---Initially, Fishman’s narrator is herself an aspiring ascetic. A young barista adrift in Brooklyn, Eve is concerned by the various evils of modern life – capitalism, sexism, environmental degradation – but remains unsure what, if anything, she can do about them. “My friends and I were raised without real religion and without a comparable ethics of living through which to filter our beliefs and ambitions,” she reports. “We were encouraged to care deeply about the state of our world but our ability to affect it personally was very much in doubt.” ---
That's about as far as I got in the review. Fishman is hot. And she's indulging her hotness and defending that as "an intellectual". There was something new in that once.
The culture of asceticism is an indulgence of American suburbanites who've moved to the big city, displacing people who grow up in a world of moral ambiguity not as an idea but a fact of life. A wise man once wrote: "I know a few dudes doin' life bids in jail/And they way smarter than the white kids in Yale".
To say the same in my own words: if art were about morality, killers wouldn't know how to dance.
Smart sexy narcissists are good in bed, and minor artists at best.
The hipster wars: youthful moralism and youthful rebellion against youthful moralism. Binaries. And every generation relives the debate with less and less awareness of the history.
I read the review, and the quotes were enough to prove my point about the book itself.
---From the beginning, Eve reminds herself that she shouldn’t, shouldn’t, shouldn’t: shouldn’t betray Romi, shouldn’t submit to her illicit desires, shouldn’t harbour illicit desires at all. She shouldn’t relish Nathan and Olivia’s unrepentant delight in her physique: “Vanity is such a sin in women, so obviously, grotesquely shameful, that when people loved my body they usually told me in a tone implying that the very acknowledgment, in any but the most tender postcoital context, was trivial and degrading.” ---
Post feminist kink for Rawlsians?
I don't know how else to respond to that. Or this.
i know it's always a bad idea to argue in the comments, and i know that there's not really way to ensure people don't hear complaints about sexism as shrill, but....i do think it is in fact sexist to google a female author, determine that she is hot, and conclude that her book must therefore be unintellectual....good luck to u
---Initially, Fishman’s narrator is herself an aspiring ascetic. A young barista adrift in Brooklyn, Eve is concerned by the various evils of modern life – capitalism, sexism, environmental degradation – but remains unsure what, if anything, she can do about them. “My friends and I were raised without real religion and without a comparable ethics of living through which to filter our beliefs and ambitions,” she reports. “We were encouraged to care deeply about the state of our world but our ability to affect it personally was very much in doubt.” ---
That's about as far as I got in the review. Fishman is hot. And she's indulging her hotness and defending that as "an intellectual". There was something new in that once.
The culture of asceticism is an indulgence of American suburbanites who've moved to the big city, displacing people who grow up in a world of moral ambiguity not as an idea but a fact of life. A wise man once wrote: "I know a few dudes doin' life bids in jail/And they way smarter than the white kids in Yale".
To say the same in my own words: if art were about morality, killers wouldn't know how to dance.
Smart sexy narcissists are good in bed, and minor artists at best.
Lol ok
The hipster wars: youthful moralism and youthful rebellion against youthful moralism. Binaries. And every generation relives the debate with less and less awareness of the history.
Going to venture the wild opinion that maybe you should finish at least the review if not the actual book before forming a confident judgment about it
I read the review, and the quotes were enough to prove my point about the book itself.
---From the beginning, Eve reminds herself that she shouldn’t, shouldn’t, shouldn’t: shouldn’t betray Romi, shouldn’t submit to her illicit desires, shouldn’t harbour illicit desires at all. She shouldn’t relish Nathan and Olivia’s unrepentant delight in her physique: “Vanity is such a sin in women, so obviously, grotesquely shameful, that when people loved my body they usually told me in a tone implying that the very acknowledgment, in any but the most tender postcoital context, was trivial and degrading.” ---
Post feminist kink for Rawlsians?
I don't know how else to respond to that. Or this.
https://www.interviewmagazine.com/culture/novelist-lillian-fishman-shapes-a-kinky-love-triangle
i know it's always a bad idea to argue in the comments, and i know that there's not really way to ensure people don't hear complaints about sexism as shrill, but....i do think it is in fact sexist to google a female author, determine that she is hot, and conclude that her book must therefore be unintellectual....good luck to u
It's her vanity that's the issue, and she indulges it to condemn is. It's a luxury most can't afford.
I was raised with feminism. I miss it. That's why I referred to post feminism. But if you think somehow I prefer this https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/16/books/review/isaac-fitzgerald-dirtbag-massachusetts.html
you're mistaken.
What's the point of any of this without argument? But I'm done. I'm out.