The Stranger describes the Dude as laziest in Los Angeles and possibly laziest worldwide, but is he truly a lazy man? He certainly likes to do life on his own terms. In fact, without knowing it, I was somewhat Dudelike in high school. I got A's in subjects that held my interest and C's or D's in subjects I found boring. I don't know that I was lazy. I just wasn't interested.
There is the question of how the Dude feeds the monkey. We know that he is unemployed, but we don't know how long it has been since he has worked. It is possible that he is between jobs. He may be drawing unemployment, but I think it's unlikely that he is on welfare benefits. Recall that he writes a check at the grocery store. He doesn't use food stamps.
Though the Big Lebowski calls him a bum, I don't think he is. He is offered money by Big Lebowski, Maude and Jackie Treehorn. He is happy at the prospect of receiving the money, but he never asks for it without being willing to do some kind of work for it.
The Stranger disapproves of some aspects of the Dude (swearing, for example), even though he digs the Dude's style. Though the Stranger perceives the Dude as a lazy man, I think it is more the case that Dude has broken free of society's rules and hangups. He lives by his own values rather than let some "stranger" tell him what his values ought to be.
Well said, dude
I agree. If he fits the definition of "lazy", then that's a adjective I'd be fine self-applying. After all, we know he's devoted to his bowling practice and his friends, and he takes his self-care and contentment damn seriously (rug, bath, tai chi, etc.)
The Dude just is. Lazy when he is, or motivated when he is.
It's all actually just a matter of perspective.
I am a Database Administrator (DBA) and Management Information Systems (MIS) Reporting specialist.
I spend all my day coding (T-SQL most of the time in MS SQL Server).
A lot of my expertise in these fields stems from a simple root, if I can get the machine to do it I will, why should i do the work.
As I've always said a good DBA is fundamentally a lazy DBA who knows how to work round things.
I wouldn't say that the dude is lazy either. I consider myself lazy, but seem to always be doing something.
The Dude looks for the bare necessities, a trophy life. He does what he needs and nothing more, answers to himself and is content. Maybe, he just knows that some things just aren't worth the effort.
And for some, just tying your shit together, is a day's work in itself!
Strikes and gutters, man.
Quote from: Rev. Jimmy on February 01, 2017, 05:16:02 PM
I don't know that I was lazy. I just wasn't interested.
You nailed it right here. The Dude's level of activity is directly proportionate to his level of interest. He's not lazy per-se (at least not categorically) but he certainly isn't your typical, Type-A, perpetually driven banker/lawyer/doctor/business owner asshole.
Is Dude interested in holding down the typical 9 to 5? Fuck no, Dude don't play that.
Is Dude interested in redressing the theft of his rug? Yep, Dude followed up on that shit.
Is Dude interested in displays of material wealth? Nope, Dude's car, home, wardrobe, etc. were all shit.
Is Dude interested in figuring out who stole his car? Yeah, Dude pursued that shit...though in a less than competent fashion.
The dude is a fictional character.
We are told in the opening scene that he is lazy.
What exactly is the question?
No really. I think the dynamic of his character in relation to the others depends on him being really and truly lazy with a capital L. I think it's meant to contrast with the other Jeffrey Lebowski who of course turns out to be a phony a gold Bricker. But he went out and achieved anyway! I can not solve your problems sir, only you can!
However, that raises the question of narrative integrity. Should we necessarily believe what the opening monologue (by the Stranger, who is also a character in the movie) says about the Dude? Or should we take that into account but also consider what we see, first-hand, the Dude do? I think it's the latter. The Stranger's comments are as indicative of his personality as the Dude's personality.
But, c'mon, yeah, the Dude is lazy for the most part. The exceptions prove the rule.
Quote from: jgiffin
However, that raises the question of narrative integrity. Should we necessarily believe what the opening monologue (by the Stranger, who is also a character in the movie) says about the Dude? Or should we take that into account but also consider what we see, first-hand, the Dude do? I think it's the latter. The Stranger's comments are as indicative of his personality as the Dude's personality.
Here I have to say that the film is not Holy Writ. It's not Dudeist Law.
The film is the source of an example of a particularly Dudeist individual.
I think we are back to avoiding dogma again.
Early in my life (some twenty to thirty years ago) I gifted a friend of mine "The Tao of Pooh" another fine example of an attempt to express Taoism in western terms.
He loved the book but when I next visited his house it was festooned with images from the Disney "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons.
He had completely missed the point, the Taoist point, and embraced what I can only call "Poohism".
A classic example of mistaking the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself.
This I think is the case with the film, it is merely the finger pointing to the moon.
