Dec 13, 2022·edited Dec 13, 2022Liked by Stacey Eskelin
You know the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? It's like that, celebrity culture etc. Cultural detritus and waste is released from all shores, bit by bit, and ends up bobbing in the wash of memory. It grows at the edges and deepens as those once floating at the center, sink.
In so far as the British Royals are concerned, I do not think it wise (for me at least) to either loath or love them. It's far better (for me at least) to think of that institution as just another trap, luxurious as it may be, that people get born into or fall into. All people are ultimately multi-dimensional, so why reduce anyone to mere caricature?
It interests me that Harry and Meghan tried to break-out, but have been as dumb as they have been in how they've gone about it. They deployed strategies that put themselves in the larger prison that encircles royalty, that of latter-day celebrityhood. They had no ability or desire to accept their lot as Royals, but no courage to make a real change because they are accustomed to luxury and privilege.
In the world that now exists, there's big money to be made (even by those of little talent like those two) by means of leveraging the celebrity-making machinery. Now that they've fired the last and only arrows of their victimhood, they will have to find a new grift, which is likely beyond their reach. So, there decision-making was not wise, was it?
I think that's very fair. Harry and Meghan did try to break out, but they have indeed done it in a tone-deaf and ham-handed way that makes me question their intelligence. Do they not see how this looks? They are capitalizing financially on the very thing they're purporting to reject. It's ugly. But then it gets even more complicated because what they're saying is the truth (although probably not all of it).
In the end, what can we expect from a family that has been kept in a gilded mouse cage? The whole concept of monarchy is obsolete, and while I understand and appreciate the cultural significance of the institution, I can't help but feel--in my American way--how utterly pointless and irrelevant it is in the bigger scheme of things.
Yep, the two of them are stupid, but that does not appear to be an impediment to earning great riches does it? God help those who dwell (happily) in complications, ambiguities and nuances, because there is a smaller audience for their sublime utterances. The gate receipts will not add up to much in comparison to those who bark their simplicities.
You're right about THE monarchy too - and all monarchies. These are the outcroppings from the West's medieval past, lit up and made vibrant for the sake of the tourist trades. Poor Harry can't escape his fate though, not even by allowing himself to be dragged by Meghan to the sunny shores of California, where he's being scalded in his suit of little boy armour.
I'm actually surprised (at first) that you'd even heard of Jayne Mansfield, she was so very before your time. But I also forget how deeply embedded you were as a child in that culture (broadly -- accidental pun -- speaking.) And poor Jayne ... there are limits to "giving head" that should not be transgressed.
I can't stop laughing over the picture of the royal family. Everybody as this, "Oooh! So exciting!" look on their faces. Except Liz. She's standing off at the left going, "What the ever loving fuck am I even looking at?"
"I’m sure the royals are a perfectly odious lot, most of them." -- I'm pretty sure that sums up most families. But most families lack the means to make a public display of their odiousness, the way the Royals are able to do. It's Plantagenets all the way down. (And yes, for the rest of you, I'm well aware that the Windsors bear scarcely even a nominal connection to that group. I'm just being a son of dork.)
I despise all of these people, to my last sinew and the marrow of my bones, for ranking appearance over reality. And a vapid, infantile appearance for that.
You and I are alone in that, brother. I'm ALWAYS surprised to see the adoring millions who want to believe in the fairytale of princesses.
Re: Jayne Mansfield. That reprehensible old Nazi, film director Russ Meyer, once told me that her "boobs were disappointing." Yes, he had the temerity to say that. According to Meyer, she had smallish boobs but a big ribcage, which made them appear larger.
He also said a lot of other things I won't repeat here, for fear someone might barf.
But, at least he inadvertently introduced us. If you hadn’t mentioned him in your memoir I would have left you a nice review but probably wouldn’t have gone the extra mile to reach out.
"[A]ccept the things they cannot change, change the things they can, and to eventually know the difference." What a novel concept. That requires a degree of self-awareness, which, for someone who devotes 98.9% of their energies to controlling the narrative, seems a bit much to ask.
I've always thought that the worst thing in the world would be to become famous...and yet here I am, a writer looking to become more widely known. I used to think about using a pen name, but then decided I should have to courage to put my name to my words. It's a "be careful what you ask for" world, isn't it?
Is it that fames screws people up, or that the people who become famous are the least equipped to handle the rigors of fame? I rather enjoy my anonymous existence, but I wonder what would happen if that were to change. Perhaps I'd morph into J.D. Salinger and move to a country estate where I'd become the object of mystery and intrigue. Or perhaps I'd swallow a shotgun like Papa Hemingway. My hope is that I'd fall somewhere in the middle on that spectrum, but who knows?
What I do know is that I'm decidedly unimpressed by the vast majority of those who do become famous. It's enough to make me swear it off altogether.
