Subject: Re: a quikie

Date: 02 Jul 1996 00:00:00 GMT

From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)

Organization: ExchangeNet Inc.

Newsgroups: alt.slack, alt.fan.gene-scott

References: 1 , 2

 

 

In article <31D8A841.66F5@tiac.net>,

"Philip A. Daigle" <philipda@tiac.net> wrote:

> Lou Duchez wrote:

>

> "Philip A. Daigle" <philipda@tiac.net> wrote:

>

> > Lou Duchez wrote:

>

> > What do Ronald Reagan and Spuds MacKenzie have in common?

>

> > They were both fingered by Thomas K. Odell.

>

> > >From: Phil.

>

> > > Now that's poor, even for you, then again, maybe not.

>

> > Knock it off, Claude, or I'll hit you on the forehead with my shoe.

>

> From: Phil.

>

> Roaches don't wear shoes! Is Claude your imaginary lover? You seem to

> love this figment of your dreams, you talk to it all the time, why is

> that do you suppose? Maybe if you beg at the claw of your altar???

 

Ahh, your mother is a drunk ... and she overacts too!

 

---

 

Why We All Suck

 

By nenslo@teleport.com (NENSLO)

Date: 1 May 1996

 

This is Nenslo speaking. I just want you to read this. If any of

us could do EVEN THIS BADLY, we might not SUCK.

 

[ Article crossposted from christnet.poetry ]

[ Author was CLUpunx1 ]

[ Posted on Sat, 20 Apr 1996 06:22:34 GMT ]

 

ok hi,

it's me again, Grim. i have more poetry (three this time) please tell me

what you think, especially sigalasm. cuz he is rad.

 

the first one is

 

one to many times

 

one to many times

one to many times

i let oportunity pass

one to many times

i let it slip from my grasp

one to many times

i let evil have stronghold

one to many times

i let satan grasp hold

one to many times

i sinned with my mind

one to many times

i was the blind that led the blind

one to many times

i let rage rule me

one to many times

i let my self die

 

 

the next one is called

 

forgivness - a hardcore skank

 

falling down

from my imagined throne

my hypocracy

has truly grown

my lies

make God groan

He will no longer

stand for this

ignorance

rebellion

 

for evil

cannot be in his presence

i must be cleanse before

i stand in front of The King's throne

forgivness is what i need

Lord, please

grant my plead

Dear Lord, forgivness

is what i need

when you give me this

i am worthy

whole

eternal

 

Dear Lord, hear my plea

Forgivness, is what i need.

 

the last one is about a girl, it is rally cliche and stupid but i like it.

if you don't like the word "chick" when in reference to a girl don't read

the last verse. ok enjoy

 

**Chick**

 

The sun the moon and the stars are not mine to give,

But if they were, i would give them all to You.

 

The earth the sky and the trees, in all their beauty, are not mine to

give,

But if they were, i would give them all to You.

 

You are my one and only,

And You're sombody special to someone.

i am only the lonley,

And i'm nobody special to anybody else.

 

Well i ever get a chance to hold,

Look in to Your eyes softly,

Hold Your hand to my heart,

And tell you what i think of You,

The fact that i love You.

i don't think so.

i don't think so.

i don't think so.

 

The sun the moon and the stars are not mine to give,

But if they were i would give them to a Chick.

 

--

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

From: nenslo@teleport.com (NENSLO)

Subject: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

Dr. Benway (benway@interzone.edu) wrote:

 

: So you're saying that the path to enlightment goes straight through

: the Valley of Stupidity? Like, we only "wise up" when we can't get

: any dumber? And to think I wasted my time attending all those MENSA

: meetings.

 

Is that what I'm saying? IS THAT WHAT I'M SAYING?

NO, GODDAMNIT, if that had been what I was "saying" then THAT'S

WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID. What I DID try to say was that YOU, dear reader,

with all your REASONS and REASONING can never achieve by TRYING, the

things a NATURAL DAMN FOOL can do by accident. That's what this "Bob"

thing is all about, a personification of the NATURAL DAMN FOOL who wins BY

ACCIDENT the same things WE LOSE no matter how hard we try.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT, because you, and even I, have our damn heads

too full of "useful" stuff to cut loose and WIN BY NOT TRYING. We're too

busy trying and failing, to do or be or write or create something "good,"

to be able to do or be or write or create something TRULY GREAT which

comes from the part of the brain that isn't always trying to be "good" or

witty or superior or astute or well-informed or WHATEVER activities

require constant internal logorrhea.

We are all already NOT STUPID ENOUGH any more, and there's nothing

anybody can do about it. Just stating facts. That's all I'm doing. If

you don't like it, don't talk to me about it. Facts are facts. A is A.

 

Confidentially, Benway, try the Pellucidar series.

 

-n-

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Peter Hipwell)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

> Is that what I'm saying? IS THAT WHAT I'M SAYING?

> NO, GODDAMNIT, if that had been what I was "saying" then THAT'S

>WHAT I WOULD HAVE SAID. What I DID try to say was that YOU, dear reader,

>with all your REASONS and REASONING can never achieve by TRYING, the

>things a NATURAL DAMN FOOL can do by accident. That's what this "Bob"

>thing is all about, a personification of the NATURAL DAMN FOOL who wins BY

>ACCIDENT the same things WE LOSE no matter how hard we try.

 

Reality is stranger than fiction.

BULLDADA is stranger than fiction.

 

Therefore BULLDADA = Reality. QED.

 

> YOU CAN'T DO THAT, because you, and even I, have our damn heads

>too full of "useful" stuff to cut loose and WIN BY NOT TRYING. We're too

>busy trying and failing, to do or be or write or create something "good,"

>to be able to do or be or write or create something TRULY GREAT which

>comes from the part of the brain that isn't always trying to be "good" or

>witty or superior or astute or well-informed or WHATEVER activities

>require constant internal logorrhea.

 

Speak for yourself.

