looks like we're all striking out, Siku!

perhaps you should tell us what you're after.

NOT EVEN IN THE SAME CLASS!!!!????? I'm in despair, but I think I can still find some Bardo-theorist nutsoes out here in the internets and circle my wagons with them.

I personally want to shatter the classical interpretation. It's nothing more than a Dallas dream with or without Alan Shaw's fan fiction parading as the family history of Diane Selwyn.

Heh! To clarify, I meant "not in the same class", rather than "not of the same quality"!

Class
1.(countable) A group, collection, category or set sharing characteristics or attributes.

Quality
1.(uncountable) Level of excellence

I didn't think the bardot theory challenged the classical theory (unlike Xav's), but sits alongide it.

kmkmiller wrote:..fan fiction parading as the family history of Diane Selwyn.

Brilliantly scathing!

Blu, we should probably start that thread you were proposing re Alan Shaw so we can start systematically dismanteling his whole thesis. Do you still want to kick it off?

Siku wrote:I’m totally on board with seeing DeRosa as a non-idealised Camilla, but I’m inclined to judge her more real because she appears at the door, not just in Diane’s hallucinations and fantasies.

How should Camilla appear in the present-reality when she is already dead??? (you have to need flashbacks)

Just answer yourself one question:

What makes more sense?

Diane commits suicide because her relationship with the girl next door is broken.
or
Diane commits suicide because she is responsible for the killing of Camilla.

Siku wrote:Blu, we should probably start that thread you were proposing re Alan Shaw so we can start systematically dismanteling his whole thesis. Do you still want to kick it off?

Haha! I don't want to dismantle his whole thesis. I do agree with a lot of it. Just resent the way that some of it is presented as his own work when clearly it's not.

I've a lot on at the minute so time is limited but if you want to kick off go ahead.

We have time for Mr. Shaw.

It's true that whole Tibetan book of the dead thing is compatible with the classical idea of the thing, I just think its important to conceptualize Betty as a reality ... An equal form of reality something that truly happened and mattered...

Blow your mind for a second. Remember The Last Temptation of Christ? Catholic Christians despised scorseses movie because the last half hour depicted Jesus in a form of a dream place on the cross..,But if you liked that movie and got a visceral reaction out of the final scenes, then you know that reaction is diminished by reducing Jesus's sideways life as a mere dream that never happened or mattered.

Jesus didn't give up a dream to die for man, he gave up a REALITY to die for man.

Late night ramblings food for thought.

Betty was real. She hapened and mattered..,That's the part of the classical interpretation I want to shatter.

Betty was the idealized self of Diane: innocent, brave, pro-active, etc. By creating her in the dream, we learn more about Diane than whatever reality might have exposed. Dreams are not just dreams, albeit mental journeys revealing emotional truth about the protagonist.

In her dreamplace, Havenhurst apartment, we find three red (hot?) peppers, where aunt Ruth found her keys. Another 'key-scene' that rises the idea of a mystery drama related to three girls?

Silk, is there a thread about Alan Shaws thesis in which you discuss systematically? Maybe i didn't find it.