And thank you for making me laugh out loud here: “…dating a rather older gentleman (so, like, in his thirties?): an artist of no particular talent or, as it turned out, personal integrity. Which of course means: He was good-looking. My usual downfall.”
A paragraph I've just puttered with, in that puttering way I have. I do rather like that here: that you can look at something you've posted and play with it a bit after the fact.
I love footnote 3, and hellscape that it was (and I’m sure continues to be), Twitter did make several lasting contributions to the—what would we call it? syntax?—of written humor. I find the period-question to be especially useful for expressing the particular brand of humorous dismay that is *everything toddlers do* to my various parent group texts. “What in the ever-loving hell is this.” And a photo. We know what it is. It doesn’t matter what it is. It is Toddler. And the period says it all.
also the effectiveness, though I would not attempt this except online, of eschewing capital letters and terminal punctuation altogether, which conveys a passing thought that doesn't necessarily need to be a sentence
great story! i’ve been alternately repulsed and enchanted by the several darger shows i’ve seen. really liked the doc “in the realms of the unreal.” I think darger would have appreciated no copyediting.
Tangent-y thought re: footnote 3. I have from time to time toyed with the idea of having my students compose a tweet about some legal something-or-other as a way to talk about concision. I haven't done it because a) I think they already feel that shorter is always better, which leads to the careless elision of all sorts of substance, when what I want them to know is that judicious word and syntax choices are better and also often shorter; and more importantly b) I think somehow I'd end up seeming even more hopelessly antiquated.
Many years ago I attended a lecture at Morbid Anatomy where an academic examined the visual culture of Darger’s youth and noted how children (especially naked or semi-naked) abounded, and raised doubts about Darger’s pedophilia. (The couple that profited off selling Darger’s work had a lot to gain from making him sound as weird as possible.) I then realized what Darger’s art reminded me of from my own youth: Sailor Moon! One’s made by a monster and the other is a million-dollar kawaii franchise. Marketing, marketing, marketing.
It has always made more sense to me that the put-upon (to put it mildly) children in Darger's artwork are representations of him-as-terrified-victim, not the objects of his violent lust. I was also impressed with the suggestion that the least complicated solution to the mystery of the naked little girls with penises is that Darger may well have never seen a naked female person in his entire life, adult or child, and the only naked body he was familiar with was his own. (I also don't know that the popular theorizing about Darger's malevolence derives from the Lerners, but I don't know everything about the promotion of Darger's art beyond the basics of the story.) And I do take exception to the characterization of Darger as a monster.
I love this essay.
And thank you for making me laugh out loud here: “…dating a rather older gentleman (so, like, in his thirties?): an artist of no particular talent or, as it turned out, personal integrity. Which of course means: He was good-looking. My usual downfall.”
A paragraph I've just puttered with, in that puttering way I have. I do rather like that here: that you can look at something you've posted and play with it a bit after the fact.
And: Thank you, Connie!
I love footnote 3, and hellscape that it was (and I’m sure continues to be), Twitter did make several lasting contributions to the—what would we call it? syntax?—of written humor. I find the period-question to be especially useful for expressing the particular brand of humorous dismay that is *everything toddlers do* to my various parent group texts. “What in the ever-loving hell is this.” And a photo. We know what it is. It doesn’t matter what it is. It is Toddler. And the period says it all.
also the effectiveness, though I would not attempt this except online, of eschewing capital letters and terminal punctuation altogether, which conveys a passing thought that doesn't necessarily need to be a sentence
if you follow me, and I bet you do
what’s a sentence even, who has the time
great story! i’ve been alternately repulsed and enchanted by the several darger shows i’ve seen. really liked the doc “in the realms of the unreal.” I think darger would have appreciated no copyediting.
Tangent-y thought re: footnote 3. I have from time to time toyed with the idea of having my students compose a tweet about some legal something-or-other as a way to talk about concision. I haven't done it because a) I think they already feel that shorter is always better, which leads to the careless elision of all sorts of substance, when what I want them to know is that judicious word and syntax choices are better and also often shorter; and more importantly b) I think somehow I'd end up seeming even more hopelessly antiquated.
I totally get ya on all points.
Another great story, thanks Benjamin.
What an interesting life you're having!
steveroonie from Bluesky, if that isn't apparent.
👍🏻
So far, so good!
Many years ago I attended a lecture at Morbid Anatomy where an academic examined the visual culture of Darger’s youth and noted how children (especially naked or semi-naked) abounded, and raised doubts about Darger’s pedophilia. (The couple that profited off selling Darger’s work had a lot to gain from making him sound as weird as possible.) I then realized what Darger’s art reminded me of from my own youth: Sailor Moon! One’s made by a monster and the other is a million-dollar kawaii franchise. Marketing, marketing, marketing.
It has always made more sense to me that the put-upon (to put it mildly) children in Darger's artwork are representations of him-as-terrified-victim, not the objects of his violent lust. I was also impressed with the suggestion that the least complicated solution to the mystery of the naked little girls with penises is that Darger may well have never seen a naked female person in his entire life, adult or child, and the only naked body he was familiar with was his own. (I also don't know that the popular theorizing about Darger's malevolence derives from the Lerners, but I don't know everything about the promotion of Darger's art beyond the basics of the story.) And I do take exception to the characterization of Darger as a monster.