SiameseCat

Again, (self-)worth and contributions are surely down to every individual, aren't they? Without referring to you, women demanding consideration because they're women is irrational and causing a lot of trouble. You often have incompetent females being propped up in important positions just to satisfy political correctness. The unpleasant truth is that a lot of women constantly take time off over family matters. This needn't be trivial, but they do contribute less if seen as a group. So if such a woman's husband has to pick up the slack, why shouldn't he earn more? If anything women are making it unfair on other women who don't take advantage of a man or the system. And what about all those divorces where a man ends up destitute because he has to support her lifestyle? If things are skewed, it's often in women's favour.

I always aim to stay outside any box. Sent you a pm about the other thing ...

Well,"that" is the one part of life where gender does matter. (Haven't read the book though.)

Ah see, but you're a guy, going by your photo. I.e. usually more logical, much as it hurts me to bow to stereotypical characteristics. Your definition probably is idealistic, which is why I didn't suspect it. Btw, have you heard of MGTOW? (Maybe not a subject for this thread though.)

As if a sense of entitlement (god complex) was a male thing. I'm all for having self-respect - as an individual, any individual. And gender is just one minor thing among many that make an individual. What's the big deal with being female? You're either one gender or the other. Isn't pride in one's incidental gender aiming a little low? It was just a toss of the dice before birth after all. Shouldn't pride be reserved for things we have achieved and that actually matter?

I was somewhat sarcastic in my choice of words. But if your definition was true there would be nothing wrong with it. Listening to many women you get a strong sense of entitlement which often takes advantage of men.

What I meant was women like to go on about all they deserve for the achievement of being female, i.e. divine. So do they grant men the same claim to divine greatness? Which, 99% of the time, they don't. And I say that as a female.

"Inner Goddess"? In that case, for the sake of equality, are men allowed to have and indulge an "Inner God"? Didn't think so.

My favourite comedian by far is the late great George Carlin. I have his Brain Droppings and Napalm and Silly Putty. I love his irreverent and mostly accurate take on things. He isn't funny by being funny but by being ruthlessly clear-sighted.

I meant that I don't have a whole lot of respect for unchecked emotions guiding people's actions. Btw, I very much agree with you about (especially current) culture. But as you say, until someone is willing to be analytical and self-aware in themselves, nothing else can be done.

Actually, I remember a few years ago I was reading short stories by M.R. James, in the daytime no less, and I was scared stiff. There was something about his writing, even more than other Victorian horror that really hit the mark and then some.

Not sure how to chop up a quote. Anyway, on the first section, yes I do believe that unselfish love exists, though it is rare because it is more rational (or at least has the ability to be) than emotional. Yes, uncontrolled emotions are often selfish, which is my whole issue with emotional displays. Never mind making important decision based on feelings running rampant. As for what people experienced as children; while it shapes us to a degree, everyone is free to analyze and assess and do make better choices. We're not put on an unchangeable set of rails for life which predestines our behaviour. Most things in life are nothing but habits, which one can step away from. But it means taking responsibility which many are unwilling to do. On your third point, see above. As you say, not all bad actions are the result of malice. But they're usually "crimes" of omission, to question one's emotions and impulses.

Has anyone read it? I finished it recently and enjoyed it very much. Can't help thinking that there is a major element of truth in it too. I;d be interested to read other opinions.

I use the word "true" not in the tacky romance context but rather meaning "genuine". As such it can never be just an emotion but is backed up by principles. I.e. true love will not be self-indulgent by satisfying one's own urges at the expense of the person they allegedly love. For that matter, I can well believe that arranged marriages can work exactly for that reason. The couple have to do their best to get on and may well in the process grow to love each other. But that would be based on their knowledge of each other, not feelings out of control. In contrast, I know of a woman who would beat up the daughter whenever she was late to get home. The reason was her obsessive "love" and therefore fear of losing the daughter. The feelings in question were no doubt intense, "true" if you like. But would you say the bruises at the time and the lasting effects of such an unbalanced relationship are the result of something positive such as real love? I have no interest in or sympathy for free adults who remain caught up in such madness and suffer the results.

You said it first. While I'm not squeamish I consider mindless gore cheating on the writer's part. I wonder which books have met your standard, I've been quite disappointed lately.

Absolutely! Though what works for me isn't so much out there. Any all-out slasher stuff doesn't even count. Anything that has a great feel of realism with a low-key creeping suspense works for me. On TV the X-Files hit that mark better than anything. Their idea was that we simply hadn't explored whatever they were dealing with - always got me thinking...

I was determined to read The Dead Travel Fast by Deanna Raybourn. Not exactly historic but it was described as a different take on Stoker's novel. Now it's been out for a while, reviewers have found it to be little more than a trashy romance in an unusual setting. That part of the world deserves better; maybe I should stick with non-fiction.

Ok thanks, I'll try tor ead an excerpt online before anything else.

... reminds me! Don't care for either of those two, gave them two chances a while ago. No use for characters with too many issues. I prefer a Sherlock-Holmes - stick - with - the - relevant approach.

I'm getting this way with Kathy Reichs. I've gone through heaps of library books this last year - just as well I didn't spend money on them with how lousy a lot of them were. I have to conclude that either the people choosing what to buy for the library have narrow tastes or there are fads among authors. 1 If they want to portray someone as brainy they listen to classical music if not opera. 2 The author will hard-sell you a female character as "strong" and capable, but she will invariably turn out to be helpless, ignorant and hysterical. As if the reader won't spot the split personality there. Getting really tired the narrow-minded pretentiousness in no 1 and the spoonfeeding of conclusions on no 2. Rant over (for now; bound to be expanded over time)

I think the picture explains my choice. Her name was Luthien, after Tolkien's character. She died far too young. She was the most amazing feline personality.

I'm perfectly happy reading non-fiction, have enjoyed it in the past. Historic novels were more of an experiment following a suggestion. Though a well-written novel can bring a culture to life too ...

Thanks to both of you! Kylie, was it the gruesomeness or the writing you disliked? Just curious ...

Thanks for that. I'll work my way through it over my coming days off.