Disappointment

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 119 of 189 · 20 per page

• From Less (2017)

  How inconceivable to watch the man’s face blush with injury. Who knows why what I said wounded him; I suppose he liked to think of himself as a boy still. I had taken him for confident when he was in truth full of worry and terror. Not that I saw all that then, when he blushed and his eyes went down. I knew nothing of anxiety or other pointless human suffering. I only knew I had said the wrong thing. An old man appeared in the doorway. He seemed old to me: white oxford shirt, black spectacles, something like a pharmacist. “Arthur, let’s get out of here.” Arthur smiled at me and thanked me for a nice afternoon. The old man glanced at me and nodded briefly. I felt the need to fix whatever I had done wrong. Then, together, they left. Of course I did not know that it was the Pulitzer Prize–winning poet Robert Brownburn. With his young lover, Arthur Less. “Another Manhattan, please.” It is later the same night; Arthur Less had better not be hungover for the interview tomorrow with Mandern. And he had better find something space operatic to wear. He is talking: “I’m traveling around the world.” This conversation takes place in a Midtown bar close to the hotel. Less used to frequent it as a very young man. Nothing has changed about the joint: not the doorman, dubious of anyone wanting to enter; not the framed portrait of an older Charlie Chaplin; not the lounge whose curved bar serves the young swiftly and the old tardily; not the black grand piano whose player (as in a Wild West saloon) dutifully plays whatever he is ordered to (Cole Porter, mostly); not the striped wallpaper, nor the shell-shaped sconces, nor the clientele. It is known as a place for older men to meet younger ones; two antiquities are interviewing a slick-haired man on a couch. Less is amused to think that now he is on the other end of the equation. He is talking to a balding but handsome young man from Ohio, who for some reason is listening intently. Less has not yet noticed, displayed above the bar, a Russian cosmonaut’s helmet. “Where to next?” the fellow asks brightly. He has a redhead’s missing lashes and freckled nose. “Mexico. Then I’m up for a prize in Italy,” Less says. He is drinking Manhattan number two, and it has done its job. “I’m not going to win it. But I had to leave home.” The redhead rests his head on his hand. “Where’s home, handsome?” “San Francisco.” Less is having a memory from nearly thirty years before: walking out of an Erasure concert with his friend, stoned, learning that the Democrats had retaken the Senate, and walking into this bar and declaring: “We want to sleep with a Republican! Who’s a Republican?” And every man in the place raising his hand.

• From Sex with Kings: 500 Years of Adultery, Power, Rivalry, and Revenge (2004)

  Edward and Wallis were married in France on June 3, 1937, a little more than a month after her second divorce was final. As part of his wedding gift to his bride, Edward gave Wallis a diamond coronet, a poor substitute for a crown. Edward’s brother, now King George VI, gave them the honorary titles of duke and duchess of Windsor. But the royal family would snub Wallis until the end of her days, never receiving her into the family and never allowing her to be called a Royal Highness. It is likely that the bitterness of the royal family toward Wallis was intensified by their knowledge of her philandering with the car salesman. But the duke insisted that until his wife was received and allowed the title, he would stay clear of Great Britain. Though the marriage caused a constitutional crisis for the British monarchy, Edward’s abdication saved Britain from having a supporter of Nazi Germany on the throne during World War II. Edward, a fan of all things German and fluent in the language, was frequently seen to give a limp Nazi salute on the streets of London throughout the 1930s. When Hitler heard of the abdication he groaned, “I’ve lost a friend to my cause!”8 In 1937 the newly minted duke and duchess of Windsor visited the Führer for fourteen days, greeting the crowds with “Heil Hitler!” and scandalizing George VI and the British people. There is indeed some documentation that indicates Hitler was planning, once he conquered Britain, to install Edward and Wallis as puppet king and queen, dancing to Nazi commands. After a stint as governor of the Bahamas during World War II—where Edward had been placed to keep him as far away as possible from his Nazi friends—the duke and duchess set off on a lifetime of meaningless wandering: shopping in Paris, fashion shows in New York, August in the south of France, winters in Palm Beach. Wallis’s famed charm congealed behind a hard mask of disappointment, and the duke became more doddering than ever, playing the bagpipes drunk in the middle of the night, or speaking only German for hours at a party where no one could understand him. The desiccated pair seemed glued to each other at the hip, each holding a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Like cracked and peeling portraits of their former selves, they became yellowed by tobacco, dried up by alcohol. In Ernest Simpson, Wallis had given up a highly intelligent, hardworking husband and replaced him with a thickheaded man with nothing to do, a millstone of a mate she could only divorce to shrieks of laughter echoing across the world. At one party when the duke had left the room, his wife informed her guests, “No one will ever know how hard I work to try to make the little man feel busy!”9 At social events she would often remind him, “Don’t forget, darling, you’re not king anymore!”10