 

No, no, I have to say that this time, NENSLO is talking BULLSHIT. An

increase of technique -- of any sort -- does not destroy creative

ability or even EMOTIONAL IMPACT of the result. Nor does it

necessarily increase the "creativity quotient". CRUDELY HEWN and

OVER-SOPHISTICATED are not necessarily even mutually exclusive.

 

Both types are nevertheless discarded as mediocrity triumphs in the

middle run.

 

> We are all already NOT STUPID ENOUGH any more, and there's nothing

>anybody can do about it. Just stating facts. That's all I'm doing. If

>you don't like it, don't talk to me about it. Facts are facts. A is A.

 

OBJECTIONS TO "A is A". [version 0.1]

 

Mockers, scoffers and pedants welcome to debate.

 

1. To apply the label "A", we first have to distinguish A from what is

"not A". All metrics to do this are arbitrary. Thus we can produce

several "objective" answers to identifying "A" using different systems

of segmentation.

 

2. To say that "A is A", we need to identify two seperate instances of

"A". Even in the sentence above, we note that the symbol "A" is

reiterated: a single example of "A" is not enough to tell us that it

is equivalent to itself, for this is an appeal to intuition that is

unfounded on a scientific basis. We can segment out something we call

"A", but with change through time the segmenting process may identify

something that is NOT "A" -- even though, intuitively, this may be the

SAME object. A uniqueness at a single point of time is not enough to

say that "A is A"; it is just enough to say "There is an A".

 

3. Substitution of logically equivalent terms does not work in many

contexts. For example, the classic example:

 

(Taking these assumptions as true)

Socrates believed the number of planets was 7. TRUE.

The number of planets is 9. TRUE.

 

(Normal logical subsititution gives)

Therefore Socrates believed 9 was 7. FALSE.

 

A is A. TRUE.

NENSLO reads that A is this sentence. TRUE.

NENSLO reads that A is not this sentence. TRUE.

Therefore NENSLO has read that this sentence is not this

sentence.

 

 

 

 

--

remememedismemberationalessencephalotherroarrogleamitrouselephagentryagain

**** WEB SITE PLUG: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~petehip/ZPKIntro.html ****

remementalistonkalligatrememeiostretchinderogathermalicentichoruptamessinge

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

>: But Nenslo, what did he achieve? I mean, other than irritating GGG and

>: me, what did he do? Did he get the girl or did she think he was a

>: complete dweeb and run as fast as she could? Do you think he should

>: get credit for doing something that he didn't intend to do?

 

> Meaning the poet whose work I originally crossposted? Go back and

>read it again. What did Ed Wood, Larry Buchanan, Hildegard von Bingen,

>Rena Vale, Pel Torro, Lucia Pamela achieve? They did something YOU can't

>do, Tarla, because you already know what's supposed to be "good" or

>acceptable or tolerable culturally, they all produced shrieking hideous

>BLOODY MURDER ACCIDENTS and DEADLY TOUCH TARANTULA SPIDERS more powerful

>than anything YOU OR I could ever do by trying.

 

> Am I the only one who remembers what bulldada is? No wonder

>everybody thinks the Church of the SubGenius is so stupid.

 

Actually, Bulldada is one of those terms that I have only the vaguest

understanding of. The current semantic body I am holding for

"Bulldada" contains the concepts of "anti-art" and "nonsense", really

not that far off from "Dada" itself with the exception of the idea

that it's not really all that deliberate. Now, in Dadaism, the idea is

to be absolutely and deliberately anti-current-art, but in bulldadaism

what? Is the idea that by being stupid and trying to be good art, you

come way short and accidentally end up being bad art? As an observer,

I find that more sad than humorous, honestly. I've never been able to

watch an Ed Wood movie all the way through. The movie, "Ed Wood" made

me sad, too. In fact, the worst thing I can think of other than losing

my kids, would be to BELIEVE that I was working at a certain level and

discover that I was actually a laughingstock, incompetant, and no good

at what I love doing. Being really bad at something you love would be

a very sad thing.

 

How does one come up with the concept of what is "good" art or bad? I

think it's done by exposure. If all you've ever seen is Ted De Grazia

or LeRoy Neiman, I can't expect you to make good art. But, if you have

been exposed to a wide variety of artists, you can begin to see

certain qualities which "good" art has in common. Not because someone

tells you which is good and which is bad, but because the

discriminating eye, SHOULD be able to see talent and skill. What you

are saying, Nenslo is that we should admire the above mentioned people

because a: they were ignorant and did the best they could with limited

exposure to good art or b: they lacked the ability to see the

qualities that good art possesses. In either case, I hardly see a

reason to heap praise upon them. An accident, is just that.

--

Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy,

A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping

"Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986

//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

: Actually, Bulldada is one of those terms that I have only the vaguest

: understanding of. The current semantic body I am holding for

: "Bulldada" contains the concepts of "anti-art" and "nonsense", really

: not that far off from "Dada" itself with the exception of the idea

: that it's not really all that deliberate.

 

To some extent. I think it's got more to do with unpretentiousness, or

pretentiousness that falls splendiforously flat.

 

: Now, in Dadaism, the idea is

: to be absolutely and deliberately anti-current-art, but in bulldadaism

: what? Is the idea that by being stupid and trying to be good art, you

: come way short and accidentally end up being bad art? As an observer,

: I find that more sad than humorous, honestly.

 

Let me toss out an example for you. I like the band Uriah Heep, even

though they're kind of spotty. Half of their music is pretty top notch

(IMHO); in fact, the only songs I was able to cite for Nenslo's "Songs

about Maturation" thread from ages ago were by Uriah Heep ("Lady in

Black" and "Look at Yourself"). On the other hand ... the other half of

their tunes are pretty damn BAD, some of which are GLORIOUSLY bad, and

are responsible for my calling them The Falsettos from Hell.

 

Does that necessarily make them incompetent? Nope, it just means that

not every work of theirs is a winner. Is there bulldada at work? Just

listen to "This Spell" (last song on "Demons and Wizards") and there will

be no question in your mind.

