September 6th, 2014 / 4:11 pm
Snippets

I closed Dianna’s post because the discussion wasn’t taking a positive turn, and I got annoyed. I’d like to personally thank Dianna for being a thoughtful and brave person.

Unrelated question: Should I get a puppy?

puppy

25 Comments

  1. James Tadd Adcox

      Puppies are great.

  2. Gene Morgan

      It’s gonna be a rescue dog so maybe it’s not a “puppy” puppy, but my kids really want another dog and I think my current dog would like a buddy.

  3. deadgod

      If you have the resources and will to care for it well, OF COURSE YOU SHOULD GET A PUPPY. ‘Rescue’ is a great plan. I was going just to say ‘get one that’ll fit in the microwave’, but I don’t want this thread to get closed, too.

  4. Gene Morgan

      There’s always someone at our house, so I think it’ll be good. Our current dog has a backyard, goes on a couple walks a day, and is well loved.

      Very happy I don’t have to close this thread!

  5. mimi

      sure, if you don’t mind picking up someone’s else’s shit for the next fifteen years or so

      signed,
      dog owner

  6. deadgod

      HTMLGiant is definitely a hotbed of helicopter pet-owners.

  7. jereme_dean

      yes, just keep it off the internet.

  8. raynola

      Puppies are great but don’t let Janey Smith fuck it.

  9. reynard seifert

      that’s not a puppy that is a baby land seal

  10. Dena Rash Guzman

      Yes! Our new rescue dog is a tiny wolf and the biggest pain and the best thing ever. Re shutting the thread down – puppies are better than that conversation.

  11. Dena Rash Guzman

      Tried to post a picture but don’t see that it worked. I will email it to you. He’s not really a wolf. Just looks like a mini wolf.

  12. furlough

      Hey TW,

      Sorry dad kicked us out of the local hang. I figured we’d just continue our conversation here.

      I said Duchamp’s urinal creates meaning through context rather than craft. I did not say the same of sampling; I compared it to a symphony, a much longer form, with a generative, rather than appropriative, content. You’re bringing in feature-length films and novels, which don’t hold up much for comparison, as they are also longer, and generative, and typically narrative-driven; collage-style short films and found poems make for more apt comparisons, as they’re both shorter, appropriative, and non-narrative in nature. (Of course, context/craft is something of a false binary – all works contain aspects of both – but the ratios differ depending on the form and style of the works in question.)

      Your parenthetical sentence at the end, totally agreed with. But you never clarified that longer works were excluded from your examples when discussing what work would be excluded when context took precedent to content. If we were to reduce the type of work we were discussing to shorter, appropriative, non-narrative stuff, I’d be fine with it, so long as you had made a qualification in advance.

      There’s no required syllabus for a moral compass, but there is one for understanding a work in its proper historical context. The stuff you’re singling out here is stuff writers have been exploring for decades, in ways far more invasive, and potentially offensive, than a simple list. It’s been discussed to death, and it’s largely because of feminist writers like Acker and Kraus that such practices gained credence. Again, you can make whatever moral judgements you like, but that’s just one lens, and it won’t help create a very nuanced reading of this piece – which, I’m arguing, functions as a critique of such appropriations, rather than mindless entitlement. Remember in college, when you had to do research, or else your paper wouldn’t get an A? It’s kind of like that. Except someone’s character and livelihood are on the line.

      I get this. The argument is essentially that you can look at this list in the same lens as me, but also in another separate lens. That’s fine. But I’d argue that having looked at it through my initial lens (the feminist one), there;s no reason to pursue it further. I think it’s a question of personal discretion. Zodiac killer is a good example I think. The Zodiac Killer is some scumshit who murdered innocent people. That’s the initial lens. BUT the Zodiac Killer also put cute codes and references in letters to the police, which means there’s another lens of interpretation available. However, based on my initial interpretation I’d argue the scumbag is no right to additional interpretation.

      I’m drunk while writing this so I don’t know how cogent this is. I do want to post it simply because some dude who runs this site wouldn’t let us continue our discussion because it wasn’t “positive” enough. We can continue this under better circumstances, TW, hopefully.

      And Gene: You’re doing a great job of fulfilling the role of nervous white male introduced to a new level of discourse that makes him nervous and resort to panic. Keep up the good fedora work!

  13. Gene Morgan

      And you’re doing a great job of sharing your serious opinion on a thread about puppies.

      I’ve been a part of this site for six years. I’ve seen many levels of discourse, including this one, the drunk-can’t-move-on discourse.

  14. mimi

      i liked the ‘What is Art?’ and ‘What about the intersection of Art and Reality (real people, real names, real injury)’ part of the conversation, and think TW makes some excellent points in his/her comment here

      does Lolita ‘promote pedophile-culture in literature?’
      is Lolita ‘Art’?

      like The Zodiac Killer, Humbert Humbert left a stellar set of written clues for Q in motel sign-ins across the USA – ‘Art??’

      difference is, ZK was real, HH a fictitious character

      sorry i’m not moving on, Gene
      i am very slightly hung-over, waiting for mr. mimi to bring me my coffee he’s brewing right this moment

      : )

  15. shaun gannon

      I guess I’m the one person who’s going to actually get real in this thread:
      puppies in general can be great, but the one pictured in the above post looks kinda fucked up.

  16. shaun gannon

      It’s head looks fake or something. God I just can’t get over this

  17. mimi

      typical htmlGiant andro-centric miscaniny

      and has anyone checked the VIDA stats on canine writers and poets lately?

      sheesh

  18. deadgod

      do you even bark bro

  19. mimi

      define “bark”, dude

  20. theTsaritsa

      I adopted a cat four years ago and she rules. Puppies are cool, too. The one in the picture looks like a polar bear by gund I got as a baby and named Snuff.

  21. @J_Y_Hopkins

      Puppies are just small dogs—
      and why would you want a dog that was small?

  22. mimi

      smaller shits

  23. furlough

      You’re experience trumps my need for dialogue. You know what paternalism is? Or are you a dummy.

      Thanks for the talking to, guy from Full House!

  24. furlough

      Listen up y’all: Gene’s been doing this for SIX YEARS. So he knows how to treat people like shit.

      You doing this for six years means that at some point you were voluntarily on the internet when everyone on it was scum. So good work on the six years, joke-o!

  25. furlough

      You are like the epitome of condescending dad, and personally I think everyone except you is too stupid to discuss anything. Schmuck.