book which had nothing to do >>> with motorcycles or, in my limited understanding of the subject, Zen. >>> His 'trip' was escapism from his own mind and from the portion of the >>> world he had previously lived in.
>>> Just because it has the word Motorcycle in the title and was lauded by >>> self-appraised critics who have probably never even sat on a bicycle >>> doesn't mean I, or anybody else, can't see the book for the drivel it >>> really was. But hey, that's just my opinion, he may be the guru on the >>> rusty 250 Honda you were searching for.
>> You must have read another book, Theo. There was plenty of motorcycle >> references in it.
> His mind is made up, Hammo. Don't confuse him with facts.
> =================
> Onya bike
> Gerry
I suppose you enjoy endless dissertations on Proust.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:44:03 +1100, Diogenes wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:02:32 GMT, Andrew > <amckNOSPAM3...@telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:33:21 +1100, Diogenes wrote:
>>> He was on a Beemer, and I wasn't looking for a gury, and he's not it >>> anyway. As I said, you're not just dismissive of his book, you're >>> dismissive of anyone who sees any merit in the book. How very Dutch >>> of you.
>>> Thanks for your time.
>>I don't think you're right about the bike, Gerry - I've always >>understood he was on a Honda CB350. It was his friends (John(?) and >>Sylvia(?)) who were on the Beemer.
> Ahhh... You're right. (You made me get the book off the shelf) The > Beemer was his friend's bike. It was an R60.
>>That aside, while I disagree with almost everything Theo has to say >>about the book, I read it a few times soon after it was published, but >>when I tried to re-read it a couple of years ago, I couldn't - >>stylistically at least, it hasn't aged well at all. So I got rid of our >>copy, which is why I can't refresh my memory on his friend's names.
> The Beemer owner's name is John Sutherland. His wife's name is Sylvia.
> People who want to slam the book ought to at least read the Wikipedia > article abou the book because it may explain a few things for them > _before_ they air their ignorance and thus they may do a better quality > critique.
Thanks for the link, very interesting. Pirsig's bike was a Honda Superhawk CB77, 1964 model. I was wrong.
People who have never read (or people who have read and misunderstood) the book could benefit from reading this:
" ... this is NOT a book about motorcycles and the discussion of it belongs on some literary part of the Internet. If you feel inclined to read more about philosophy - this is a good beginner’s book. If you want to read about motorcycle maintenance, look elsewhere. ... "
Diogenes wrote: > People who want to slam the book ought to at least read the Wikipedia > article abou the book because it may explain a few things for them > _before_ they air their ignorance and thus they may do a better > quality critique.
When I finally buy another HD to park next to my Triumph I will find my inner peace...
Yeah, verily, though I happily and willingly delve into the bowels of a simple Harley, I do likewise for the infinite complexity of electronicry on a British EFI bike.
I can sit and stare at both, taking in the beauty of the lines for hours. The Trump, the best of British design, like an E-type Jag or a Spitfire. The Harley, Pavarotti, Peterbilt, P-47 Thunderbolt. Heavy. Basic. Effective. Made to go the distance.
And at 130ks* on either, when I have the time to go somewhere far away, I leave the bonds of responsibility to others behind and I find Nirvana.
Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote: > People who want to slam the book ought to at least read the Wikipedia > article abou the book because it may explain a few things for them > _before_ they air their ignorance and thus they may do a better > quality critique.
Just like you, eh Gerry?
Gerry wrote: >Theo wrote: >>Gerry wrote: >>> He was on a Beemer,
>>I thought you said you read the book several times? It was a small >>Honda, as evidenced by several occassions where he was forced to stop >>because of headwinds causing the bike to overheat.
>Since my mental crack-up in 1997 my memory gets a bit funny on >occasions. I got mixed up about which bike was whose.
;-)
big (something about pots and kettles and accusation of hue...)
-- As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you'll need the cocaine. Tape recorder for special music. Acapulco shirts. Get the hell out of L.A. for at least 48 hours. Blows my weekend.
