dandannoodles

Created by Train Horns

A RADICALLY CONDENSED HISTORY OF POSTINDUSTRIAL LIFE

When they were introduced, he made a witticism, hoping to be liked. She laughed extremely hard, hoping to be liked. Then each drove home alone, staring straight ahead, with the very same twist to their faces.

The man who’d introduced them didn’t much like either of them, though he acted as if he did, anxious as he was to preserve good relations at all times. One never knew, after all, now did one now did one now did one.

When do you stop missing someone you never met?

Tim is out for lunch.

Someone: for ? to ? –same thing

Someone else: with ‘out’ preceding, i vote for ‘for’ as the preposition. it gives me the sense that Tim is declaring his time ‘for lunch’ is a period of time that is different than other times, possibly calmer. the emphasis being time. 
‘to’ as the preposition, preceded with the adverb ‘out’ (Tim is out to lunch), places emphasis on the noun ‘lunch’ as a destination. a point. or better yet, space. the space then has to be reconciled with time (given our understanding of how lunch works).

hopefully that makes sense because i am making this up as i type. i’ll continue…

Tim is out for lunch to … [eat]
Tim is out to lunch for … [an hour]

notice how the preposition pretty much requires the opposite of what it hints at (i.e. ‘for’ hints at time; ‘to’ hints at space).

Tim is out for lunch for…[an hour]
Tim is out to lunch to…[eat] 

by using the same preposition i am able to stay within time (’for’; ‘for an hour) and space (’to’; ‘to eat’ somewhere)

Someone: Tim is out to lunch. Impling cluelessness. Carry on.

Someone else: so…
out + for = time
out + to = space

time + space (out for + out to) = space (Tim is out for lunch to eat [something somewhere]

space + time = time (Tim is out to lunch for an hour)

time + time = space
space + space = time

and…I’m officially lost.

Tim: You guys have too much time on. Your hans! LOL.

Someone else: hands! which reminds me, we have yet to introduce Matter into the equation…i’ll have to continue when I get a better handle on my time.

Someone:  i thought space + space = more space. 
so if you have time and space not to be confused with time IN space. Time and space could refer to many apllications. Like you have time to possess the soccer ball and then space to advance the ball. 

Out + to + for = suggest 1st place and then 2nd a specific thing

Out + for + to = suggests 1st specific thing and then perhaps place.

for + out + to -= Shakepeare

to + out + for = wrong

for + to + out = references exposing someone’s secret

to + for + out = no 3 outs in each half of an inning.

very different meaning and texture.

someone else: Kafka weighs in…
“Concerning this a man once said: Why such reluctance? If you only followed the parables you yourselves would become parables and with that rid yourself of all your daily cares.

Another said: I bet that is also a parable.

The first said: You have won.

The second said: But unfortunately only in parable.

The first said: No, in reality: in parable you have lost.”

I had such trouble stringing this sentence together and would love some input.

My wife is an RN. (I like the way it rolls off the tongue)

but

My wife is an registered nurse? (this is just hideous and cruel)

so

My wife is a registered nurse? (considering how familiar the acronym for registered nurse is, I cannot justify this sentence)

alas

My wife is a RN? (The aesthetics of this are difficult because they depend on how the reader reads ‘RN’ (like, are they sounding out ‘are^en’ or are they unpacking the acronym and brain-saying ‘registered nurse’?)).

when I saw you last, in the purple dawn,
our bodies were drawn to a single theme
the horizon hid us beneath its cloak
and inside the smoke, a band played

h/t JH < h/t JP

I pondered on my drive home from work whether it would be worse to be chained UP or chained DOWN. I concluded that chained UP would be far worse. I came to my decision on Southbound 291, in the slow lane. The debate came down to an argument of Control vs Humiliation. When one is chained DOWN there is relatively little control and little humiliation; whereas, when one is chained UP there is an increase in both control and humiliation. The slight advantage being chained UP gave in the area of control is not persuasive when considering the relative % by which humiliation increased.

In conclusion, if ever you decide to capture and incarcerate me, please note that I prefer to be chained DOWN. If it is at all practical and would not cause too much of a stir, I would prefer not to be chained at all. But believe you me… I totally respect your right, as the capturer and incarcerator, to hold off making such decisions until the context is established and more is known of the given variables. Pax.

David Foster Wallace called Updike the the greatest of the GMN - “When a solipsist dies, after all, everything goes with him.” The article by DFW is a worthy read. This morning a friend pointed me to a poem posted at the NYT along with sending me a little note - “But Updike gets the last laugh.”

January 29, 2009
Requiem

By JOHN UPDIKE
It came to me the other day:

Were I to die, no one would say,

“Oh, what a shame! So young, so full

Of promise — depths unplumbable!”

Instead, a shrug and tearless eyes

Will greet my overdue demise;

The wide response will be, I know,

“I thought he died a while ago.”

For life’s a shabby subterfuge,

And death is real, and dark, and huge.

The shock of it will register

Nowhere but where it will occur.

— JOHN UPDIKE

This poem is taken from John Updike’s forthcoming collection, “Endpoint and Other Poems.”