it seems to me one of the questions you explore in your writing is how to be a man in the world of today. Like me, you seem to have a longing for a simpler past. Your writing about the Green Book, the Conquistadores, about the way boys of the Plains Indians were raised and when grown up lived as warriors, your retelling of the lives of JFK, LBJ and Coke Stevenson, in my mind are all examples of this. They refer to a time when it was easier to live out the innate desires of men to conquer, have sex with many women, and to use violence without inhibition. Not that I want this, but how to reconcile these urges with life in the world of today? I feel domesticated and I don't like it.
Anyway, this is one of the things I resonate with in your writing.
Again, I want to promote a piece of mine (which takes only one minute to read), since it is about an aspect of manhood, although on a very different level. Curious to know what you think of it. Also, comments about style and word choice are greatly appreciated, since English is not my mother tongue.
Ha! Is that how I am read. I agree I explicitly explore masculinity. I'm not sure I yearn for those other modes, although they have their + and -. I have no answers. Thanks for the link I will read
Having finished reading this, I confess to not having a clue what this has to do with Wotter Wight. It seems like a forced and inappropriate analogy.
"Breaking Bad’s Skyler White is an altogether different woman to the two former First Ladies, and her suffering different to theirs. And while we come to admire (and even love) Lady Bird and Jaqueline Kennedy, we loathe Skyler."
When I watched the show, I didn't think about Skyler at all. Neither do I admire nor particularly ever think about any of the other people discussed in this piece. They all may have been exceptional or ordinary in one way or another, but they all achieved nothing or less than nothing (Cuban Missile Crisis partially excepted), and had no idea of the good life, by my lights anyway. They can keep their misery and their high offices and their sparkling or husk-like acquaintances and and their criminal empires.
My comment is longwinded (yikes!) so appreciate you reading it. And props to you for the original post. Much harder being the OP than being the reply-guy!
Yeah I didn't think you actually endorsed LBJ's behaviour at all! FWIW, you probably made many more points that I agreed with but failed to mention. You've also made me more likely to read Caro sooner than I might've, especially for the JFK/RFK material. Thanks again!
Hi Misha,
it seems to me one of the questions you explore in your writing is how to be a man in the world of today. Like me, you seem to have a longing for a simpler past. Your writing about the Green Book, the Conquistadores, about the way boys of the Plains Indians were raised and when grown up lived as warriors, your retelling of the lives of JFK, LBJ and Coke Stevenson, in my mind are all examples of this. They refer to a time when it was easier to live out the innate desires of men to conquer, have sex with many women, and to use violence without inhibition. Not that I want this, but how to reconcile these urges with life in the world of today? I feel domesticated and I don't like it.
Anyway, this is one of the things I resonate with in your writing.
Again, I want to promote a piece of mine (which takes only one minute to read), since it is about an aspect of manhood, although on a very different level. Curious to know what you think of it. Also, comments about style and word choice are greatly appreciated, since English is not my mother tongue.
https://henkb.substack.com/p/the-advantages-of-sitting
Ha! Is that how I am read. I agree I explicitly explore masculinity. I'm not sure I yearn for those other modes, although they have their + and -. I have no answers. Thanks for the link I will read
Fantastic piece that I really enjoyed reading.
🙏🏼
Having finished reading this, I confess to not having a clue what this has to do with Wotter Wight. It seems like a forced and inappropriate analogy.
"Breaking Bad’s Skyler White is an altogether different woman to the two former First Ladies, and her suffering different to theirs. And while we come to admire (and even love) Lady Bird and Jaqueline Kennedy, we loathe Skyler."
When I watched the show, I didn't think about Skyler at all. Neither do I admire nor particularly ever think about any of the other people discussed in this piece. They all may have been exceptional or ordinary in one way or another, but they all achieved nothing or less than nothing (Cuban Missile Crisis partially excepted), and had no idea of the good life, by my lights anyway. They can keep their misery and their high offices and their sparkling or husk-like acquaintances and and their criminal empires.
Sounds like you hated everything about this piece - thanks for reading though!
Great piece Misha--maybe someone can raise the funds to buy longlea from the opus dei and return it to its former glory
Maybe Opus Dei are putting it to great use!
It does look like a beautiful conference space--I’ll try and check it out next time I’m in the states and that far east
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I am not endorsing LBJ by any means - explicitly not holding on the appalling way he treats his wife
My comment is longwinded (yikes!) so appreciate you reading it. And props to you for the original post. Much harder being the OP than being the reply-guy!
Yeah I didn't think you actually endorsed LBJ's behaviour at all! FWIW, you probably made many more points that I agreed with but failed to mention. You've also made me more likely to read Caro sooner than I might've, especially for the JFK/RFK material. Thanks again!