Festwca

I don’t know shit, but Hypnos does interesting and well-crafted things. I’m reading “Strane Visioni 2,” the collection of Italian weird stories. A genre that I would say is anything but out of fashion, indeed: increasingly suited to define our times (see Mark Fisher).

"He speaks of love! The serious kind that leaves no escape, that makes the air and the ground disappear beneath your feet." I disagree with this interpretation. Anna does not love "seriously." The novel has always seemed to me like an invented construct that primarily serves to demonstrate a thesis: one must imitate Levin and Kitty, the author says, that’s "true love"; living like Anna and Vronsky is wrong and leads to ending up under a train. A sharp rap on the knuckles! And to prove this, he places a nice happy ending against a descent into the abyss. That "thing" between A and V, for the moralist Tolstoy, is a romantic aberration of a genetic drive, butterflies in the stomach of a person who cannot or does not want to "choose," a concept he will insist on even more cruelly and cynically in the Kreutzer Sonata. The refusal and systematic demolition of romantic love, which ultimately is just a mask for animal instinct: dunking the biscuit, dominating and being dominated. Two novels that, despite the famous perfect and crystalline prose (especially the first), I find hard to endure or ignore the moralizing intent. It’s difficult to warm up to Tolstoy, no matter how wonderful Anna Karenina is. I hope I haven’t proposed any absolute and well-known banalities, but I’m here at work twiddling my thumbs.

I finally read it, while waiting to see Villeneuve's film, and I wanted to say: it seemed like a bit of a crap to me (the novel) - to put it in technical terms. I feel a bit snobbish, but it seemed like a mess written so-so, with ecology, anthropology, drugs like LSD, religion, politics, transhumanism, psychic powers, etc., all just thrown in there, "just because," and beneath it all, nothing. It seemed like a crazy superficiality (copyright) to me, and the little I read between the lines didn't appeal to me. Or maybe I just should have gotten high before reading it and not thought about it anymore. The setting is suggestive, and I would have liked it at 12 years old. I didn't like Lynch's film, but yes to the early '90s video game. Above it says that Villeneuve has turned it towards doom, so okay.

I haven't listened to Sonic Youth in at least ten years and I've never heard anything by Thurston Moore, but I'm really enjoying this, thank you.

I've never been passionate about them, but this is the first one I've been happily listening to for several days, especially "Fire at Static Valley." I read the initial statement as an apocalyptic outburst that doesn't want to make sense: to destroy everything and start anew.

Dischissimo (I have the aforementioned collection which is also full of notes)

But does she have the edition with the cover that opens like the doors of the temple? If so, I envy her so much. Hyperbolic comment about the album: Amboss is the most mind-blowing psychedelic piece for me, hands down. Comment n.2: everything always degenerates, everything started to degenerate when we tasted the forbidden fruit; the temple will open at the end of times or when listening to side A.

Remembering the Cannarsian blasphemy in Mononoke, reading "Podio" under "Porco Rosso" had a strange effect on me.

For me, they are worth reading just for Landolfi's translation.

I would like to point out that a new Italian edition has just been printed, I would say just the day before yesterday (it looks nice but obviously I can't judge the translation). I, not being able to find it anywhere, had read it in English and definitely missed more than one passage. I wouldn't define him in any way as a wild writer, as mentioned above. Am I wrong?