On Nov 6, 5:14 pm, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:30:55 -0800 (PST), theo > Since my mental crack-up in 1997 my memory gets a bit funny on > occasions. I got mixed up about which bike was whose. It's been a > long time since I've read the book. As with movies, I often forget > most of the story's details soon after. But a general impression > about its quality stays with me. Hence I know whether I thought a > story was great or awful. I thought ZATAOMM was brilliant. > Apparently, according to some Dutchmen this makes me of dubious > character. Fuck you.
You were always a dubious character Gerry. Your opinion is valid. My opinion of the book is different but also valid. Perception is reality.
> >How very racist of you.
> Yes, innit? ;-) Don't you just love it when you're on the > receiving end of stereotyping for a change? Happy-making, innit?
Oops, did I touch a little nerve somewhere or do you just hate everybody who disagrees with your opinion/perception/reality?
On Nov 6, 5:50 pm, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But then some people liked the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant so there > is a market for books about whiny incompetent blowhards.
Hehehe. I read Thomas C many years ago (early eighties). I was literally waiting for him to finish writing each volume, and am now reading the new series.
>>>I don't want to buy into the above conversation - but I do want to mention >>>the book. I read it many many years ago and didn't get it, I suspect. I >>>didn't enjoy it, at least, but I can't actually remember why. (It was a >>>long >>>time ago and I was very young).
>> If everyone liked every book we'd be on Planet Woopwoop.
>>>I tried again, more recently, seeing as it's supposedly a bit of an iconic >>>read for motorcyclists - and couldn't even get a quarter of the way >>>through - and this time I know why. I found the style of the narrative so >>>alienating for some reason that I simply couldn't engage with it, and >>>therefore couldn't keep going with it. I felt as if the story was pushing >>>me away, and I gave up the fight. I must admit, now I no longer have to >>>read/teach for a living, I don't persevere with things that don't engage >>>me - life's too short to read stuff I don't enjoy...
>> I notice that you're languaging your response to the book from the >> point of view that the book is responsible for your reactions to it. >> i.e. that the book is "doing it to you", it is "making you" respond a >> certain way, it is responsible for your reactions? That's a >> victim-mentality mindset, I would argue. Have you ever considered >> that your reactions are a result of _your_ stuff - i.e. your values, >> your judgements, your expectations, your beliefs, etc., etc., etc. >> i.e. the book is not making you feel that way, your stuff is making >> you feel that way. A radical concept, I know. :-( Never mind, >> I've lost the plot, you know...
>Nah, what I'm talking about really and truly is the Reader Response school >of Literary Criticism (undoubtedly an unfashionable school in these days of >Post-Marxist-Post-Feminist-Postmodern Criticism, but anyway...) I still >reckon a reader's response to a text is a perfectly valid response, and all >those things you mentioned - values, judgements, etc, come into it.
Yep, the reader's response is valid. My only argument is that when the reade bales the book for their resomse to it, they are missing the causality bus entirely.
> I felt totally alienated by the narrative voice, and, had I been a student of >literature at the time, I would've slogged through it and dissected it and >annotated all the points of alienation.... the tone, particular scenes, the >characters etc etc - but as a common-or-garden reader, I just said "erk, I >can't be bothered with this"
Fine. That's your resonse. Own it.
Saying (or implying) that the book caused it is a crock (IMNSHO). It's also a form of absolutism and what I would call literary fascism.
>>> ...but perhaps one day I'll be in the right frame of mind to attempt >>>ZATAOMM again. After reading the comments from Theo and Gerry >>>above, perhaps I need to have a fresh look at it... >> Nah. You may never like it. And that's OK too. It's way too >> philosophical and "esoteric" for most people. And it is eminently >> easy to disagree with much of it. It is a polarising book, i.e. >> one's reactions to it tend to be either extremely for or extremely >> against. >> I wouldn't argue though that those who are for it are right and those >> who are against it are wrong, or vice versa. I think it's a form of >> literary snobbery to pull a book to pieces (or praise it). But >> there's a lot of that going on these days. Like everyone is lecturer >> in literature. What a wank. Pompousness is the new black.
