CLMR
between the desire and the spasm
A. INTJ. companionably reclusive and socially unacceptable; inescapably imperious but emotionally absent; chronically craving and unremittingly remote; and vicariously versed in all manner of vice.


Anonymous asked:
you make me think of les yeux sans visage

ah


Anonymous asked:
I find your aesthetic fascinating. You seem to combine the asceticism of the devout with the decadence of a dandy. You have marvelous tastes, my dear.

image


asks and such

Responses to queries that have been accruing in my inbox for some time.

Read More


Anonymous asked:
ms imaginative introvert - had i the means, i would pin your mind against a wall and make such violently sensual love to it that you'd be thinking in gasps for a fortnight. Xx.

It would be more than welcome - if you could manage it.



Anonymous asked:
Do you believe in secret societies such as Freemasonry and Illuminati? And that USA is being governed by a new world order since the begining and basically everything in our society is a conspiracy to benefit a certain elite of people?

…..Well, clearly you do, at any rate.


Anonymous asked:
I´m losing my mind, any advice about it.. What do you do to keep your sanity?

(I find sanity to be overrated, myself.)

Accept that there is insanity in the world. Distance yourselves from those things which propel you to the brink of madness. Find grounding in those things which distract you from yourself. Seek isolation within the confines of your skull when the madding crowd deafens you, or, if you are (god forbid) the social type, allow the arms of others to rescue you from the vacuum of self-induced exile. Realise that keeping one’s sanity is no small feat and do not be discouraged by minor lapses, even when they are overwhelming. On most days, the defeat will be crushing. On some, it will be better.

Retreat when necessary, emerge when essential.


Anonymous asked:
Have you ever been in love?

With ideas? Yes. With theories? Most definitely. With cosmological movements, with axonal communications, with the insufficiencies of language, and the ineffectualities of art? Absolutely.

(Although I suspect your question is with regard to a human, and the answer is a resounding no.)


Anonymous asked:
have you been watching Hannibal? (i assume you have, given your sometimes macabre taste) if so, what do you think of it?

I have been watching, but rather half-heartedly and will likely not continue in the future. I find the show dreadfully unimaginative and don’t see the point in torturing myself on a weekly basis. The character of Lecter and the Hannibal ‘mythos’ is rather…dear to me, and so perhaps I had rather unfairly high expectations entering into this, combined with the excellent (on paper) cast. In practise, I was dismayed to see how terrifically lacking was the execution.

The idea of a series in the Lecter universe is incompatible to the very nature of the titular character. The chilling effectiveness of Lecter in the novels/films is that he appears intermittently - “sometimes he would open his eyes long enough to insult some academic who was trying to pick his brain” - and disappears, only to cast an aura of constant presence throughout the rest of the scene. Having Lecter appear so often rather spoils the clout of why the character is so memorable, rather ‘too much of a good thing’. Moreover, while I ardently admire Mikkelsen, his speech delivery does no justice to the character. Harris (and Sir Hopkins) made rather a point of emphasising Lecter’s polite condescension for other people, punctuated by his sharp and often ironic diction style. True, that this is pre-Red Dragon era and therefore early days yet with Lecter’s psychopathy yet to be exposed, but being so far from the spirit of the Lecter universe makes the show seem a cheap go at tacking a popular name onto an otherwise mediocre show.

The writing is the other major issue for me, horribly disjointed and incoherent for the most part. Between the piss-poor dialogue, thoroughly unengaging characters and storyline(s), the tragic underuse of Caroline Dhavernas, and Will’s weekly apocryphal hysterics (“pure empathy”? really? the psychology researcher for this show requires some revision), it holds very little interest for me. It is trying too hard to shroud the viewer in symbolism and metaphors, while completely losing track of the narrative (not to mention, the rehashing of the “having a friend for dinner” line is getting very old, very fast). I appreciate Mikkelsen in fine suits serving gourmet meals, and that’s about it. Divorced from the Lecter universe, it may be a passable show, but I find its relation to the spirit of the novel(s) in name only.


Anonymous asked:
What are you fifteen favourite films of all time? Are there any films that you're anticipating seeing this year?

The answer to the first is buried amongst these. As to the second:

  • Upstream Colour
  • Paganini: The Devil’s Violinist
  • Before Midnight
  • Camille Claudel, 1915
  • Twelve Years a Slave
  • La migliore offerta
  • Vic et Flo ont vu un ours
  • Uroki garmonii
  • La religieuse

And possibly some more that I may be forgetting…


1 of 7