(no subject)
oh dear my journal's been really blah recently, i apologise...
*searches for something amusing*
umm i have a tan line between my jeans and t shirt on my back
amanda's back! this makes me feel slightly better
mini-party tonight
reading a book called Oryx and Crake which is a re discovered christmas present, by the same author of The Handmaids Tale... it's kind of messed up. Margaret Atwood reminds me of a more wordy Chuck Palahnuik:
'“how much misery,” Crake said one lunchtime- this must have been when they were in their early twenties and Crake was already at Watson-Crick Institute- “how much needless despair has been caused by a series of biological mismatches, a misalignment of the hormones and phermones? Resulting in the fact that the one you love won’t or can’t love you. As a species we’re pathetic that way: perfectly monogamous. If we could only pair-bond for life, like gibbons, or else opt for total guilt-free promiscuity, there’d be no more sexual torment. Better plan- make it cyclical and also inevitable, as in the other mammals. You’d never want someone you couldn’t have.”
“true enough,” Jimmy replied. Or Jim, as he was know insisting, without results. “but think of what we’d be giving up.”
“such as?”
“courtship behaviour. In your plan we’d just be a bunch of hormone robots.” Jimmy thought he should put things in Crake’s terms, which is why he’d said courtship behaviour. What he’d meant was the challenge, the excitement, the chase. “there’d be no free choice.”
“there’s courtship behaviour in my plan,” said Crake, “except that it would always succeed. and we’re hormone robots anyway, only we’re faulty ones.”'- Oryx and Crake page 195.
Then they argue about art and sex. More amusing but I’m tired of typing, just read it.
*searches for something amusing*
umm i have a tan line between my jeans and t shirt on my back
amanda's back! this makes me feel slightly better
mini-party tonight
reading a book called Oryx and Crake which is a re discovered christmas present, by the same author of The Handmaids Tale... it's kind of messed up. Margaret Atwood reminds me of a more wordy Chuck Palahnuik:
'“how much misery,” Crake said one lunchtime- this must have been when they were in their early twenties and Crake was already at Watson-Crick Institute- “how much needless despair has been caused by a series of biological mismatches, a misalignment of the hormones and phermones? Resulting in the fact that the one you love won’t or can’t love you. As a species we’re pathetic that way: perfectly monogamous. If we could only pair-bond for life, like gibbons, or else opt for total guilt-free promiscuity, there’d be no more sexual torment. Better plan- make it cyclical and also inevitable, as in the other mammals. You’d never want someone you couldn’t have.”
“true enough,” Jimmy replied. Or Jim, as he was know insisting, without results. “but think of what we’d be giving up.”
“such as?”
“courtship behaviour. In your plan we’d just be a bunch of hormone robots.” Jimmy thought he should put things in Crake’s terms, which is why he’d said courtship behaviour. What he’d meant was the challenge, the excitement, the chase. “there’d be no free choice.”
“there’s courtship behaviour in my plan,” said Crake, “except that it would always succeed. and we’re hormone robots anyway, only we’re faulty ones.”'- Oryx and Crake page 195.
Then they argue about art and sex. More amusing but I’m tired of typing, just read it.