>> You either like it or you don't. You either "get" it or you don't. >> (generic "you")
>> Here endeth the rant... ;-) >I still love you Gerry ;-) And I still intend to have another go at ZATAOMM >one day.... Just not yet....
<theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote: >On Nov 6, 5:14 pm, Diogenes <cy...@society.sux.ok> wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:30:55 -0800 (PST), theo
>> Since my mental crack-up in 1997 my memory gets a bit funny on >> occasions. I got mixed up about which bike was whose. It's been a >> long time since I've read the book. As with movies, I often forget >> most of the story's details soon after. But a general impression >> about its quality stays with me. Hence I know whether I thought a >> story was great or awful. I thought ZATAOMM was brilliant. >> Apparently, according to some Dutchmen this makes me of dubious >> character. Fuck you.
>You were always a dubious character Gerry.
A fact I'm quite proud of, Theo. I've seen lots of undubious characters in my time and I don't want ot be anything like yuze. ;-)
>Your opinion is valid. My opinion of the book is different but also >valid. Perception is reality.
Persception is perception. Perception can be very subjective and flawed, even erroneous. Ergo, it has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, except perhaps that on rare occasions, someone will correctly perceive reality. Get real. ;-)
>> >How very racist of you.
>> Yes, innit? ;-) Don't you just love it when you're on the >> receiving end of stereotyping for a change? Happy-making, innit? >Oops, did I touch a little nerve somewhere or do you just hate >everybody who disagrees with your opinion/perception/reality?
As you believe, so it is for you, glass dropper...
Shit my typing's bad. I think my keyboard is dyslexic.
Here's the corrected bit:
Yep, the reader's response is valid. My only argument is that when the reader blames the book for their responsese to it, they are missing the causality bus entirely.
Diogenes wrote: > Shit my typing's bad. I think my keyboard is dyslexic.
> Here's the corrected bit:
> Yep, the reader's response is valid. My only argument is that when > the reader blames the book for their responsese to it, they are > missing the causality bus entirely.
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:36:07 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Diogenes wrote: >> Shit my typing's bad. I think my keyboard is dyslexic.
>> Here's the corrected bit:
>> Yep, the reader's response is valid. My only argument is that when >> the reader blames the book for their responsese to it, they are >> missing the causality bus entirely.
Diogenes wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:50:23 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>>>> You must have read another book, Theo. There was plenty of motorcycle >>>> references in it. >>> His mind is made up, Hammo. Don't confuse him with facts.
>> I suppose you enjoy endless dissertations on Proust.
> You suppose incorrectly. I have never read Proust, let alone > dissertated on him.
dissertation / / n. a detailed discourse on a subject, esp. one submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a degree or diploma. dissertational adj. [Latin dissertatio from dissertare ‘discuss’, frequentative of disserere dissert- ‘examine’ (as dis-, serere ‘join’)]
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:40:26 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Diogenes wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:50:23 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>> You must have read another book, Theo. There was plenty of motorcycle >>>>> references in it. >>>> His mind is made up, Hammo. Don't confuse him with facts. >>> I suppose you enjoy endless dissertations on Proust. >> You suppose incorrectly. I have never read Proust, let alone >> dissertated on him. >dissertation / / n. >a detailed discourse on a subject, esp. one submitted in partial >fulfilment of the requirements of a degree or diploma. >dissertational adj. >[Latin dissertatio from dissertare ‘discuss’, frequentative of disserere >dissert- ‘examine’ (as dis-, serere ‘join’)]
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:33:21 +1100, Diogenes wrote:
>> He was on a Beemer, and I wasn't looking for a gury, and he's not it >> anyway. As I said, you're not just dismissive of his book, you're >> dismissive of anyone who sees any merit in the book. How very Dutch of >> you.