You know the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? It's like that, celebrity culture etc. Cultural detritus and waste is released from all shores, bit by bit, and ends up bobbing in the wash of memory. It grows at the edges and deepens as those once floating at the center, sink.
In so far as the British Royals are concerned, I do not think it wise (for me at least) to either loath or love them. It's far better (for me at least) to think of that institution as just another trap, luxurious as it may be, that people get born into or fall into. All people are ultimately multi-dimensional, so why reduce anyone to mere caricature?
It interests me that Harry and Meghan tried to break-out, but have been as dumb as they have been in how they've gone about it. They deployed strategies that put themselves in the larger prison that encircles royalty, that of latter-day celebrityhood. They had no ability or desire to accept their lot as Royals, but no courage to make a real change because they are accustomed to luxury and privilege.
In the world that now exists, there's big money to be made (even by those of little talent like those two) by means of leveraging the celebrity-making machinery. Now that they've fired the last and only arrows of their victimhood, they will have to find a new grift, which is likely beyond their reach. So, there decision-making was not wise, was it?
I think that's very fair. Harry and Meghan did try to break out, but they have indeed done it in a tone-deaf and ham-handed way that makes me question their intelligence. Do they not see how this looks? They are capitalizing financially on the very thing they're purporting to reject. It's ugly. But then it gets even more complicated because what they're saying is the truth (although probably not all of it).
In the end, what can we expect from a family that has been kept in a gilded mouse cage? The whole concept of monarchy is obsolete, and while I understand and appreciate the cultural significance of the institution, I can't help but feel--in my American way--how utterly pointless and irrelevant it is in the bigger scheme of things.
Yep, the two of them are stupid, but that does not appear to be an impediment to earning great riches does it? God help those who dwell (happily) in complications, ambiguities and nuances, because there is a smaller audience for their sublime utterances. The gate receipts will not add up to much in comparison to those who bark their simplicities.
You're right about THE monarchy too - and all monarchies. These are the outcroppings from the West's medieval past, lit up and made vibrant for the sake of the tourist trades. Poor Harry can't escape his fate though, not even by allowing himself to be dragged by Meghan to the sunny shores of California, where he's being scalded in his suit of little boy armour.
I'm actually surprised (at first) that you'd even heard of Jayne Mansfield, she was so very before your time. But I also forget how deeply embedded you were as a child in that culture (broadly -- accidental pun -- speaking.) And poor Jayne ... there are limits to "giving head" that should not be transgressed.
I can't stop laughing over the picture of the royal family. Everybody as this, "Oooh! So exciting!" look on their faces. Except Liz. She's standing off at the left going, "What the ever loving fuck am I even looking at?"
"I’m sure the royals are a perfectly odious lot, most of them." -- I'm pretty sure that sums up most families. But most families lack the means to make a public display of their odiousness, the way the Royals are able to do. It's Plantagenets all the way down. (And yes, for the rest of you, I'm well aware that the Windsors bear scarcely even a nominal connection to that group. I'm just being a son of dork.)
I despise all of these people, to my last sinew and the marrow of my bones, for ranking appearance over reality. And a vapid, infantile appearance for that.
You and I are alone in that, brother. I'm ALWAYS surprised to see the adoring millions who want to believe in the fairytale of princesses.
Re: Jayne Mansfield. That reprehensible old Nazi, film director Russ Meyer, once told me that her "boobs were disappointing." Yes, he had the temerity to say that. According to Meyer, she had smallish boobs but a big ribcage, which made them appear larger.
He also said a lot of other things I won't repeat here, for fear someone might barf.
Jim Byron… ‼️
But, at least he inadvertently introduced us. If you hadn’t mentioned him in your memoir I would have left you a nice review but probably wouldn’t have gone the extra mile to reach out.
"[A]ccept the things they cannot change, change the things they can, and to eventually know the difference." What a novel concept. That requires a degree of self-awareness, which, for someone who devotes 98.9% of their energies to controlling the narrative, seems a bit much to ask.
I've always thought that the worst thing in the world would be to become famous...and yet here I am, a writer looking to become more widely known. I used to think about using a pen name, but then decided I should have to courage to put my name to my words. It's a "be careful what you ask for" world, isn't it?
Is it that fames screws people up, or that the people who become famous are the least equipped to handle the rigors of fame? I rather enjoy my anonymous existence, but I wonder what would happen if that were to change. Perhaps I'd morph into J.D. Salinger and move to a country estate where I'd become the object of mystery and intrigue. Or perhaps I'd swallow a shotgun like Papa Hemingway. My hope is that I'd fall somewhere in the middle on that spectrum, but who knows?
What I do know is that I'm decidedly unimpressed by the vast majority of those who do become famous. It's enough to make me swear it off altogether.