tüübid ja müüdid

Sellest hoolimata tüpiseerub Talvik üsna selgelt ja ladusalt omaaegse kujuna Alveri noorusest: ta on küll paarik, aga puuduv paarik. Tema on Alveri luulessetooja, varavana ja iginoor. Temal on raha alati veel vähem kui teistel, tema nälg on alati veel kibedam, meelelaad alati veel puhtam ja kompromissitum ja viimaks muidugi traagika alati ja lõplikult veel suurem.
[...]
Mütologiseerimine on norm. Siiski võib olla põnev vaadata, mida nimelt mütologiseeritakse.
Ühe aspektina tõuseb esile puhas, lisanditeta vaimujõud – lisanditeta ses mõttes, et kõik muu, eriti kõik aineline nagu lausa kahjustaks seda. Kui enne veidike ketserlikult püüdsin Talviku osa  pisendada, siis see joon tuleb küll kaasa just temaga ja jääb Alverile ka edaspidiseks külge. Talvikut kujutatakse äärmiselt vähenõudlikuna: tema on see, kes raskelgi ajal keeldunuvat stipendiumidest, et olla teiste kirjanikega ühel pulgal. Et pärast sõda joodi teed konservikarpidest ja sööma pidi alustaldrikutelt, on suuresti lihtsalt ajastufakt, ent Alveri ja Talviku puhul käib kasinus koos loomingulise aususega. Minnakse koguni nii kaugele, et öeldakse: need kaks ei osanud ju kuidagi hakkama saada. Ja see on väga positiivne iseloomustus. Edaspidi tähistavad kasinat eluviisi suures osas elukohad, näiteks vaikimisperioodi keldriuberik või ühiskorter, mida Alver ja Mart Lepik hiljem võõrastega jagama peavad. Ning kui olud lõpuks veidi lahedamaks muutuvad, ei ole ka Alverile Soomest toodud kohvipakid mingi althõlmasahkerdamine, vaid üksnes pühalik ohver vaimualtarile.

Johanna Ross 

seda ma ju silmas peangi

Poetry is pleasure.
Sometimes people say to me, “why should I read a poem?” There are plenty of answers, from the profound – a poem is such an ancient means of communication that it feels like an evolutionary necessity – to the practical; a poem is like a shot of espresso – the fastest way to get a hit of mental and spiritual energy.
We could talk about poetry as a rope in a storm. Poetry as one continuous mantra of mental health. Poetry as the world’s biggest, longest-running workshop on how to love. Poetry as a conversation across time. Poetry as the acid-scrub of cliche.
We could say that the poem is a lie detector. That the poem is a way of thinking without losing the feeling. That a poem is a way of feeling without being too overwhelmed by feeling to think straight. That the poem is “the best words in the best order” (Coleridge). That the poem “keeps the heart awake to truth and beauty” (Coleridge again – who can resist those Romantics?). That the poem is an intervention: “The capacity to make change in existing conditions” (Muriel Rukeyser). That poetry, said Seamus Heaney, is “strong enough to help”.
Yes.
And pleasure.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/17/jeanette-winterson-on-carol-ann-duffys-the-worlds-wife

ja kui me just eeslid pole, siis naerame

Not all of the family's laughter was 'good natured', but all of it was 'vehement'. Occasions for laughter, the louder and the more prolonged the better, were always being manufactured. Particularly extreme incidences were noted with pride [...].

Later stories of Virginia making mocking faces behind people's backs, or 'laughing herself silly', always contain an element of childishness or helplessness or extremity. John Lehmann reported an uncontrolled scene when she was telling him the story of Flush in 1932: 'She soon became so excited and hysterical with laughter, that ... she was red in the face and tears were streaming down her cheeks, before she retired incapable of going on.' A more sympathetic report still suggests how wild her laughter could be: Elizabeth Bowen remembered her laughter with affection, as 'entrancing', 'outrageous'. 'She laughed in this consuming, choking, delightful, hooting way', 'almost like a child's laughter'. There is a dangerous, reckless, perhaps also a sexual element to this laughter. And it is related both to her dazzling, unstoppable conversational displays and to the quality of exhibitionistic dandyism in her work. The Stephen family practice, or even family tyranny, of making people laugh, or being made to laugh, underlies Virginia Woolf's need to perform as a comedian. She played up to the entertaining, eccentric, comical version that the family quickly created for her. But she also had a horror of being laughed at, and this may have originated in the ferocious, blush-inducing teasing in the Stephen family nursery. Virginia Woolf's notorious spitefulness is a weapon against humiliation: ridicule others before they can do it to you.

(110)

Mul on hägune mälestus, nagu dostokas oleks midagi kirjutanud sellest, kuidas naer inimest iseloomustab, aga võib-olla ma ajan kellegagi segi või vahetan ära sellega, mis ta kirjutas fotodest, või hoopis Endel Nirgi überfabulatsioon Ristikivi ema foto kohal.
Tsitaadifaili lapates tuli jälle see sõela-tunne: küll mu peast on ikka asju läbi käinud, ja kas on kübetki pidama jäänud?