>> Thanks for your time.
>> =================
>> Onya bike
>> Gerry
> I don't think you're right about the bike, Gerry - I've always understood > he was on a Honda CB350. It was his friends (John(?) and Sylvia(?)) who > were on the Beemer.
> That aside, while I disagree with almost everything Theo has to say about > the book, I read it a few times soon after it was published, but when I > tried to re-read it a couple of years ago, I couldn't - stylistically at > least, it hasn't aged well at all. So I got rid of our copy, which is why > I can't refresh my memory on his friend's names.
Diogenes wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:40:26 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
>> Diogenes wrote: >>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:50:23 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote:
>>>>>> You must have read another book, Theo. There was plenty of motorcycle >>>>>> references in it. >>>>> His mind is made up, Hammo. Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>> I suppose you enjoy endless dissertations on Proust.
>>> You suppose incorrectly. I have never read Proust, let alone >>> dissertated on him.
>> dissertation / / n. >> a detailed discourse on a subject, esp. one submitted in partial >> fulfilment of the requirements of a degree or diploma. >> dissertational adj. >> [Latin dissertatio from dissertare ‘discuss’, frequentative of disserere >> dissert- ‘examine’ (as dis-, serere ‘join’)]
> Look up "anal retentive."
> =================
> Onya bike
> Gerry
Just bored at the moment ,nothing else to do till tomorrow.
>Diogenes wrote: >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:40:26 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> Diogenes wrote: >>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:50:23 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> You must have read another book, Theo. There was plenty of motorcycle >>>>>>> references in it. >>>>>> His mind is made up, Hammo. Don't confuse him with facts.
>>>>> I suppose you enjoy endless dissertations on Proust.
>>>> You suppose incorrectly. I have never read Proust, let alone >>>> dissertated on him.
>>> dissertation / / n. >>> a detailed discourse on a subject, esp. one submitted in partial >>> fulfilment of the requirements of a degree or diploma. >>> dissertational adj. >>> [Latin dissertatio from dissertare ‘discuss’, frequentative of disserere >>> dissert- ‘examine’ (as dis-, serere ‘join’)]
>> Look up "anal retentive." >Just bored at the moment ,nothing else to do till tomorrow.
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:36:07 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> > wrote:
> >Diogenes wrote: > >> Shit my typing's bad. I think my keyboard is dyslexic.
> >> Here's the corrected bit:
> >> Yep, the reader's response is valid. My only argument is that when > >> the reader blames the book for their responsese to it, they are > >> missing the causality bus entirely.
> >still dyslexic.
> Pedant.
> =================
> Onya bike
> Gerry
Maybe your keyboard should catch the Casualty Bus....
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:40:26 +1100, F Murtz wrote: > Diogenes wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:50:23 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> >> wrote:
>>>>> You must have read another book, Theo. There was plenty of >>>>> motorcycle references in it. >>>> His mind is made up, Hammo. Don't confuse him with facts.
>>> I suppose you enjoy endless dissertations on Proust.
>> You suppose incorrectly. I have never read Proust, let alone >> dissertated on him.
> dissertation / / n. > a detailed discourse on a subject, esp. one submitted in partial > fulfilment of the requirements of a degree or diploma. dissertational > adj. > [Latin dissertatio from dissertare ‘discuss’, frequentative of disserere > dissert- ‘examine’ (as dis-, serere ‘join’)]
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:36:07 +1100, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> >> wrote:
>> >Diogenes wrote: >> >> Shit my typing's bad. I think my keyboard is dyslexic.
>> >> Here's the corrected bit:
>> >> Yep, the reader's response is valid. My only argument is that when >> >> the reader blames the book for their responsese to it, they are >> >> missing the causality bus entirely.
>> >still dyslexic.
>> Pedant. >Maybe your keyboard should catch the Casualty Bus....
|
