Female pessimists?

@ Strength

"The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself."

I wasn't really skeptical that the above quote came from her, but I looked it up to discover that it indeed came from her.

I don't think there's anything particular about the "white race" which is cancerous. Rather, I think the problem of human history is humanity itself. To posit a specific race as the source of our troubles is just simple scapegoating, not to mention very shallow. I imagine there are far better examples of female pessimists. Sarah Perry, the independent scholar on suicide, comes to mind. In some ways, I would consider Hannah Arendt to be a pessimist, though not in the fullest sense of the term. But it's really hard to tell how many there have been. Not every pessimist writes pessimistic manifestoes.
 
With Strength I Burn said:
How anyone in the world can appreciate Susan Sontag is beyond me.

One of the biggest trash ideologues I have had misfortune of reading. On the level of Ayn Rand in terms of pomposity and stupidity.

I was under the impression that only liberal Zionist globalists that hate the West enjoy her works, considering that's what she practically is.

Here's an example of her drivel:

"The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself."

I have to admit, I am a bit unnerved to see her mentioned positively. Maybe if I drank 10 beers, I can find something of value in her nonsense. I guess even intelligent folk on TLO aren't free from enjoying crap thinkers from time to time.
Click to expand...

Yes, some of Sontag's political statements were barking-mad idiotic. (Although she also came to the belated recognition that "Communism IS Fascism" and that fellow-traveling publications in the West such as The Nation had been less accurate about the Soviet Union than the Reader's Digest.)

In any case, my appreciation of her writings has nothing to do with her politics. Try reading her essays about literature and other artistic and cultural matters in the collections Against Interpretation, Styles of Radical Will, and Under the Sign of Saturn. Those essays are sometimes dubious, sometimes brilliant. Well worth reading if you are interested in the topics she is writing about.

Your comments are on a par with those who think all they need to know about Lovecraft is that he said (gasp, gasp, gasp), or all they need to know about Borges is that he dined with Pinochet, etc., etc., ad nauseum. This author said the following bad thing (pulls out notorious quote that is far from representative); therefore everything he or she wrote should be considered worthless. That kind of move is the mark of a what you call a "trash ideologue."

If someone did this type of quote-mining with your comments, how well would you fare? Many of us will remember that you quoted ANDERS BREIVIK in support of an argument, for fuck's sake! I gave you a pass on that, since your comments are usually more sensible. But if Sontag was a "trash ideologue" by your ridiculous quote-mining standard, then so are you.
 
Dorothy Parker was more of a witty cynic, but there's a smack of pessimism in some of her poems, I think. Like this poem titled "Coda"

There's little in taking or giving,
There's little in water or wine;
This living, this living, this living
Was never a project of mine.
Oh, hard is the struggle, and sparse is
The gain of the one at the top,
For art is a form of catharsis
And love is a permanent flop,
And work is the province of cattle,
And rest's for a clam in a shell,
So I'm thinking of throwing the battle—
Would you kindly direct me to hell?
 
With Strength I Burn said:
"The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself."
Click to expand...

I don't know if this contention of Sontag's requires a response, though there are innumerable responses that could be made. If one were pressed for time, as I am now, one might content oneself with the two words, "Easter Island."
 
AIDS and its Metaphors and especially Illness as Metaphor are extraordinarily interesting pieces of criticism.

She could be excessively stupid and also highly insightful. Like most intellectuals. But trying to use one quote to invalidate her entire work is stupid.
 
Susan Sontag wrote a great essay on pornography -- one of the best I have read -- that is often included as a sort of 'Afterword' to various editions of the standard (Joachim Neugroschal) English translation of Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye.

This essay (entitled 'The Pornographic Imagination') makes the point that books such as Bataille's novel are obscene and their value derives from this fact, because obscenity is a deep part of the human condition that must be examined (if not lauded)... whereas all other commentators on Bataille, De Sade, Reage, etc, have tried to dodge the issue of obscenity and have attempted to redefine the texts under scrutiny as somehow metaphorical, transformational, spiritual, etc.

Sontag claims that this approach is in bad faith and that the fact something is obscene doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I like this essay. However I haven't read any of Sontag's novels, so I can't really comment on her work beyond this one essay.
 
rhysaurus said:
Susan Sontag wrote a great essay on pornography -- one of the best I have read -- that is often included as a sort of 'Afterword' to various editions of the standard (Joachim Neugroschal) English translation of Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye.

This essay (entitled 'The Pornographic Imagination') makes the point that books such as Bataille's novel are obscene and their value derives from this fact, because obscenity is a deep part of the human condition that must be examined (if not lauded)... whereas all other commentators on Bataille, De Sade, Reage, etc, have tried to dodge the issue of obscenity and have attempted to redefine the texts under scrutiny as somehow metaphorical, transformational, spiritual, etc.

Sontag claims that this approach is in bad faith and that the fact something is obscene doesn't mean it doesn't have value. I like this essay. However I haven't read any of Sontag's novels, so I can't really comment on her work beyond this one essay.
Click to expand...

I've read that one, too. I thought 'Must We Burn Sade?', which was used as an introduction to a volume of the works of De Sade, was also by her, but googling, I find it was by Simone de Beauvoir.
 
Daisy said:
Perhaps the overall lack of known female philosophers and writers who articulate a dark or problematic view of existence can be blamed in part on the “gallery’s” abhorrence (to pick up on Bleak&Icy’s terms) of a negative woman, i.e., one who either acts out her negativity or expresses it in some systematic way. Fortunately, women like Laura Riding Jackson, Ai [Florence Anthony], Marguerite Yourcenar and others faced down the prospect of opprobrium and challenged expectations. For writers both female and male, it takes great courage to publish ideas that many will perceive as oppositional, obscure, or grotesque.
Click to expand...

A tangent
https://kittysneezes.com/im-not-here-to-make-friends-on-unlikable-female-characters/
I found some of this very funny too. Gretchen Felker Martin and RS Benedict talking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top