So in answer to your question;
Quote from: jgiffin
However, that raises the question of narrative integrity. Should we necessarily believe what the opening monologue (by the Stranger...
I would say it doesn't matter.
Again all IMHDO of course.
I suppose if you have your life tailored to suit your needs, then it takes less effort to keep on top of it, therefore less stress, more free time to do nothing and you can anticipate events and scenarios.
The dude doesn't really HAVE to do much; make it to practice, restock supplies etc and his daily routine reflects it. He is content and pliant enough to flow with unforseen circumstances that might mess with his Zen thing.
It might appear lazy to outsiders, but the dude just lives a simple life, has (mostly) peace of mind and is happy not chasing a dream he doesn't really want.
I still think it's pretty much black and white.
It's the characters introduction.
And the fact that he is lazy is stressed. Not just that he is lazy but in the running for the laziest world wide.
I don't find any reason to think that there is meant to be any nuance.
Go to the ant you sluggard!
Consider it's ways and be wise.
Quote from: meekon5 on February 10, 2017, 05:56:32 AM
Quote from: jgiffin
However, that raises the question of narrative integrity. Should we necessarily believe what the opening monologue (by the Stranger, who is also a character in the movie) says about the Dude? Or should we take that into account but also consider what we see, first-hand, the Dude do? I think it's the latter. The Stranger's comments are as indicative of his personality as the Dude's personality.
Here I have to say that the film is not Holy Writ. It's not Dudeist Law.
The film is the source of an example of a particularly Dudeist individual.
I think we are back to avoiding dogma again.
Early in my life (some twenty to thirty years ago) I gifted a friend of mine "The Tao of Pooh" another fine example of an attempt to express Taoism in western terms.
He loved the book but when I next visited his house it was festooned with images from the Disney "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons.
He had completely missed the point, the Taoist point, and embraced what I can only call "Poohism".
A classic example of mistaking the finger pointing to the moon for the moon itself.
This I think is the case with the film, it is merely the finger pointing to the moon.
So in answer to your question;
Quote from: jgiffin
However, that raises the question of narrative integrity. Should we necessarily believe what the opening monologue (by the Stranger...
I would say it doesn't matter.
Again all IMHDO of course.
My quoting of this is gonna be fucked up cause I don't know how to quote stuff selectively and interject my salient points. But, for the most part, I agree with this criticism. I don't think what the Stranger says is dispositive, either of the Dude or of Dudeism. And I certainly didn't mean to posit TBL, itself, as inalienable writ. It's illustrative, and entertaining, but only part of the much, much larger whole of Dudeism. But there is still much we can learn of ourselves, and our Dudeist and non-Dudeist tendencies, by analyzing the Dude and TBL.
It seems to me that the movie may or may not be sacrosanct with respect to the tenants of dudeism.
But it clearly MUST be with regard to the character of the dude. The question is "is the dude lazy?"
The dude doesn't exist in the real world. He is a fictional character and 100% of what can be said about his character must be taken from the flick. The flick tells us unambiguously that the dude is lazy.
If we just want to attribute whatever attributes we find pleasing to the dude irregardless of all evidence then we might as well just be simple self deluded Christians.
There are rules. This isn't Nam.
I once heard the phrase: "Economy of motion" in regards to martial arts but it also seem to fit The Dude. In martial arts economy of motion simply refers to only using the necessary force and energy to overcome an opponent and don't waste time/energy on fancy katas or what have you. That's kind of what The Dude does - he only uses the necessary force to get what he wants ie. to lie on his rug, bowl, white russians and occasionally some coitus. The problem is that in the West that's not good enough - you must be busy all the time and just do it! So in contrast to the Nike slogan The Dude may appear laziest in Los Angeles county and high in running for laziest worldwide. ;)
Maybe he is lazy - I can't see The Dude spend lots of time cleaning his house (aside from when the goons trash it), do laundry, wash his car etc. We also never see The Dude cook or eat even if he owns a cookbook. So there is that. 8)
But the way I see it (and yes, I'm new to Dudeism) it's an attitude and not a time management planner. Just take it easy is in regards to your own life and is not about what others do.
Quote from: BikerDude on February 14, 2017, 05:50:34 AM
The dude doesn't exist in the real world. He is a fictional character and 100% of what can be said about his character must be taken from the flick. The flick tells us unambiguously that the dude is lazy.
I agree. But it isn't the flick that expressly says the Dude is lazy - it's the Stranger. (Unless we think it's only a coincidence that the opening narration is in the Stranger's voice and speech patterns). That's only part of the flick. We have to look at it in the entirety. And, in the entirety, at times the Dude is lazy and, at times, he's pretty damn motivated. So, sure, the Stranger's perspective is relevant to the inquiry (particularly given his quasi-omniscent role) but it's not conclusive.