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  In a letter to Camerarius, 1552, Melanchthon expresses his dissatisfaction with the manner in which Calvin emphasized the doctrine of predestination, and attempted to force the Swiss churches to accept it in the Consensus Genevensis.563 Calvin made another attempt in 1554 to gain him to his view, but in vain.564 On one point, however, he could agree to a certain modification; for he laid stress on the spontaneity of the will, and rejected Luther’s paradoxes, and his comparison of the natural man to a dead statue. It is greatly to the credit of Calvin that, notwithstanding his sensitiveness and intolerance against the opponents of his favorite dogma, he respected the judgment of the most eminent Lutheran divine, and gave signal proof of it by publishing a French translation of the improved edition of Melanchthon’s Theological Commonplaces in 1546, with a commendatory preface of his own,565 in which he says that the book was a brief summary of all things necessary for a Christian to know on the way of salvation, stated in the simplest manner by the profoundly learned author. He does not conceal the difference of views on the subject of free will, and says that Melanchthon seems to concede to man some share in his salvation; yet in such a manner that God’s grace is not in any way diminished, and no ground is left to us for boasting. This is the only example of a Reformer republishing and recommending the work of another Reformer, which was the only formidable rival of his own chief work on the same subject (the Institutes), and differed from it in several points.566 The revival of the unfortunate eucharistic controversy by Luther in 1545, and the equally unfortunate controversy caused by the imperial Interim in 1548, tried the friendship of the Reformers to the uttermost. Calvin respectfully, yet frankly, expressed his regret at the indecision and want of courage displayed by Melanchthon from fear of Luther and love of peace. When Luther came out a year before his death with his most violent and abusive book against the "Sacramentarians,"567 which deeply grieved Melanchthon and roused the just indignation of the Zwinglians, Calvin wrote to Melanchthon (June 28, 1545): 568—

• From A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1921)

  On the use of running as a figure for effort looking to the achievement of a result, see & Rom. g1* i Cor. 9s4'28 Phil. 2" 3" 2 Thes. 3*. It is probable that in all cases the apostle has in mind the figure of running a race, as expressly in i Cor. p2*"". evx6^(o is used by Hippocrates in the sense "to make an incision," but with the meaning "to hinder" first in Polybius. Here, if the figure is that of a race, the word suggests a breaking into the course, getting in the way, or possibly a breaking up of the road. That Paul uses the aorist (resultative) rather than the present (conative) indicates that he is thinking of what his oppo- nents have already accomplished in their obstructive work. The present infinitive, -jteCesaOat, on the other hand, is progressive, so that the meaning of the whole expression is, "who has succeeded in preventing you from continuing to obey truth?" and the implication is that, though they have not fully adopted the views of Paul's oppo- nents, they have ceased to hold firmly to that which Paul taught them. we(6ea6at is difficult to render exactly into English. "Believe" ex- presses rather less, "obey" rather more, than its meaning. It de- notes not merely intellectual assent, but acceptance which carries with it control of action; cf. Acts 536' 37> 40; Rom. 2*. On the construction of xe$ea9at (inf. with n/fi after verbs of hindering), see Blf T 402, 483; Bl.-D. 429. The omission of the article with dk-rfletqc gives to it a qualitative force, and shows that, though what the apostle has in mind is doubtless the same that in 25 and 214 he calls -ft dtX^Oeta TOU efl- a-rreXCou, he desires to emphasise the quality of his message as truth, thus conveying the implication that they are turning from something that is true to something that is false. Cf. for similar anarthrous use of deX^0eta Rom. 91 2 Cor. 67 Eph. 421. Some authorities insert the article here (omitted by H*AB). Evidently some scribe, recognising that the reference was to the truth of the gospel, stumbled at the qual- itativeness of the expression. 8. $ ireio-jjiovr) OVK <k rov tcaKovvros ujuas. "This persuasion is not from him that calleth you." The restrictive article with T€ur/ioi"i7 makes it refer definitely to that persuasion just spoken of, viz., the persuasion no longer to hold (his message which is) truth. By ToO /caXoO^ros Paul means God. On the meaning of the term and its reference to God, see on i*; and on v, j-io 283 the omission of 0eoO, see on 2* 3s. The negative statement car- ries with it the positive intimation that the influence which is affecting them is one that is hostile to God, an intimation which is definitely expressed in v.9.

• From The Surrender: An Erotic Memoir (2004)

  Love, for me, exists only in a moment of choice in a moment of time: there is no other manifestation except for the one available right now. Repeating those moments is the key. But the masseur was not real, I decided. He was only my transient sexual angel who kept reappearing with his heavenly message in my bedroom at preappointed hours. Perhaps, I thought, deep in my unexamined soul, I really am a conventional girl who simply got thrown out of orbit, and a boyfriend is what I need. Perhaps the masses knew something I didn’t about men and women and love and sex. So I also tried dating. Six weeks per male, quick to sex, oral, but every time they fucked me I felt fucked over and fired them, one by one. They’d get in, get off, roll over, and I’d feel used and underpaid. So I kept calling the masseur—whom I paid. It was a better deal. Disappointment is a great teacher—if one survives the lacerations to one’s romantic ideal. After my marriage ended I was willing, open, and angry, and nothing that others did or “society” suggested in terms of conducting relationships necessarily held any merit for me. Everything I knew hadn’t worked, so I was free to try anything. Most of all, I had valuable firsthand experience that “relationships” that exist in “real life” sooner or later lose their erotic excitement. Not a particularly original notion, but one I now owned. At the same time, being a dreamer, I was adamant that there had to be another way. All was now backwards to me: fuck love and love sucking. I was discovering that while the theatrical stage left me numb and afraid and invisible, the sexual stage brought out a spontaneous theatricality and confidence that I knew was my truest self—or at least the one that amused me most. So, like a sexual scientist, I set out to test my theories, to adjust them as needed, and to formulate new ones as they evolved. I had already lost everything, so I had nothing to lose. Thus I vacillated between experiments in the nightmare of attachment with nice-nice sex and the thrill of naughty sex without attachment—take your Tantra and shove it up your yoni. There were only two rules that governed my behavior. One was relentlessly safe sex—I became the Queen of Condoms. The second was the importance of quality control. If the sex isn’t awesome, or at least fascinating, get out, stop, shift gears, and change direction with minimum discussion. There were, as a result, plenty of discarded bodies floating in the moat around my castle, but the drawbridge was always down, inviting new specimens into my laboratory. They came in droves.

• From The Surrender: An Erotic Memoir (2004)

  Lost an earring I loved. The cute newspaper boy: the cliché was too good to resist. And he did deliver. I tried returning to a former boyfriend. Great friend, not a lover. Then there was the guy who held me fast with one arm, his tongue buried in my mouth, his cock vertical against me while madly waving with his free hand for a cab to take me away. This has become my favorite image of male ambivalence. There was the magician who could produce my jack of hearts out of sealed cement only seconds after I handed it to him but who, remarkably for a trickster, couldn’t eat pussy to save his life. Talents vary. One Paul Newman–like prospect found me at Starbucks and caught me with his eyes. He could ejaculate, stay hard, and come again, often three times in row. Remarkable. I wondered if they were three full orgasms, or if he had simply learned to parse out one big one to impress the girls. He even attempted boyfriend status, but his patronizing butt-patting made me crazy. One evening, when he arrived for a date and asked to hang his clean shirt for the next morning in my closet, I knew I was done with him. What presumption. Sex does not mean breakfast. Happily, the beautiful boys—tall, svelte, toned, thoughtful, loving, full of poetry and music—never considered sleeping over, but they did not yet know how to fuck, either. I was intrigued by two feet guys. Sucking, kissing, rubbing my feet in stilettos, they garnered erections like steel. But was it me or my shoes? I do have some great shoes. They both had big cocks—about the height of my heels, strangely enough—dispelling any misconception I might have had that their fetish was compensatory. A charming young Frenchman produced the thickest cock I’d ever seen up close. He knelt above me, shoving this enormous protrusion toward my mouth, saying “Suck it, suck it,” with a strong French accent. It was the size of a corncob. I was terrified. Condoms didn’t fit, they kept rolling back to the tip like a bad joke that was very funny. Finally, I rolled one on three inches with much cock to spare and we had a three-inch, fat fuck. After seriously considering the evidence of my current sexual escapades, I concluded that I did not like intercourse. The Young Man had been a strange exception. Either they were not so big, and I felt little, and the whole event felt feeble: the Princess and the Pea.

• From Delta of Venus (1977)

  He dropped his other hand from the wall where it had been resting and took hold of his balls very firmly, while he continued to maul, press and squeeze his penis. It did not get very hard. He was experiencing pleasure, but he could not reach a climax. He was disappointed. He had tried every motion of finger and hand. Now he held his limp penis wistfully. He weighed it, puzzled over it and then covered it within his pants, buttoned his shirt and left the place. Pierre was wide awake now. The memory of the drowned woman haunted him again, mingled now with the picture of the young boy playing with himself. He was lying there, tossing, when a light again appeared from the water closet. Pierre could not keep from looking. Sitting there was a woman of about fifty, enormous, solid, with a heavy face and gluttonous mouth and eyes. She had only sat for a moment when someone tried the door. Instead of sending him away, she opened it. And there appeared the boy who had been there earlier. He was amazed that the door had opened. The old woman did not move from the seat but drew him in with a smile and closed the door. “What a lovely boy you are,” she said. “Surely you must have a little friend already, no? Surely you must already have had a little pleasure with women?” “No,” said the boy timidly. She talked to him easily, as if they had met in the street. He had been taken by surprise and stared at her. All he could see was her full-lipped mouth smiling and her insinuating eyes. “Never had any pleasure at all, my boy, you can’t tell me that?” “No,” said the boy. “Don’t you know how?” asked the woman. “Haven’t your friends in school told you how?” “Yes,” said the boy, “I have seen them do it, with their right hand they do it. I tried, but nothing happened.” The woman laughed. “But there is another way. Never learned another way, really? No one told you anything? You mean you only know how to do it with your own hand? Why, there’s another way that always works.” The boy eyed her with suspicion. But her smile was wide, generous, reassuring. The caresses he had given himself must have left a certain disturbance in him, because he made a step towards the woman. “What’s the way you know?” he said with curiosity. She laughed. “You really want to know, eh? And what happens if you enjoy it? If you really enjoy it, will you promise to come and see me again?” “I promise,” said the boy. “Well, then, climb on my lap, this way, just kneel on me, don’t be afraid. Now.”

• From A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1921)

  4. Sid, ££ roi>9 vrapeKra/CTOvs ^evSaSe'X^ow, "now it was because of the false brethren surreptitiously brought In." The question what this phrase limits, L e*, what it was that was done because of the false brethren, is one of the most difficult of all those raised by the passage. The most probable view is that it is to be associated with the idea of pressure, ur- gency, implied in ovS£ yvay/cdarOy. The meaning may then be expressed thus: "And not even Titus * . . was compelled to be circumcised, and (what shows more fully the significance of the fact) it was urged because of the false brethren." If this is correct it follows that there were three parties to the situation under discussion in Jerusalem. There were, first, Paul and Barnabas, who stood for the policy of receiving Gentiles as Christians without circumcision; on the other hand, there were those whom Paul characterises as false brethren, and who contended that the Gentile Christians must be circumcised; and finally there were those who for the sake of the second party urged that Paul should waive his scruples and consent to the circumcision of Titus. This third party evidently consisted of the pillar apostles, with whom Paul held private conference (v.8) and who because of Paul's representations finally themselves yielded and gave assent to Paul's view (w.*-9). With the second party it does not appear that Paul came into direct contact; they are at least mentioned only as persons for whose sake, not by whom, certain things were done. It is thus dearly implied that they who in person urged the circumcision of Titus (<M So/cowm) did not themselves regard it as necessary except as a matter of expediency, as a concession to the feelings or convictions of those whom Paul designates as false brethren, but who were evidently regarded by the other apostles rather as persons whose prejudices or convictions, however mis- taken, it was desirable to consider. On the question whether the apostles carried their conciliatory policy to the extent of the cfmimd^oa of all G^ntHe coaverts? see fn, p* gi« 78 GALATIANS

• From A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1921)

  that righteousness is through law is to say that God's grace manifest in his death was useless. Such an interpretation of the argument, though not perhaps impossible, is open to two objections: first, that the form of expression, "I do not set aside," etc., suggests a denial of something that is said or might be speciously said against Paul's view, rather than a claim made by himself for his view or an objection to his opponent's view; and, secondly, that it makes the e? ydtp sentence a proof of something only remotely implied in the preceding statement instead of taking it as directly related to what is expressed in the pre- ceding sentence, viz., that Paul's view does not involve a setting at nought of God's grace. IH. REFUTATORY PORTION OF THE LETTER. THE DOCTRINE THAT MEN, BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES, BECOME ACCEPTABLE TO GOD THROUGH FAITH RATHER THAN BY WORKS OE LAW, DEFENDED BY THE REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE JUDAISERS, AND CHIEFLY BY SHOWING THAT THE "HEIRS OF ABRAHAM" ARE SUCH BY FAITH, NOT BY WORKS OF LAW (CHAPS. 3, 4). I, Appeal to the early Christian experience of the Gala- Urns (sl-»). Leaving the defence of his doctrine through the assertion of Ms own direct divine commission, the apostle now takes up that defence by refuting the objections to it brought by his op- ponents, the judalsers. Vv.1*11 begin that refutation by appeal- ing to the early Christian experience of the GalatianSj which, as both they and he well knew,, was not in the sphere of law, but of faith, Oh foolish Gators, you, before wha$$ Jesus Christ was ? lThis I from ymf ye the Spirit on grwnd of qf Imv or of a kmring of faith f ®Are ye 50 ? Spirit are ye now t *Did ye suffer $o many in f If it reatty ut&b^m mm, ^He therefore that m, i .143 the Spirit richly to you and wrought miracles among you, did he do these things on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith ?

• From A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1921)

  ing to them was occasioned by illness on his part (4**) ; intend- ing to go in some other direction, he was led by illness to go to Galatia, or being on his way through Galatia and not intend** tag to tarry there, he was led to do m by Illness- He pro- claimed to Christ and him crucified, preaching that could through faith hi the Christ from the evil age and attain the approval of God apart from of law (j1* »}. He on Ms converts no Jewish but a purely . spiritual Christianity (j8-1 4**11 5** *}* The him and his with (4W'W). They (j11) and the jfll of the Spirit, them 01 Ills Cj14). That Paul visited them a sec* ond is by the evidence of Is 4ts» m the had (i1), tint if m the had not fi* 51)* a * fit «mf Iff 4k 4ft » llV 1NTEOBUCT10N been made to draw them away from the gospel as Paul had preached it to them (i7 5W). This new doctrine to PauPs was of a judaistic and legalistic type* Its advocates evidently endeavoured to win the Galati&ns to it by to the promises to Abraham and his seed recorded In the Old Testament. Though the letter makes no definite quotation from the language of these teachers it in easily evident from the counter argument of the apostle in chapters 3 4 they had taught the Galatians either that salvation waa ble only to those who were, by blood or adoption f children of Abraham^ or that the highest privileges only to See especially 3T» s» " 4n*m. They had laic! circumcision, this being the initiatory rite by a was adopted into the family of had cautiously abstained from to fit* Galatians the whole Jewish Iawf or out was logically involved in what had induced them to adopt the Jewish ami (41*). To these doctrinal of the sufficient to was added a stilt to meat The is by i and t thai the or was a* cine 0! lit ttit tian communityy and that the who it was one on wtt «rf An was a t$r mfe* He was a of of the to tit tint fltf tit* that ttii? tele was to Iff in toy he nf ito i ift of foul they » 4 t$tn t*t at an in the of l\Mit a* u .4 Ute INTRODtJCTION Iv Twelve, a man who knew nothing of Christiamty except what he had learned from the Twelve, and preached this in a per- verted form. This appears from the nature of Paul's defence of his independent authority as an apostle in the first two chap- ters of the letter, and indicates that with their theory of a lim- ited apostolate the judaisers had associated the claim that the apostolic commission must; proceed from the circle of the origi- nal Twelve. See detached note on *A7rrf<rroXos, pp. 363^.

• From A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1921)

  must be taken as a passive, no instance of the middle being found elsewhere, and there being no occasion for change from active to middle form. Iv %a>4 defines the sphere in which alone xaXfcv £»jXouff6at is true. IC&VTOTS is in evident antithesis to the following phrase, seal ^f) . . . xpfcg 6[Aa<;. The addition of this phrase, with its definite personal pronoun shows that xoUv . . . xaX$, though in form simply a general maxim, had in the apostle's mind specific reference to the existing situation, the relations of the Galatians to Paul and his opponents. The words might therefore mean, "I do not object to others as well as myself seeking to gain your friendship, so only they do it in a good thing, in the realm of that which is for your good/' It is an objection to this interpretation that ^ pi6vov . . . 5puz<; awk- wardly expresses the idea "by others as well as myself," and that such a disclaimer of desire on the apostle's part to monopolise the interest and affection of the Galatians does not lead naturally to v.19. The words may also be explained by taking Paul as the implied subject of £»jXoua0ac. "It is a fine thing — I myself could desire — to be sought after, in a good thing — always, when I am away from you as well as when I am present.'* In this case the sentence is a thinly veiled re- proach of the Galatians for their fickleness in changing their attitude towards him, now that he is no longer with them. The change in im- plied subject of t;TQXoua6ott without indication that the reference is now to the apostle himself is an objection to this interpretation, though not a decisive one; the apostle may have preferred to leave the reference somewhat veiled. But it is difficult on this interpretation to account for Iv xaXip, no such qualification being called for if the apostle is think- ing of the Galatians seeking after him. Probably, therefore, the inter- pretation first proposed is the true one. 8£ is in that case adversative, marking an antithesis between the frqXouv of the judaisers, which he disapproves, and his own, which he justifies. 248 GALATIANS

• From The Surrender: An Erotic Memoir (2004)

  But the masseur was not real, I decided. He was only my transient sexual angel who kept reappearing with his heavenly message in my bedroom at preappointed hours. Perhaps, I thought, deep in my unexamined soul, I really am a conventional girl who simply got thrown out of orbit, and a boyfriend is what I need. Perhaps the masses knew something I didn’t about men and women and love and sex. So I also tried dating. Six weeks per male, quick to sex, oral, but every time they fucked me I felt fucked over and fired them, one by one. They’d get in, get off, roll over, and I’d feel used and underpaid. So I kept calling the masseur—whom I paid. It was a better deal. Disappointment is a great teacher—if one survives the lacerations to one’s romantic ideal. After my marriage ended I was willing, open, and angry, and nothing that others did or “society” suggested in terms of conducting relationships necessarily held any merit for me. Everything I knew hadn’t worked, so I was free to try anything. Most of all, I had valuable firsthand experience that “relationships” that exist in “real life” sooner or later lose their erotic excitement. Not a particularly original notion, but one I now owned. At the same time, being a dreamer, I was adamant that there had to be another way. All was now backwards to me: fuck love and love sucking. I was discovering that while the theatrical stage left me numb and afraid and invisible, the sexual stage brought out a spontaneous theatricality and confidence that I knew was my truest self—or at least the one that amused me most. So, like a sexual scientist, I set out to test my theories, to adjust them as needed, and to formulate new ones as they evolved. I had already lost everything, so I had nothing to lose. Thus I vacillated between experiments in the nightmare of attachment with nice-nice sex and the thrill of naughty sex without attachment—take your Tantra and shove it up your yoni. There were only two rules that governed my behavior. One was relentlessly safe sex—I became the Queen of Condoms. The second was the importance of quality control. If the sex isn’t awesome, or at least fascinating, get out, stop, shift gears, and change direction with minimum discussion. There were, as a result, plenty of discarded bodies floating in the moat around my castle, but the drawbridge was always down, inviting new specimens into my laboratory. They came in droves. NEW YEAR’S EVE

• From Birthday Girl (2018)

  —¿Necesitas dinero? —dice mientras espero que mi padre se ponga al teléfono—. Porque no tenemos nada. Tu padre se lastimó la espalda y perdió algo de trabajo hace un par de semanas, así que las cosas están apretadas en este momento. Parpadeo. —No, yo… —tartamudeo, agravada por su pregunta—. No necesito dinero. Y si así fuera, serían las últimas personas a las que les pediría. Mi padre nunca tiene efectivo por más de un día antes de quemarle un agujero en el bolsillo. Una de las muchas razones por las que mi madre se fue. Pero al menos mi padre se quedó. —¡¿Chip?! —lo llama otra vez, pero luego gruñe a los perros—. Salgan del camino, ustedes dos. Sacudo la cabeza, la sospecha previa de que un mensaje de texto hubiera sido mejor ahora se solidifica. Si mi papá logra llegar al teléfono, simplemente colgaré sintiéndome enojada porque sea tan cálido como esta mujer. Gracias a Dios que no fue mi madrastra por mucho tiempo bajo ese techo. Me fui tan pronto como pude. —Solo quería que supieran que me mudé —explico—. En caso de que necesiten mi nueva dirección. —Ah, sí, claro. —La escucho inhalar y sé que está fumando—. Te mudaste con Cole a la casa de su padre. Sí, lo hemos oído. —Sí, yo… —¡Chip! —grita de nuevo, interrumpiéndome. Me cubro los ojos, exasperada. —Está bien —le digo—. Eso es todo para lo que llamé, así que no molestes a papá si ya lo sabe. Los llamaré… más tarde. —Está bien. —Sopla humo—. Bueno, cuídate y llamaré dentro de una semana más o menos. Te invito a cenar o algo así. Mi cuerpo tiembla con una risa amarga que contengo. No es gracioso. Es triste, realmente. Pero cuelga sin esperar a que le diga “adiós”, y dejo escapar un suspiro, lanzando mi teléfono sobre la cama. Ni mi padre ni mi madrastra son malas personas, aunque tampoco ninguno me llamó el día de mi cumpleaños. Nunca fui golpeada, matada de hambre o abusada verbalmente. Solo un poco olvidada, supongo. Lucharon por algo bueno en la vida, por lo que era demasiado pedir que dejaran que la responsabilidad o la preocupación por sus hijos interfirieran con el pequeño placer que lograban reunir con sus noches de cerveza y bingo. Después que Cam se fue y consiguió su propio lugar, no tuve a nadie con quien hablar. No era nadie en ese remolque, y nunca más quería volver a sentirme sola. Recojo mi libreta de la cama y reanudo la tarea de mi clase de verano ese día. Mi libro de texto se abre frente a mí y pulso mi lápiz mecánico para obtener más ventaja. Suena un golpe en la puerta de la habitación, y levanto la cabeza, tensándome. —¿Entre? —digo, pero parece una pregunta. Cole no llamaría. Debe ser su padre. ¿Dejé la ropa en la secadora? ¿La estufa encendida? Repaso mi lista mental de verificación.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  When after the defeat of the Protestants in the Smalkaldian War, Melanchthon accepted the Leipzig Interim with the humiliating condition of conformity to the Roman ritual, which the German emperor imposed upon them, Calvin was still more dissatisfied with his old friend. He sided, in this case, with the Lutheran non-conformists who, under the lead of Matthias Flacius, resisted the Interim, and were put under the ban of the empire. He wrote to Melanchthon, June 18, 1550, the following letter of remonstrance:570— "The ancient satirist [Juvenal, I. 79] once said, — ’Si natura negat, facit indignatio versum.’

• From The Surrender: An Erotic Memoir (2004)

  I fell in love for two years although the affair lasted less than three months. Looking back, I now realize that his first sexual comment to me was, “You have a great ass.” Must have been my fate, even then. But I didn’t know it for many years. I look good, from the back. After I lost my virginity, my pussy became a place of great interest to me. I had not realized until then that that hidden hole below my waist was the entrance to my heart. Others came to the now-opened gate, and I proceeded to have what everyone else seemed to be having: consecutive monogamous relationships of varying lengths. It never occurred to me that you didn’t have to become monogamous the moment a guy put his tongue in your mouth. That’s just the way it was—sealed with saliva—and I didn’t have enough experience to think that I might have a choice in the matter. The second and third boyfriends—both “nice” and “appropriate” young men—introduced me to orgasms through oral sex and I became hooked on that, on their tongues, but not so much on them. The intercourse that followed just seemed like their part of the deal. And there were a few more boyfriends after them. Same thing. The only time I had sex that was not defined by monogamy was with a stagehand I met in a bar. Long blond hair, gruff language, tattoos. I was having a drink with friends one night when he turned to me and whispered, “I want you to sit on my face.” “Excuse me?” I said. I had no idea what he was talking about. He thought I must be joking, but I wasn’t. So he explained. I had another vodka, left the bar with him, and sat on his face. I’d never done that before. He had big hands that handled me like meat, prime. It was my second taste of being with a man who was “wrong” for me, a man with whom I knew there would be no “relationship.” Fucking him, I felt the fantastic power of a completely other being crashing into mine. I could not lose myself with a peer, only with a man who was impossible. But then I fell deeply, suddenly, and totally in love with the man who became my husband—it was like being hit with a cement block on the head, crash, and there I was at the altar—and bad boys were banished. It never even occurred to me to have an affair while I was married. I loved him too much, it was unthinkable. He was my fate, my husband. But I had thought that meant my ending, my final destination, when, in fact, he was my beginning, my wretched beginning. God, that hurt. The profound disillusionment of having the great love of my life founder on the rocky road of reality was a blow too great for my own consciousness to bear, much less comprehend.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Antoine Froment was born in 1509 in Mens, in Dauphiné, and was one of the earliest disciples of Farel, his countryman. He accompanied him in his evangelistic tours through Switzerland, and shared in his troubles, persecutions, and successes. In 1532 he went for the first time to Geneva, and opened an elementary school in which he taught religion. He advertised it by placards in these words: "A man has arrived, who in the space of one month will teach anybody, great or small, male or female, to read and write French; who does not learn it in that time need not pay anything. He will also heal many diseases without charge." The people flocked to him; he was an able teacher, and turned his lessons into addresses and sermons. On new year’s day, in 1533, he preached his first sermon on the public place, Molard, attacked the pope, priests, and monks as false prophets (Matt. 7:15 sq.), but was interrupted by armed priests, and forced by the police to flee to a retreat. He left the city by night, in February, but returned again and again, and aided Farel, Viret, and Calvin. Unfortunately he did not remain faithful to his calling, and fell into disgrace. He neglected his pastoral duties, kept a shop, and at last gave up the ministry. His colleagues, especially Calvin, complained bitterly of him.356 In December, 1549, he was engaged by Bonivard, the official historian of the Republic, to assist him in his Chronicle, which was completed in 1552. Then he became a public notary of Geneva (1553). He got into domestic troubles. Soon after the death of his first wife, formerly abbess of a convent, he married a second time (1561), but committed adultery with a servant, was deposed, imprisoned, and banished, 1562. His misfortune seems to have wrought in him a beneficial change. In 1572 he was permitted on application to return to Geneva in view of his past services, and in 1574 he was reinstated as notary. He died in 1581(?). The Genevese honored his memory as one, though the least important, and the least worthy, of the four Reformers of their city. His chief work is the Chronicle mentioned above, which supplements the Chronicles of Bonivard, and Sister Jeanne de Jussie.357 CHAPTER VIII.JOHN CALVIN AND HIS WORK.The literature in § 58, pp. 225–231. § 65. John Calvin compared with the Older Reformers. We now approach the life and work of John Calvin, who labored more than Farel, Viret, and Froment. He was the chief founder and consolidator of the Reformed Church of France and French Switzerland, and left the impress of his mind upon all other Reformed Churches in Europe and America. Revolution is followed by reconstruction and consolidation. For this task Calvin was providentially foreordained and equipped by genius, education, and circumstances.

