Epistemysics

Some theatre each day keeps the doctor away…

Reading On and On

leave a comment »

How comforting – I seem to have been infected with insectus readingum again.  (Good God – my knowledge of Latin is so small that I can’t even fake it convincingly.)  I’ve caught the reading bug again, is what I mean to say.  I thought I’d lost it a couple of weeks ago, but thankfully not.  My reading downtimes can extend to guilt-inducing intervals…

114/760 in Gravity’s Rainbow.  Many more themes of a sexual nature – as they would say on the rating-warning on TV – than I first perceived.  Well, not so much sexual as fetishistic.  (Is fetishistic a word?  It is now!)  Well, fetishes being a subset of sexuality, you could say that it’s sexual too.

This is making me sound like a prude.  Like some quasi-racist-by-being-non-racist middle-aged white mother talking to a black man at a dinner party.  “Oh, aren’t you nice!  I’ve never had a conversation with an Ethiopian before…oh, you’re so funny!  Now can you eat beef or does your tribe forbid it…  Oh, you’re a Christian!  Oh, no, no, not like that – I just didn’t…it surprised me, that’s all.  Would you like a bread roll?”  (You know, the overcompensating special treatment to show how comfortable a person is with the situation.)

(I mean to say that I better stop talking about the fetishes lest I slip into the aforementioned overcompensating example.)

Surprisingly easy to read, though most things aren’t quite transparent yet, but after reading Finnegans Wake I doubt I’ll ever lack for Negative Capability again, so these things rarely bother me now.

I remember when I first tried to read it I was writing down all the words I didn’t know (or only half-knew, when given in a context).  There were many words.  Perhaps that’s why I didn’t get too far, because I was slowing myself down in such a way.  Well, there seems to be a much smaller amount of words I don’t know now, or perhaps it only seems that way because I can’t be bothered looking most of them up.

I’ve changed my mind on embossed froth, by the way.  I like it as “emboss-ed froth” rather than “embossed froth”, now.  Emphasises the “d” at the end, which contrasts even better with the “th” of froth.  Something like that.

Advertisements

Written by epistemysics

November 26, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: