Journalism is nearest to writing's magical roots than lots of fiction. And at least some operator in this area - people like the latest Hearst and Henry Luce - certainly saw much clearly and consciousness journalism like a bewitch act realized to cause determinate effects. And technology is magical technology: in case of newspapers and magazines mainly black magic. They knock pins in somebody's imagine and then show it to milion people. You can see how it's easy, if you're a paper master, put in it fake stories: it happened and continuously happen - expecially the Time to tell the truth.
Starting on being a week early, they literally write news before its happen; that explains why they publish so many false assertion that they could have to step off afterwards. And so you got a retraction from them - but how many people do read a retraction as compared with those who read the wrong tale? You have always heard it: there was a tell around and it said that some hippies in an LSD trip went blind after fixing the sun. Then there was a turndown - the story was a fib. But there was more people that read the new than people that read the retraction so the anecdote is still believed.
William Randolph Hearst had two rules for San Simeon guests: first, whoever housed in there must appear for dinner no matter wich condition he or she is. This is so understandable - otherwise people would stay getting drunken in their room and imitating his manners, and he would lose his control on circumstances. It's the old Army game of Summon Up. And rule number two: nobody can pronounce the DEATH word in the presence of Mr. Hearst. There is a very good magical reason for this command: Mr. Hearst was playing the death part. Play the death part means you have always to be able to affect on others, but they can't never be allowed to affect on you. One comes down clothed as skeleton and the old coul lose his status.
So what's the difference between Mr. Hearst and a novel's writer? I mean a real writer, like Beckett, Genet, Joyce, Hemingway, Conrad, Fitzgerald, Kafka...straightway we have a distinction: can you imagine a writer or an artist who would be scared hearing the DEATH word? For sure I can't. A writer that can't hear that word is not a writer. This can stand just for a fact: he want to portray death but he's not sure about his credentials, as a fake policeman doesn't feel to se a genuine one. Another distinction is liability. Genet says that a writer take the fearful tote of liability for characters he created. They are his own creatures and he's responsabile for them. As opposite to journalists that don't have any kind of responsability. Let them go to hijack an airplane, to kill five women in Arizone, to assassinate the President, and then what happen to them? Who cares? A capital attitude question.












regards from mexico
[link]
[link]
i hope send the leather sandals photo like yours
and i will soon post new personal works at last. didn't have much time lately for personal works.
cheers
--
Institut Drahomira // My Portfolio // People Collector
--
...io non tremo è solo un pò di me che se va...
My site [link]
--
Herein lies the heart and soul of the nations.
Their right to be free men,
Their desire to live in peace,
Their courage to seek out truth,
Herein lies the Sword of Shannara.
(Terry Brooks, The Sword of Shannara)
--
Haven't you ever thought your train moving as it sat in the station?
--
Haven't you ever thought your train moving as it sat in the station?
--
"Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen." -Robert Bresson
molto belli i tuoi lavori, specialmente gli ultimi due, fanno molto "collage tradizionale" e sono molto ben composti
Grazie
p.s. In effetti ora che mi guardo ho un'espressione un pò da lumaca curiosa :° / Vabbò, fa simpatia
--
.:Line(a)curva
Lineacurva.org
-> my work <-
=europeans ~italians *bw-photography
Previous Page12345...Next Page