• From Tipping the Velvet (1998)

  Even so, there was the scent of oysters on them still, and a slender thread - it might have been the bristle from the back of a lobster, the whisker from a shrimp - beneath one of my nails. How would it be, I thought, to surrender my family, my home, all my oyster-girl’s ways? And how would it be to live at Kitty’s side, brim-full of a love so quick, and yet so secret, it made me shake? Chapter 5 At first, the prospect of joining Kitty upon the stage, in a profession for which I had never been trained, never yearned, and had - as I thought - no special talent, filled me with dismay. ‘No,’ I said to Walter that afternoon, when at last I understood him. ‘Absolutely not. I cannot. You, of all people, should know what a fool I would make of myself - and of Kitty!’ But Walter wouldn’t listen. ‘Don’t you see?’ he said. ‘How long have we been looking for something that will lift the act above the ordinary, and make it really memorable? This is it! A double act! A soldier - and his comrade! A swell - together with his chum! Above all: two lovely girls in trousers, instead of one! When did you ever see the like of it before? It will be a sensation!’ ‘It might be a sensation,’ I said, ‘with two Kitty Butlers in it. But Kitty Butler and Nancy Astley, her dresser, who never sang a song in her life -’ ‘We have all heard you sing,’ said Walter, ‘a thousand times - and very prettily, too.’ ‘Who never danced -’ I went on. ‘Pooh, dancing! A bit of shuffling about the stage. Any fool with half a leg can do it.’ ‘Who never raised her voice before a crowd -’ ‘Patter!’ he said carelessly. ‘Kitty can take care of the patter!’ I laughed, in sheer exasperation, then turned to Kitty herself. So far she had taken no part in the exchange, only stood at my side, biting at the edge of one of her nails, and frowning. ‘Kitty,’ I said now, ‘for goodness’ sake, tell him what madness he is talking!’ She didn’t answer at first, but continued to chew distractedly at her fingertip. She looked from me to Walter, then back to me again, and narrowed her eyes. ‘It might work,’ she said. I stamped my foot. ‘Now you have both lost your minds, entirely! Think what you’re saying. You come from families where everybody is an actor.

• From Delta of Venus (1977)

