noooo, that's the problem though gerrit, rather than inspiring me with words, i think all my reading has depleted me of them! because, see, ive been reading so much that now im in "reading mode" and cant write a single line. in order to get back into "message board mode" i would probably need to spend a whole afternoon here just doing nothing but making little replies here and there. but what a waste of time that would be! william s. burroughs said the word is a virus, and that's true. the more i post, the more i want to post. but when i dont post at all, suddenly it seems impossible to post anything. (by the way, on the subject of william s. burroughs, i bought naked lunch. is it just me or is this a rather difficult read?)
im sure that i will like requiem! im wanting to read more biographies of people lately. i want to find ones on egon schiele and camille claudel as well. i like how biographies tell you not just about the person but also about the time in which they lived. as for pasolini, i could see how he could become an obsession.
ha, rifkean, i like the sound of that!
The important thing is you said you were in a reading mode. You read a lot lately and still do.
That is so great! It means your mind is consuming it and all relevant information to you as a person is being stacked away in your memory. And in time, when you feel suddenly the urge to write again it will be at your disposal and you will use it. It is just a phase. Now you're in a reading phase and you are apparently able to read a lot of books. I know that phase. When I was in my thirty something years I literary consumed complete ouevres of writers in a couple of weeks. Later almost all of that I reread.
So don't write if you don't feel like it cause you're still in reading mode.
Like the remark of Burroughs. Words are a virus but I wouldn't rate that as negative.
About The Naked Lunch I agree totally with you. You need more time to get that. Just lay it aside.
You can allways pick it up later again. I still have books I have to read. And to reread.
I couldn't get through Ulysses by James Joyce, and Finnegan's Wake.
At the moment I am wrestling myself through Oblomov by Gontjarev.
No, just kidding, like it very much.
He is a kind of romantic hero to me living in Russia in the feodal tsjaristic times, before the Russian revolution. You know the times when the rich landowners could send their workers and farmers on their land to the nearby police station with a note and 10 Rouble (or Ruble) saying: Give my ranch hand or farmerboy 15 or 20 strokes with the stick. He didn't have to punish him himself for making a mistake or something like that. It was just business as usual.
The farmerboy or ranch hand just went cause he was like an asset, a commodity and completely in ownership of the landlord.
And of course he didn't complain.
Oblomov is romantic, lazy and funny. And although everybody in his social environment is very busy with politics and money and burocratic hassle with lawyers, notaries etc. he seems more concerned about the wellbeing of his mistresses and the children he has with them. Of course he gets into all kind of money problems and more important to him problems of love and affection.
He enjoys food, drinks and nature and has his kipper on the sofa at any time he thinks convenient which is many times. He is lazy but funny, as I said.
Yes, I feel some pride by inventing the term Rifkean, ha.