 

Now here's the kicker: does the bulldada-induced Slack come from SNEERING at

them? Hell no. In fact, as the sage Donna Kossy noted, Sneer is probably

the truest opposite to Slack one can come up with. The joy in bulldada

often comes from letting go of your standards for a bit, letting bad

music or a bad movie have its way with you.

 

: I've never been able to watch an Ed Wood movie all the way through.

 

I did "Plan 9", but fool that I was, I looked to mock it, rather than go

into its world.

 

: The movie, "Ed Wood" made me sad, too.

 

Me too a bit ... but I can't see Ed as exactly incompetent. What was he

out to do? Make movies for his OWN pleasure, and share them with the

world. This he did. He found his Slack in it. The only issue is that he

decided to share his works with the world, which means only that he

misjudged his audience pretty grossly. Nonetheless, if you look at an Ed

Wood sort of like a Jackson Pollack -- the artist creating his works out

of pure desire to create and not through meticulous effort -- it scans a

lot better. He needed to create, he needed to release, and do with it

what you will.

 

: In fact, the worst thing I can think of other than losing

: my kids, would be to BELIEVE that I was working at a certain level and

: discover that I was actually a laughingstock, incompetant, and no good

: at what I love doing. Being really bad at something you love would be

: a very sad thing.

 

You needn't worry about that, ever. And I'm not just saying that so

you'll shit in my hair again. But you'd be welcome to anyway.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: nenslo@teleport.com (NENSLO)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

TarlaStar (bmyers@ionet.net) wrote:

: What you

: are saying, Nenslo is that we should admire the above mentioned people

: because a: they were ignorant and did the best they could with limited

: exposure to good art or b: they lacked the ability to see the

: qualities that good art possesses. In either case, I hardly see a

: reason to heap praise upon them. An accident, is just that.

 

What I'm saying is, IF THAT WERE WHAT I WAS SAYING, THAT'S WHAT I

WOULD HAVE SAID. No, I never said anything about admiring anybody. Your

point a, however, is correct. They didn't KNOW they were ignorant, they

didn't know the "rules" for anything, they just gave it a try and ended up

putting forth a genuine sincere personal effort STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART

which has more pure undiluted ESSENCENESS than all the contrived and

calculated conspiracy product, or all the work of folks fed and trained up

on conspiracy products and standards.

I once saw a drawing executed in the 1700s by a persian artist, of

some people standing by a table outdoors. The table was in a pretty good

perspective, but one which didn't fit the scene it was in at all. The

front leg was fine, but the next nearest leg was out in the middle of the

plain, the next furthest leg was way off under a tree and the way back leg

was MILES OFF in the foothills, and TINY LITTLE ANTELOPE were prancing

gaily about under the table. That one little drawing was more exciting

and interesting to me than anything else I saw that day because it showed

a strange double-perspective world I COULD NEVER IMAGINE with my

industrial perspective training. That was five years ago.

Admire the artist? No, because the work PROVES the artist inferior

- COMPARED TO OTHER ARTISTS - What I AM saying, and you can quote me on

this, is I STAND AGOG at the amazing conjunction of their minds and mine.

As jimvan indicated elsewhere, it is I who make the object bulldada, with

the things already in my brain PLUS the rogue input. (Which earns him

promotion from sidekick to hero's friend. Meaning he probably dies before

the story is over but his death provides the impetus for a glorious

revenge.)

 

Accident? Bulldada is when you fall down the stairs and break

your neck but the deck of cards in your shirt pocket flies out and

scatters in midair, landing in a PERFECT INVERTED PYRAMID which the merest

breath would blow over. Who needs it? But one can only lie there dying

and marvel peevishly.

 

 

n

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: jimvan@gate.net (Jim Vandewalker)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

> Accident? Bulldada is when you fall down the stairs and break

> your neck but the deck of cards in your shirt pocket flies out and

> scatters in midair, landing in a PERFECT INVERTED PYRAMID which the merest

> breath would blow over. Who needs it? But one can only lie there dying

> and marvel peevishly.

 

Here's something else:

 

Robert said: "I hope you're not too bored with the rehearsal." His eyes

twinkled behind his glasses.

 

"On the contrary, I find it fascinating," said Fen, "and inconceivable."

 

"Inconceivable?"

 

"In this, as in a very few other works of literature, there are things

which one can only put down to diving inspiration. Normally one can

easily follow the rather laborious and mechanical processes of an author's

thought. It's the unexpected, inconceivable things whcich don't fit into

that process and which are yet absolutely RIGHT that I mean."

 

The Case of the Gilded Fly, by Edmund Crispin

 

Ah, yes, the unexpected, the inconceivable.

 

Jim the Prophet

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

: If ANY ONE OF US could write something which has as much IMMEDIATE IMPACT and inspires as

: STRONG an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE as what that poor dope DID BY ACCIDENT, then

: we wouldn't suck. But we do, because we are all ALREADY NOT STUPID ENOUGH

: ANY MORE.

 

Is this not an indication of some degree of admiration? It seemed so

to me.

 

I guess what I disagree with is that 1) the immediate impact (in my

particular case) was to skim through as quickly as possible and

realize I was reading garbage. Big fucking emotional response, eh? My

emotional respose was to YOU, not the writer of the bad poetry. 2) you

assume or at least state that we all suck. I don't. I've written some

shitty poems in my time; but I don't suck, and I get very strong

immediate emotional responses on a regular basis. 3) most of us were

NEVER this stupid.

 

>Your

>point a, however, is correct. They didn't KNOW they were ignorant, they

>didn't know the "rules" for anything, they just gave it a try and ended up

>putting forth a genuine sincere personal effort STRAIGHT FROM THE HEART

>which has more pure undiluted ESSENCENESS than all the contrived and

>calculated conspiracy product, or all the work of folks fed and trained up

>on conspiracy products and standards.