That's a huge stretch.
I don't see any evidence that the intro is meant to be anything other than pure character development.
I just can't imagine the writers deciding to put that in with any purpose other than providing background to the audience in order to introduce the dude. Since the dude is fictitious he is whatever the author's make him. It seems clear what the intent was.
I suppose the case could be made that the big L is the classic "hero's journey" sort of story arc. A change arc. But if so to my thinking it seems to flip the idea on its ear. The dude is certainly forced to change by external conflict but in the end it seems to be more of a cautionary tale rather than transformative. Rather than finding a new dude by the end the lesson seems to be that the dude returns to his former self. Just trying to keep his head down and make the finals. And sort of making the case that he's better off just like that.
I guess we might call it a growth arc. That holds water if we say that the dude has grown into a better person.
If we take the "dude abides" line as an indication of the dudes growth then it works. The lesson the dude learns is to not rock the boat. To abide. No more "this aggression will not stand". He's learned to never make that mistake again. Which in the end would do little to upset his bid for laziest in the world except to make it more entrenched.
I'll tell you this discussion points up how very odd the device of the stranger is. It's a common literary device to use a narrator that may or may not be an actual person. The over voice. However the stranger is very unusual in that he interacts in the story while maintaining a third person omnitiant perspective. He's not just a guy at the bar. He knows there's a little Lebowski on the way. This very unusual. And I'm f'ing telling you the big Lebowski is based on the fairy tale theater version of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" where Hoyt Axton plays "The Ranger" It's a wandering daughter job. The thing is the Ranger intros the story just like the stranger does and at the end he does interact with the characters. But he is also a sort of all knowing narrator. Bunnie is Goldilocks and well the three bears are obvious.
Part one stranger intro
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKEhWZc9M24
Last part. Stranger wraps her all up.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zgx5x6cyzgo
Goldilocks and the three bears is one version of "The Story of the Three Bears"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_and_the_Three_Bears
Anyway
Lost my train of thought
Dude, to a large extent, you're pushing against an open door.
My point is just, essentially, that we can't take what the opening narrative of the movie says as gospel despite what we later see the characters actually do. You say the opening is pure character development. Okay, then, is it just circumstance that is made with the voice and speech patterns of the Stranger? If not, then it's just a variation of the fallacy of authorial intent. If so, then you still have all the work to do (e.g., you have to prove the point espoused, not just rely on the fact someone else said it).
I fully agree the Stranger is an odd cat. He shifts narrative qualities and perspectives throughout the movie and even interacts with the characters. But I haven't seen anything to indicate his perspective, much less his commentary, is dispositive. What I'm saying, man, is take the movie as a whole to develop and support your opinions - don't just rely on sound bites from this part, that part, or another part of the movie.
Absolutely, the Dude is lazy.
That's what makes him so idolized by our society--he does and acts in a way that sometimes we can't.
Like not working and somehow still paying for that sweet pad--yeah, yeah, I heard that Rubiks cube story and I think this bit of trivia is taking our community for a proverbial "ride."
The Dude looks for the bare necessities, a trophy life. He does what he needs and nothing more, answers to himself and is content. Maybe, he just knows that some things just aren't worth the effort.
And for some, just tying your shit together, is a day's work in itself!
I believe that the central question posed is "what makes a man"?
And there-by what constitutes courage and character.
Lazy in this sense is more a question of conviction than habits.
Does the Dude stand on his convictions or is he "Lazy"? (albeit intellectually/morally/spiritually lazy)
We are told both that the Dude is Lazy and we learn later that he is an author of the port huron statement (not to beat a dead horse about this point but IMO it is salient).
He is presented with a conflict in the arc of the story. He is assaulted and his rug is pee'd on.
Does he let it go or stand on his convictions (this aggression will not stand).
His natural inclination is to let it go but he is redirected by Walter.
And off we go.
Bunny, nihilists, Jackie yadda yadda.
And in the end the Dude comes back around to Abiding.
Where does that leave us?
What is it that makes a man?
Is it. . . is it, being prepared to
do the right thing? Whatever the
price? Isn't that what makes a man?
Or is it just keeping your head down and keeping your Johnson attached?
QuoteGo to the ant you sluggard!
Consider it's ways and be wise.
Somewhere around Terence Hanbury White's The Once and Future King? If it means here what I remember from that book - well, ants look there like the most undude creatures on the earth. That kind of work is certainly harmful - do things like a machine and do not ask any questions.