The post a couple days back looks like I'm accusing Ron Reagan, Salman Rushdie, and Georg Lichtenberg of being unthinky atheists. It's really just because while I could get them aligned right to left in the box as I wrote, and thus format the pictures spatially where it made sense with the text, Lichtenberg would crawl all over Rushdie once I posted. Not being a gay man, it was more perplexing than hot. (Not that I am accusing the gay world of having crushes on Salman Rushdie and Georg Lichtenberg, mind you; the world may be a strange place, but I don't think it is that strange.)
Had the post gone as I had wished, i.e., had my formatting prowess been simply sub-par rather than hideously, unfathomably, preternatually low, then under 'devout atheist' in pink the three would have been arrayed left to right, with Lichtenberg and his glowing ball in the middle. Then and only then would have come the stuff about being reactionary and anti-reason. Unlike Seattle weather, my technological abilities will - quite often, really - cease to amaze.
Showing posts with label Salman Rushdie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salman Rushdie. Show all posts
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Gay Post #3 (Don't Worry Mom; I Still Only Love Michael Bywater. I Swear.)
Well, I couldn't be more excited. Headbang8 of the Deutschland űber Elvis (still here) blog blogrolled me after my lauding his witty recounting of an uncomfortable encounter with the Deutschlandisch police. I'm tickled, well, pink, I guess, not only because that's my only chromatic option in that cliche, but also because his blog is by turns very funny and well-thought-out, and he is as gay as my gay exhusband. Which I suppose means nothing other than that if I were gay, we'd have that in common, and that pink is somehow therefore apposite. A tenuous link, but one I'm more than happy to grasp at. Plus, even though he is a devout atheist, 
he is not one of those stinky, unthinky kinds who are as dull as their religious-fundamentalist counterparts: he asks questions, as all good believers and non-believers alike should do. (As opposed to just the people in between, who seem to be the only ones consistently and reliably to have no problem doing that!) (Which makes the religion question different from, and in fact less prickly than, the musical theatre one, as there are no agnostics with regard to that particular cultural phenomenon.)
Anyway, I so routinely experience near-meltdowns while tackling technological issues (notice my sorry excuse for an umlauted u above and you'll get the picture; other than the MS Character Set, and pillaging them from other sites, I don't know how to get one up on Blogger) and forget what I am doing halfway through, that I at some point abandoned giving the descriptions of sites I like, or even separating the list into categories. Mr. 8, however, apparently encounters no such difficulties routinely, and therefore appended a brief description of me to his link.What he put as his description was 'very, very well read,' so I put a different version of the Unamuno header up to substantiate that accusation. Of course, that required some mind-bending, positively deadly HTML, much hand-wringing, and forty-five minutes of crying into the neighbor's cat's fur, not to mention the fact that I destroyed my carefully-crafted color scheme and now have to put the blog name and rotating blog description in black in order that they be seen over the too-variable hues of the picture. I also tried black-and-whiting versions of the previous blue-and-red header so that I wouldn't wreck the color scheme, but it looked wrong with all the colored photos around.
Anyway #2, I don't really know what I think of a complete stranger encapsulating me as 'very well read.' Of course, he is gay, so 'gorgeously well read' is perhaps hoping for a bit much. After all, I look nothing like Celine Dion (I'm sorry, gay people; I know it's a cheap shot, but I can't help it any more than I can tolerate her mincing anorexic-motherhood persona), so what would he know? I am so much more, of course: poor driver, good cook, bad hairstylist, great decorator, inept photographer, skilled volunteer, terrible flyer, cloying writer.
---Nuts! I have to go! I feel a song coming on!
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Don't Ask
A friend called me the C-word last night. No, not 'conversational' in a reckless gambit to make me believe I'm witty, nor 'conscientious,' in some euphemistic slur on my precise salad-forking tendencies, but complex. A few weeks ago, when I was still young and naive and had an Internet dating profile up on Match, it did say 'complex' in the profile. But I didn't mean it. It even said I wasn't, right next to it, to clarify. It was only in there to scare off any witless chuckleheads who might have problems with a date who has held season tickets to minor league hockey and the symphony in the same season.
The dullards, in other words, one of which my friend assuredly is not. So what he was commenting on was not some assortment of trivial interests or activities that would seem irreconcilable to a lesser man, but rather something about my personality or emotional life. I would know more about the comment, and its basis and subtext and metatext and and implications, except that I didn't ask him to elaborate, and I don't even remember what I said that elicited this remark.
That is because I don't ask questions. This is a failing and a strength. It is a great strength when dating mobsters, for example, and it can keep a marriage going long after a spouse's infidelity would have crushed the union for a more inquisitive type. It protects one from needing to engage in all manner of unpleasant conversations with employees, clients, friends...with even taxi drivers and shipping-company representatives. It is seemly. And, I would argue, frequently pragmatic: if the package will be delayed, if you will be unable to make it to work or home, it is the consequences of that fact which are the most pressing, not whether it is strictly true that you have seven children and all have suddenly been stricken with broken femurs and the bubonic plague.
Still, sometimes it is indeed counterproductive. Even if I do believe that everything necessary will ultimately be evinced, I imagine an argument could be made for the convenience of knowing some things earlier. I might not spend hours on a big bouillabaisse if we get your shellfish allergy out in the open before it is strictly, absolutely relevant. Or, with regard to dating, I might learn something about you if I inquire as to how or why past relationships ended. And yet it rarely occurs to me to do so.