 

What...they were living in a vaccum all this time? They never tried to

emulate someone they admired? I'm calling bullshit on that one,

Nenslo. They went to movies, read books (if only in school) heard

people discuss good and bad in relationship to the arts. NO they KNEW

there were rules, they just didn't understand that they weren't

CAPABLE of reaching the minimum standard for their time. They WANTED

to, they just did not have the ability. Ed Wood was genuinely

distressed when people laughed at "Glenn or Glenda?" He didn't see the

humor in his fuckups. If it had been accidental, he could have laughed

with the rest of us, but he was dead serious and crushed by his status

as a really BAD director.

 

> I once saw a drawing executed in the 1700s by a persian artist, of

>some people standing by a table outdoors. The table was in a pretty good

>perspective, but one which didn't fit the scene it was in at all. The

>front leg was fine, but the next nearest leg was out in the middle of the

>plain, the next furthest leg was way off under a tree and the way back leg

>was MILES OFF in the foothills, and TINY LITTLE ANTELOPE were prancing

>gaily about under the table. That one little drawing was more exciting

>and interesting to me than anything else I saw that day because it showed

>a strange double-perspective world I COULD NEVER IMAGINE with my

>industrial perspective training. That was five years ago.

> Admire the artist? No, because the work PROVES the artist inferior

>- COMPARED TO OTHER ARTISTS - What I AM saying, and you can quote me on

>this, is I STAND AGOG at the amazing conjunction of their minds and mine.

 

Please explain this further. I don't understand exactly what you mean

by this and I'd hate to put any more words in your mouth.

 

> Accident? Bulldada is when you fall down the stairs and break

>your neck but the deck of cards in your shirt pocket flies out and

>scatters in midair, landing in a PERFECT INVERTED PYRAMID which the merest

>breath would blow over. Who needs it? But one can only lie there dying

>and marvel peevishly.

 

That is an example of an accident. That is something to wonder at

whilst dying, tis true. If a roomful of chimps produced a Pointillist

masterpiece, that would be Bulldada...an accidental art. Ed Wood was

not an accident. He was trying to make something good and couldn't

tell that it was bad.

 

 

****

Dammit Jeb, I'm as Amish as the next guy, but if we don't take

out that sub, there won't be a Pennsylvania to go home TO!

***

Rev. Mutha Tarla Star ://www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: reva602577@aol.com (RevA602577)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

>How does one come up with the concept of what is "good" art or bad? I

>think it's done by exposure. If all you've ever seen is Ted De Grazia

>or LeRoy Neiman, I can't expect you to make good art. But, if you have

>been exposed to a wide variety of artists, you can begin to see

>certain qualities which "good" art has in common. Not because someone

 

I think what Mr. Nenslo is saying, if I may join in the ongoing attempt to

make sense of his babblings (if nothing else, isn't it a gas when he gets

all ruffled at the misinterpretations?), is that the whole "point" of

bulldada is that its creator is utterly unconcerned with "the concept of

what is 'good' art or bad." In the purest cases, not only is s/he

*unconcerned* with the concept, but *unaware* of it. Tarla basically

agrees up to this point.

 

However, this unawareness does not equate with ignorance, for to state

that a person is ignorant of something is to imbue the "something" of

which s/he is ignorant with an importance which, in this case, it does

not merit.

 

>tells you which is good and which is bad, but because the

>discriminating eye, SHOULD be able to see talent and skill. What you

>are saying, Nenslo is that we should admire the above mentioned people

>because a: they were ignorant and did the best they could with limited

>exposure to good art or b: they lacked the ability to see the

>qualities that good art possesses. In either case, I hardly see a

>reason to heap praise upon them.

 

None of this matters. IT DOES NOT MATTER whether I, you, or anyfuckingone

"admires" or "heaps praise upon" the work of the Chickpoet, nor whether the

Chickpoet "lacked the ability to see the qualities that good art possesses,"

nor what level of "exposure to good art" the Chickpoet has experienced. At

least, it does not matter to the Chickpoet, and therein lies the beauty.

 

It's not simply the thing that is created that brings on the bulldada rush.

Rather, it is the image of a creative process which is totally unencumbered

by constipation-inducing, Slack-smothering notions such as "good" and

"bad," "talent" and "skill." It is process versus product, journey versus

destination, internal versus external motivation, etc. It is the True Slack

versus the False Slack of Creation.

 

The guy had something inside him. He felt the need to get it out. He

sat down, relaxed, pushed hard, and out it came. It is immaterial whether

we see shit or roses when we peer into the bowl after he's done his thing

and moved on.

 

Praise "Bob" and pass the Metamucil.

 

Sincerely,

Rev. A

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

Rev A., I DO see yours and possibly Nenslo's point (I'm not sure about

Nenslo's point...that post still hasn't arrived at my

newsreader)...but I disagree with you. I think that people like Ed

Wood WANTED desperately to make "good art" but simply lacked the skill

or more accurately, were unable to see how their work differered from

other's work. He could write a script and believe that it was good.

That means that he was unable to tell good from bad, not that he

didn't care. Ed thought Bela Lugosi could act...he thought he had

talent, for chrissakes. Ed was stupid, not an accidental genius. He

was stupid, and untalented, and only if we give genius status for

stubborness, was he a genius.

 

The cretin who wrote the poems WANTED to be heard...he wanted to be

thought of as a POET. If he only wanted to express himself, purely and

out of need, then we'd never have seen the poem. He would have written

it and destroyed it or kept it to himself. But no, he posted it, or

showed it to someone (who posted it)...which indicates a desire for

attention...as a poet. As a poet, he lacked all skill and yet he was

unable to see that to such an extent that he posted it to Usenet. Is

this the spoor of genius? It's NOT an accident that these people

continue to make mediocrity. If it were, we'd be laughing WITH them,

but we're not. We're laughing AT them, and we're laughing because they

cannot see how dumb they look. They cannot discriminate, and we find

that funny. Well...some of us do, some of us find it sad and a little

embarrassing (especially if we empathize with others too much). I'll

admit to all of the above; to being cruel, and sympathetically

embarrassed and sad, but I'll be goddamned if I'll be admiring.

