A sort of paradox--
One the one hand, it's fairly well documented that J. Levi Tate-Larose (please note that we use a half-pseudonym to protect ourselves from "Levi's" penchant for get-rich-quick litigation) has had a very toxic effect on at least a handful of persons known to us. Scientific findings over the last few years have begun to support a viral theory of schizophrenia, and considering Levi has been so diagnosed--and that those in his environs have similarly been classified as such--you could make a decent argument that he should be quarantined by state authorities.
But on the other hand, in a more metaphysical/creative realm, he has a certain value. His public literary offerings, while hampered by incomprehensibility and a long-discredited slew of half-baked New Age concepts, nonetheless has a special appeal, much in the vein of what's regarded popularly as "Outsider Art." If you delve into analysis of the social networking phenomenon, you'll readily find that 99% of what is posted in the public sphere is--and we feel comfortable in considering this opinion "objective"--utterly banal, empty, and deeply unsatisfying. Levi, by contrast, offers much food for thought, and on occasion can even inspire a string of strange and exotic trains of thought.
So, while knowing that Levi's presence--both physical and textual--has very toxic tendencies, could we still stand in support of his maintaining a soapbox in the cultural commons? On this issue the contributors to this blog are (respectfully) divided.
No comments:
Post a Comment