Literary Bimbo
Modernist Acclamation

Kofi Fosu Forson

Bimbos are known to be dimwitted.

Embracing a woman who appears concerned with her physical makeup, leaving very little for the imagination would suppose affectation of bimbo.

What would then be the redirect if she spoke and actually sounded interesting, making references to art, literature and music?

Dorothy Parker among her circle was a charming, clever, social critic… As much as she was clever, some would have cleared her off as a merry madam a little lose on bitters.

The word “bimbo” however derivative of chauvinistic nature paints a picture not only of the underpinned guest in an opportune moment blond-wigged and made up. It can also be found in the self-obsessed gentleman who offers carnal knowledge first before and after introduction.

Made present in history the term bimbo was mostly offered a blond woman, pin-up model or woman of certain social disgrace. Literary women on the other hand were appropriate in their distinction. Ayn Rand completes that speculation in her professional disposition and intellectual prowess.

The “bone” that distinguished feminism from post-feminism is much the “pipe” that angles in proportion what was estimated in Warhol and now secures an advantage commonly as practice in medicine, business, politics and art. Male whore is nothing more than a bimbo suit and tied.

Is the literary bimbo free from pronouncing him/herself as sex object or does availability of sex make him/her more domineering. Power then manifested is relevant in sex appeal and not always intellect. Publishing of a book or directing of film would be representable of that.

Intellect and sex in modern discourse perhaps an aphrodisiac, otherwise most would prefer a celebrity’s musculature and power. Where the prototypical Hollywood stature meets money and promiscuity becomes a modern day art pro, visionary and auteur.

Term “starfucker” highlights the enslavement propensity: - that most would do anything to be famous. If not fame there are those who carry on peculiar lifestyle through which they manage finance, livelihood and recognition.

Clearly some practice objectionable behavior underlined mostly by sexual politics: - to then think which is the quicker way to success! It’s a double edged sword what conditions the individual within the art or business ideal.

It is crucial to close a deal given prospects of employment or advancement. That then would suggest operating against one’s ideals and preference. However manageable, there are those who prefer a much clear distinction as opposed determining between power, authority and inexperience.

Literary aspirations always predetermine one’s nature. Some welcome success with defeat. Others claim it as destiny. Overall there are rules made applicable. In order to work within any professional environment one must promote self-respect and dignity. That allows for an honest truth spoken about colleagues and others in question.

There’s the independent market and what otherwise would be termed corporate or Hollywood. Very few are able to walk both lines. Julian Schnabel is one among very few who can claim authority in both markets.

Understandably there’s the rank and file. These are those who manage choices based on money, sex and reputation. In there lies abuse of power, rape of innocence and eventual distinguishing between star and groupie.

Literary bimbo is one and none among these. The character and substance with which a literary or aspiring “game player” promotes himself is based on an individual motto. This would be found to be different in music (hip hop or metal), publishing and film (independent versus corporate).

The bimbo in the literary person would somehow be the persona that encourages a conversation after a round of cocktails, flirts with the opposite sex, secures a role both in business and love, maintaining a disposition in self-identity, masculinity/femininity and supposed stardom.

PHOTO Copyright (c) Noelle Joy Grosso