*** Reverend Mutha Tarla Star***

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the

beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire

shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, it is by caffeine

alone I set my mind in motion.--HToMC

//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

: Rev A., I DO see yours and possibly Nenslo's point (I'm not sure about

: Nenslo's point...that post still hasn't arrived at my

: newsreader)...but I disagree with you. I think that people like Ed

: Wood WANTED desperately to make "good art" but simply lacked the skill

: or more accurately, were unable to see how their work differered from

: other's work.

 

Or perhaps, the joy of creation overwhelmed any self-critical instincts?

Imagine yourself playing with wood and power tools the first time. What

do you do with 'em: try to build a spice rack? Hell no, you try to see

how big a block of wood you can saw in half, you listen to the sound the

different drill bits make going into wood, you just play with it all.

 

I think I can see some of that in certain "bad" entertainment (though I

don't see it in "Mars Needs Women" *or* "Plan 9"). If you're looking for

a functional woodworking product, you will be disappointed. But if you

can siphon off the residual Slack vibes in every gashed piece of wood,

you're feeling the bulldada at work.

 

: As a poet, he lacked all skill and yet he was

: unable to see that to such an extent that he posted it to Usenet. Is

: this the spoor of genius? It's NOT an accident that these people

: continue to make mediocrity. If it were, we'd be laughing WITH them,

: but we're not. We're laughing AT them, and we're laughing because they

: cannot see how dumb they look.

 

Yes, I will concede that's the only way to enjoy those poems. I reread

them at least once (one to many times) and I found them equally miserable

on repeat passes.

 

: They cannot discriminate, and we find

: that funny. Well...some of us do, some of us find it sad and a little

: embarrassing (especially if we empathize with others too much). I'll

: admit to all of the above; to being cruel, and sympathetically

: embarrassed and sad, but I'll be goddamned if I'll be admiring.

 

Perhaps you just need to find an artist whose works you *know* you

respect, then look for works he did just for the hell of it. Then you'll

know he's not incompetent, he's just playin' around.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: "Dr. Benway" <benway@interzone.edu>

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

~ Am I the only one who remembers what bulldada is? No wonder

~everybody thinks the Church of the SubGenius is so stupid.

 

I know what Bulldada is! That's where you're watching a Sci-Fi movie

and you pay attention real close so that you notice that it's really

a bunch of toy buildings and stuff that's burning. Like when I was

was watching 4D Man which is not a bad film by any means and it's

got a lot of fairly nifty special effects in it. But there's this

scene at the beginning where one of the scientists sets his laboratory

on fire and they flash a shot of this little model building with the

words "LABORATORY" over the top and it's burning like they squirted

some lighter-fluid on it and dropped a match.

 

That's the thing about us. "It's our stupid brains!" It's that we're

surrounded by Bulldada and we've got our brains set to screen it out

and let us believe that it's all real. Now when we're watching Thunderbirds

Are Go! or any other Gerry Anderson movie we all giggle and say "Look!

You can see the Bulldada!" Sort of like being able to see the fnords,

right?

 

But the Bulldada you can see is not the real Bulldada. Maybe a thousand

years from now, we'll be able to watch Starwars and see the Bulldada.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: jch9334@is2.nyu.edu (Kid Ginsu)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

: That is an example of an accident. That is something to wonder at

: whilst dying, tis true. If a roomful of chimps produced a Pointillist

: masterpiece, that would be Bulldada...an accidental art. Ed Wood was

: not an accident. He was trying to make something good and couldn't

: tell that it was bad.

 

Doesn't that then qualify as bulldada BY DEFINITION? It's not like he was

deliberately overlooking blatant errors. His mind was shaped so that he

couldn't even see where he had gone wrong. A complete ignorance of the

standards of accepted mainstream aesthetics allowed him to sincerely, with

every ounce of his creative spirit, believ he had created a masterpiece.

The naievete necessary for that degree of self-delusion could only be

compared to a pre-Fall Garden of Eden-state. I find that to be bulldada.

 

And it's not just the movie, neither, because in order to get such an

analysis from the bulldada the work must be interfaced with the viewer's

mind and then TWEAKED into a state of communion with the lower portions of

the brain by something incomprehensible to human critics. Without that,

it's just a piece of BAD ART.

 

Keep It Up,

Dr. Ginsu

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

>Doesn't that then qualify as bulldada BY DEFINITION?

 

Nope...because it's not art. It's not a masterpiece created by

accident. It's a deliberate attempt at creating something good and

simply falling way short of the mark. Of course, I've not yet actually

SEEN a definition of Bulldada. I've just given it semantic markers as

I go along.

 

> It's not like he was

>deliberately overlooking blatant errors. His mind was shaped so that he

>couldn't even see where he had gone wrong. A complete ignorance of the

>standards of accepted mainstream aesthetics allowed him to sincerely, with

>every ounce of his creative spirit, believ he had created a masterpiece.

>The naievete necessary for that degree of self-delusion could only be

>compared to a pre-Fall Garden of Eden-state. I find that to be bulldada.

 

I find it to be simply a matter of Stupidity. The Watts towers are

Bulldada.

 

>And it's not just the movie, neither, because in order to get such an

>analysis from the bulldada the work must be interfaced with the viewer's

>mind and then TWEAKED into a state of communion with the lower portions of

>the brain by something incomprehensible to human critics. Without that,

>it's just a piece of BAD ART.

 

that's what I've been saying, Ginsu. It's just bad art. Bulldada is

good art by accident.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: gt4551d@prism.gatech.edu (Adam Moore)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

Please excuse me jumoing into the middle of ther thread here, but I just

have one comment. Without even discussing the definition of Bulldada

(I've read a lot of this thread, but not far enough back to have much idea

of what bulldada is) I'd just like to point out that there is no such

thing as accidental art. Art by definition is intentional. It might be

accidently more entertaining than intended, but art is not an accident.

What you describe, an accident producing a "masterpiece," is simply

something that looks cool, but not art. THis is, of course, merely my

opinion.

 

===============================================================

.::::. "You owe me 98 cents change."

.::::::::.

|' `| The above message will probably piss off someone.

|\ /| Under the Telecommunications Act, and in spite of

| \ / | the First Ammendment, it may therefore be illegal.

