ellauri052.html on line 959: During an awkward sexual encounter with Harriet Wasserman, she remembered “asking him for permission, as if it were a museum objet d’art, ‘Can I touch this?’” Many of his mistresses remained in love and in touch with him. Scott Fitzgerald said that Hemingway “needed a new woman for each big book”; Bellow lost a woman with each big book. He spilled sperm as he spilled ink, and sex both interfered with and inspired his writing. Bellow created and lived on turbulence, thrived on chaos, courted conflict and was inspired by personal cataclysm. He reported that one lover (mies vai nainen?) “caused me grandes dificultades in England and in the south, but I finished Sammler just the same.” The bearers of erogenous zones (either sex) made him feel younger, “it was a way of avoiding the Angel of Death,” and he cherished their provocative bitchiness. Bellow’s emotional upheavals — his guilt and remorse, multitudinous failings and need for self-condemnation — made him beat his breast at his private Wailing Wall. Se oli kuin kunkku David jolle tuotiin neitosia pyllynlämmittimixi.
ellauri053.html on line 1165: “It is a style of Pater,” Eliot justly said, but then he indulged himself in a little racial prejudice, saying “it is a style of Pater, with a trick of the eye and a hanging of the nether lip that come from across the Irish Channel, all the more seductive.” “Mr. Yeats,” he says, “sometimes appears, as a philosopher of aesthetics, incoherent”:
ellauri095.html on line 51: Hopkins’s most famous Welsh sonnet, “The Windhover,” reveals that for him this Book of Nature, like the Bible, demanded a moral application to the self. Hopkins wrote in his notes on St. Ignatius: “This world is word, expression, news of God”; “it is a book he has written.... a poem of beauty: what is it about? His praise, the reverence due to him, the way to serve him.... Do I then do it? Never mind others now nor the race of man: DO I DO IT?” One of Hopkins’s attempts to answer that question is “The Windhover.”
ellauri164.html on line 937: There was a second sin that was also committed in that same event. It was not revealed until The Psalmist described it: “it went ill with Moses” because “he spoke rashly with his lips” (Psa 106:33). When we look at what Moses said, we can see exactly how rash he was! “Hear now, ye rebels; shall we bring you forth water out of this rock?” This was a serious lapse in judgment. Moses was not going to bring water out of that rock. So, there was a big problem with that “we.” Hence, first by striking the rock, and second by using a pronoun that elevated them, Moses “believed not in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel.”
ellauri171.html on line 792: At this point, Jesus said to His disciples, “it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:23). Hard but not impossible. A camel can be diluted in acid and injected thru a needle. Anyway it was just the name of a gate in Jerusalem. This is because the care of riches in this life can be a snare for a Christian. A Christian’s heart cannot be set on riches and cares of this world above the Kingdom of God. In another example, the parable of the sower, Jesus warned that some who receive the word of God will allow their spiritual growth to be choked off by “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches” (Matthew 13:22). These things show us that being poor can help a Christian not to be ensnared by such things. No cause to complain then.
ellauri182.html on line 121: A Japanese lunch invitation cannot be likened to the statement, “let’s grab a burger.” Ashburne offers the opinion that “it’s an invitation to commune over food, to bond in a primal act of mutual celebration, to reinforce group identities, or welcome outsiders into the fold.”
ellauri219.html on line 597: In his autobiographical essay, “On My Religion,” Rawls explains why he abandoned his orthodox Christian beliefs in spite of the deeply religious temperament that informed his life and writings. In particular, he recounts how his personal experiences during the Second World War, and especially his awareness of the Holocaust, led him to question whether prayer was possible. “To interpret history as expressing God’s will, God’s will must accord with the most basic ideas of justice as we know them. For what else can the most basic justice be? Thus, I soon came to reject the idea of the supremacy of the divine will as [like the Holocaust] also hideous and evil.” Furthermore, by studying the history of the Inquisition Rawls came to “think of the denial of religious freedom and liberty of conscience as a very great evil,” such that “it makes the claims of the Popes to infallibility impossible to accept.” Finally, his reading of Jean Bodin’s thoughts about toleration led him to claim that religions should be “each reasonable, and accept the idea of public reason and its idea of the domain of the political.” Against this background, it is no wonder that Rawls considers the very concept of religious truth as authoritarian and intolerant, and the ensuing persecution of dissenters as the curse of Christianity.
ellauri270.html on line 401: The children pick up stones, and Davy Hutchinson is handed a few sharp pebbles in a paper cone. Tessie Hutchinson holds out her arms desperately, saying, “it isn’t fair,” as the crowd advances toward her. A flying stone hits her on the side of her head. Old Man Warner urges everyone forward, and Steve Adams and Mrs. Graves are at the front of the crowd. “It isn’t fair, it isn’t right,” Tessie screams, and then the villagers overwhelm her.
ellauri323.html on line 142: “Well,” said the Duke, “it is very ugly. The Dalbraith tartan is harmonious in comparison, and has, at least, the excuse of history. If you married me, you would have the right to wear it. You would have many strange and fascinating rights. You would go to Court. I admit that the Hanoverian Court is not much. Still, it is better than nothing.
xxx/ellauri379.html on line 119: One of the most resoundingly Modernist elements of Conrad’s work lies in this kind of early post-structuralist treatment of language—his insistence on the inherent inability of words to express the real, in all of its horrific truth. Marlow’s journey is full of encounters with things that are “unspeakable,” with words that are uninterpretable, and with a world that is eminently “inscrutable.” In this way, language fails time and time again to do what it is meant to do—to communicate. It’s a phenomenon best summed up when Marlow tells his audience that “it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one’s existence—that which makes its truth, its meaning—its subtle and penetrating essence… We live, as we dream—alone.” Kurtz—as “eloquent” as he may be—can’t even adequately communicate the terrifying darkness he observed around him.“The horror! The horror!” is all he can say. Some critics have surmised that part of Heart of Darkness’s mass appeal comes from this ambiguity of language—from the free rein it gives its readers to interpret. Others posit this as a great weakness of the text, viewing Conrad’s inability to name things as an unseemly quality in a writer who’s supposed to be one of the greats. Perhaps this is itself a testament to the Heart of Darkness’s breadth of interpretability.
10