Currently I'm reading The Rum Diary, then I will move on to Ask The Dust.
never read either though the rum diary strikes a chord in title though it could just be false recall. are they fiction
Yes, both are fiction. The Rum Diary was one of Hunter S. Thompson's only novels he wrote before he left fiction and went into journalism. It's pre Fear and Loathing, so there is no drug abuse, just LOTS of rum. (so I'm surprised anyone got anything done). Thompson's alter ego is working for a San Jan newspaper that is ready to fold at any moment, and during his time he wonders about the roads not traveled, the atmosphere is desperate and the novel has tinges of youthful despair. I would suggest reading the book than watching the film that was made a few years ago because the film is underwhelming compared to the book, and the film was modernized to fit in the 21st century so a lot of The Rum Diary's 1960s mystique is gone and important aspects of the story are gone so you don't get a true taste of the novel that way.
Ask The Dust is by John Fante. I met his grandson at a book reading where he told me stories when he hung out with Charles Bukowski and Ernest Hemingway before they died. He explained to me Hemingway never drank while he wrote, only when he was done and out golfing. And that Bukowski was really an intelligent, humorous man--but when he drank he REALLY could drink. Fante's grandson's novel I read was OK, but Ask The Dust is a "hidden gem" in American literature. I have read good things about it, so I'm excited to read it. Bukowski reveres John as his God, and I love Bukowski so I'm intrigued.
Susan Sontag: Regarding the Pain of Others.
With "others" Sontag means human victims of war shown in photography and film. I also have animals in mind, as there are millions of them being treated and dying the most horrendous ways every single day and minute and second. Thanks to social media we can now see what's really going on. I haven't finished her essay yet and i hope she can give me some answers to why these images arouse empathy in some, and nothing but disinterest in others.
Virginia Woolf is quoted at the beginning and her opinion that "war has a gender - and it is male". This statement made her essay the least well received of her books. Why? I think because she is saying the most obvious. THis was (and i guess, still is) a temerity to point out.
I couldn't help but develop her thoughts even further. I would say that if we want to save our planet we have to gain control of the male sex drive (Testosteron) and modern genetic engineering can help us with that, namely stopping archaic behaviour in a modern world which doesn't need any more of that shit, it's neither adorable nor necessary in a man. Education takes too much time unfortunately.
If you want to comment on this, feel free to do so.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure whether i understand what you mean with "women allow men to go to war". I don't know any woman who wants a beloved or needed man to go to war. The few women in powerful positions are driven by other motives than their male counterparts. It's not so much profit maximation and ego aggrandizement but rather finding approval of the society they live in. That's why they play this game. In my opinion "testosterone" lies at the roots of the quest of profit and war.
I see your point, and you are right about women showing support of the war. Their motivation though for doing so is different (s.a.), it's more an issue of finding appreciation for who they are within their society, for men i would argue it's mostly among other reasons a biological thing.