\ \ / /

\ \/ / The Blue Ribbon Campaign for Online Free Speech

\ \ / http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html

\ \ _

/ \ \ -Adam Moore |\/|_)

/ /\ \ gt4551d@prism.gatech.edu | |-\

/ / \ \

| / \ | As an individual capable of free thought, my views

|/ \| may not be those of Georgia Tech.

' ` /~(_)~\ ,,

`//::::: (=<|===|=====II}

//-`'DVC A-27279 \_(~)_/ ''

===============================================================

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: petehip@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Peter Hipwell)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

It's what you bring to it, not what you take out of it. Or to put it

another way, it's what you get out of it, not what's been put into it.

You don't have to put yourself out to get into it: it gets into "out"

without "out" being put in. The input is got out NOT by putting out

the person who got it in, but by getting into the output.

 

NONONO. This isn't a case of MOCKERY. Remember, there's INADVERTANT

bulldada and there's ADVERTANT bulldada (Noel Godin, Thomas Love

Peacock, Reeves and Mortimer). But the EFFECT is the same; they create

something that is SO ALIEN to anything YOU would have done that you

can't hardly believe it AND YET it somehow causes a RESONATION, a

CLANGING ALARM BELL of WILD TURMOILING JOY inside the stunned CRANIAL

APERTURE. It's something about your mind that makes it BULLDADA. I

don't think it has anything to do with the STUPIDITY of the

creator. It has to do with the crudeness, the cartoon-like nature of

the work that NEVERTHELESS MIRACULOUSLY PRECISELY MIRRORS (some aspect

of) REALITY. That can be the product of GREAT SOPHISTICATION; indeed,

you might not even be able to tell the difference: Charles Ives once

stood up at a conert featuring a piece by Ruggles called "Sun Treader"

where a member of the audience was heckling. He told the guy to stop

being such a sissy and use his ears like a man! Perhaps that's not the

_exact_ phrasing I want to adopt, but the basic POINT is valid: YOU'RE

slagging off the guy because you think he has no talent. BUT THE FACT

THAT YOU ARE THE ONE MOCKING REVEALS MORE ABOUT *YOU* THAN IT DOES

ABOUT THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL POEM. You're letting them STEAL your SLACK!

The poem guy almost certainly ENJOYED writing that stuff -- remember

DROP BRITCHES, ROLL IN MISTAKES. I doubt the guy WANTS to be regarded

as a genius. He just ENJOYED writing it himself and wanted to SHARE

that feeling with others. He maybe suceeded in the original group it

came from. And because NENSLO snatched that suite from oblivion,

indeed he CREATED Slack HERE. And that's all, and that's ENOUGH.

 

DROP DUMP AND ROLL. DROP DUMP AND ROLL. THAT'S NOT JUST NEWSGROUPS,

THAT'S THE SUBGENIUS WAY OF LIFE, YOU MAD PASSIONATE FOOLS!!!

 

CATCH THE SPIRIT, PEOPLE! Then catch the SPIRITLESS PEOPLE and STAMP

DOWN HARD. FUCK this miserable snivelling little mud-crust GLOBE! FUCK

it intensely and deeply and longingly, and cast it off into the

SCUM-GUTTER OF OBLIVION. FUCK what THEY think! FUCK everything! FUCK

everyone! THIS IS *MY* LIFE. THIS IS SLACK. No critic, sniper,

goon-wiper, bollock-brainer, NO ONE JUDGES WHAT I DO. Because they

AIN'T QUALIFIED. There's no JUSTICE but COURT RULINGS and I don't

RECOGNIZE the JUDGE. I'm in CONTEMPT and it FEELS GOOD. I *am*

CONTEMPTIBLE and that FEELS EVEN BETTER!

 

*I'm* the judge, the jury, and the hangman, in the ONLY court that

matters, COURT THE SPIRIT, and I don't need ANY PROOF: I've got my

BLACK CAP on and "Bob" is going to get some BAD NOOSE right now!

 

If you WANT to be a "genius" you'll fail. You either ARE or you AREN'T

and the FINAL VERDICT probably won't come in for a good HALF-CENTURY

AFTER YOUR DEATH, and the panel will consist of SHALLOW, WIDTHLESS,

NON-ENTITES! TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHADOWS OF LIFE. NON-YETI! IDIOTS, FOOLS,

ARBITERS OF TASTE, NONSENSE NOTHINGS, CIPHERS, PINK PINKKITY

PINKS. no, No, NO , NONE of this "genius". WHO CARES???

SUBgenius. SUBgenius. SUBgenius.

 

--

remememedismemberationalessencephalotherroarrogleamitrouselephagentryagain

**** WEB SITE PLUG: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~petehip/ZPKIntro.html ****

remementalistonkalligatrememeiostretchinderogathermalicentichoruptamessinge

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: megeliz@radix.net (MegEliz)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

 

DAMN, Pete. I just hadda smoke two cigarette in both nostrils after

THAT one.

 

Hoo, boy. I think I may have to pass out now. My monitor's gone all

fudzy.

 

Possibly Pontifette Meg

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

My sig is not under construction. It's dead. megeliz@radix.net

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

>It's what you bring to it, not what you take out of it. Or to put it

>another way, it's what you get out of it, not what's been put into it.

>You don't have to put yourself out to get into it: it gets into "out"

>without "out" being put in. The input is got out NOT by putting out

>the person who got it in, but by getting into the output.

 

Pete, I'm hearing you. I'm also hearing that bulldada is just one more

example of "what's true is what's true for you." Now, I've come too

long a goddamned way to take L.Ron Hubbard's path. There IS a

standard, even if it's just me and one other person that makes the

damned thing. I am extremely aware that it's a matter of what you

bring to the viewing, but no one lives in a vaccum (except dust mites)

and if the output is crap that doesn't make the viewer crap just

because they recognise crap when they see it.

 

Ed Wood didn't create bulldada. The bad poet didn't create bulldada.

