NON-FICTION: SUN IN TAURUS, A FRIEND, HITLER, JACK JOHNSON

I know astrology's bullshit, but just consider the following similarities and see if you can't, at least, see the value it offers us in regards to analyzing personality components.

This old buddy of mine has alot in common with me, though our astrology doesn't have much in common.

We both have chronic paranoia, a tendency to think in terms of deceptive strategies to guarantee our security in relationship with others. We both are highly analytical and prefer directness when dealing with problems. We both have a sense of victimization sustained in childhood which causes us at times to forget that we are now formidable and intimidating, and this in turn causes us to come off as monsters.

But this friend of mine, Jar Jar, has a sun in taurus and a moon in leo. And he always somethings in common with famous taurus's like Hitler, cromwell, saddam, hussein, tony blair, lenin, and marx.

The goals of my life revolve around encompassing the world through understanding, resolving erroneous thinking and theoretical excessiveness, and creating harmonious relationships.

Jar Jar, on the otherhand, is always struggling between creativity and the quest for power.
Like Hitler and lenin, he posesses a highly calculating and austere attitude to his role in society, he sees himself as singled out by destiny for power. He does not openly second guess himself too much, 0r admit weakness. He is personally cynical of ideology, but nonetheless feels an excitement at the sight of uniforms and crowds of humans organized under the same banner, with one mind and one leader. He admires the hegemony of communist china and the soviet union, even if he hasnt ever conscioulsy thought so.

He thinks the key to power over others is the form of the organization, and the proper influencing of the organizations methods.

Like all the aforementioned, he is unlikely to understand or dwell on whats really going on in his psyche, rather, he constantly reinterprets other peoples ideas and ideology into justifications for his own will to power.

Like cromwell and the rest, he values loyalty and therefore sees betrayal everywhere imminent, except when committed by himself.

The other day I saw Tony Blair on the daily Show, and I was reminded of Jar Jar. Particularly, in the way that Blair resisted openly disagreeing with John Stewart, trying instead to charm by being reasonable and calm, while at the same time showing no admission of error or regret, and sneaking in the implication that the invasion of Iraq was justified by the current prescence of terrorists there, which showed that the war on terror was a pan middle east epidemic which we should engage on that scale.

Jar Jar is also constantly worried about sanitation and his own health, like Hitler. Another commonality is a lack of sexuality. It's nice to have a friend who doesn't constantly make dirty comments, not that i have many friends who do. But, beyond that, Jar Jar has never exhibited a typical male obsessions with sex, never showed any interest in porn, never commented on a girls boobs or ass, and never showed any interest in men. In this regards, he reminds me of Morrissey.

Well, this is not comprehensive, but we do see paranoia, interpretation of relationships in terms of strategic plays for power, a lack of self awareness, a disinclination toward regret and expression of apology, and a single will and determination to achieve organizational power.

NONFICTION: don delillo and astrology

I've read three or four Delillo Novels. The first one was Underworld. I was so in love with his wording and scope, that I thought he must be the greatest American novelist. (I still kind of think that.) But when i began to read criticism of Delillo, I began to understand what he was popular for: Post-modern cynicism critiqueblablalbla. I was ashamed. How could such a powerful talent be degraded down to the cliches of modern literature? Critique of technology and capitalist blabla bla. Who isnt?

Finally, after underworld and mao II, i read white noise. It was my least favorite. Aside from the ironic, but not quite laughable humor, and his usual descriptive genius, the novel just exaggerated modernity to the point of absurdity in order to demonstrate the absurdity of modernity.

So, why does such a grand ability waste itself on lopsided criticism and comparing himelf to a terrorist?

I think part of it is because he is a Scorpio. Scorpio's are great at emotionally intense criticism. They are also good at detail.

In Underworld, the scene where the guy is going over the dessert and seeing all the planes makes me think that delillo must love this image too. His fascination with Americana (i havent read that one) obviously suggests more than a criticism. He is in love with his idea of the past.

Anyways, I've written the last two posts instead of working on the novel, so back to work.
My point about delillo is just that his greatness is in his diction and description not in the accidental coincidence of his negativity and the trite condemnation of modernity that predominates Real Literature.

P.S. I really love Delillo. He's a fucking genius.