![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And for my next trick...
Sep. 22nd, 2011 05:36 pm....you can watch somebody from the Daily Torygraph jump to random conclusions.
Lou Reed and Metallica's sick poster has no place on the London Underground
Let us disregard the questions about the musical necessity of Metallica and Lou Reed collaborating for the moment, and going into detail about Wedekind's "Lulu" here would probably lead to a whole other discussion that would sooner or later necessitate the mentioning of Lars von Trier. Which nobody wants, and which really is not relevant here, anyway.
My favourite sentence is "Children, unstable psychotics, abused women and simply people already suffering from a sweaty armpit and a 20-minute delay should not be exposed to a bloody torso.", as it combines the ever-popular "The children! Who will save our children?" with the just-as-popular feeding the fear of all the "psychos" that might lurk on YOUR! street, ready to snap at any second, about to pounce and commit heinous acts of barbarism and monstrosity. The only way to keep them at bay is to keep as quiet and civilised as possible. No sudden movements, no loud noises and for God's sake, no disagreeable culture please!
....while happily disregarding that the exciting and special thing about "psychotics" is that you don't know how they will interpret something or what will finally make them snap, if snapping is what they are about to do. Your worldview might not match theirs, strangely enough.
But let us leave the area of sarcasm and the garden-variety psychotic.
There is always this sickenly vague fear of what "they" might do, always just a vague possibility, but you never know...
What I think really aggravates me about this (assuming that I have not fallen foul of a major act of subtle satire here) is the sheer bluntness with which Lucy Jones interprets what is basically an artistically ambiguous image solely according to her own wishes/thoughts/prejudices in order to jump to conclusions. There is a definite difference between an image of a partial shop mannequin, to all intents and purposes a broken doll, which has long been a popular image, and interpreting it as being "dismembered, cut and bruised" and a likely trigger for violence against women*. Yes, I can follow that train of thought but IMHO this train is a fair few stops beyond where it should really have terminated.
*Yes, I know how the play "Lulu" ends. But I doubt that Lucy Jones does.
Lou Reed and Metallica's sick poster has no place on the London Underground
Let us disregard the questions about the musical necessity of Metallica and Lou Reed collaborating for the moment, and going into detail about Wedekind's "Lulu" here would probably lead to a whole other discussion that would sooner or later necessitate the mentioning of Lars von Trier. Which nobody wants, and which really is not relevant here, anyway.
My favourite sentence is "Children, unstable psychotics, abused women and simply people already suffering from a sweaty armpit and a 20-minute delay should not be exposed to a bloody torso.", as it combines the ever-popular "The children! Who will save our children?" with the just-as-popular feeding the fear of all the "psychos" that might lurk on YOUR! street, ready to snap at any second, about to pounce and commit heinous acts of barbarism and monstrosity. The only way to keep them at bay is to keep as quiet and civilised as possible. No sudden movements, no loud noises and for God's sake, no disagreeable culture please!
....while happily disregarding that the exciting and special thing about "psychotics" is that you don't know how they will interpret something or what will finally make them snap, if snapping is what they are about to do. Your worldview might not match theirs, strangely enough.
But let us leave the area of sarcasm and the garden-variety psychotic.
There is always this sickenly vague fear of what "they" might do, always just a vague possibility, but you never know...
What I think really aggravates me about this (assuming that I have not fallen foul of a major act of subtle satire here) is the sheer bluntness with which Lucy Jones interprets what is basically an artistically ambiguous image solely according to her own wishes/thoughts/prejudices in order to jump to conclusions. There is a definite difference between an image of a partial shop mannequin, to all intents and purposes a broken doll, which has long been a popular image, and interpreting it as being "dismembered, cut and bruised" and a likely trigger for violence against women*. Yes, I can follow that train of thought but IMHO this train is a fair few stops beyond where it should really have terminated.
*Yes, I know how the play "Lulu" ends. But I doubt that Lucy Jones does.