NENSLO created the bulldada. The bad poet is still a bad poet but it

was NENSLO who created the bulldada by discovering the badness of the

poetry. Without NENSLO, it would have just been another bad poem. The

act of recognising the level of badness is the creation of bulldada.

 

>NONONO. This isn't a case of MOCKERY. Remember, there's INADVERTANT

>bulldada and there's ADVERTANT bulldada (Noel Godin, Thomas Love

>Peacock, Reeves and Mortimer).

 

I'm betting these are all British performers of some sort? You must

remember I'm American. The only British performers we see here aside

from musicians, is Benny Hill, and Monty Python...and the occasional

Pet Clark.

 

> But the EFFECT is the same; they create

>something that is SO ALIEN to anything YOU would have done that you

>can't hardly believe it AND YET it somehow causes a RESONATION, a

>CLANGING ALARM BELL of WILD TURMOILING JOY inside the stunned CRANIAL

>APERTURE. It's something about your mind that makes it BULLDADA. I

>don't think it has anything to do with the STUPIDITY of the

>creator. It has to do with the crudeness, the cartoon-like nature of

>the work that NEVERTHELESS MIRACULOUSLY PRECISELY MIRRORS (some aspect

>of) REALITY.

 

Be specific, if you can please. How is say, Ed Wood's work, a precise

mirror of reality? How is the bad poet's work a mirror? Because there

are tons of bad poets out there in the world?

 

>That can be the product of GREAT SOPHISTICATION; indeed,

>you might not even be able to tell the difference: Charles Ives once

>stood up at a conert featuring a piece by Ruggles called "Sun Treader"

>where a member of the audience was heckling. He told the guy to stop

>being such a sissy and use his ears like a man! Perhaps that's not the

>_exact_ phrasing I want to adopt, but the basic POINT is valid: YOU'RE

>slagging off the guy because you think he has no talent. BUT THE FACT

>THAT YOU ARE THE ONE MOCKING REVEALS MORE ABOUT *YOU* THAN IT DOES

>ABOUT THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL POEM. You're letting them STEAL your SLACK!

 

Nah, Pete. I get huge Slack out of these discussions. The problem is

that I usually scare people off when I ask questions like this. They

want to be able to spew but not defend their spew. I just want

discussion and enlightenment. Look...I've already gotten three or four

definitions of bulldada without hardly trying.

 

>The poem guy almost certainly ENJOYED writing that stuff -- remember

>DROP BRITCHES, ROLL IN MISTAKES. I doubt the guy WANTS to be regarded

>as a genius. He just ENJOYED writing it himself and wanted to SHARE

>that feeling with others. He maybe suceeded in the original group it

>came from. And because NENSLO snatched that suite from oblivion,

>indeed he CREATED Slack HERE. And that's all, and that's ENOUGH.

 

You know what it is, Pete? I just figured it out while re-reading

this. You are correct. I have too much of an emotional investment in

good art. It makes me uncomfortable for bad art to be spread around

mostly because people are so stupid that they won't stop and think

about something that they see or read, they'll just accept that if

it's in print it must be good. If someone praises it, it must be good.

That's how mediocrity succeeds. That's how Rod McKuen sold millions of

books. Bad art fucks with my life. It detracts from my cash flow. It

puts static in the way of my message.

 

Really bad science makes me laugh though. Perhaps it's because I don't

have an emotional investment in science.

 

>DROP DUMP AND ROLL. DROP DUMP AND ROLL. THAT'S NOT JUST NEWSGROUPS,

>THAT'S THE SUBGENIUS WAY OF LIFE, YOU MAD PASSIONATE FOOLS!!!

 

>CATCH THE SPIRIT, PEOPLE! Then catch the SPIRITLESS PEOPLE and STAMP

>DOWN HARD. FUCK this miserable snivelling little mud-crust GLOBE! FUCK

>it intensely and deeply and longingly, and cast it off into the

>SCUM-GUTTER OF OBLIVION. FUCK what THEY think! FUCK everything! FUCK

>everyone! THIS IS *MY* LIFE. THIS IS SLACK. No critic, sniper,

>goon-wiper, bollock-brainer, NO ONE JUDGES WHAT I DO.

 

Oh my darling, EVERYONE judges what you do, unless you live in a cave.

And likewise, you judge them. You simply don't have to accept their

judgements, but they DO judge and they have that right. As much as we

might like to disclaim it, we live pretty much the same lives as the

Pink people around us. The biggest difference is that we are aware of

the programming in many cases. It doesn't MATTER that you're aware of

the programming, it just makes you more miserable, but we seem to LIKE

being miserable. Because we're aware of the program, we like to think

that makes us better than the Pinks. It may, but then again, despite

the awareness, SubGenii STILL eat at McDonald's. What good is

awareness if it doesn't cause you to differ your behavior from the

sheep around you who haven't become as aware?

 

>Because they

>AIN'T QUALIFIED. There's no JUSTICE but COURT RULINGS and I don't

>RECOGNIZE the JUDGE. I'm in CONTEMPT and it FEELS GOOD. I *am*

>CONTEMPTIBLE and that FEELS EVEN BETTER!

 

Why are they not qualified? Seriously, why am I not qualified to make

judgements about yours or anyone else's behavior? Because I haven't

walked a mile in your shoes? Sorry, human or yeti, the behaviors are

pretty much the same. I only seriously consider criticism about my

work from people whose work I admire. I figure there's a chance that

they might see something that I haven't. I don't consider myself to be

perfect (I'm damned close but not perfect.) and I figure there's

always more that I can learn.

 

>*I'm* the judge, the jury, and the hangman, in the ONLY court that

>matters, COURT THE SPIRIT, and I don't need ANY PROOF: I've got my

>BLACK CAP on and "Bob" is going to get some BAD NOOSE right now!

 

Granted that you may not have to accept the judgement of those around

you. However, each of us compromises to a certain degree just for the

sake of having companions. We DO accept the judgements of others about

our behavior etc. if we want to have any sort of society to be a part

of, even if it's SubGenius society.