  Now he could talk about it, and he opened his whole life before Elena, without shame. It caused her no pain. It relieved her doubts about herself. Because he did not understand his nature, he had at first blamed her, put on her the burden of his frigidity towards woman. He said it was because she was intelligent, and intelligent women mixed literature and poetry with love, which paralyzed him; and that she was positive, masculine, in some of her ways, and this intimidated him. She was so young at the time, she had readily accepted this and come to believe that slender, intellectual, positive women could not be desired. He would say: “If only you were very passive, very obedient, very very inert, I might desire you. But I always feel in you a volcano about to explode, a volcano of passion, and that frightens me.” Or: “If you were just a whore, and I could feel that you would not be too exacting, too critical, I might desire you. But I would feel your clever head watching me and looking down on me if I failed, if, for instance, I were suddenly impotent.” Poor Elena, for years she completely overlooked the men who desired her. Because Miguel was the one she had wanted to seduce, it seemed to her that only Miguel could have proved her power. Miguel, in his need of someone other than his analyst to confide in, introduced Elena to his lover, Donald. As soon as Elena saw Donald she loved him too, as she would a child, an enfant terrible, perverse and knowing. He was beautiful. He had a slender Egyptian body, wild hair like that of a child who had been running. At times the softness of his gestures made him seem small, but when he stood up, stylized, pure in line, stretched, then he seemed tall. His eyes were in a trance, and he talked flowingly, like a medium. Elena was so enchanted with him that she began to enjoy subtly and mysteriously Miguel’s making love to him—for her. Donald as a woman, being made love to by Miguel, courting his youthful charm, his sweeping eyelashes, his small, straight nose, his faun ears, his strong, boyish hands. She recognized in Donald a twin brother who used her words, her coquetries, her artifices. He was obsessed with the same words and feelings that obsessed her. He talked continually about his desire to be consumed in love, about his desire for renunciation and for protection of others. She could hear her own voice. Was Miguel aware that he was making love to a twin brother of Elena, to Elena in a boy’s body?

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  Manuscripts of the Bible also, liturgical books, private houses, and even the vestments of officials in the large cities of the Byzantine empire were ornamented with biblical pictures. Bishop Asterius of Amasea in Pontus, in the second half of the fourth century, protested against the wearing of these "God-pleasing garments,"1224 and advised that it were better with the proceeds of them to honor the living images of God, and support the poor; instead of wearing the palsied on the clothes, to visit the sick; and instead of carrying with one the image of the sinful woman kneeling and embracing the feet of Jesus, rather to lament one’s own sins with tears of contrition. The custom of prostration1225 before the picture, in token of reverence for the saint represented by it, first appears in the Greek church in the sixth century. And then, that the unintelligent people should in many cases confound the image with the object represented, attribute to the outward, material thing a magical power of miracles, and connect with the image sundry superstitious notions—must be expected. Even Augustine laments that among the rude Christian masses there are many image-worshippers,1226 but counts such in the great number of those nominal Christians, to whom the essence of the Gospel is unknown. As works of art, these primitive Christian paintings and sculptures are, in general, of very little value; of much less value than the church edifices. They are rather earnest and elevated, than beautiful and harmonious. For they proceeded originally not from taste, but from practical want, and, at least in the Greek empire, were produced chiefly by monks. It perfectly befitted the spirit of Christianity, to begin with earnestness and sublimity, rather than, as heathenism, with sensuous beauty. Hence also its repugnance to the nude, and its modest draping of voluptuous forms; only hands, feet, and face were allowed to appear. The Christian taste, it is well known, afterwards changed, and, on the principle that to the pure all things are pure, it represented even Christ on the cross, and the holy Child at His mother’s breast or in His mothers arms, without covering. Furthermore, in the time of Constantine the ancient classical painting and sculpture had grievously degenerated; and even in their best days they reached no adequate expression of the Christian principle.

• From Delta of Venus (1977)

  He drank away the first money, and I could not lend him anything but more paper and carbons. George Barker, the excellent English poet, writing erotica to drink, just as Utrillo painted paintings in exchange for a bottle of wine. I began to think about the old man we all hated. I decided to write to him, address him directly, tell him about our feelings. “Dear Collector: We hate you. Sex loses all its power and magic when it becomes explicit, mechanical, overdone, when it becomes a mechanistic obsession. It becomes a bore. You have taught us more than anyone I know how wrong it is not to mix it with emotion, hunger, desire, lust, whims, caprices, personal ties, deeper relationships that change its color, flavor, rhythms, intensities. “You do not know what you are missing by your microscopic examination of sexual activity to the exclusion of aspects which are the fuel that ignites it. Intellectual, imaginative, romantic, emotional. This is what gives sex its surprising textures, its subtle transformations, its aphrodisiac elements. You are shrinking your world of sensations. You are withering it, starving it, draining its blood. “If you nourished your sexual life with all the excitements and adventures which love injects into sensuality, you would be the most potent man in the world. The source of sexual power is curiosity, passion. You are watching its little flame die of asphyxiation. Sex does not thrive on monotony. Without feeling, inventions, moods, no surprises in bed. Sex must be mixed with tears, laughter, words, promises, scenes, jealousy, envy, all the spices of fear, foreign travel, new faces, novels, stories, dreams, fantasies, music, dancing, opium, wine. “How much do you lose by this periscope at the tip of your sex, when you could enjoy a harem of distinct and never-repeated wonders? No two hairs alike, but you will not let us waste words on a description of hair; no two odors, but if we expand on this you cry Cut the poetry. No two skins with the same texture, and never the same light, temperature, shadows, never the same gesture; for a lover, when he is aroused by true love, can run the gamut of centuries of love lore. What a range, what changes of age, what variations of maturity and innocence, perversity and art . . . “We have sat around for hours and wondered how you look. If you have closed your senses upon silk, light, color, odor, character, temperament, you must be by now completely shriveled up. There are so many minor senses, all running like tributaries into the mainstream of sex, nourishing it. Only the united beat of sex and heart together can create ecstasy.” POSTSCRIPT