article was from jan 30 but included in the feb 2 issue... it’s a nightmare with the dates when you read digitally

i bet you it’s gonna be in tomorrow morning’s “espresso” which i read every day at , like, 4am or something lol

maybe that economist article helped (in bad taste, i know, too soon) bust the dam

The Economist probably isn't read much by the Corbynistas (who are mostly associated with The Guardian ... aka 'Guardianistas') but it's definitely taken seriously by the Westminster establishment, even those parts of it that don't necessarily reflect its ideology.

not anymore, no

her negative compound interest plan (“wealth tax”) is clumsy as fuck. i believe the economist is more pro-market

i also have come to believe she’s become a hypocrite—clamoring for the virginia governor to leave his post while defending her previous false claims of ethnic provenance

i am getting tired of democrats REALLY FAST


was just reading that i spite of their “global perspective” 75% of their staff is based on westminster

is that your “capitol hill” so to speak?

istill appreciate the global perspective. financial times is beyond my grasp at times, but the economist i get.

american papers are too provincial, in a way. either wsj or nyt for all their global reach are too us-centric i their approach. and washington post is... local coverage.

Where are you with AOC? I keep hearing her name and seeing her face but she seems more like a celebrity than any kind of serious political candidate.

meh

she’s good looking, but this is politics

she wants to tax the rich at 70%

im sure luxembourg or some other place will welcome them with open arms when they flee here

her green new deal i have not yet read but early reports are that it’s heavy on grandiose declarations but light on specifics

basically, pie in the sky millennial dreams—soak the rich, build utopia, etc.

waiting for the grownups to show up.

Recently I read The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley. The author believes that trade is the key to human progress, and the more open it is, the greater the potential for progress. These thoughts about trade have become very helpful for me to write my paper about statistical methods in trade, since this book describes the socio-economic history of mankind in a popular, but the very interesting way from the angle of the development of "social capital" - people's ability to cooperate.

I did an OPSIE in berlin. I bought way too many books. But I think they are good books and I am happy I found them. The shop at the KW Institute for Contemporary Art really broke my (bank account's) neck. But there was a David Wojnarowicz exhibit on, and naturally they had a good book selection because of that.


ANYWAY, right now I am reading something that I did NOT buy there, I am reading "The Red Parts: Autobiography of a Trial" by Maggie Nelson. It's the story about the reopened murder case of the author's aunt. She was killed in the late 60s, the case was reopened in... 2004/5? The author has never met her aunt, only knows her through her journals (and has used them to write a poetry volume about her aunt)... it's quite interesting, the book. Interesting thoughts about grief etc. nice.

Finally finished the fucking Terror by Dan Simmons.

Wow.

Fucking good, but HOLY SHIT is it a claustrophobic, almost painful reading experience. 1,000 pages of people slowly ducking freezing to death, dying of scurvy, losing their minds and being picked off by an unidentifiable predator.

Takes a turn toward the supernatural at the very end, which I could have done without, frankly. But whatever.

Now I’m reading “The Leftovers” by Tom Perotta, and it’s taken me like a week of half-hour daily sessions to read 70-plus percent of it. It’s not as good as the show that’s based on it, unfortunately. And, honestly, has kind of a totally different vibe. I was hoping for more of that HBO’s Leftovers-y goodness, but it feels like little more than an engaging “lite” version of the awe-inspiring awesomeness of the show.

Also, 70-plus percent in and almost none of the things from the show have happened yet. I think they took major liberties from the get-go, and I wasn’t expecting that to be the case.

Oh well. Still better than reading about people bleeding from the pores in their scalps and eating snow for three years, then dying.

a concise fuide to macroeconomics, by david moss


not to be confused with maurice moss

My gf recently started reading a copy of William S. Burroughs' Junkie which a friend at work loaned her.

Guess she didnt realize I had a copy alongside both Queer and Naked Lunch sitting on the bookshelf in my basement. I've read both Junkie and Naked Lunch, but dont remember much.

Am I wrong in thinking that Burroughs is overrated? Like "ooo look at me I can rearrange sentences in nonsensical orders and I'm hooked on drugs and also gay woohoo"

Compared to like Vonnegut or someone, isnt Burroughs mostly read by pretentious twits?

What about Pynchon? Is he in the same boat or is Gravity's Rainbow actually enlightening? Was Burroughs' Naked Lunch even all that good? I'm certain the majority of it went over my head when I was like 17.

*continues making his way through Rothfuss' The Name of the Wind*

pretty close!

the best bit in naked lunch was the supplement where he discusses various drugs. not sure if it’s in every edition

pynchon bores me to tears. i’ve tried... no use

what was the crying of lot 49 about? “ambient” literature? i dont know...

the best way to deal with books is to read what you enjoy and skip the “mandatory” bullshit you can’t stomach

forced reading... kills joy

Sums up English literature courses right there

Junkie isn't experimental at all and would be enjoyed by anyone who likes Bukowski or Hubert Selby. Queer's kind of the same but has a bit at the end where it starts to weird out. I re-read Naked Lunch last year and loved it, maybe more than I ever did before. It has its experimental bits but nowhere near as much as some of his later books. And besides, the point about Burroughs attracting pretentious people could just as easily apply to the Velvets. They were also into experimentation, drugs and sexual deviancy and obviously attracted their fair share of posers, but obviously plenty of other people, too, who genuinely love what they did.

Yeah I've read Junky like a decade ago, but dont remember much. He nods off on a subway at some point, gets caught up in some crime (I think?). I guess it's the narrative focus on someone who society would often overlook which makes it worthwhile?

Burroughs is considered to be profound. I'm not well versed enough on literature to dismiss him as pretentious or fully grasp his reverence however.

PRECISELY

not just english, but in any language

hey, i survived literature graduate school... badly damaged.

Eugene^I wouldn't say he's that profound, at least that's not what I like about him. It's more his writing style which, underneath all the cut-up stuff, is quite similar to writers like Raymond Chandler. He also had a really dry sense of humour.

Reading Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking.

I have never enjoyed Burroughs' prose, or Pynchon. Boring fucking slogs....

ah there you were

ok so, you're mixing 2 things here

your original question was regarding the pretentiousness of some of his readers

to which my unequivocal answer was: "yes" (i've seen them)

(these are probably the people who would consider him "profound")

but now you're introducing the idea of burroughs himself being pretentious, which is a separate question and i'd say: no

burroughs i believe was a writer in earnest trying to apply certain art techniques to writing. he was also earnestly a junkie. the wife murder part was not in earnest, but a joke gone wrong. in any case, whatever his writing may or may not do for you, i don't think he was pretentious.

but some of his readers definitely. or i should say: some of his NON-READERS. because i bet you they're just repeating what they heard someone else said ha ha ha ha haaaaa...

btw there's a little woody allen short story, "the mensa whore". very funny shit and applies to this subject tangentially. i'm sure you can just google it. check it out.

I've never read Pynchon so can't compare them but, out of interest, do you like writers like Chandler or Dashiel Hammett, or even James Ellroy? I'm only talking in terms of their prose style (rather than subject matter) cos I get the feeling people who like that super hardboiled-style have a natural affinity with Burroughs. But as much as I'm a fan of it, I know that not everyone clicks with it.