 

>If you WANT to be a "genius" you'll fail. You either ARE or you AREN'T

>and the FINAL VERDICT probably won't come in for a good HALF-CENTURY

>AFTER YOUR DEATH, and the panel will consist of SHALLOW, WIDTHLESS,

>NON-ENTITES! TWO-DIMENSIONAL SHADOWS OF LIFE. NON-YETI! IDIOTS, FOOLS,

>ARBITERS OF TASTE, NONSENSE NOTHINGS, CIPHERS, PINK PINKKITY

>PINKS. no, No, NO , NONE of this "genius". WHO CARES???

 

Oh I don't care about genius after I'm dead. I care about having to

read crap while I'm alive. I care about what's thrust into my face and

called "art" during my lifetime. I get Slack from raging at idiots

who slap a few colored rectangular stripes on a white background and

call it art. I'd get even MORE Slack if I could bitch-slap the

stupidity out of the galleries and museums that display that shit, but

maybe I'll get the chance in the future.

 

****

"The erotic is a resource within each of us that lies in a

deeply female and spiritual plane, firmly rooted in the power

of our unexpressed or unrecognised feeling."- Audre Lorde

//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: s3033469@student.anu.edu.au (AusPope Shortt)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

> Pete, I'm hearing you. I'm also hearing that bulldada is just one more

> example of "what's true is what's true for you." Now, I've come too

> long a goddamned way to take L.Ron Hubbard's path.

 

Ah, c'mon. I just took "Handbook for Preclears" out of the local

library (thereby causing the BIG RED LIGHT to flash in ASIO headquarters

or the Deakin Offices and the wiretap should be in place on my phones

right now, or if it isn't, it should be, I pay my taxes, well, actually I

don't, but ...)

 

... and it comes with this nifty little six-pointed-hole

cardboard-circle thing that makes a great throwing-star, plus a big sheet

of paper so you can tell how abnormal you are. The joy of throwing a

little piece of cardboard around is probably more than my Mind is worth.

And maybe OT8s get ones that aren't made out of crappy, flimsy cardboard

too.

 

Cheers,

AusPope Shortt

 

---------------------AusPope Robin Shortt-------------------------

"Throw some more SLACK on the Barbie, OR KILL ME."

'FROP Lager: AusSubGenii woudn't give a FUCK for anything else.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: bmyers@ionet.net (TarlaStar)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

>Please excuse me jumoing into the middle of ther thread here, but I just

>have one comment. Without even discussing the definition of Bulldada

>(I've read a lot of this thread, but not far enough back to have much idea

>of what bulldada is) I'd just like to point out that there is no such

>thing as accidental art. Art by definition is intentional. It might be

>accidently more entertaining than intended, but art is not an accident.

>What you describe, an accident producing a "masterpiece," is simply

>something that looks cool, but not art. THis is, of course, merely my

>opinion.

 

"Accidental Art" is bulldada. Look, if I put Renoir's "Two girls at a

piano" next to 10,000 monkey's "Two girls at a piano," and you can't

tell the difference, how do you instinctively tell which one had

"intent?"

 

 

****

"The erotic is a resource within each of us that lies in a

deeply female and spiritual plane, firmly rooted in the power

of our unexpressed or unrecognised feeling."- Audre Lorde

//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From: nenslo@teleport.com (NENSLO)

Subject: Re: NENSLO's screen door and any other problems he cares to discuss with us

 

Jesus, you guys, I was just trying to piss you off by x-posting

that awful poetry here and pretending to "like" it.

You can TALK about bulldada as long as you want to, but it won't

help you "understand" it, because bulldada is INHERENTLY IRRATIONAL, one

of the NON'SYMBOLIZABLE QUALITIES which only the finely honed Yeti

Intellect can discern.

 

Tarla made the well-intentioned but regrettably erroneous claim

that "dada" (the so-called "art movement") was (I'm not quoting here, just

putting it how I half-remember reading it so if you have any gripes about

the exact wording of any of this go tell Korzybsky about it) a reaction

against the art of the day. In fact, the intent and action of dada the

"thing itself" is not anti-ART, it is ANTI-"SENSE" - the deliberate

creation of the irrational MOMENT, the moment of experiencing dada in its

fulness, and ABANDONING efforts to "understand." It took "artists" to

discover this, and they expressed it in the media of their time and place,

which has provoked emulation by other and later and possibly less

unconstrained artists - because WHO ELSE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT WHAT ARTISTS

DO except artists? [Not meaning the art-fag adulation (from those

literally "queer for art") of art "fans," but the feeling that art itself

has TRUE VALUE as part of life, not just the swapping of "product" for one

variety or another of BEANS.]

Naturally, people still mistake dada for "art" and always will.

Bulldada is the same thing only THIS TIME THEY CAN'T MISTAKE IT FOR ART.

It isn't a "created" thing - you can't do a "bulldada" style PAINTING or

PLAY because it is PURELY EXPERIENTIAL AND INDIVIDUAL.

 

I saw that poet's style as having 1.) a lot of potential to

provoke strong emotional reaction WHICH IT DID. 2.)enough

"disconnectedness" to possibly "BE" bulldada for somebody.

 

I'm trying to read a book called 62: A Model Kit by Julio Cortazar

and about all I can make out so far is that there's a city people can "be

in" which is not a "City" which is in one place that you can get in a car

and go to. It can be "entered" from almost anywhere, any place that has a

Certain Quality - IS - the city. There also appears to be an extra

character in the book, a "paledros," whom any one of the others can "be,"

or which can exist on its own, in a way. This happens A LOT at parties or

continuous groupchat - an extra entity will be carrying on its own part in

the conversation, speaking with the mouths of others, i.e., taking turns

being spoken by others. Lafferty addresses these issues in many of his

books.

 

My point being that bulldada is more an ENTITY which CREATES

ITSELF at certain moments, somtimes manifesting itself to whole groups of

people, but far more often to lone individuals who don't even try to tell

anybody about it. A moment of SOMETHING TOO " " to INSULT it by

trying to "understand."

 

Okay?

 

--