Likewise I don't wish to talk about myself unduly or accept injudicious praise, so a comment I might construe as flattering or untrue is likely to be met with a simple demurral, and it may thus only be an insult with the sting of veracity that would elicit requests for expansion. Simultaneously, in the other direction, I am seldom sure where the line is that separates conversation from prying, and I thus always err on the side of politesse. In other words, I believe you will tell me what you believe I should know about you at this point, and I am trusting that you are possessed of sufficient good sense and consideration such that we would likely be in accord as to what is relevant.
It is a leap of faith, I suppose: I'm assuming you'll want to let me know that you are still on parole for those youthful murders in '92, or that you lovelovelove Monet, or that, if you had your heart's deepest desire, you would furnish your house in Tuscan Cat style. It's not just about bad things, though: with this as my prejudice and custom, I often miss comments others would construe as leading, as openings, and I sometimes grasp this after I'm gone, in a sinking esprit d'escalier moment on the solitary homeward drive.
Let me clarify that these are not in the main momentous insights or wickedly witty bons mots I regret missing the chance to impress people with. Rather, these are things such as, 'Good heavens, how did that make you feel at the time?' 'That's horrific; how did you get out alive?' 'My, theology to genetics: that's a big jump. What prompted the switch?' 'Huh, next seat, eh? What was Rushdie like in person?' Or even, as a recent example that will haunt me ever, 'Oh, to where?'
It's not as though this is crippling; I do carry on conversations all the time. And in the last case, I saved myself when I noticed the blinking 'insert question' light. However, were I to guess, I would suspect most people would not have hesitated and would have found, instead, asking the question to appear more seemly than not asking it. Perhaps to most it would not even have been a question of appropriateness; it would have been fluid, 'natural' to perceive the statement as an opening. Perhaps in most cases no deliberation would have been called for. All of that is needless speculation, of course; if I'm meant to know whether that's true, I will in time.
The dullards, in other words, one of which my friend assuredly is not. So what he was commenting on was not some assortment of trivial interests or activities that would seem irreconcilable to a lesser man, but rather something about my personality or emotional life. I would know more about the comment, and its basis and subtext and metatext and and implications, except that I didn't ask him to elaborate, and I don't even remember what I said that elicited this remark.
That is because I don't ask questions. This is a failing and a strength. It is a great strength when dating mobsters, for example, and it can keep a marriage going long after a spouse's infidelity would have crushed the union for a more inquisitive type. It protects one from needing to engage in all manner of unpleasant conversations with employees, clients, friends...with even taxi drivers and shipping-company representatives. It is seemly. And, I would argue, frequently pragmatic: if the package will be delayed, if you will be unable to make it to work or home, it is the consequences of that fact which are the most pressing, not whether it is strictly true that you have seven children and all have suddenly been stricken with broken femurs and the bubonic plague.
Still, sometimes it is indeed counterproductive. Even if I do believe that everything necessary will ultimately be evinced, I imagine an argument could be made for the convenience of knowing some things earlier. I might not spend hours on a big bouillabaisse if we get your shellfish allergy out in the open before it is strictly, absolutely relevant. Or, with regard to dating, I might learn something about you if I inquire as to how or why past relationships ended. And yet it rarely occurs to me to do so.
Likewise I don't wish to talk about myself unduly or accept injudicious praise, so a comment I might construe as flattering or untrue is likely to be met with a simple demurral, and it may thus only be an insult with the sting of veracity that would elicit requests for expansion. Simultaneously, in the other direction, I am seldom sure where the line is that separates conversation from prying, and I thus always err on the side of politesse. In other words, I believe you will tell me what you believe I should know about you at this point, and I am trusting that you are possessed of sufficient good sense and consideration such that we would likely be in accord as to what is relevant.
It is a leap of faith, I suppose: I'm assuming you'll want to let me know that you are still on parole for those youthful murders in '92, or that you lovelovelove Monet, or that, if you had your heart's deepest desire, you would furnish your house in Tuscan Cat style. It's not just about bad things, though: with this as my prejudice and custom, I often miss comments others would construe as leading, as openings, and I sometimes grasp this after I'm gone, in a sinking esprit d'escalier moment on the solitary homeward drive.
Let me clarify that these are not in the main momentous insights or wickedly witty bons mots I regret missing the chance to impress people with. Rather, these are things such as, 'Good heavens, how did that make you feel at the time?' 'That's horrific; how did you get out alive?' 'My, theology to genetics: that's a big jump. What prompted the switch?' 'Huh, next seat, eh? What was Rushdie like in person?' Or even, as a recent example that will haunt me ever, 'Oh, to where?'
It's not as though this is crippling; I do carry on conversations all the time. And in the last case, I saved myself when I noticed the blinking 'insert question' light. However, were I to guess, I would suspect most people would not have hesitated and would have found, instead, asking the question to appear more seemly than not asking it. Perhaps to most it would not even have been a question of appropriateness; it would have been fluid, 'natural' to perceive the statement as an opening. Perhaps in most cases no deliberation would have been called for. All of that is needless speculation, of course; if I'm meant to know whether that's true, I will in time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
